Entertaining at Home: Brunch, Vol. 14, Issue 37

There are times when one despairs that anything civilized will happen again, and then there are moments of such perfect Perfect Propriety that one feels refreshed to Keep Going. Having attended a Sunday brunch in the home of friends, Etiquetteer now feels it's possible to Keep Going. The late Boris Lermontov once observed that "A great impression of simplicity can only be achieved by great agony of body and spirit." The occasion passed off so effortlessly that Etiquetteer believes the hosts substituted forethought for agony, which made everything "go." On arrival, all the guests were greeted cordially in friendship and immediately offered something to drink, in approved Dorothy Draper style. On the coffee table over mimosas one could enjoy either madeleines (and obligatory references to Proust) powdered with sugar, or savory puffs filled with cheese. Or both. Etiquetteer definitely enjoyed both.

Brunch should not really be a very formal meal, and the company was quite friendly over service à la française* of a lavish menu. First we were served a course of pâté de campagne with cornichons and small savory cheese crackers. This was followed by a course of oysters on the half shell, which was in turn followed by cuplets of bacon containing poached eggs, served with a green salad and breakfast potatoes. To conclude, we were offered a French toast, fluffy and piping hot, incorporating blueberries and pecans.

A menu, of course, is not as important an element of a party as the company assembled. And here, too, the discernment of the hosts was evident. Everyone at the table had similar interests but varying areas of expertise, so that all had something unique to contribute to the conversation that the others didn't know. As a result, the conversation never flagged, always the sign of a good party.

With forethought, each of us can arrange a meal for guests at home very like this. Knowing the interests of friends, relatives, and colleagues, one can create knowledgeable groups for mutually stimulating conversation. Becoming familiar with recipes and kitchen equipment, one can judge what menu items work well together, and how to time their preparation so that one doesn't miss out on too much good talk. And, because sometimes things do go wrong, having a backup plan that begins with laughter (so reassuring to company) will help one feel that there's a solution for everything.

As the holiday season approaches, Etiquetteer very much hopes that you will consider opening your home and your heart to those you care for most, during the holidays and afterward.

*Most Americans know service à la française as "family style," when diners help themselves from dishes on the table. Etiquetteer recognizes that there are those who find it Unpardonably Pretentious to sprinkle little bits of French about in their conversation, but Etiquetteer prefers to think of it as merely an homage to the Edwardians and the late Mame Dennis Burnside. Besides, it is a much less harmful behavior than explaining exactly why one is excusing oneself to visit the restroom.

How Young Etiquetteer Was Embarrassed, Vol. 14, Issue 36

You may have heard Etiquetteer tell this story before, but it came to mind vividly again, and Etiquetteer must tell (or retell) it now for the record. Etiquetteer has always had an interest in seeing things done with Perfect Propriety and with people Behaving Well. And as a college student, Young Etiquetteer had an equal and abiding interest in Free Food. So one day many years ago Young Etiquetteer received with pleasure an invitation from an elderly lady to a luncheon at the Ritz-Carlton. What could be more Perfectly Proper than a luncheon at the Ritz-Carlton? Young Etiquetteer accepted the invitation with alacrity and brushed off his best suit in preparation.

Now this elderly lady - let's refer to her as Madame - who Young Etiquetteer had never really met, was a friend of Young Etiquetteer's Stern Grandmother, but there was no reason to suspect she might be any different from the legions of elderly ladies Young Etiquetteer had been entertaining since birth: full of indulgent smiles, Christian rectitude, canasta, and a dash of genealogy. Young Etiquetteer's eyes were to be opened, as Madame's principal focus was Herself and Her Reactions, as we shall see.

In those days*, the Ritz-Carlton dining room was described by many as the most beautiful room in Boston, and to a young man who hoped to be Perfectly Proper it was considered a crucible of Perfectly Propriety. From its snowy napery to its brocade draperies to its famous cobalt glass chandeliers and goblets, the room represented what Americans used to aspire to (and should continue aspire to today) as the Good Life. But almost from the beginning, Madame set a very different tone.

She was first nonplussed (but quietly) about an odd feature of 1980s restaurant etiquette: maitre d's who kissed on the mouth. Next, loudly exclaiming over the beauty of the china, Madame picked up the service plate like the latest bestseller to read the trademark. Young Etiquetteer, who had not only been taught that the first thing you did at table was put your napkin in your lap but also that you never did anything so gauche as to examine the provenance of the china, was nearly demolished by this. But more was still to come.

This occasion proved to be Young Etiquetteer's first encounter with service à la russe, which requires one to serve oneself each course from large platters offered by the waiter. Negotiating salmon with asparagus and hollandaise sauce is difficult enough for the uninitiated, but made even more so with Ceaseless Commentary on the novelty of the service from Madame, who thought it was different and charming, and didn't fail to mention this at top volume anytime a waiter - any waiter - appeared within two feet of us. She was having a wonderful time, and wanted everyone to know it!

This luncheon was not an ordinary luncheon, but a fashion luncheon featuring beautiful models in exquisite clothes (day and evening) languidly strolling among the tables. The place Young Etiquetteer was filling was originally intended for a Female Relation of Madame's who was unable to attend. Young Etiquetteer was one of perhaps three men present, somewhat ambivalently relishing the Walter Mitty role, but enjoying the setting, the (free) luncheon, and indeed the couture promenade. Madame was enjoying it, too, and assailed each model with Expressions of Delight, and also some Embarrassing Questions. She asked one model for her phone number to share with her son! Etiquetteer did not know quite where to look.

But the most embarrassing moment came after dessert. With the conclusion of the luncheon, the models were circulating with little lipsticks as favors for the ladies. Madame dearly wanted one to share with her Female Relation, but she wanted one for herself more. And when a beautiful model presented her with a lipstick, Young Etiquetteer froze in fright to hear Madame respond with Six Horrifying Words:

"Aren't you gonna give him one?"

Young Etiquetteer withered under the icy stare of the model, who asked "Do you need one?" in such a way as to question Young Etiquetteer's masculinity, upbringing, and right to exist - none of which seemed to matter to Madame, so intently was she focused on a free lipstick. "Certainly not!" replied Young Etiquetteer, whose limit had been reached, and the model passed on. Words were passed, but the mood restored, and of course Young Etiquetteer omitted any reference in the Lovely Note mailed the next day.

The morals of this tale, if there are any, would be that a) consideration of the feelings of others is an important part of daily life, b) to be distracted by trinkets indicates a lack of breeding**, and c) that there is no such thing as a free luncheon.

*The mid-1980s.

**The lyric from Chess comes to mind: "Trinkets in airports sufficient to lead them astray."

On the Importance of a Lovely Note, Vol. 14, Issue 35

This morning two things happened that made Etiquetteer think about the expression of thanks. First, a series of text messages arrived on Etiquetteer's flip phone - quite possibly the pocket watch of its generation - from a friend expressing thanks for a gift. These were written very much in the style of a Lovely Note, with salutation, body, and closing, but via texts. They were a lovely way to begin the morning.

Second, discussing this with a colleague, she confessed that she photographed the draft of a thank-you note to transmit to someone who had given a gift, knowing that the gift-giver would want to know the gift was received as quickly as possible - even though she hadn't finished her draft. She asked if it could be Perfectly Proper to communicate thanks only electronically.

Etiquetteer would be a fool not to acknowledge that our means of communication have evolved, just as they have at other periods of civilization. The printing press and engraving changed the forms of how word got around, most notably to Etiquetteer with the invention of the engraved calling card in the early 19th century*, and later on engraved stationery. Benjamin Franklin used his own printing press (imported illegally into France during the American Revolution) to print invitations to an Independence Day party in 1779**. In its turn the typewriter made its mark, then audiocassettes, the computer, the Internet, and now, saints preserve us, the smartphone. In most cases these innovations reduced the amount of time between sending and receiving, from weeks, to days, to seconds.

But what we gain in time we lose in those old-fashioned qualities that we shouldn't think of as old-fashioned, Grace and Charm - and sometimes in the appearance of Sincerity, too. A text message or an email can appear so perfunctory, no matter how many fonts one might be allowed to use, no matter through what form of social media delivered. This is why Etiquetteer continues to advocate for the Lovely Note, because now it signifies even more how much one values the courtesy received, whether a gift, an invitation, or some other consideration. Whether the chastest white or cream foldover or the most garish greeting card, the Lovely Note demonstrates that one has taken some trouble to express gratitude. Because of its immediacy, the email or text has a place in Perfectly Proper correspondence, to inform gift-givers that their gifts have been received. But Etiquetteer still holds that it’s only the first of two places. The second should still be filled with that handwritten Lovely Note, especially for wedding gifts.

And yet  . . . and yet, it was so nice to get that barrage of texts this morning, since the sender expressed knowledgeable appreciation for the gift. No perfunctory "Got yr box, kthxbye" message this! Those of us who are recipients must be grateful for what acknowledgement we receive, and continue to lead by example.

Etiquetteer is certainly not the first person to express these sentiments, but the fact that it still needs to be expressed . . . well, it means you ought to run down to your local stationer and buy a box of notecards, that’s what it means.

*At first calling cards were blank and one wrote one’s name on each one. Later, “calling cards became more elaborate, sporting engraved names, mottoes, gilt edges, and pictures.” Parlor Politics, by Catherine Allgor, page 121.

**The Great Improvisation, by Stacy Schiff, opposite page 300. It is interesting to note that Franklin included the instruction “An Answer if you please."

Straw Hat Day and Felt Hat Day, Vol. 14, Issue 34

Earlier this year Etiquetteer was reading Erik Larson's fascinating Dead Wake: The Last Crossing of the Lusitania, when a sentence turned Etiquetteer's attention completely away from the story. "They found a city steaming with heat - 91 degrees on Tuesday, April 27, with four days yet to go before "Straw Hat Day," Saturday, May 1, when a man could at last break out his summer hats." Straw Hat Day?! Etiquetteer had never heard of such a thing. Was this really an annual, historical ritual for American gentlemen, or had Mr. Larson been hoodwinked by the Internet, which is always making up holidays like National Underwear Day?

Turns out Straw Hat Day was indeed an actual, annual occurrence, with a date selected locally for the gentlemen to retire their fedoras and homburgs for the season, substituting them with their "skimmers" and panamas. A New York Times editorial of May 20, 1908, fulminates against those wearing their hats earlier than June 15, which was Straw Hat Day that year. "One or two warm days in the month of May do not justify the appearance of straw hats. The ancestors of this blind and impetuous generation who set down June 15 as straw-hat day considered the vagaries of the climate." The article suggests a rather folksy way the date gets determined. "The straw hat properly comes in with the strawberry. All our strawberries as yet come from the South, and it would be reasonable for the rushers of the Northern season to go South to wear their straw hats."

It would follow that, if there was a day to get out one's straw hats, there would be another day to put them back. Another Times article, this from September 16, 1900, indicates that September 15 was Straw Hat Day, and that those who did wear straw hats had them destroyed, particularly on the stock exchange. "Just because it was Sept. 15 some of brokers on the Stock Exchange wore their straw hats once more in order to get them smashed, and they were not disappointed. The ostracized hats lasted about fifteen minutes after the opening of the Exchange."

Later in the same article, Etiquetteer was chagrined that, even in History, there were rebels not paying attention the rules. "All through the financial district there were to be found individuals who wore straw hats, despite the cooler weather, just to show that they were not slaves to the custom of retiring straw hats on a given date, regardless of the climatic conditions." Etiquetteer knows with what glee certain readers will read this - those readers who ostentatiously wear white shoes after Labor Day and before Memorial Day.

In the 21st century, September 15 is now known as Felt Hat Day, so Etiquetteer will be lovingly retiring the boater until next May, and brushing off the black fedora for Another Autumn of Perfect Propriety. But for one last look back at what was truly a beautiful summer, allow Etiquetteer to leave you with this Perfectly Proper Portrait by Joe Williams of JWLenswerk. Now let's all put May 15, 2016, on our calendars for Straw Hat Day.

Invitations to Fund-Raisers, Vol. 14, Issue 33

Dear Etiquetteer: I understand that replying to invitations is Perfectly Proper. But I receive a number of invitations to fund-raising events, some from organizations I strongly support and some from organizations I rarely or never support. Do I need to RSVP when I'm not going to an event?

Dear Invited:

There's a difference between a strictly social invitation and an invitation to a fund-raiser. One is invited to the first solely for the pleasure of one's company, but to the latter for the potential of one's largesse. Other etiquette writers have suggested that one need not respond to invitations for gallery openings or for Home Retail Opportunities - to buy, for instance, jewelry or kitchen supplies - from a friend who facilitates buying parties in private homes. No matter how sociable the event, its real purpose is for one to spend money. Etiquetteer would suggest that this, too, applies to fund-raising events, though their sociability becomes more and more impacted with the accretion of speeches and live auctions.

But as with everything else, there are exceptions. If you are invited personally by a friend to buy tickets to fill a table at some big affair, a Gentle Decline after the first appeal will save you from second, third, and fourth appeals.

You may wish to use the reply card to send a request to be dropped from their invitation lists (as opposed to their mailing lists altogether), writing "I prefer to support your organization in absentia."

Online Discretion Offline, Vol. 14, Issue 32

Dear Etiquetteer: I was recently on vacation with my husband. We were at a local bar in [Insert Name of Resort Town Popular With Those Who Have Achieved Equal Marriage Here] when a guy walked by, turned around, looked at me and said "[Insert Name of Social Media Platform* Here]!" I was quite uncomfortable. While my husband knows I'm using this social media, he assumes the worst about being on it. For social media etiquette when recognizing someone from here, I would assume it would be alright to say hello to someone if they were by themselves, but if not, you may not want to bring something up about their online life. Your thoughts?

Dear Online:

Oddly enough, Etiquetteer had a somewhat similar experience earlier this year while rushing through an art exhibition to be Perfectly Punctual for a friend's presentation. In Etiquetteer's path appeared a handsome, vaguely familiar man. Only later did Etiquetteer recognize him as an online contact. The response Etiquetteer received to a private message apologizing for any perception of a snub reinforced how wise it was not to have approached him, because he wasn't alone and claimed Social Awkwardness when Caught Off Guard.

Etiquetteer is fond of quoting "Discretion is the better part of valor," and it really is a pity that your Social Media Contact  didn't consider that. At the very least he could've said "Excuse me, but haven't I seen your photo on [Insert Name of Social Media Platform Here]?" But a discreet bow or nod is best, or even no contact at all. Etiquetteer is reminded that, in the days before World War I when mistresses were much more established in the daily life of France, no man stepping out with his demimondaine would be acknowledged by his friends, and certainly not by the friends of his wife.

Still, in a barroom, where one's Internal Monologue may have escaped with the help of Spiritous Liquors, that is a risk. Etiquetteer rather wonders if, when your online "friend" hailed with the name of your Shared Social Media, you responded "No, I pronounce my name Smith."

Etiquetteer hopes that you experience no recurrence of this exposure of your Inner Life. But you may wish to make such a recurrence less embarrassing by reassuring your husband about the best aspects of being part of this Social Media Platform.

*Etiquetteer must hasten to add that this Social Media Platform in question was not - how shall Etiquetteer say this? - created for facilitating the most casual of encounters.

Gift Giving for Assisted Living, Vol. 14, Issue 31

Dear Etiquetteer: My supervisor is entering a new stage of her life, namely moving from independent living to assisted living. Her husband’s health has progressed to needing additional care. On the occasion of previous moves, I have sent a small (work-appropriate) housewarming gift. With such sadness around the move, is it appropriate to send a gift? If so, what would be appropriate? Previous housewarming gifts have typically been a bottle of each of their favorite adult beverages.

I am quite close to my supervisor and she has recently been exceedingly generous towards me personally since the birth of my daughter. What is my best course of action?

Dear Presenting:

Moves of Necessity are often accompanied by sadness for the Moved, which creates an opportunity for loved ones to support them with Good Cheer. The way you refer to previous gifts of spirits sounds as if their presentation on moving could be considered a tradition, and Tradition is a terrible thing to break.

But perhaps the health of the gentleman in question no longer permits imbibing? As you and your supervisor know each other so well, Etiquetteer sees no difficulty in a discreet inquiry along the lines of “And do you and Ethelred still enjoy your highball before dinner?” The answer to that will guide you.

Otherwise, moves to assisted living often entail reducing the number of one’s possessions. Under these circumstances, useful gifts are most Perfectly Proper: foodstuffs, stationery, laprobes, etc. One item unique to assisted living facilities is decorations for one’s door. A gift of an all-seasonal wreath or something similar could help make the transition more homelike.

You Can (or Cannot) Leave Your Hat On, Vol. 14, Issue 30

Even Etiquetteer needs to check on what is Perfectly Proper or not, and one mystifyingly foggy aspect of etiquette has always been when and where a gentleman may wear his hat indoors. Movies are never really a reliable guide to How to Behave Properly, and yet there are so many old films in which men are seen wearing hats indoors (around poker tables, in hotel lobbies, etc.) that the practice must have had some wider acceptance. But one gag in Auntie Mame (1958) is about a man with his hands full needing to take his hat off in an elevator. What is the final word on this? To Etiquetteer's delight, the key to unlock the mystery was found in a gem of a book called Male Manners: The Young Man's Guide to: dating, good looks, making friends, getting into schools, clubs, activities, talking easily, job hunting, traveling, cars, and more, by Kay Corinth and Mary Sargent (1969). The key is whether or not a space is public or private. In someone's home or office, hats are removed when you enter. If it's an office building, and therefore public, your hat may remain on. If you're riding on a public bus, subway, or streetcar, it's Perfectly Proper to remain hatted. Gentlemen may leave their hats on in a public elevator (for instance, in an office building or a college campus), but not if it's an elevator for a residence (like one of those tall residential towers so fashionable in New York and elsewhere these days). This was Etiquetteer's big surprise, having always thought that a gentleman removed his hat in any elevator.

Two important exceptions exist where hats are always removed on entry: churches and restaurants. Of course this relates only to secular headgear.* Etiquetteer gets enraged when seeing hipsters or other men wearing those fashionable narrow-brimmed hats - or worse, baseball caps - inside churches. Stop it at once! Several years ago, Etiquetteer joined the audience of a New Year's Eve evening concert in a church and was put off by the usher barking "Hats off!" as soon as the door opened, not even giving Etiquetteer a chance to take it off first before being disciplined. Later, seeing the rest of the audience, Etiquetteer understood, but still felt rather abused.

To summarize, a gentleman may wear his hat inside in these places: public buildings (e.g. hotel lobbies, office buildings, and their elevators). A gentleman removes his hat when he enters these places: private homes (and their elevators), restaurants, churches and other houses of worship (unless religious headgear).

Etiquetteer is relieved that the "Bad Hair Day" excuse to remain hatted seems to have been capped. After all, if people think you can't manage your hair, do you think they'll think you can manage something more important, like your career?

* Once upon a time, it would not be necessary to state this, but with wider, and Perfectly Proper, acceptance of other cultures, it's important to specify.

Reference to Bodily Function in the Political Arena, Vol. 14, Issue 29

"Cousin Marie says politicians aren't gentlemen."

- Agatha Christie, Death on the Nile

A line has been crossed, and Etiquetteer is very unhappy about it.

Reference to Bodily Function, outside one's doctor's office, is not Perfectly Proper. Etiquetteer has said this before, and sadly will have to go on saying it. Don't think for a moment that this pleases Etiquetteer.

In the aftermath of last week's debate of Republican presidential candidates hosted by Fox News, popular (populist?) candidate Donald Trump abandoned forever any possible illusion anyone, no matter how deluded, might still cling to that he was still a viable candidate or a gentleman. Readers probably already know how he did this: by explaining that Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly was suffering from what used to be known as "female complaint" during the debate. Etiquetteer believes he made this suggestion because Ms. Kelly held him to account about previous, and very public, disparaging comments about women who had criticized him, nor would she accept his attempt to suggest that he only criticized one particular woman.

How might one feel if Mr. Trump had suggested this about Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany? How might one feel if Mr. Trump had suggested this about Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil? How might one feel if Mr. Trump had suggested this about one's mother?

Mr. Trump's behavior has always been the antithesis of presidential, and this incident confirms it for anyone who might wish to think otherwise. It is the antithesis of Perfect Propriety. It is the antithesis of Chivalry. Any man who could make such a suggestion, petty and vulgar, makes clear that he is not fit for public office, or any role in public life, and should slink in shame to his (in this case, gilded onyx) corner. Etiquetteer calls on those who might continue to support Mr. Trump as a candidate to condemn this behavior publicly.

How Not to Celebrate National Underwear Day, Vol. 14, Issue 28

Good underwear, like good housekeeping, is what you don't notice . . . at least not out in the streets, where it could frighten the horses. Etiquetteer only just learned that August 5 is National Underwear Day, yet another of the Hallmark Holidays brought to us by Retail and the Internet. Through an unhappy coincidence, today Etiquetteer also witnessed two examples of How Not to Celebrate National Underwear Day (should you choose to do so):

EXHIBIT A: In the morning Etiquetteer observed a young woman wearing a red-and-white print shirtwaist dress walking through a train station. As it happened, the dress was less than opaque. An unnaturally wide dark line spoiled the print of her dress. On closer observation, Etiquetteer was horrified to discover that the wide dark line was, in fact, the waistband of a pair of thong underwear, and that this young woman's buttocks were clearly visible through her dress. The one point Etiquetteer could award her for Perfect Propriety was that at least it appeared her brassiere was the same color!

But first, a thong is always wrong, and even more important, underwear should not be visible through one's outer clothing. Otherwise one might be branded a slattern or worse. (Etiquetteer is frantic with frustration at not being able to find an illustrative clip from the Jean Harlow film Red-Headed Woman, in which she tries on a dress. JH: "Can you see through this?" Saleslady: "I'm afraid you can." JH: "Then I'll wear it!" She proceeds to break up a marriage.) Clearly it's time for the slip, once an essential undergarment for ladies, to make a comeback.

EXHIBIT B: Later in the day Etiquetteer saw a Young Man greet his Lady Fair on the public street. He wore a pair of white athletic shorts over a quite obvious pair of briefs with a bold black and white print shining through. They reminded Etiquetteer of hotel curtains, and for a while Etiquetteer wondered if Fraulein Maria had made them for him. White is always Perfectly Proper for summer, as the world knows. But if you're going to wear white, wear it on the inside and the outside.

Let's recap, then, some Rules for Wearing Underwear:

• No one should know if you are, or are not, wearing underwear. It's no one's business. Don't make it their business.
• Underwear should not be visible through outer clothing. If you're wearing white outside, wear plain white underneath.
• Underwear should not be visible around outer clothing. Waistbands should be concealed by tucked-in shirts at the very least. Bra straps should not protrude from necklines.
• If you're wearing more than one piece of underwear, such as a bra and panties, they should be the same color.
• A thong is always wrong.

Really, the best way to celebrate National Underwear Day is probably just to buy, without fanfare, one or more pairs of underwear. Etiquetteer feels sure that's why Retail and the Internet gave us this holiday in the first place.

Crying Children, and What to Do About Them, Vol. 14, Issue 27

Remember how "Ill-Mannered Children with Complacent Parents" was the Champion Pet Peeve of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves? Remember that whole "Children must be seen and not heard" thing? It is time for parents to start leading us back there. Since most aren't, other impacted people are, and not always with Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer sometimes has to specify that No One Cares About Your Loud Child. You, as a parent of a Loud Child, have an obligation to Maintain the Peace by keeping that child quiet. Yes, Etiquetteer recognizes that often that's easier said than done. Too many parents don't even make an attempt now, which is what leads to today's news story.

Darla Neugebauer, the owner of Marcy's Diner in Portland, Maine, yelled at a crying toddler in her diner to get her to be quiet, this after the crying had gone on for no little time. Buzzfeed has posted a more thorough account of the story. [NB: There's an awful lot of profanity being slung around by Ms. Neugebauer and others, which doesn't help. People ought to have their mouths washed out with soap.] Some people have a problem with this, starting with the toddler's mother, Tara Carson. Etiquetteer has a problem with Ms. Carson and her husband for not having taken the toddler outside for Quiet Time much earlier. It appears that she didn't consider, or care, about the impact all that caterwauling was having on anyone else in the room. To repeat, No One Cares About Your Loud Child. Etiquetteer is not making this up, you know.

But Etiquetteer, who knows from Bitter Personal Experience not to discipline the children of others, could only wish that Ms. Neugebauer had directed her ire at Ms. Carson and her husband more effectively, not the child. Here, she overstepped, and she is feeling the fury of the Internet as a result. No matter how provoked, no matter how justified one might feel, screaming at a child will more often than not make one appear in the wrong.

But no one comes out of this well, least of all the Carson family, and Etiquetteer sympathizes most of all with the other diners, who first had to endure the Loud Child, and then the altercation. The parents should have been more attentive to their child and more sensitive to its impact on others. Ms. Neugebauer should have taken a stand earlier, before losing her temper, and suggested to the parents that they take Loud Child outside until their order was ready. (Although according to accounts in the Buzzfeed post, she did.)

It seems that many people are insistently saying that they'll never patronize Marcy's Diner because of this, but Etiquetteer is not one of them. While Etiquetteer would have preferred to see this situation handled differently, it seems highly unlikely that any meal there in the future will be interrupted by a Loud Child.

Gift-Giving to Unresponsive Relatives, Vol. 14, Issue 26

Dear Etiquetteer: When I sent my nephew his Christmas gift of cash, I told him that I knew he would be turning 18 in summer and graduating high school soon before. I told him his combined gift for these special occasions was a plane ticket to my city so that we could attend a Major League Baseball game together. However, because I know he's busy, he had to plan in advance. I never (uncharacteristically) got a thank-you for the Christmas gift. And he got in touch with me only after I told his father about the gift last month. I received neither an invitation nor an announcement of the graduation. However, two days before, my sister-in-law asked my sister for my e-mail address so that she could send me the live link to watch the event. My brother has since told me that nephew is too busy this summer to come to Boston. So this is my question: Do I send him a different gift for this birthday, or just a card reminding him of the previous gift. And what should I do about the graduation?

Dear Avuncular:

One of the responsibilities that comes with adulthood is conducting your own relationships with your relations, and not relying on your parents to take care of them. Your Neglectful Nephew appears not to have learned this. Etiquetteer does not care how busy his senior year of high school might have been. He should have been in touch with you directly, either to set a date, or to decline graciously.

Etiquetteer has to agree with you that receipt of a graduation invitation goes a long way to making one feel invested in a young person's future, and the gift one selects. Etiquetteer does have to wonder if your nephew sent them out at all, as it's simply too far-fetched to think that you were omitted from a family list.

Your account of the situation certainly doesn't display any enthusiasm on his part in your gift. Etiquetteer certainly sees no point in reiterating it. For his birthday, you might send him a bit of memorabilia from his favorite baseball team, along with a Lovely Note of Infinite Regret that you weren't able to tempt him sufficiently to join you. Etiquetteer would advise caution about suggesting another trip again.

As for a graduation gift, this young man clearly needs to learn the value of Prompt and Gracious Communication. A box of custom-made notecards with his monogram would make the point nicely, and you could underscore it by addressing the first envelope in the box to you. If you prefer not to make the point so baldly, an engraved pen or pen/pencil set makes a useful and traditional graduation gift.

Dear Etiquetteer:

When my niece gets married this summer, I plan to give her a restored and nicely presented hymnal that was brought to the United States by our first ancestor to immigrate here. My niece has shown no interest in this side of the family, but I consider the book an heirloom that should go to her. I anticipate blowback from my sister about an insufficient gift. Would that characterization be appropriate, and should it be made, how would I respond? I am not close to either of them.

 Dear Heirlooming:

Heirlooms and other Items of Family Significance get short shrift from today's bridal couples, a fact which never ceases to depress Etiquetteer. Given that your niece has not shown any interest in your shared family history, may not belong to or actively practice the religion advocated in the hymnal, and also that the two of you are not close, she's apt to feel you're getting off cheaply in the Wedding Gift Sweepstakes. In the interest of family harmony, Etiquetteer would suggest selecting an additional gift from her bridal registry to give along with the hymnal. Conversely, you could also save the hymnal to present to her and her husband on their Leather Anniversary, which is the third anniversary. (Etiquetteer is, of course, assuming that it's a leather-bound hymnal.)

When you do give your niece the hymnal, Etiquetteer hopes you'll choose to include an image of your Immigrant Ancestor along with any family stories that have been handed down. Even if your niece doesn't care, one day her children may.

How to Respond to Hospitality, Vol. 14, Issue 25

Dear Etiquetteer: Can you tell me whether you think people who have been good guests at a dinner party or cocktail party (separate answers I think) - brought a hostess gift, behaved well, etc. - should also email or call the next day to say thanks? If they don't, were they unhappy with the party?

Dear Hosting:

When a Lovely Note of Thanks has not been received, it's always more charitable to assume Incompetence rather than Malice. Possibly your guests were taken ill, swept up in current events, anxious at the thought of finding something original to say about your party (which is completely unnecessary), or just too lazy to find your zip code. Regardless, their failure to express gratitude for your hospitality is no reflection on the hospitality you provided.

Etiquetteer may be the Lone Holdout in considering the Lovely Note more important than the hostess gift, but the expression of thanks afterward means ten times as much as the "payment for services rendered" sometimes implied by that bottle of wine. Few things reassure a host or hostess as much as the confirmation from guests of a "job well done," that one's efforts have not only been recognized, but appreciated. Too many people, Etiquetteer would suggest, feel daunted by the need to express themselves originally. But writing a Lovely Note certainly doesn't take as much effort as picking out a bottle of wine. (Etiquetteer can just hear the oenophiles shuddering as they read this.)

You are more accommodating than Etiquetteer is in terms of how you'd allow these Lovely Notes to be delivered, suggesting email and telephone as options without even considering a handwritten note - which even today Etiquetteer is loath to refer to as "old-fashioned." Communications unavoidably evolve with technology; this is not necessarily bad, but it's made many people careless. While it was once the only way to communicate at all, now - with the near-universal adoption of the Internet - handwritten correspondence now signifies a special effort to express sincerity and appreciation. This is why Etiquetteer continues to think it's the best way to convey thanks for hospitality received.

Etiquetteer hopes that you will not let the neglect of your guests cause you further anxiety, and that you'll set them a good example with your own Lovely Notes after they entertain you in turn.

A Sign of the Times, Vol. 14, Issue 24

Sad that a sign like this is necessary, but Etiquetteer does have to give the creator a Perfectly Proper Salute for the use of "beseech."

And, We Have a Winner, Vol. 14, Issue 23

And, at last, we have a winner, a Pet Peeve that trounces all others in Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves:

TABLE MANNERS/DINING OUT: ILL-MANNERED CHILDREN WITH COMPLACENT PARENTS

Powerful, isn't it? And Etiquetteer is impressed that, of all the Pet Peeves in the grid, a selection that didn't specifically mention technology made it to the top.

Why don't today's parents realize that no one else cares about their Precious Snowflakes as much as they do - and never will? Are these parents absorbed in their own technology? So afraid of daily confrontation that they give in to the threat of any tantrum? Or simply blind to the fact that any children, even their children, will quite naturally behave in a way that is not Perfectly Proper?

Of course Etiquetteer must hasten to acknowledge all the good parents out there - surely there are some left, yes? - who are raising their children with Perfect Propriety (which is always better than Discipline Mixed with Love.)

But these Complacent Parents could use some Discipline Mixed with Love from the maitre d'. Years ago Etiquetteer was dining in a family-friendly restaurant (with, in fact, family members), and witnessed two parents with two children approximately age five, who were not only barefoot, but also using their banquette as a jungle gym. The parents were, Etiquetteer recalls, even worse than complacent; they were amused. And while Etiquetteer hardly advocates for that sort of behavior in the home, the home is an infinitely better place for it than out in public, where total strangers have to witness it.

One has only to do an internet search for "waitress blog" to find many stories of ill-mannered children dining out with complacent parents. Etiquetteer is eager to hear your own experience, should you be inclined to share it, at queries@etiquetteer.com.

Etiquetteer would like to thank all the readers who participated in this interesting little experiment. Let us now proceed into the summer, a summer without a pet peeve.

A Sign of the Times, Vol. 14, Issue 22

Etiquetteer was startled to see this notice in the restroom of the barber shop:

"Please do not rinse your head in our bathroom sink," it reads. Merciful heavens, has it really come to this? Etiquetteer is appalled that anyone would even consider this.

In other news, voting remains open in the final round of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves. Make your momentous choice!

A Preposterous Pair of Pet Peeves, and Wedding Guests Who Don't R.s.v.p., Vol. 14, Issue 21

At long last we enter the final round of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves: the Preposterous Pair! Please vote today - it won't take more than a moment to choose - or will it? At this point Etiquetteer has become so excited about untreeing the white bucks and shaking out the seersucker that the dates of the voting have been Shockingly Neglected - and as the Season of Ravenous June Bridezillas comes closer and closer, Etiquetteer wants to say a few words about the Champion Pet Peeve of the Weddings division, Guests Who Don't R.s.v.p.*

In general, we as a society have forgotten how to show respect by declaring in advance what our plans are, often relapsing into the Dreaded Phrase, "I'll have to see how I feel." Now that's one thing if the invitation is for something simple like drinks on the back porch. It's still not Perfectly Proper, but not nearly as maddening as it is for a Life Event like a wedding. How can one have ambivalence about celebrating the wedding of a friend or relative?

Actually, there are a few reasons for that:

• Distant Locations: As air travel makes our global society more global, attending a wedding has become less driving across town and more driving across state lines, and more often than that flying across the country or the pond. It's much more a time commitment than the time of the ceremony and reception, and it can feel like a lot to ask. Attending an out-of-town wedding is not trivial.
• Expense: The Wedding-Industrial Complex puts a lot of pressure on Happy Couples to spend a lot on their Happy Day, which also puts pressure on their Many Guests to do likewise in terms of wedding gifts, whether on a gift registry, a honeymoon registry, at a shower, or in plain old hard cash. See also "Distant Locations" above. Travel isn't always a bargain.
• Not Really Wanting to Go Anyway: You may not like weddings. You may not particularly like the Happy Couple and/or their parents**. You may be questioning why you got invited in the first place.
• Timing: The wedding may be scheduled for an inconvenient time of year on your calendar. Certainly Etiquetteer would like Happy Couples to reconsider holding their weddings on three-day weekends. Etiquetteer once spent four or five consecutive years going to weddings on Memorial Day, and not to the beach. Yes, having a wedding on a three-day weekend does provide an extra day off for travel, but do people really want to spend a three-day weekend attending a wedding?
• Not Wanting to Say No: Declining an invitation to a wedding may sometimes feel (to the invited guest) like sending a message of disapproval to the Happy Couple - and the Deity of Your Choice Above knows that some bridezillas will receive the news that way, which doesn't help. Not saying anything at all, however, doesn't help either.

Etiquetteer can't consider any of these reasons a valid excuse for just not responding to the invitation at all. Taking the time to send a Cordial but Decisive Decline will not take that long, and provides essential information to the Happy Couple about just how many people their caterer has to feed. Even when declining to attend, a response shows respect and consideration.

What's even worse than not responding and not attending, in Etiquetteer's book, is not responding and attending. A guest can do no wrong, of course, but still . . . what were you thinking? And what's probably even worse than that is not showing up having responded that you'd be there. Unless a hospital or a cemetery is involved, you must attend. Yes, yes, yes . . . there are legitimate excuses, and Etiquetteer has heard them all so much that they sound like Bunburying. But "Oh, was that yesterday?" and "We felt like doing something else instead" are not Perfectly Proper excuses.

One way to reduce the risk of this Pet Peeve is to reduce the number of guests invited in the first place, which Etiquetteer would do on a geographic basis first. The further removed one's home address from the wedding location, the more likely to receive an announcement than an invitation. Just a suggestion.

*Really, Etiquetteer is still just a mite disappointed that "Happy Couples who don't send thank-you notes" didn't take the honors in the Weddings division, but will accept that defeat with Perfect Propriety - and continued admonitions to Send Those Lovely Notes.

**This is too bad if you're a blood relation at the first cousin level or closer.

Returning to the Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, Vol. 14, Issue 20

There's no doubt about it, alas: Etiquetteer has been asleep at the wheel of his Hispano-Suiza for the last two weeks and was just about to drive off the most Perfectly Proper cliff you can imagine. Fate, however, had other plans, and steered Etiquetteer into a convenient field of poppies, from which Etiquetteer is now somewhat sleepily recovering thanks to the Good Witch of the North. So, where were we? Aha, just about to enter the Final Four Round of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves! And how exciting it is to find out what the top Pet Peeve is in each division:

WEDDINGS: Guests who don't R.s.v.p.

DRIVING AND TRAFFIC: Cell phone use while operating a vehicle.

TABLE MANNERS/DINING OUT: Ill-mannered children and complacent parents.

GENERAL PEEVES: Loud public cellphone conversations.

Vote now and help determine what the final Devilish Duo of Pet Peeves will be!

Etiquetteer is interested to learn your pet peeves, and was so pleased to receive this peeve from a reader, who sent it to queries@etiquetteer.com:

You ask for my pet peeve not on the list, and it's overt judginess.  This obviously doesn't mean you!  Or etiquette!  But the trend now to believe that everything that you believe is the only right thing and anyone who isn't voting/raising their children/protecting the environment/whatever in exactly the way that you are, needs to be set straight.  For instance, you have on the list, "parking illegally in handicapped spaces," which I actually voted for, but a bigger pet peeve would be feeling that you get to decide exactly who is handicapped enough to park in the space and leaving a note on the windshield of someone without a visible handicap saying that they should leave these spaces for real handicapped people.  People who don't mind their own business and feel that they should be able to tell everyone exactly how to live their lives, that is my pet peeve. Which is of course the whole marriage equality issue.  Do you want to get married to a person of your own gender?  No?  Then the normal thing to do would be to say, "Well, it doesn't affect me in any way, so those people can do what they like," not, "Well, it doesn't affect me in any way, so I will try to stop it with all of my power because EVERYONE MUST LIVE AND THINK EXACTLY AS I DO!"

This is my pet peeve.  I think it's too long for a survey question, though!

And really, Etiquetteer need not try to say it better than that.

Condolences and National Card and Letter Writing Month, Vol. 14, Issue 19

Dear Etiquetteer: Is the term, "I'm sorry" an appropriate response upon hearing of a death in the family of a friend? I see so much of that on Facebook, while I had thought that extending sympathy or condolences would be a more proper response.

Dear Condoling:

Your query shows a discerning attitude about how we use language, which Etiquetteer can only admire and wish more people would adopt. This led Etiquetteer to examine more closely the definition of "sorry." For a moment Etiquetteer thought the word might imply personal responsibility for what one was sorry for. As it turns out, one definition is ""Feeling regret, compunction, sympathy . . . " and another is "suggestive of grief or suffering," so Etiquetteer can say that "I'm sorry" is an appropriate response to the news of a death. I'm sorry.

Now, is it the most appropriate response? Like you, Etiquetteer would rather see "My condolences" or "My sympathies" used instead, because those words are more specific to the occasion. "I'm sorry" is used every time an apology is made. One cannot say "My condolences for forgetting to attend your birthday dinner," for instance. And online, "I'm sorry" looks rather like a throwaway comment, which (Etiquetteer must hasten to add before the brickbats fly) is surely not the intent of those commenting.

Etiquetteer remains ambivalent about online condolences, whether on social media or through the online guest books of funeral homes. This is not to say that such things aren't, or can't be, Proper; this only reflects Etiquetteer's ambivalence. Condolences serve two purposes: to express sympathy to the bereaved by sharing positive thoughts and memories of the deceased; and, through the act of thoughtful writing, to assist oneself through the grieving process. What is attractive about expressing sympathy online is its immediacy, and the swift expression of condolences remains a very important part of expressing them. But the pitfalls of Immediate Online Expression are thoughtlessness and indiscretion on one side, and the consciousness of writing for a larger audience than the bereaved on the other. This last can sometimes lead to - how to say it? - an Escalation of Histrionics that becomes less about the impact of the deceased and more about the individual grief of each commenter. Just as it is improper to steal the spotlight from the bride at a wedding, so is it improper to steal the spotlight from the deceased. Often that form of writing is best left to one's personal, offline journal.

 

Etiquetteer learned only recently that April is National Card and Letter Writing Month. Considering the query above, it's essential to note that online comments on a message board do not replace the need for a handwritten condolence note. Nor will Etiquetteer accept the complaint that this is stuffy and old-fashioned. If anything, the understandable rush to adopt online communications has made handwritten letters and notes that much more significant and special to the recipients! The Lovely Note of Thanks (especially for wedding gifts), the Get Well Card, and even the Letter for No Reason give us opportunities for creativity and thoughtfulness unavailable online, because the audience is the Recipient Alone. And the thrill of seeing an envelope in one's mailbox that isn't a bill or junk mail remains fresh.

Unfortunately Etiquetteer has mailed exactly two handwritten pieces of correspondence this month. Let's all do better than that in the remaining week of National Card and Letter Writing Month, and in the months beyond!

Today is the last official day to vote in Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, and my goodness, what is to come afterward . . . This round determines the champion pet peeve in each division. NEXT week we'll see the divisions compete against each other: Weddings vs. Driving and Traffic, and Dining Out/Table Manners vs. General Peeves! So far these look like difficult choices. Please vote today!

Round II Results, Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, Vol. 14, Issue 17

Last week's voting in Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves have led to some exciting pairings for next week's competition, which will determine the Champion Pet Peeve in each of the divisions! Etiquetteer would like to thank everyone to voted, and encourage you all to cast your votes again this week. WEDDINGS

First off, and without surprise, "Guests who don't R.s.v.p." handily overtook "Lack of information about time, directions, etc." at 57% to 43%. As a result, this week "Guests who don't R.s.v.p." will have to compete with "Couples who don't send thank-you notes," which squeaked ahead of "Weddings as fund-raisers for the honeymoon" 52% to 48%. In some ways, Etiquetteer thinks this might be the bloodiest of competitions; each pet peeve involves the lack of a response. But which leaves Etiquetteer readers feeling more disrespected?

DRIVING AND TRAFFIC

It's interesting to observe that any pet peeve not relating to driving has not advanced in this category. "Drivers who ignore red lights" trounced "Drivers blocking bike lanes" 82% to 18%. "Cell phone use while operating a vehicle" had a less easy time getting ahead of "Illegally parking in handicapped spaces, " 65% to 35%. And a part of Etiquetteer is disappointed in that, because those who require handicapped parking already have a lot to deal with, and deserve better than to be inconvenienced. But choosing between "Drivers who ignore red lights" and "Cell phone use while operating a vehicle" will surely be a tough call for many.

TABLE MANNERS/DINING OUT

Here, behaviors that have been pet peeves for centuries won out. The comparatively recent "Texting at the table," to Etiquetteer's surprise, didn't stand a chance against "Chewing with mouth open," 59% to 41%. It just proves that Etiquetteer really does know only the Very Best People, since it's been a very long time since anyone's been witnessed chewing with his or her mouth open. And texting at the table is such a deliberate ignoring of one's physical companions! Ah well, "Chewing with mouth open" must now fight a steamroller of a pet peeve "Ill-mannered children with complacent parents," which topped "Cheap tippers" 75% to 25%! "Ill-mannered children with complacent parents" has consistently performed well in Spring Madness, and may well defeat all the competition.

GENERAL PEEVES

In our last category, the victors came out as Etiquetteer predicted. "Confusing customer service menus" was no match for "Door-to-door solicitors of any kind," going down 42% to 58%. Then "Loud public cellphone conversations" easily bested "Oversufficient cologne" 64% to 36%. This week's pairing pits one century against the other, in a way, as the door-to-door thing was so 20th century, and the cellphone thing is, well, so omnipresent.

So keep voting! It will take half as much time every week. And of course if you discover something you think is missing, you may always share it with Etiquetteer at queries@etiquetteer.com.