Random Correspondence Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 22

Dear Etiquetteer:I am putting together my wedding invitation wording and have hit a roadblock. As the bride, my parents are hosting the wedding. My mom, being the closet feminist that she is, does not want me to address them as "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith." I find this rather archaic myself, but what is the alternative while still using honorifics and not offending any one else? These are the options I have come up with: "Mr. And Mrs. Smith," "Mrs. Mary and Mr. John Smith," and "Mr. and Mrs. John and Mary Smith." Which one would be the most proper etiquette? Please help me! 

Dear Bride to Be: 

The honorific "Mrs." is used with Perfect Propriety only with the name of the husband, e.g. "Mrs. Stephen Haines." If your mother does not wish to be referred to as "Mrs. John Smith," then the form your wedding invitation should take is:

 Mr. John Smith and Ms. Mary Smith

request the honour of your presence

at the marriage of their daughter

Miss Perfectly Proper Smith

to Mr. Manley Firmness

Feminists everywhere claimed the honorific "Ms." in the 1970s, and it has only grown in acceptance since then. It's high time, in Etiquetteer's opinion, for your mother to come out of the closet.

 invite.jpg

Dear Etiquetteer:

I have recently gone through an interview, and sent both parties a thank-you note, via email. They mentioned they would be interviewing for the next 2-3 weeks. Since I have sent the thank-you notice, how long should I wait till I contact them again? How should I contact them, phone or email? How often should I attempt to contact them?Dear Interviewed:

Since you have already initiated correspondence with your interviewers via email, Etiquetteer suggests that you continue to correspond with them this way. So as not to appear impatient, you might wait to check in with your interviewer after 3.5 weeks have passed, making a gentle inquiry to see if you can provide additional information.

Etiquetteer wishes you well in your job search, and encourages you, after subsequent job interviews, to send a letter of thanks through the mail on crisp white stationery. It still makes a positive impression, and it also gives you more of an opportunity to proofread.

invite.jpg

Invitation vs. Invoice, Vol. 6, Issue 20

 

Dear Etiquetteer:

I am planning a Bat mitzvah, and I already know that some people are unable to attend due to other social obligations. Is it appropriate or inappropriate to send an invitation? I was told since I know that a person cannot come it obligates him/her to a gift. Yet, she already knows about the party and not to receive an invitation despite the fact that she cannot attend seems wrong. Please advise.

Dear Hostess:

Thank you for an excellent question! Etiquetteer tends to agree with you that those you've already told about the party (with the intention of inviting them) should get an invitation even if they've told you they can't come. You can always superscribe it (or enclose a note) saying, "In case your plans change we'd love to have you." Regarding your concern about the expectation of gift-giving: No matter how many people try, an invitation is not an invoice.

The mother of "Hostess" had her own response when she saw what Etiquetteer had to say:

I totally disagree with [Etiquetteer] regarding "an invitation is not an invoice." I don't think this person is very knowledgeable regarding Jewish people and Jewish affairs. In our world, an invitation is an invoice! Perfect example that just happened: [Insert Name of Friend here] was sent an invitation, couldn't come, knew she couldn't come, but sent a note and a check! That's how Jewish people were brought up. In fact, we were even given a second option: if you don't want to send money, make a donation to some organization, plant a tree in Israel, etc., etc., but we always do something if we receive an invitation and cannot attend.

Not, in fact, being Jewish, Etiquetteer certainly wasn’t going to try to pretend some insider status. Etiquetteer is privileged to know many Jews who are Paragons of Perfect Propriety, however, and turned to three of them for the Insider’s View to refute this woman’s claim that an Invitation is an Invoice:

First response: This is not a "Jewish" question. An invitation is not an invoice. However, it is true that some people, Jews and non-Jews, are rude enough essentially to demand gifts with their invitations. And many people, again Jews and non-Jews, send gifts (selectively) even when they can't attend. The flip side is that a gift is not being bartered for a meal and some drinks.

Second response: I'm so astonished (well, I suppose I shouldn't be) that I can barely formulate my reply. There is perversion and abomination in saying that the expectation of gifts in response to an invitation is something Jewish. Then again, there is perversion and abomination in the entire Bar/Bas Mitzvah/Wedding Industry. Proof of this was recently delivered to us when a young and fabulous colleague announced that he was planning a Bar Mitzvah for himself because he'd never had one -- because he isn't Jewish -- and he was still envious of all his friends who'd had these huge parties. I wish that I was making this up. On one level, these people seem to be confusing gifts in commemoration of a milestone event with the response to a charitable solicitation. In the case of the latter, I'd say that, yes, there is an understanding of obligation in Jewish law and custom. But that should not be conflated with some latter 20th-century notion of how some expect us to respond to a social invitation. As a final note, I'm deeply chagrined that these ladies would impugn Etiquetteer's sense of propriety based on his lack of Tribal Membership.

Third response: I think invitations to family and friends are appropriate even if you know they will not be able to attend. The decision about whether to send a gift and if so how generous a gift is up to them but presumably family and friends would want to send a gift anyway. I think it is inappropriate to send an invitation to people who are not family or friends, e.g. business associates of the parents, if you know that they will not be able to attend.

In rereading this correspondence, which was initiated about a month ago, Etiquetteer is inclined to rethink what the Mother in Question actually meant. It may be that, when this woman said "In our world, an invitation is an invoice!" she was not referring to the spirit in which the invitation was sent (the expectation of a gift, which would be greedy), but the impulse of the recipient to show support in spite of one’s absence from the celebration (which would be generous). Let us hope that this was the case, anyway, and that no one sending out invitations for anything, of whatever Religious Persuasion, expects any Material Return beyond a Lovely Note.

 

Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify <at> etiquetteer.com.

 

 

Divorced Parents of the Bride

Dear Etiquetteer: My brother is in hell because of things going on with his kids. I don't think etiquette has changed that much in the last 50 years. Please help. HERE IS THE SHORT HISTORY: Mr. and Mrs. Original get married and have three children. Mr. Original works and Mrs. Original stays home but both basically raise the children. The oldest son completes college and gets married in a very traditional way. All is well.The next two girls complete college and move out on their own. Several years pass. Mrs. Original gets a job and is caught at work having an affair with her boss. Mr. & Mrs. Original get a divorce and Mrs. Original marries her boss (now she is Mrs. Boss). NOW THE PROBLEM: The youngest girl, living on her own for years, announces she is getting married. Mrs. Boss (formerly Mrs. Original) wants the invitations to read:

Mr. and Mrs. Boss

and

Mr. Original

Announce the marriage of their daughter, etc.

Mr. Original wants the invitation to read:

Mrs. Boss

and

Mr. Original

Announce the marriage of their daughter, etc.

The marrying daughter wants whatever her parents can agree on (or can't agree on); the fighting is ruining her wedding plans. Now the already married son is referring to Mr. Boss as his STEPFATHER. Mr. Original feels that he was the one who raised the children from birth until they moved out on their own and he is the ONLY father to these children. Mrs. Boss (formerly Mrs. Original) has, shall we say, a very "strong" personality and the children are caught between the birth parents fighting; the children don't want to upset either birth parent. QUESTIONS:

  1. What is the proper way to address wedding invitations? Does the new husband (Mr. Boss) get in on the Father-Daughter dance at the reception? Does it make a difference accordingly to who pays how much for the wedding?
  2. Should the already married son (he's over 30) refer to his mother's new husband as his "stepfather?" Am I old-fashioned, as I have always called the newer husbands by their first name?
  3. The son now has two children and is teaching them to refer to Mr. Boss as "Popsi" or something close that means grandfather. Don't the children have only two grandfathers? Isn't it an insult to the grandparent who actually raised the parent? My paternal grandfather died young, my paternal grandmother remarried, and we never called her newer husbands anything resembling grandfather.

Dear Caught in the Crossfire: Reading this sad tale, Etiquetteer’s heart goes out to the daughter’s fiancé. Poor thing, he’s now seeing a preview of what all the major holidays will be like for the rest of his life! Perhaps they can refugee to his family instead and leave the minor holidays (like Arbor Day) for her family. Weddings are supposed to be times of joy and gladness, not platforms for publicly slighting your enemies, especially enemies with whom you’ve produced children. Mrs. Boss needs to understand that stridently insisting on putting her second husband in the spotlight takes it away from her own daughter . . . and it is always a grievous offense to upstage the bride! Mr. Original needs to get used to the fact, no matter how odious it is to him, that Mr. Boss has a place in the lives of his children and grandchildren since he’s now married to their mother and grandmother. The more he can behave civilly to Mr. and Mrs. Boss in public and refrain from griping about them behind their backs, the better the impression he makes on his children and grandchildren will be. And, one hopes, the more they will want to be with him! Etiquetteer has to Wag an Admonitory Digit at both of them for causing their daughter such a lot of grief. If neither of them love their Little Girl enough to work together at burying the hatchet, then neither of them deserves to attend the wedding in the first place. Now, to answer your questions:

  1. When the birth parents of the bride have divorced and both will attend the wedding, whether either has remarried or not, the invitations correctly read:

Mrs. Ethelred Boss

And

Mr. Adelbert Original

request the honor of your presence

at the marriage of their daughter

Prunaprismia Original to

Mr. Reginald Romantic

The son of Mr. and Mrs. Beloved Romantic, etc,

Please observe that this is the language of the invitation, not a wedding announcement, sent to those out of state or uninvited, which would read ". . . announce the marriage of their daughter . . . "Now if this isn’t good enough for the Mother of the Bride, you can eliminate all the names of all the parents by substituting:

The honor of your presence is requested

at the marriage of

Prunaprismia Original

to

Mr. Reginald Romantic, etc.

And frankly, if they are all going to squabble about where they come on the bill, that’s just what they deserve. This is the bride’s day, and Etiquetteer already knows the whole town must be talking about the ugly feud between her parents instead of what people usually talk about before weddings: whether the bride is entitled to a white wedding dress.As for the dancing, oh honestly. Etiquetteer would consider if the height of rudeness of anyone, stepfather or no, to cut in on a father dancing with his daughter at her wedding. Etiquetteer finds absurd the growing list of "duty dances" announced by slick deejays at wedding banquets, and would discourage putting the bride and her stepfather in the spotlight this way. If, however, they are each willing to be seen on the dance floor with each other, there is no reason she could not accept his invitation to dance when everyone else is.Now, about the money: funny how everybody thinks that makes a difference. These days so many people contribute to the cost of so many weddings it’s like a limited corporation. Whoever pays is whoever pays, and the living birth parents of the bride are the hosts.2. Well, it’s certainly more polite to refer to him as "stepfather" than it is "that skunk who made an adulterous whore out of my mother," wouldn’t you say? If invited to call Mr. Boss by his first name, the son could do so, introducing him to others as "my stepfather, Ethelred Boss." He could say with Equal Propriety "This is my mother’s husband Ethelred Boss." Referring to Mr. Boss as "stepfather" does not imply that he had anything to do with raising him, nor does it usurp Mr. Original’s fatherhood. Etiquetteer understands completely why Mr. Original would be sensitive to this, but he should not look for offense where none is intended. 3. No, Etiquetteer can’t see an insult in referring to the spouse of one’s grandmother as something like "Grandfather." "Popsi" seems neutral enough, though Etiquetteer would prefer the 19th-century use of the prefix "Uncle," as in "Uncle Ethelred, tell us how you met Grandma!" Believe it or not, Mr. Boss gets to decide what he should be called – his wife does not – even if he’d rather have the children call him "Mr. Boss." Etiquetteer devoutly hopes that Peace and Harmony will reign supreme again before long in the extended Original family. Please write again and let Etiquetteer know what happens.

Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com!

 

The Year 2005 In Review, Vol. 4 Issue 1

 
     
  Anno Domini MMV brought more than a few etiquette issues to headlines large and small, to Etiquetteer’s combined amusement and chagrin. Etiquetteer will now share just a few with you. The scandal of choice for most champions of Perfect Propriety would have to be the Flip Flop Flap, which ignited when the Northwestern University’s championship women’s lacrosse team showed up at the White House in July for a photo op with President Bush wearing (gasp!) flip flops and (probably) no pantyhose! One lacrosse player, Kate Darmody, was quoted in USA Today saying "I tried to think of something that would go well with my outfit and at the same time not be that uncomfortable. But at the same time not disrespect the White House." Alas, Miss Darmody failed at that task, just as much as that AIDS activist who showed up in a T-shirt for a meeting with President Clinton all those years ago. What gets Etiquetteer even more is that one young lacrosse player admitted to wearing flip flops decorated with rhinestones . . . how Redneck Riviera can one get? No matter how liberal your politics, it’s Most Proper to dress conservatively for a visit to the White House.Once upon a time Etiquetteer could have advised you to wear "church clothes," but seeing what some people are wearing to church these days, "business attire" may be safer. On the other hand, seeing what some people are wearing to work these days, Etiquetteer is forced to spell out "crisply tailored two-piece suit with blouse, hose, appropriate heels, white kid gloves, and Navy Red or Cherries in the Snow lipstick." It shouldn’t be necessary to be that specific . . . In other 2005 etiquette news, Etiquetteer and many irritated theatregoers applauded the BBC report that actor Richard Griffiths lashed out at a cellphone user during a November performance of the play "Heroes" in London’s West End. "Could the person whose mobile phone it is please leave? The 750 people here would be fully justified in suing you for ruining their afternoon," he reportedly said from the stage during the last act. Had Etiquetteer been there he would have led a standing ovation.Weddings bring out the worst in people, not least celebrities. In this case, we have newlyweds Robert Downey, Jr. and his bride Susan Levin against "Buckaroo Banzai" co-star Ellen Barkin and her husband, Revlon executive Ron Perelman. Time reported that Barkin and Perelman rescinded their invitation to Downey and Levin to hold their late-summer wedding at the Barkin/Perelman estate because the bride and groom wanted to include press photographers. After the relocated wedding took place, Le Downey suggested that the Perelmans had given them "somewhat less" than their best wishes. Etiquetteer thinks they all behaved badly, but especially the Downeys, who should have shown more respect for their erstwhile hosts, even if it was their wedding. They should all go sit in opposite corners until they repent and make up. Privately, Etiquetteer was told of a Mother of the Groom who attended her son’s wedding in a "champagne-colored" evening gown that was really just as white as the bride’s dress. It’s mighty bad form to upstage the bride, especially if you’re the mother of the groom! Remember, that lovely girl you may think is Not Good Enough For Your Precious Son will be in daily contact with your grandchildren. Treat her well now before she cuts you out of their lives altogether . . . On the higher education front, Columbia University saw the start of a clandestine "Night of Nakedness" party, reported by the New York Sun, which led Etiquetteer to hope that the coat check was administered carefully. Everyone knows of Etiquetteer’s revulsion for Reference to Bodily Function, so Etiquetteer knows you’ll understand the horror when kind friends pointed out to Etiquetteer the latest antics of train wreck former singer Bobby Brown. Apparently on one episode of his reality TV show "Being Bobby Brown," he described – oh, how can Etiquetteer put this – having to assist his wife, singer Whitney Houston, with a Bodily Function Best Not Described or Even Referenced on National Televison. AUGH! Very very bad! Last but my no means least, Etiquetteer really does have to give kudos to Michael Brown and the political cronies of FEMA for demonstrating once and for all just how bad being "fashionably late" really is. And they didn’t bring enough party favors, either! Let this be a lesson to you all to be prompter in 2006 . . . And with that Etiquetteer wishes all of you a New Year of Health, Happiness, Prosperity, and of course Perfect Propriety.