Not calling name of husband? - Page 4

Originally posted by: angel_juhi04

We were not personally there then to know what all she said. The writers at that or anytime won't write every personal things. Just like we call our siblings, friends and husbands(who are married here) different names when angry same way Draupadi or any other women calling her husbands names is not surprisingly. Imagine if years later someone writes a book on any great leader of modern time the writer won't write every details or what his wife called him. Its just that our movies and serials don't show mytho-history couples like normal couples but show them as if they were the most perfect and God-like when even Gods do mistakes. Even if they show wives calling names to husbands then people will do hungama saying they are hurting their religious sentiments by showing her so and so. On twitter, there was 1 or 2 people having problem with Drau asking a servant whether Yudi drank alcohol before gambling. They were like how can she say this. And she being called names like psycho and vamp for washing her hair with Dushy's blood. Imagine makers showing Sita in bikini blouse and tiny skirt like real Sita wore(actually Sita wore no blouse and was topless). People will eat the makers. Ramanand Sagar researched about Ramayan's clothings and did not shown Sita without a blouse fearing people's reactions because people have gone more regressive and narrow-minded now.

@Bold. She actually did ask in text if Yudhishtira was drunk😆. And she says "go and ask that gambler who he lost first."

Honestly, there seems to have been very little affection from her side.

That lunatic bit after war is amazing!😆

Problem is the TV shows have whitewashed the protags so much that if you point out words from text, people will go "that's not true."🤣

Interesting

I guess this is more on the writer as characters are not talking themselves, story is being told and retold, it makes it an easier read if they are referred by their name, there are so many characters, it gets confusing if you don't take names also they have so many names, it's written in form of poems so it makes more sense to insert the name which goes with the poem rather than sticking to one form of address

One can cross check with other scripts to know for sure

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I think it's a generational divide. My parents and all didn't, but when I was married, my wife addressed me by name. My sister addresses her husband by name, in fact everyone I know in my generation and below does.

Very well said! 👏

During the 1st yr of my marriage, I used to address my husband as aap instead of his name.

After my son was born within 1.5 yrs of my marriage, I started to call my hubby by his name 😳 Though my in-laws and my relatives advised me not to call my husband like that.. and told me to address him as my son’s father 🙄 ( for eg Rahul Ke papa ) and said it’s rude to address my hubby by his name but I didn’t follow it 😛😆

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I think it's a generational divide. My parents and all didn't, but when I was married, my wife addressed me by name. My sister addresses her husband by name, in fact everyone I know in my generation and below does.

My mom doesn't take my dad's name, same goes for my father, I don't think he has ever addressed my mom with her name

My aunt doesn't take uncle's name same goes for my uncle

Badi Mammy takes Bade Papa's name and same goes for him

🤔 I have to notice younger couple of my family to come to a conclusion on this

Some where wives use to address her husband in same way like other addresses her husband

Like if some ask kya saahab ghar mein hain?

So some wives also says sahab abhi market gaye hain. Abhi saahab ko aane mein time hai

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

So which kingdoms would Sumitra, Urmila, Shrutakirti, Subhadra, Uloopi, Chitrangada... be from, going by their names?

Urmila will be Vaidehi too. Shrutakirti was her cousin but her father had a kingdom of his own, so name of that Kingdom would be used. Uloopi was a naga, her father was not the king, but a chieftain of Vasuki so no kingdom as such. Chitrangada was from Manipur, so manipuri. But name Chitrangada itself is a patronym as her father's name was Chitravahan, I don't think it was her given name. She was only there for a bit role so never addressed as anything else

Coming to Subhadra. That is a confusing point. In the epic she is addressed as satwati _ princess descendent of Satwata one of the kings of Yadava. Also do note that Ugrasen is crowned king of Mathura and subsequently Dwarka. She is not his daughter. So claiming princess of Dwarka would be an issue if father is not King. Maybe after Vasudeva becomes King, she may get the title of princess of Dwarka.

Originally posted by: Swetha-Sai

Very well said! 👏

During the 1st yr of my marriage, I used to address my husband as aap instead of his name.

After my son was born within 1.5 yrs of my marriage, I started to call my hubby by his name 😳 Though my in-laws and my relatives advised me not to call my husband like that.. and told me to address him as my son’s father 🙄 ( for eg Rahul Ke papa ) and said it’s rude to address my hubby by his name but I didn’t follow it 😛😆

Actually, during the time that a baby is just starting to speak, that's a bad time to use one's spouses name, since the baby then copies that and then tends to address the parent by his/her name. During that period, using the same title that you want your kid to use when addressing his father is a good idea, and same for him. Once he's in the habit, one can revert to using names, or whatever title (honey, darling, whatever... 😆)

I'm predicting that the next trend would be addressing parents in law as sasurji, sasuma,... instead of what the spouse uses to address the inlaw

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Urmila will be Vaidehi too. Shrutakirti was her cousin but her father had a kingdom of his own, so name of that Kingdom would be used. Uloopi was a naga, her father was not the king, but a chieftain of Vasuki so no kingdom as such. Chitrangada was from Manipur, so manipuri. But name Chitrangada itself is a patronym as her father's name was Chitravahan, I don't think it was her given name. She was only there for a bit role so never addressed as anything else

Coming to Subhadra. That is a confusing point. In the epic she is addressed as satwati _ princess descendent of Satwata one of the kings of Yadava. Also do note that Ugrasen is crowned king of Mathura and subsequently Dwarka. She is not his daughter. So claiming princess of Dwarka would be an issue if father is not King. Maybe after Vasudeva becomes King, she may get the title of princess of Dwarka.

I know the kingdoms they came from, but those wouldn't be used in addressing them, unless they were unique, right? Like Urmila would never be addressed Vaidehi since Sita too was from there.

Speaking of Subhadra, if she was a Satwati princess, then that would make her a member of Satyaki's clan, no?

Satyaki was addressed as Sini's descendent.

Also Patronym (father's name) matronym (mother's name) and terranym (kingdom's name) are not unique. For eg. All the 5 brothers were addressed as Pandavas. Kunti's three sons are addressed as Partha. Similarly two princesses from the same kingdom will be addressed by the same kingdom's name. So both Sita and Urmila are Vaidehi and Janaki. They can be addressed so in the presence of both as well.

Infact in the epic I think when Pandu returns from Digvijaya his mother and step mother both are called as Kasya (princess of Kasi).

Just like people presume Parth is name of Arjun alone because in Gita Krishna addresses him a couple of times as Parth

It's not, in war Parva at several places Bhima is addressed as Parth too. Similarly if Lakshman or even Rama or anybody else in their family has to address Urmila publicly they will use Vaidehi for her

It is Arjun who is addressed as parth

And another name of bheem was vikoradra or vikonadra ( some thing like that)