Etiquetteer was so sad to see this on a telephone pole the other day, because of the theft.
Manicured Men and Boys - and What to Do About Them, Vol. 17, Issue 52
The short answer is, you don’t do anything about it if you don’t like. Now read on for more; Etiquetteer is exercised.
There is no one crueler than a child. There is no one crueler than a child. The teasing and taunting that goes along with school days is, so far, an insoluble problem in the human condition. So Etiquetteer was deeply disturbed to read yesterday about the experience of kindergartner Sam Gouveia, mercilessly taunted for his bright red nail polish. This was entirely unnecessary and should not have happened. The taunting, that is!
So let’s talk about manicured nails for men, and how we react to other people. The latter is really more important, so let’s get the nails out of the way first.
There’s a long history of men getting manicures and pedicures, and there’s nothing wrong with that. “A man’s hands are his business card,” and they should be maintained to look Perfectly Proper, whether he does it himself or has a manicurist do it. This is not just clipping one’s nails and filing down the rough spots, but also grooming cuticles and buffing.
Nail polish for men has had less universal acceptance, to put it mildly. A man’s hands may be his business cards, but that doesn’t mean they should be the first thing one notices about him. Esquire Etiquette of 1953 makes the point “. . . if you can’t keep up with [cuticles], you ought to cultivate a manicurist. But don’t let her put polish on your nails! A good buffing is healthy, and the gloss added by a buffing powder is clean looking, but any and all sorts of liquid polish are apt to give you a scare once you step out into the harsh world beyond the barber shop.” Amy Vanderbilt agreed in 1963: “If he has his nails professionally manicured, they may be buffed but should never have any colored or even colorless polish applied.”
Why on earth this aversion to nail polish for men?! The association of cosmetics with femininity would account for colored polish, but wouldn’t clear polish be, well, clear? Clear polish manicures were not unknown - Etiquetteer likes this writer’s recall of his grandfather’s clear manicure - but somehow not considered Perfectly Proper, and vaguely associated with the underworld. Eddie Mars, the sharply-dressed gangster in Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep, gets called out for his clear polish, and fans of Barbra Streisand have already recalled her deathless lyric “Nicky Arnstein, Nicky Arnstein, Nicky Arnstein . . . he has polish on his nails!”*
Where does that leave us in 21st-century America? It leaves us in a nation of freedoms in which there is a lot more license to appear outside the norm than hitherto, and if you don’t like it, the most Perfectly Proper response is to hush your mouth. What someone else does with their nails (or hair, or anything) is none of your business. Avoid them if necessary, but keep your opinion to yourself.
***
Which brings us to what happened to Young Master Gouveia at kindergarten. His father Aaron Gouveia, who tweets at The Daddy Files, put it best: “My wife and I spent five years successfully preaching tolerance, acceptance, and the importance of expression and your kids unraveled that in one school day.” Let’s look at “the importance of expression.” Everything is new to children, and that means exploration and questions*. Unfortunately that often means swift criticism for something different and outside the norm. And like it or not, colored nails for men are still far outside the norm. And unfortunately, that created a Perfect Storm at kindergarten.
So that’s what happened. Taunting and bullying start to stop happening with Education and Example. Education at school, at one’s house of worship, and especially at home. Example from role models, parents above all others. Mr. Gouveia gets Etiquetteer’s vote for Father of the Year. His passionate defense of his son irresistibly reminded Etiquetteer of another courageous father, Nils Pickert, who donned a skirt in solidarity with his own young son back in 2012. It can’t be easy, but it’s so important.
The unsung hero in all this is Young Master Gouveia’s one friend who stood up for him. How undervalued is simple loyalty! Etiquetteer salutes this young person, too.
Will bright red nails become the norm for men? Etiquetteer really doesn’t think so, but who knows?! Once it was unthinkable for a lady to go without stockings, or for the middle class to accept tattoos, but in the last 25 years both those things have become so standard they barely raise an eyebrow. In the meantime, Etiquetteer hopes it won’t take Young Master Gouveia two years to grow claws - Jungle Red!
*For the uninitiated, Nick Arnstein was a bit of a gangster.
**Etiquetteer will never forget innocently commuting home at the back of the bus one evening and being besieged by a class of eight-year-old students who had never seen a bow tie before. Etiquetteer had to demonstrate how to tie it right there on the bus.
"Smile!" or Not, Vol. 17, Issue 51
Dear Etiquetteer:
I need to find a way for people to stop telling me to smile in pictures. This is especially useless if it’s a picture I've already posted. It's rude. I think it's mostly about why we do or do not smile and having some degree of autonomy over our feelings and moods.
Dear Smiley:
Once upon a time no one smiled. Improvements in both photography and dentistry in the last 125 years or so have made smiling in photographs the undisputed fashion. It’s quite a contrast from previous centuries, when it took so long to record a daguerreotype. A smile could not be held that long a time.
Sometimes smiling seems insincere, but Etiquetteer doesn’t consider that anyone wants “autonomy over your feelings and moods.” They just want a photo that conforms to the Smiling Norm, irritating as that can feel.
You sometimes cannot get out of being in a photo. For instance, if one of your children is getting married, it would look really really bad if you showed up at the wedding and then refused to be in the family photographs - or appeared scowling or “looking daggers.” In those situations it’s not just Perfectly Proper but Absolutely Necessary to “put on your happy face.”
In the future, when you’re encouraged to smile in a photo, consider cultivating a Mona Lisa smile, which can convey a certain amount of pleasant mystery without baring your teeth. As to the occasional “Oh, I wish you’d smiled in that picture!” Etiquetteer encourages you to ignore it, or pass it off with a light witticism such as “I have my reputation as a misanthrope to consider” or “If I’m not careful they’ll cast me as Pollyanna.”
Queen Victoria as we are used to seeing her.
You might consider the example of three 19th-century ladies and how they handled photographers. Queen Victoria, famously “not amused,” never smiled in photographs because her children didn’t consider it dignified in her position. There are, however, a few photographs of her smiling - which proves to Etiquetteer that it made the Queen more special because of its rarity.
Queen Victoria sporting a smile at a great-grandchild. Too bad she couldn’t keep her eyes open at the same time.
The second, First Lady Julia Grant, would only allow herself to be photographed in profile because she had crossed eyes. Of course, profile portraits are not so fashionable now . . .
Finally, there’s Isabella Stewart Gardner, a wealthy and eccentric art collector whose wealth and eccentricity couldn’t mask her homely looks.
“Mrs. Jack” did what she could with veils, but was also known to cover her face with a fan or just a piece of paper if she didn’t feel like being photographed. Her friends understood and accommodated, even to the extent of photographing her from behind at dinner parties. There’s a marvelous photo on page 15 of Beauport: The Sleeper-McCann House of a costume dinner party. Mrs. Gardner, facing resolutely away, is only identified by the big Y on the back of her chair.
So you could, perhaps, carry a fan around in case you’re not willing to “turn that frown upside down.” That would certainly make a memorable photo!
Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara Royal Wedding Edition, Vol. 17, Issue 50
GREVILLE EMERALD KOKOSHNIK TIARA PARTICIPATES IN WEDDING OF SOME PEOPLE, RECEIVES ACCOLADES
The Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara receiving the adulation of the crowd while using Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie as a pedestal.
Yes, Etiquetteer did get up very early to watch some of the hoopla around the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara taking over Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie’s wedding to Jack Brooksbank. The Royal Family attracts etiquette-watchers - the British are so famously correct the bloodhounds are out to seize any flaw - and Etiquetteer can’t claim to be an exception.
THE WIND AND THE GOWN
Winnie-the-Pooh would have called this “a blustery day,” and unfortunately the ladies bore the brunt of this by having to pay special attention to their headgear. So many windblown tresses were seen entering and exiting the chapel that Etiquetteer rather wishes some long-haired ladies had gone in for a simple bun or a French twist or something. This would have kept them looking more organized and might also have spared them anxiety about That Windblown Look. (Ladies, is this true? Your comments appreciated.) One lady’s cartwheel of feathers was so agitated that it looked like television static.
The Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara, undoubtedly having incinerated any obscuring veil with its Green Power Rays, controlled the bride’s hair admirably except for Unfortunate Tendrils which the princess kept brushing back. Her new cousin Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex, did the same thing at her wedding. Etiquetteer does not care whether it’s fashionable to have tendrils or not, or whether it’s part of one’s Personal Style. Constantly having to handle one’s hair is a distraction.* And this is particularly true for royalty, under the merciless glare of continual coverage. Stop it at once!
The bridal gown, like Princess Henry’s, was striking in its simplicity: no frills, ruffles, trimmings, or superfluities - nothing to detract from that awe-inspiring tiara. But somehow there were always people fussing about the dress, including the father of the bride, which underscored the need for at least two Perfectly Proper Bridesmaids - such as the bride’s sister, Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, conspicuously seated with her parents. All those little flower girls and pages - for a moment Etiquetteer mistook them for the Von Trapp family - were clearly just there for window dressing when what was needed was a couple Responsible Adults. Gracious sakes, it practically took a village to keep that dress out of danger.
THE JEWELS
We all know it’s bad form to upstage the bride, but my goodness, the Greville Tiara clearly hypnotized her in its quest for World Domination. It’s nice to be able to borrow something from your grandmother for your Something Borrowed, but when it’s the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara - wow! No one actually cares about you then. You become merely a Tiara Delivery System for the Admiration of a Magnificent Jewel.
It also underscored the absence of Significant Jewels among the other royal ladies. While the Queen wore the Cullinan V Heart Brooch, a Bagatelle of Power (“Granny’s chips” might have upstaged even the tiara), the diamond bee brooch worn by Princess Beatrice was so small as to be Comparatively Insignificant. The Duchess of Sussex looked downright denuded without One Important Piece, while the Duchess of Cambridge sported some Quite Respectable Earrings. Etiquetteer was also charmed by the jeweled wing brooch worn by Princess Michael of Kent.
The groom’s wedding gift to the bride was a pair of diamond and emerald pendant earrings, clearly intended to complement the tiara. This made it easier for the bride to fulfill the old rule that the bride always wears the groom’s gift to the wedding, “even if it is a mixture of colored stones.”
WHAT THE LADIES WORE
Green Power Rays fell on the mother and the aunt of the bride, the Duchess of York and the Princess Royal, each looking stunning in emerald green. The Princess Royal accessorized with a camel-colored shawl, which made Etiquetteer reflect that in Another Time that might have been a fur scarf or stole. Pippa Middleton’s olive maternity ensemble was topped with a superb matching hat. This time it isn’t Beatrice and Eugenie who need to be given a talking-to about their headgear, it’s Zara Tindall. An otherwise lovely royal blue dress was topped off with a silver helmet garnished with silver flowers. It looked like an old Christmas Tree Shoppe display with a fresh coat of spray paint. Princess Henry, to Etiquetteer’s delight, Considered Navy Blue, but the Countess of Wessex wore glittering black lace that Etiquetteer could only consider appropriate for the cocktail hour.
Among the congregation Poppy Delevigne sported such tall baby-blue feathers in her fascinator that it was suspected she had refugeed from the Folies-Bergère. It’s rude to wear such tall headgear in a church; it obstructs the view of those behind. While Etiquetteer is delighted to see the outrageous tilt of a hat coming back (so reminiscent of the great Lilly Daché), one lady wore something that looked like a moulting coconut hanging off the back of her head. Another lady in pink appeared to be dressed as Audrey Hepburn as the Easter Bunny. Someone else paired a fascinator with what looked very much like an anorak. A royal wedding is hardly the time to pair the formal with the casual!
THE SERVICE AND OTHER ASPECTS
The great tenor Andrea Boccelli was invited to sing during the wedding. The selections chosen, Gounod’s “Ave Maria” and Franck’s “Panis angelicus,” reminded Etiquetteer of how wonderful that Pavarotti album was 35 years ago. There are two schools of thought about wedding music: familiar and obscure. While some obscure wedding music calls too much attention to itself, Etiquetteer fears that these arias are taking the place that “O Promise Me” and “Evergreen” held for previous generations.
Mr. Boccelli may have needed to loosen his tie in order to perform, but a gentleman’s knot properly rests snugly against his collar. Mr. Boccelli’s top button was more than visible, which is Not Perfectly Proper.
The Greville Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara also witnessed some lovely human moments. We are so used to seeing the bride hand off her bouquet that it was rather refreshing to see the groom hand off his eyeglasses to the best man. And there was a bit of trouble getting the wedding ring onto the bride’s finger, just as happens with un-royal brides. Etiquetteer was most touched with the reading from The Great Gatsby - untraditional for a wedding, to be sure, but absolutely right for this one. For Etiquetteer it somehow illustrated the importance of the preacher’s words “Marriage is something far more profound than any sort of contract.”
Perhaps it was because the BBC was not broadcasting the service, but Etiquetteer observed that there was no applause until the Happy Couple appeared outside the church. That is Most Proper, but also not the American custom. And did you notice that there was no kiss inside the church either?
Etiquetteer could only conclude that the Battle for World Domination will continue in its next round between the Greville Tiara and the Prince George Instagram account. Etiquetteer noted that His Royal Highness was kept to the back of the gaggle, but he was working his royal wave in the car after the service.
It is now time for a Tequila Toast to wish the Happy Couple well on their journey through life together!
*This condition applies to all genders, by the way. It just so happens that in our civilization it’s more usual for ladies to have long hair. More and more gentlemen are also sporting Tousled Tresses, or even worse the Dreaded Pretentious Manbun. They, too, need to take care that every hair is in place.
Etiquetteer saw these 20th-century little black dresses at MoMA last January.
Time for Cocktail Attire, Vol. 17, Issue 49
Dear Etiquetteer:
My husband and I have an invitation to a wedding and the dress for the reception is “cocktail attire.” What is that? Am I expected to dress like a margarita, complete with salted rim?
Dear Margarita:
That would be an interesting intepretation of the dress code, and Etiquetteer could see you pulling it off with a slinky lime green suit and a thin white feather boa*. The only problem with that - and you could guess this - is that you’d then be guilty of Upstaging the Bride, which is absolutely not Perfectly Proper.
Seriously, though, “cocktail attire” implies two words: “sharp” and “dressy.” For gentlemen, this means dark suits or jackets and ties. Gentlemen should give the impression of being crisp and classic, with perhaps a suggestion of color. Ladies wear cocktail dresses, which can be short and fussy or longer (but not floor-length) and slinky. Another option would be a severely cut two-piece suit, in wool or velvet - the kind that used to be called a dinner suit. Often cocktail dresses are found in the darker palettes, but for a wedding Etiquetteer would encourage ladies to try lighter shades - and always to Consider Navy Blue instead of black.
For Etiquetteer “cocktail attire” also suggests a little shine and glitter. A little! A few sequins and beads, and of course Actual Jewels, would enhance any lady’s appearance at the cocktail hour, not to mention a small hat with a veil - or a fascinator if it can be worn as though it was not part of a costume. Gentlemen might think about cufflinks or a tie with some shine to it, but not shiny lapels! “Cocktail attire” does not mean drifting into the parts of a wardrobe that belong to “black tie” like tuxedos, cummerbunds, white dinner jackets, shirt studs, etc. Of course a gentleman’s shoes should be freshly polished to a deep shine.
Etiquetteer hopes that the quality of the cocktails served at the wedding is equal to the effort put forward by the guests to achieve this dress code.
Dear Etiquetteer:
We’ve all heard about the “little black dress” being standard equpiment for women when they go out, but what does a man wear when his date has on a little black dress?
Dear Dressy:
So often Etiquetteer has seen college-age couples out on the town for what is clearly a Special Occasion - the symphony, for instance, or dinner in a fancy restaurant - and the girl has clearly taken a great deal of trouble to find the right Little Black Dress and accessorize it with the right jewelry and shoes (and, one hopes, hosiery, though fewer and fewer women want to be bothered with it). And what does the boy wear? Dark slacks and shoes with a dress shirt (usually a solid, white or colored, but sometimes striped) open at the neck, and that’s it. At least the shirt is Ostentatiously Well Ironed. Gentlemen, this is really not Making Enough Effort! A Little Black Dress, especially one involving some sequins, demands that a gentleman dress up to it, and that means at a minimum a jacket and tie. Etiquetteer guarantees that it’s not too much trouble to make the effort. You’ll look awfully sharp, and when you go out for that post-concert drink or midnight breakfast, Etiquetteer will allow you to undo your tie for that devil-may-care look.
*Had you chosen a martini that might be even more problematic, martinis being transparent. An olive “takes up so much room in such a little glass,” but it can’t cover a multitude of sins.
The Last Dinner at Brasserie JO, Vol. 17, Issue 48
“We can never go back to Manderley. But sometimes, in my dreams, I do go back.”
— the second Mrs. DeWinter in Rebecca, by Daphne Du Maurier
Etiquetteer, arriving in late afternoon, enjoyed an Aperol spritz while it was still Perfectly Proper to do so. It is not a beverage for after 5:00 PM.
The hearts of diners-out in Boston have been sorely tried since the closing of Brasserie JO after 20 years (!) was announced some weeks ago. Etiquetteer, drowning an eye unus’d to flow, enjoyed one final dinner there last night on its last night*. (Brunchgoers have another final chance on Sunday, as the last service will be Sunday at midday.)
The final night of a beloved restaurant certainly brings on reflection. Over 20 years Etiquetteer enjoyed many fine occasions at B-JO. From the simplicity of steak frites at brunch to an elaborate morning-after wedding breakfast, from a special birthday gathering for a friend in one of the salons privés to a French 75 cocktail after the symphony . . . so many memories of Happy Times With Our Friends, and of new discoveries. It was here that Etiquetteer discovered the delights of oysters Rockefeller and crispy pork shanks. (Not together, of course!) And it was here that Etiquetteer entertained the friends of parents when they passed through town.
B-JO’s unique pickled carrots.
This dinner was entirely a whim of Etiquetteer’s. Alone in town late in the afternoon, Etiquetteer stopped at the bar for one final drink, then dashed across the street to the closest bookstore for an engaging tome (Victoria, the Queen, as it turns out), and returned to snag a table shortly after the dining room opened for its final dinner service. There’s a school of thought that it’s not Perfectly Proper to read at the table even when dining alone, and there’s another school of thought that you don’t have any business telling someone not to read at the table if you aren’t at the table with them. You can guess where Etiquetteer comes down on that issue.
And it was an exquisite little dinner, as always: port manhattan, their signature onion tart Uncle Hansi, and pork chops. It would have been impossible at this final dinner to have neglected to order one of their famous, very popular profiteroles.
Now the problem with profiteroles is precisely what makes them so wonderful: all that gooey warm chocolate sauce mingling with all that slowly melting vanilla ice cream. Keeping dark drops from a white shirtfront involves almost as much attention as keeping a moustache out of the soup. Alas, Etiquetteer failed in this important test on this sad occasion. (Don’t make a fuss about any efforts to remove the spot, and remember: a bit of ice water will be more effective than tears.)
What is so very sad about this closure is that Brasserie JO filled a need: a need for an elegant but somewhat relaxed dining room with a superb standard of service and presentation convenient to cultural venues for pre- and post-performance dining and libations. Perhaps not enough people recognized this need? Perhaps not enough people recognize a need for elegance in daily life?
And - and very few people seem to acknowledge this - with lighting that flattered everyone. Once upon a time pink silk candleshades protected us; remember Mrs. Erlynne in Wilde’s Lady Windermere’s Fan saying “Oh, I never confessed to more than 30. Twenty-nine if there were pink shades, 30 if there were not.” Brasserie JO’s illuminated bar and clock made everyone look 30.
So often things end because their time has passed, or because transformation is necessary for a changing time. In the former case one has only to think of the traditional London debutante season, now as dead as the dodo. The latter makes Etiquetteer think of the move of the Metropolitan Opera in the 1950s to Lincoln Center from its original home - and before that, the fall of the old Academy of Music under the hot breath of the New Money who built the “old” Metropolitan Opera House.
A more apt comparison would be the closure in the 1990s of the Ritz-Carlton dining room (stil the most beautiful room in Boston) for luncheon. Etiquetteer will never forget how the newspaper described how the management made the final decision. They asked both patrons who lunched there every day whether they would prefer to lunch in the dining room with a reduced level of service, or to receive the same level of service in the café. Both preferred the latter. And that was the end of luncheon at the Ritz-Carlton.
But Etiquetteer still thinks there is a need for dining rooms with white tablecloths, soft lighting, superb French food, and artfully mixed drinks. While the closing of a beloved restaurant “doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world,” Etiquetteer very much hopes that another such restaurant will open soon and - before we know it - become just as much an institution as Brasserie JO was.
When the waiter asked if he could bring another drink, Etiquetteer had to reply “Not just yet. The memory of this one is too beautiful to drown.”
* It’s worth noting that That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much had already had three farewell dinners at Brasserie JO with different friends, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that he’s more gourmand than gourmet. Etiquetteer barely stood a chance. #glutton
Professional Networking Online, Vol. 17, Issue 47
Dear Etiquetteer:
When it comes to Human Resources and networking in the digital age, decorum has certainly appeared to go by the wayside. Here are two questions for you:
(1) When it comes to applying for jobs, my resumes, CVs, and cover letters that I've carefully crafted and sent seem to go into some sort of black hole — with neither a reply, nor even a boiler-plate rejection notice that seemed commonplace in the past.
Plus, on more than one occasion, I’ve encountered “ghosting” - where interviewers don’t bother to reply. At one company, after a successful phone interview I was told that they’d like to bring me in for an in-person interview the following week. Never heard back from them. After repeated follow-ups, the interviewer said that they put the position on hold and I’d be welcome to check back at the end of the summer. A few months later I followed up. No reply.
At a different company, I successfully navigated a difficult application progress with a phone call from the CEO that they’d like to make me an offer, and he said that he’d follow up in a few days with details. No reply despite repeated follow-ups.
Asking my peers, one person suggested that it’s safer for companies not to reply to avoid liability issues. Another said that taking the time to reply costs money, and that’s why people don’t bother anymore. What’s going on here? What do HR people think?
(2) In an effort to get a job application in front of a particular recruiter at a company, I recently beat the bushes and contacted about ten of my friends and colleagues on LinkedIn who had direct connections at this company. Years ago, people seemed to be willing to quickly pass along my information without issue. However, in this case, nearly all of my contacts were uncomfortable doing so as the connections there were so tenuous; a few people didn’t even bother to reply to my email request. Maybe I’m being naive, and it’s difficult not to take it personally, but I thought LinkedIn exists to network (connecting a friend of a friend…) and reaching out to their networks to forward a resume/cover letter shouldn’t be a big deal. What’s going on here?
Dear Networking:
The standard cop-out line when romantic relationships break up is “It’s not you, it’s me.” In this case, Etiquetteer would have to say it’s not you, it’s the culture. This piece from Flexjobs enumerates quite a few reasons why this happens, and it happens universally. And it’s been happening for a long time, in the mythical past when you thought responses were “commonplace.” But Etiquetteer would add another people don’t respond: people just don’t like saying no. It’s uncomfortable to have to turn someone down*. Having that breakup conversation is tough, but that doesn’t mean it should be put off indefinitely. While some HR professionals have legitimate reasons for delaying a response, Etiquetteer would urge them all to leave no applicant untended.
The key word in your second question is “tenuous.” It’s not unusual for people to feel uncomfortable recommending someone for a position in their company solely because they’re the friend of a friend who they haven’t met in person. If that person gets hired, and then doesn’t work out, it can reflect badly on those who recommended them. (Professional discretion prohibits Etiquetteer from sharing some examples after 30 years in the work force.) And it may be that their own connections to that company are more tenuous than they care to admit. They may not be as sure of their standing there, and would certainly not want to admit that to you.
As tough as it can be not to take it personally when you don’t even get an echo back from professional inquiries - and it can be - do your best not to take it personally. Set a good example yourself by responding in a timely way when you get inquiries. It’s not just Perfectly Proper, it will help establish your reputation as a good colleague.
* It should be uncomfortable to turn someone down, somewhat. Those who take pleasure in it should not be in human resources, in Etiquetteer’s opinion.
Etiquetteer Celebrates National Coffee Day 2018
Etiquetteer celebrates National Coffee Day - in bed!
Etiquetteer would like to wish you a Perfectly Proper #nationalcoffeeday.
Children Who Throw Things, Vol. 17, Issue 46
Dear Etiquetteer:
I need your assistance. I live on the top floor of a lovely triple decker with two small children. Despite my efforts, they often drop things off the porch! I worry for the safety of my neighbors and also their peace of mind. I hate to think of them enjoying a quiet interlude only to see a stuffed animal come flying past!
What to do? How to raise a perfectly proper child - at least while on the porch?
Dear Trouble on the Top Floor:
“You must make her stop it!” Mrs. Meriwether says to Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind when he asks her how to keep Bonnie from sucking her thumb. And today’s stuffed animal could be tomorrow’s bucket of floor wax. You must make them stop it!
These two methods might aid you. Make your back porch a Toy Free Zone. Toys can’t fly over the railing if they can’t even get near it. To reinforce the consequences of one’s actions, you could also make the children go all the way downstairs to retrieve what they threw, no matter when you discover it. That might also be tough on you, especially if there’s something on the stove or (worst case scenario) the children are already asleep in bed. But Etiquetteer hopes that only a few instances of this would make the point that Toy Tossing is not to be tolerated.
Etiquetteer knows one household which has a strict rule about keeping things tidy. Whenever a toy is found someplace it shouldn’t be - for instance, on the floor under a parent’s foot - it is simply thrown away. It doesn’t matter what it is: a favorite doll, a book, a very rare piece of a Lego kit. If it’s left lying around, the child clearly doesn’t care about it, and out it goes! Are your children engaged in keeping their belongings tidy? It’s not too soon to start.
Etiquetteer wishes you strength and patience as you embark on this new era of Keeping Toys Earthbound. The results will, Etiquetteer knows, be worth it!
Etiquetteer Reviews Dinner in Camelot, Vol. 17, Issue 45
Etiquetteer wonders why it had never been thought of before, and why it hasn’t happened since.
“I was mesmerized by the story of this dinner and what it represented,” writes Joseph A. Esposito in the preface of his absorbing new book Dinner in Camelot. “It remains a celebration of some of the most impressive qualities of this nation: research and thinking at the highest levels, often accomplished by people fleeing from tyranny and turmoil in other countries. This dinner also shows the United States at its finest and reminds us that we can again place a premium on civil discourse, consensus building, and recognition of serious achievement at the highest level.”
What dinner, you ask? White House social secretary Letitia Baldrige referred to it as the “Brains’ Dinner,” leading executive chef René Verdon to reply “We are not serving brains at that dinner.” But the April 29, 1962, gathering of Nobel laureates of the Western Hemisphere at a White House dinner with President and Mrs. Kennedy could indeed be said to be the biggest serving of brains ever at the White House. Etiquetteer does not say greatest because of President Kennedy’s famous remark that night: “I rather think this is the greatest collection of human talent ever brought together in this room since Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
Dinner parties used to be the basis of American social life, and 20th-century etiquette books concentrated most on how to give a dinner party at home with Perfect Propriety.* White House entertaining often influenced the hospitality of the rest of the nation, and the Kennedys truly revolutionized How Things Were Done. Dinner in Camelot is such an interesting time capsule because the author explores not just the famous guest list and how they behaved, but how the Kennedys and their staff created and managed the dinner so that everyone left glad they came.
PARTY PLANNING
Richard Goodwin, a Kennedy friend at the State Department, first had the idea for a dinner honoring Nobel laureates as a way for Mrs. Kennedy to pivot from the arts to the sciences. The team who put it all together, directed of course by Mrs. Kennedy, assembled the guest list and alternates (no mean feat before the Internet - James Baldwin’s invitation had to be sent to his publisher, only to be returned because he’d changed publishers), devised a program and entertainment, wrote remarks for the President, planned a menu, and especially a seating plan to ensure convivial conversation.
Seating charts helpfully reproduced among the illustrations show how best to handle having one dinner party in two dining rooms. The 50 diners who could not fit in the State Dining Room had to make do in the Blue Room, where the First Lady put her own table. That kept guests from feeling relegated to the children’s table. Both Vice President Lyndon Johnson and Attorney General Robert Kennedy hosted tables in the Blue Room, too. (Bitter political rivals, it was suggested that they might have been seated thus to keep an eye on each other.) President Kennedy’s toast was broadcast into the Blue Room, and specifically referenced a guest seated in the Blue Room. No one there could or should have felt left out.
Married couples were not seated together, or even at the same table. This is Perfectly Proper. One dines out to see others. Etiquetteer can only wonder if anyone complained about it to Tish Baldrige. Etiquetteer gets both mystified and annoyed when married couples make a fuss about this.
The menu, also helpfully reproduced, includes only three courses, a reduction by almost half from official entertaining of previous years. Mrs. Kennedy wanted lighter menus.
The Nobel dinner began with a seafood mousse, followed by beef Wellington accompanied by two vegetables and potatoes, and a molded ice cream with tropical fruit that at least one guest found too sweet. Altogether quite a contrast from the “groaning board” of yore, and a very pleasant change from the bland White House cuisine of previous administrations.**
Devotees of Mrs. Kennedy’s restoration of the White House will be overjoyed to note Esposito’s rigorously accurate notations on the placement of art and furniture in the State rooms and on the second floor, including the foyer outside the elevator. He goes into meticulous detail, including the number of spindles in the chairs, the dimensions of paintings in inches, etc. Much of this gave Etiquetteer the impression of padding a story that didn’t need filling out. But he does take care to point out Portraits of Significance to the assembly: Healy’s portrait of Lincoln in the State Dining Room, and especially a portrait of Benjamin Franklin in the Green Room - sure to be of interest to all the scientists present.
PROPER DRESS
Regardless of political affiliation, conservative fashion is most Perfectly Proper for the White House. Ladies have always had more choices, but gentlemen were really not given much leeway in their dinner clothes then. Vice President Johnson’s gray silk dinner jacket with black lapels came in for some criticism from Diana Trilling: “I don’t know what it was made of, but it seemed to shimmer, as if he were a master of ceremonies in some cheap night club.”*** Not an impression a Vice President should make! You can see him arriving with Mrs. Johnson in this newsreel footage at 00:13. Remember gentlemen: you can never go wrong with a classic.
PERFECTLY (IM)PROPER TABLE TALK
As at any dinner party, some people behave well, and others ill. Mary Hemingway, widow of Ernest, sat next to the President and tried to hector him about Cuba right at the beginning, leading to some testy exchanges. Later that night the President called their mutual friend Bill Walton to complain about her - “she never cracked a smile or a joke” - not knowing that she was Mr. Walton’s houseguest at the time. Whoopsie-doo! Arthur Schlesinger Himself made less than a great impression on his dinner partner, Ava Helen Pauling, who disapproved of his hoarding the White House matchbooks on their table. “He is a clout and a boor,” she finally determined - less because of the matchbooks than for his grilling her about picketing the White House earlier in the day with her husband, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling.
Wait, what? One of Esposito’s principal story lines in Dinner in Camelot is about Ava Helen and Linus starting their day by picketing the White House to protest nuclear testing and ending it dancing in the White House Entrance Hall. Some, including Arthur Schlesinger, didn’t feel it was quite Perfectly Proper to accept a President’s invitation while publicly protesting one of his positions. But President Kennedy passed off the situation with aplomb, even telling Pauling that he hoped he “would continue to express his opinions.” Mrs. Kennedy got the best line though . . .
Handling mistakes, your own or others, with grace is one of the hallmarks of Perfect Propriety. Nobel Prize winner Pearl Buck got to talk with Mrs. George Marshall after dinner, who was so very pleased to meet her. “‘I enjoyed your book So Big,’ confusing her with Edna Ferber . . . Buck was gracious and simply thanked her.”**** Rose Styron, seated next to Nobelist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, heard that he worked in “mussels” instead of “muscles.” That launched her on a conversation about seafood until he gently corrected her.
The Air Force Strolling Strings performed throughout the evening, as was typical of Kennedy entertainments. But dancing was not, so when Linus Pauling asked the musicians to play a waltz and swept his wife Ava Helen into the Entrance Hall, it was delightful enough for four other couples to join them - and unexpected enough that Mrs. Kennedy was “taken aback.” Trust Jackie not to make a fuss in public though!
Etiquetteer could just keep pulling little bits out of this wonderful book, but you owe it to yourself to pick up a copy and enjoy without already knowing everything in it. Esposito spends most of his time following the Paulings, the Styrons, J. Robert Oppenheimer, John Glenn (!), James Baldwin, Mrs. Hemingway, Mrs. Marshall, and a couple others. But one couldn’t follow the stories of all 177 diners. For the sake of friends at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, however, Etiquetteer rather wishes he’d explored the dinner experience of three of its presidents and their wives who were all there: James Killian, Julius Stratton, and Jerry Wiesner (then President Kennedy’s National Science Advisor).
The epilogue is a gauntlet - a good old-fashioned chain mail gauntlet - flung at the feet of the current President as if to say “These are all the fine things you are not, and that America needs twice as much as before because of you.” President Kennedy’s better attributes are listed and expounded: his good relationships with Republicans, his ability to conciliate and compromise, the importance he placed on briefings, input from experts, and the value he put on public engagement.
Esposito writes “The idea of American unity has waxed and waned over the years, but in 1962 there was an appreciation and understanding of what held us together as a people. It was a time of consensus building. And John Kennedy was a master at doing that. Such an effort began at the very outset of his administration with an inaugural address that called on Americans to work together to achieve a peaceful world and to live up to our responsibilities and fight ‘the common enemies of men: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.’ . . . the sense of pessimism, foreboding, and failure - abetted by calls for divisiveness - that is often encouraged by our national leaders today was rare, if not absent.”
Obviously the path ahead needs to include a lot of dinner party diplomacy! Etiquetteer found this book a “refreshment of the spirit” and feels sure that those who care for Perfect Propriety in public life will, too.
*That, and weddings. Now etiquette books are mostly about how to interact with (and sometimes correct) people who are insensitive to the needs of others.
**Etiquetteer knows some of you are thinking fondly of the White House Housekeeper We Love to Hate, Henrietta Nesbitt. Mrs. Kennedy really inaugurated the era of Good White House Food, sweeping away forever any possibility of the return of Mrs. Nesbitt-style cooking.
***Page 142. It’s not in the index under Johnson, only under Trilling. Index compilers, take note.
****So different from the late Broadway star Vera Charles. Approached at a dinner party by a gushing fan who said “Oh Miss Charles, I can’t tell you how I adored you in Mary of Scotland!” Miss Charles icily responded “Did you, dear? That was Helen Hayes.” (Witness the exchange at 02:10 here.)
Signs of the Times, Vol. 17, Issue 44
One of an occasional series of photo essays of instructional signs in public, usually designed to encourage humorously Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer admires the creativity!
In a Washington, DC, coffee shop.
In a Washington, DC, used bookstore.
Outside a well-known Provincetown used bookstore.
Seen in Ogunquit, Maine.
In a well-known gallery in Provincetown, Massachusetts.
In a shop in Provincetown, Massachusetts.
Back-to-School Questions for Grownups, Vol. 17, Issue 43
Etiquetteer found a couple questions in the mail bag than can loosely be filed together under "Back to School." Please contact Etiquetteer with your own back-to-school queries!
Dear Etiquetteer:
I recently got married, and have decided to hyphenate my last name (until my kids are 18 anyway.... easier to deal with if my last name matches the kiddos for school purposes). So, I am going to be (after I get my card) Ashton MacDonald Islesworth-Min. (It's a mouthful, isn't it?) My question is.... what are my initials? AMI? AMIM? AMI-M? How does one initial documents with a hyphenated last name?
Dear Monogrammed:
Congratulations on your recent marriage! Etiquettteer wishes you and your family long life and happiness.
These days monograms are very much a personal choice, so you can do almost anything you prefer. It's so rare for Etiquetteer to say anything like that that we should pause for a moment to take that in. Your initials may be whatever you choose.
With four initials, a block monogram - a simple row of all four initials from first to last names - seems to be the standard. But even before you, many ladies drop a name to keep their total initials down to three. For instance, you likely have a middle name, and dropped it when you married your first husband to keep your monogram to three: AMI. Of course with that MacDonald, could it also be AMacII?
You might now wish to drop your maiden name to keep your monogram to three: AIM. But if you keep all four, just keep it simple: AMIM.
When you initial your documents, no need to include the hyphen. When monogramming your lingerie, keep it small!
Dear Etiquetteer:
My son is looking to buy some new shoes. Most of his work dress is casual as with everyone else these days, but he does own two suits, one grey and one navy blue. He's wondering if black shoes go with a navy blue suit? (I hope so, since that's what I always wore/wear.) Does brown go with either? And cordovan? We look forward to hearing what you think.
Dear Well Shod:
Etiquetteer's first reaction to your query was to remember Michael in The Boys in the Band complaining about "those ten pound cordovan loafers and those constipated Ivy League clothes," and then having to pause as he realizes that one of his guests, Hank, is wearing ten pound cordovan loafers with a classic Ivy League ensemble. You can never go wrong with a classic, but it's how you wear it that makes you stand out.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, Etiquetteer turned to Business Insider for a fairly comprehensive guide to pair suits and shoes. You'll see that they allow brown shoes with navy blue and medium or light gray, but they don't allow it with charcoal gray. Cordovan, it seems, goes with anything but black.
Etiquetteer would be rather more traditional (unsurprisingly) and prohibit brown shoes with navy blue. Indeed, once upon a time Etiquetteer vaguely remembers reading someone's memoir's story about Alfred Hitchcock advising Gregory Peck "No brown in town." Of course that might reflect the Sort of People Who Don't Weekend in Town . . .
In your son's case, investing in two pairs of good black shoes would be the conservative path, but he may want to shake up the mix with a pair of cordovan. It's interesting to note that only lace-up shoes were once thought proper in an office environment. Loafers and slip-ons were thought of as casual shoes, and of course sneakers, tennis shoes, and other athletic shoes were considered only for the activities for which they were designed and not everyday wear. But those footwear distinctions were eroded decades ago, first by airport security measures and then by St. Elsewhere.
Don't Upstage the Deceased, Vol. 17, Issue 42
Today's important message from Etiquetteer is a simple one: Don't Upstage the Deceased.
If Etiquetteer learned anything observing the national scene in 2017, it's that women will no longer tolerate being told what to wear by men. Men can and will have opinions about what women wear, but women will no longer be told by men what they may and may not wear. Civilizations have been talking about and expressing a lot more interest in women's clothes than men's for centuries. Etiquetteer doubts very much that's going to change, but the way it happens is changing.
It seems like a lot of women on the internet are saying "A woman may wear anything she wants!" Well, she can, but that won't stop her getting called out for it (by women and/or men) if it's Not Suitable to the Occasion. Even more important, men are getting called out if they behave inappropriately with women (regardless of what the woman is wearing). And they should be. To Etiquetteer's astonishment, no less than Aretha Franklin's funeral brought us an Unfortunate Combination of these two trends.
Singer Ariana Grande was invited to perform at the funeral, to which she wore an extremely short sleeveless black dress that included a sheer panel to screen (ineffectively) her deep décolletage. The general consensus, with which Etiquetteer agrees, is that it's Perfectly Proper for a nightclub, but not for a church, and especially not for a funeral service for the Queen of Soul. The real purpose of mourning is not to call attention to oneself. That's counterintuitive for entertainers, as they depend on calling attention to themselves. A funeral is held to call attention to the deceased, and it is Most Unwise to take attention away from the Queen of Soul! In other words, we shouldn't even have to be talking about this because Ms. Grande (or her stylists) should have understood that Mourning is about more than just an Unadorned Black Dress, and being invited to participate in a funeral program - anyone's funeral program - is not about Hogging the Spotlight.
(At the other end of the spectrum is the Hat of Enormous Ruffles worn by Cicely Tyson, which has met with Sometimes Overheated Admiration worldwide. Her milliner must have absorbed the lesson Cecil Beaton wrote about in The Glass of Fashion, which is that Royalty needs to be seen by the public, and that enormous hat brims need to be anchored off the face. Etiquetteer reveres the tradition of the Sunday Best hat kept alive by churchgoing African-American women. But again, this adoration of Ms. Tyson's awe-inspiring hat is taking attention from the deceased.)
Now, whether or not Bishop Charles Ellis would have behaved differently had Ms. Grande worn something More Suitable doesn't matter. Bishop Ellis got called out for two things: touching or grabbing Ms. Grande's breast when he hugged her after her performance, and for trying to make a pun on her name as a menu item at Taco Bell. Ms. Grande's dress is not to blame for Bishop Ellis's behavior; he is. To his credit, the bishop apologized. Etiquetteer, who has had to emcee programs before, has a certain amount of sympathy for the bishop's predicament. As he expressed it "When you're doing a program for nine hours, you try to keep it lively, you try to insert some jokes here and there." But improvisations don't always work. This one did more than just that: it appeared culturally insensitive.
So to bring attention back where it belongs, Etiquetteer is going to leave you with "Eleanor Rigby," because really, when mourning a Great Artist, it is most Perfectly Proper to remember and magnify their Great Works. Rest in peace, Ms. Franklin.
National Toasted Marshmallow Day, Vol. 17, Issue 41
You know, Etiquetteer doesn't just make up these random, silly holidays. There's a whole website of them! Some have True National Importance, others are Frankly Commercial Ploys, but really - everyone needs a bit of silliness, and that includes the world of etiquette. It can't always be about weddings and forks and Lovely Notes . . .
So here we are on August 30, National Toasted Marshmallow Day, appropriate as we consider the Waning Days of Official Summer, a symbolic last chance to toast marshmallows over the candelabra - uh, campfire (glampfire?) - before Labor Day sends us back from the beach, linen, and seersucker, to the office, wingtips, and tropical weight wool.
Just how does one toast a marshmallow with Perfect Propriety? First off, don't let your attention be distracted so much that it catches fire. Aside from charred marshmallow not really being very tasty, it takes attention away from any of the Traditional Ghost Stories being told around the campfire. A well-toasted marshmallow is browned fairly evenly on all sides, which means rotating it slowly over the flame. If you go too quickly it doesn't really get a chance to brown, but if you go too slowly you risk charring. Patience is definitely a factor!
Your marshmallow should be taken from the fire just before it starts to sag on the skewer. A skewer! Etiquetteer has seen wire hangers used in emergency situations, but that's Not Quite Perfectly Proper.
Blow on it to cool it (no sense in scalding your tongue) and consume plainly or as a s'more. If the latter, keep those pinkies in! Be sure to have plenty of paper napkins on hand for sticky fingers.
Now, aside from overdressing being a greater sin than underdressing, have you noticed something Not Quite Perfectly Proper in this picture? It's those outrageously large cuffs! A gentleman's cuffs should barely protrude from his jacket sleeves, certainly not for miles and miles like Etiquetteer's here. Etiquetteer will certainly have to have a stern talk with that valet . . .
And remember, the most Perfectly Proper thing to do when toasting a marshmallow is not starting a wildfire that could consume thousands of acres. Be sure to follow Smokey the Bear's Campfire Rules to ensure a Safe and Perfectly Proper campfire.
Happy toasting!
National Bow Tie Day 2018
Etiquetteer would like to wish you a Perfectly Proper National Bow Tie Day. Celebrate it by wearing an old or new favorite!
The Meltdown of Bridezilla, Vol. 17, Issue 40
Just in case you were wondering, no one owes you a wedding - except possibly your parents. Etiquetteer isn't going to inquire into your private life. But no one owes you a wedding, and you shouldn't expect everyone you've ever met in your entire life to pay for it, and you should certainly not charge a four-figure "entrance fee" to attend your wedding.
Have you seen the story making the rounds, about a bride's internet meltdown while cancelling her wedding only four days away because none of her friends or family would pay $1,500 each (!) to come to her wedding? Etiquetteer even heard two women talking about it on the subway this evening. (Read the Fox News coverage or the Bored Panda article for details.) Etiquetteer isn't entirely sure this isn't a hoax, but it does prompt some commentary about the Gaping Maw of Bridal Need.
First of all, it's never Perfectly Proper to stage a wedding so very out of keeping with one's own social status, precisely because it creates such surreal stress about finances. It's also tacky. Etiquetteer has never seen A Catered Affair, but that's the same situation: a cab driver's family pressures themselves to give their daughter a fancy wedding they can't afford (and which she doesn't really want), sacrificing a business opportunity that could make a profound difference for all of them. In this case, Bridezilla - who was raised on a farm and met her fiancé there well before high school - wanted a dream wedding inspired by the Kardashians (!) and including a honeymoon in Aruba. And now let Etiquetteer say it: America is a land of freedom, but Jackie Kennedy is an inspiration; the Kardashians are an abomination.
Second, what are we really celebrating about a wedding that makes it so particularly about the bride only and what she wants? That a man chose her above all others? No, that's patriarchial. That she "snared," "trapped," or "used her wiles to get" him? Etiquetteer hopes not; that only makes Bridezilla look like an insincere Conniving Temptress*. You see where Etiquetteer is going, yes? There is no reason to focus exclusively on the bride and everything she particularly wants. As has been said before, no one cares about the bride! Let's focus on the Happy Couple as a couple instead, and bypass completely the Gaping Maw of Bridal Need.
Lastly, a wedding is not about a blow-out "once in a lifetime" party; it's about two people committing to each other for life, and the families and friends of this Happy Couple assembling to wish them well - often with a meal, and especially so if you're making people fly in from hither and yon. How many "once in a lifetime" weddings ended in divorce? (If you have that datum, please share.) Much better to simplify arrangements and guest lists rather than generate so much wedding angst that the marriage doesn't have a chance (as in the current case).
This young woman (if this is a true story) has jeopardized her relationships with the love of her life (who is also the father of their child), her family, her best friend, and pretty much everyone she's ever met in her entire life. Was the vision of a Kardashian-inspired wedding worth all that destruction? Bridezilla, beware!
*If Etiquetteer has to hear from one more married woman (or divorcée) that she "earned" her wedding and/or engagement rings . . . once they had a name for women who "earned" their jewels, and it was something no Nice Woman wanted to be called.
Snark vs. Sarcasm, Vol. 17, Issue 39
The clever insult replaced the gallant compliment.
- Arthur Gold and Robert Fizdale, from their excellent Misia: The Life of Misia Sert
Dear Etiquetteer:
Can you explain to me if there's a difference between snark and sarcasm? Maybe I've lived overseas too long and dislike sarcasm as a result, which to me is an excuse to say something nasty to or about someone or something masked as humor, but snark seems to be acceptable by many around me as sharp wit with city edge humor.
Dear Snarked:
Your query had more than a whiff of hair-splitting about it, so Etiquetteer felt the need to define exactly the terms "snark" and “sarcasm” as well as “snide." Amusingly, Dictionary provided only the original definition of “snark:" "a mysterious, imaginary animal." How often we forget that it was the late Lewis Carroll who created this term in his nonsense poem “The Hunting of the Snark!”* Urban Dictionary provides the definition "Combination of “snide" and "remark". Sarcastic comment(s),” and defines snide as "a mean, snobbish, or spiteful remark." So at least according to Urban Dictionary, snark contains sarcasm.
Sarcasm, according to Dictionary, is “harsh or bitter derision or irony” or “a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark.” Urban Dictionary is franker: “The ability to insult idiots without them realizing it.”
So, tossing all these definitions together, Etiquetteer discerns the difference between snark and sarcasm thus. If sarcasm is the ability to insult idiots without them realizing it, snark is the ability to insult others who will realize it and will a) appreciate the effort made and/or b) respond in kind in a perpetual snarkfest, making them a worthy opponent in a battle no one should have to fight.
Long story short, Etiquetteer sees both terms as insults delivered with irony, which often leads them to be mistaken for wit, which is defined as “clever or apt humor.” So Etiquetteer would encourage aspiring snarkers to give up now. Because let's face it, if you're not the late Dorothy Parker, you'll never get it right.
Etiquetteer pines for the days when the well-turned compliment was more common, and more valued, than the snappy comeback. For instance, Etiquetteer was recently asked by an old friend’s new lover what his favorite flower was. Not knowing, Etiquetteer responded “You are always his favorite flower!” We don’t have nearly enough of This Sort of Thing these days.
*Decades later this was surrealistically translated into French by the Last of the Bright Young Things, Nancy Cunard, as “La Chasse au Snark."
What one does in the privacy of one's home is one's own business.
National Underwear Day, Vol. 17, Issue 38
Thanks to the Internet, anything can become a holiday. Somehow August 5 has been designated National Underwear Day, and Etiquetteer wants to remind you that, actually, no one needs to know about your underwear.
In an earlier volume, Etiquetteer offered advice on how not to celebrate National Underwear Day. And really, the best way is still just to be sure that no one can see the underwear you are - or are not - wearing.
The necessity for This Sort of Reminder keeps being displayed on the public streets. Just last week Etiquetteer witnessed a Young Woman out and about with friends in the Unforgiving Light of Day. Under her near-transparent sleeveless yellow dress, Etiquetteer could not help but observe that she was wearing mismatched underwear, white underpants and a black bra. That's a big no-no! Ladies, please take care not only to match your undergarments, but obscure them from public view with a Perfectly Proper slip when necessary, such as this one famously modeled by the late Rita Hayworth.
This is a problem for everyone during the summer months, when men and women all drift toward not just the color white, but also light and often gauzy fabrics. This never was a problem in all those Ingmar Bergman films; even though everyone wore white all summer long, they wore multiple Edwardian layers! Not much of a chance to see any Visible Panty Lines through all those petticoats or full-length drawers. These days we can barely manage two total layers of clothes without complaining about the heat. Still, we should at least be able to manage wearing solid white undergarments under gauzy white clothing.
Your own queries about underwear, and other aspects of dressing with Perfect Propriety, are always welcome!
Summer Fan Use, Vol. 17, Issue 37
It's too darn hot this summer, and Etiquetteer got so fed up it was time to make a video about how to use your hand fan this summer ('cause you're probably not carrying one . . .):
You'll find more information about the language of the fan here. And here's Etiquetteer's recipe of an Etiquetteer pink gin, so refreshing on a hot day.
Ann Miller needs to brush up on her fan language.
Reader Response, Vol. 17, Issue 36
Etiquetteer is always pleased to hear from readers, and has a couple items to share from the mailbag:
In response to a recent column on Sarah Huckabee Sanders vs. the Red Hen, a Facebook follower commented: "I'm curious how Etiquetteer would have counseled Ms. Huckabee Sanders in light of the widespread social media attention engendered by the restaurant staff posting about the incident. Does Perfect Propriety require one to stay silent in the face of Social Obloquy, or may one offer, as Ms. Huckabee Sanders did, one's own, respectful (in the opinion of this Humble Commenter), take on one's experience?"
And Etiquetteer replies: Dignified Silence is always preferable, but even Etiquetteer understands how difficult that can be to maintain in the face of worldwide Twitter-shaming. Ms. Huckabee Sanders' tweet, for the record, said: "Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so." Ms. Huckabee Sanders could have omitted that comment about the behavior of the restaurant owner and focused instead on the good behavior of herself and her party in leaving the restaurant without making a scene. Otherwise, Etiquetteer does have to give Ms. Huckabee Sanders credit for bringing less heat to the discussion of this topic than her boss.
Thank you also for your use of "obloquy." Etiquetteer is fond of quoting the late Mame Dennis Burnside, who memorably said "An extensive vocabulary is the hallmark of every truly intellectual person."
Another reader responded to Etiquetteer's column on how Wimbledon is using honorifics for married ladies competing in its tournament: "Thank you for another very well written article! I remember when I married my husband back in 1989, when I was young, I decided not to take my husband's last name. He had even thoughtfully asked me first what I would prefer to do. Having recently graduated from college, I decided to keep my maiden name. We didn’t really discuss it again for almost ten years when our son was about to be born. How was his name to end? I helped us decide this by giving my maiden name as a second middle name. My husband's last name is the name passed down to our son. This has proven to work for all three of us."
And Etiquetteer replies: Thank you very much for sharing your family's choices. The use of family names as middle names is not unknown - indeed, the New York families of Edith Wharton's The Age of Innocence seem only to have family names! Your solution seems a particularly elegant one, since it doesn't involve you assuming a hyphenated name at marriage and then changing it later once the children are born (as has happened).
While there is greater acceptance today of brides retaining their maiden names after marriage, Etiquetteer hears tell that those who have the most trouble with this practice are the mothers of the groom . . . readers, is this what you've witnessed?
