More on Declining Invitations, Vol. 21, Issue 67

Dear Etiquetteer:

I have a request! I am an old single man whose family has been dead for over 30 years. The holiday season is tolerable for me, but I try to avoid family groups. I go to a movie or two, I may take a walk around town, but I am accustomed to being alone on Christmas and that is fine with me.

I have been invited by a neighbor who is very dear to me to join her, three family members, and their friends for Christmas. I don’t want to go, but I do not want to offend my friend or her family by declining rudely. How can I decline gracefully without hurting feelings, please?

Dear Invited:

The perceived desirability of the Large Holiday Gathering has become so universal that those who really prefer to be alone are looked on as either pitiable or weird. Neither is true! There’s nothing wrong with a Holly Jolly Solitary Christmas, and Etiquetteer hopes very much that you enjoy yours.

Etiquetteer just loves your query because you truly see that your neighbor’s invitation is offered sincerely and kindly. Emphasize her kindness in your response while explaining that you prefer to spend Christmas in quiet contemplation. “I know it’s against the stereotype to be on one’s own for Christmas, but I have really come to enjoy having this day to myself. But I am so touched that you care enough about my well-being to want to include me in your own gathering. That means a lot, and I will lift a glass in your direction Christmas morning.”

If you want to soften the blow of your response by sending something edible the company can enjoy (like a tin of cookies or candies) that might be the frosting on the cake. Etiquetteer wishes you a Perfectly Proper Merry Christmas in Single Blessedness.

🎄🎄🎄

Readers had quite a bit to say about the person trying to get out of going to the holiday party that had turned into a murder mystery role playing evening. One facet of the situation that didn’t get covered is the timing. If the person is going to decline, that needs to happen immediately so that the hosts have enough time to invite/recruit/dragoon someone else to take that part. Usually these murder mystery games require a specific number of guests. (Charades may be played with any number.)

Two thirds of Etiquetteer’s Instagram followers voted to decline the invitation, while one third voted to go anyway. One reader replied “It’s nearly impossible to feign interest, let alone excitement, when doing something that is so uncomfortable for you. The discomfort just kind of leaks out all on its own.”

But Etiquetteer was also impressed with the selflessness of a Gentleman Reader’s choice to attend: “I hate parties. I hate games. I hate role playing. But I love my wife, and I feel friends are important . . . Suck it up and ‘put on your big boy pants.’ This is not a two-year round the world cruise.  It’s one evening with friends. Go to the party and do everything you can to make your wife and friends think you’re really enjoying it. At the end of the evening tell them both you honestly weren’t looking forward to it but it turned out to be more fun than you expected.  That might actually turn out to be true, but if it isn’t, say it anyway.”

To which Etiquetteer could only add, next year, be sure you see the invitation yourself before your spouse accepts it.

SPECIAL EDITION: Murderous Regrets, Vol. 21, Issue 66

Dear Etiquetteer:

What is the proper way to rescind an accepted invitation, other than COVID concerns?

My spouse and I have attended a holiday party for several years, held at a friend’s home. My spouse is the primary contact for this friend and they recently sent an email with details of the party. Their message was: “We don’t have your spouse’s email, could you please forward this to them?” The message continued with a message to me: “Hey! Here’s the dossier for your character for the party. Your task will be to make all six of your “statements” at some point early in the evening and pay attention to the other guests’ statements so you can identify the murderer. Once that person has been identified, you’ll need to read your final pronouncement to help wrap everything up. You can’t be the murderer — your spouse said you’re not a big fan of this sort of thing, so we fixed the game to give you a bit of an out.”

Please help!

Dear Murder Mystery Victim:

So much to unpack! It’s disconcerting to find out that a party you’ve attended comfortably for years — and expected to be the same — has been transformed into a murder mystery in which all the guests are expected to take a role and participate actively. You’re probably even more upset that, apparently, you weren’t informed about this on the invitation (if you saw it) and that your spouse communicated with the hosts to make the evening more palatable for you without telling you yourself. Etiquetteer understands your unhappiness, and offers you compassion.

There are two solutions to this mystery. Which would you choose?

YOU DON’T GO TO THE PARTY

Your hosts, not to mention your spouse, are at fault for keeping you out of the loop. Games and roleplaying are not everyone’s cup of tea, and no less a partisan than Amy Vanderbilt is in your corner. About bridge after dinner she writes “No one should play cards against his own real desire or he will probably make a miserable partner.” She also writes “The desire of the majority decides the evening, but non-participating guests should be helped by the hostess to do something they enjoy — to listen to the radio, read a book or the evening papers, play chess, or take a walk if they must stay to the end.”* Those opportunities aren’t available for you. Anyone at a murder mystery not participating in the mystery would kill the party.

After discussing with your spouse, email the hosts directly and cc: your spouse. Choose a tone of Infinite Regret instead of sounding huffy and annoyed. If you decide to decline, you need to a) express gratitude for years of previous hospitality, b) regret that the change in the party format was not made clear to you until now, c) tell them you are yielding your place for another of their friends who could enter into the game wholeheartedly — “try as I might, these kinds of games just aren’t for me and I want everyone there to have a good time” — and d) wish them a beautiful Holiday of Their Choice and a Happy New Year. Suggest getting together after the holidays if you choose.

If your spouse attends without you, which is Perfectly Proper, complete loyalty to you is expected. If anyone asks about you, nothing more than “My darling couldn’t come tonight so I’m here for both of us” is all that’s needed. If the hosts have the bad manners to complain about you not being there, Etiquetteer absolutely expects your spouse to “fall on the sword” and say “It’s my fault. I didn’t tell my darling that this was going to be a murder mystery this year.”

All that said, Etiquetteer does sympathize to a degree with your hosts. They were likely just looking for a way to spark a party they felt was getting stale. They may have chosen a murder mystery because of the exact number of people they invite every year. Think of poor Carol Kennicott in Sinclair Lewis’s Main Street, shaking up the scene in pokey old Gopher Prairie by adding party games and paper costumes and celebrating new talent when everyone just wanted to do the same tired old things. Etiquetteer has always had a soft spot for poor Mrs. Kennicott.

Which brings Etiquetteer to the second solution:

YOU GO TO THE PARTY

You are not at fault in this situation, no question. But if your absence breaks up the party, that could have an impact on this entire group of friends. Which is what made Etiquetteer think of Cecil Vyse in E.M. Forster’s A Room With a View. Freddy needed to find a new fourth for tennis after George left; only Cecil was available. “‘I say, Cecil, do play, do, there’s a good chap. It’s Floyd’s last day. Do play tennis with us, just this once.’ Cecil’s voice came: ‘My dear Freddy, I am no athlete. As you well remarked this very morning, “There are some chaps who are no good for anything but books”; I plead guilty to being such a chap, and will not inflict myself on you.’” We all know that the person who came out of this worst was Cecil.

And you would probably be surprised to find Emily Post Herself rooting for you to go. Under the heading “If You Want to Go to Bed, Don’t Begin Games,” she tells the story of a “haphazard” party, “one of those nightmare evenings where the quarreling neighbors and the one divorced couple found themselves seated together, and the inflexible conservatives were next to the violent radicals, and the highbrows next to morons, the snobs next to those who most despised them.” The evening was saved when “irrepressible” Jonesy cheerfully commanded the party to play musical chairs. “. . . in less than 15 minutes a stiff, dull, and utterly unmixable party had become almost a children’s romp.” At least in your case you already know everyone on the guest list.

Emily’s conclusion is most important: “. . . something akin to a rule for happiness, which might be . . . Let’s not pretend that we are old while we are still young. And above all, let us not get actually old, ever, by being lazy or overcritical and always ready to protest, ‘Oh, no!’ It’s a thousand times better to encourage the frame of mind that exclaims, ‘Oh, yes, let’s!’ -- whether we happen to have lived 15 years or 50.”

If you do decide to go — and Etiquetteer almost hopes you do — you need to go without betraying at all that you’d rather not be there. Any price you exact for your Cheerful Participation is between you and your spouse, only.

So here are Etiquetteer’s two solutions to your mystery. Choose well and wisely.

*Amy Vanderbilt’s Complete Book of Etiquette: A Guide to Gracious Living, 1954, page 294.

**Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage, 1950, pages 408-409.

Miss COVID Regrets, Vol. 21, Issue 65

Dear Etiquetteer:

I can’t seem to find the right words to inform a close relative that we will be skipping his holiday party as he and his wife are still not vaccinated for COVID. I planned on a vague response to the invitation originally, but now it turns out there’s a second get together where he and his wife will be present and we do not want to attend for that same reason. Can you help me find the right words? We’ve been wrestling with this for a couple days. I forgot to mention that we already had said we were available for the second get together, so now I need to retract that availability.

Dear Cautious:

Because COVID protection has transitioned almost completely to personal choice*, that means not only that you have the opportunity to respect the choices of others, they have the opportunity to respect yours. The good news for you is that, overall, people are much more understanding about canceling or declining invitations than they were pre-pandemic.

Your response, written or verbal, should include the Three Cs: Compassion, Caution, and Concern. You want to express compassion for your hosts, caution about your own health, and concern for the health of others. Here’s a sample message to your relations:

Dear [Insert Names Here]:

Thanks so much for your invitation for the party on [date]. COVID is still a concern for us -- getting it or giving it -- so we are not getting around much this season after all. We won't be able to come, but appreciate the invitation so much. Next year, we hope! Thanks so much for understanding.

Love,

Cautious

And for your other party hosts:

Dear [Insert Names Here]:

We are so sorry that we won’t be able to come to your party on [date] after all. COVID is still a concern for us -- getting it or giving it -- so we’re pulling back on events this month. Thank you so much for understanding. We were really looking forward to it! I hope we can find a smaller way to get together later.

Love,

Cautious

Because these family and friends are close to you, you can begin “You know us well enough to know that COVID continues to concern us, even this far into the pandemic.” The appeal for their sympathy is important in “Thank you for understanding.” It might make them feel guilty if they got huffy about your not coming. You’ll notice, too, that nowhere is anyone’s vaccination status mentioned. On consideration, it felt accusatory to mention it, and it certainly would not change the situation for the better.

Etiquetteer wishes you safe, beautiful, and Perfectly Proper celebrations of the Holiday(s) of Your Choice.

*The notable exception in Etiquetteer's world is public transportation, where masks are still required.

Thoughts While Christmas Shopping, Vol. 21, Issue 64

Etiquetteer’s mind wandered to some unexpected corners while out Christmas shopping last week:

• It really takes very little effort to hold the door for other shoppers, and it takes even less to say “Thank you” when someone holds the door for you. It’s lovely to see it happening so much. Please continue.

• Etiquetteer believes more and more that the reason Santa checks his list twice is not for niceness or naughtiness but for clothing sizes, brand preferences, and whether or not someone might (or might not) have something already. Parents and spouses should be ready with this information when friends and relatives ask them in advance.

• For the person who has everything, a page-a-day calendar might be one of the best gift ideas.

• When attending a buffet meal in a private home, you may begin eating when someone else joins you at the table. Etiquetteer’s family always applied Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

• If this buffet meal is in a private home where grace is said, it is more efficient for grace to be said before the buffet opens. But if not, and you find you’ve started eating beforehand, just put your silverware down on your plate and wait respectfully. The Deity of Your Choice will forgive you, and if others present won’t, that says more about them than about you.

• Dear Mother used to say “When you lose your temper, you lose your point.” If you’re determined to talk about Traditionally Taboo Topics like Religion or Politics this holiday season -- which Etiquetteer does not think is a good idea -- you will sound less like you’re losing your mind if you tone down the volume.

• Your holiday gathering will be much more Perfectly Proper, not to mention comfortable, when you accept in advance that three things will go wrong. Etiquetteer received this wisdom from a Wise Old Gentleman 20 years ago, and it is quite true indeed. Think calmly now about what to do if a gift is mislabeled and opened by the wrong person, if the main course is damaged beyond salvage, if someone shows up needing to prepare and cook a dish you expected to be brought ready to serve. Flexibility and Laughter in the face of collapsing plans will help keep your holiday memorable for the right reasons.

• The solutions to those three problems could be: apologize and sort out the correct gifts right away (so important when children are involved), scrambled eggs, and two deep breaths while somehow clearing off some counter space and adjusting cooking times for other dishes.

Two Perfectly Proper Tastemakers: Walter Hoving and Lucius Beebe, Vol. 21, Issue 63

December features the birthdays of two mostly forgotten gentlemen who elevated America’s Perfect Propriety: Walter Hoving, who revitalized Tiffany & Co. from 1955-1980, and Lucius Beebe, a fiercely intelligent gourmet, rail travel enthusiast, and proponent of café society. Both had their criteria for what was the Best, and they successfuly brought other Americans their vision. The last century might have looked a bit different were it not for them.

Walter Hoving (born December 2, 1897) might be considered the polar opposite of Chicago’s Marshall Field, who famously told his clerks “Give the lady what she wants.” Mr. Hoving countered with “Give the customer what Tiffany likes, because what it likes, the public ought to like.” As the New York Times observed in Hoving’s obituary, “His firmness in matters of taste took Tiffany’s from $7 million worth of business in 1955 to $100 million for the Fifth Avenue store and its five branches in 1980.” The man was on to something, focusing on good design and the best materials — and on marketing them as Perfectly Proper and Perfectly Desirable.

Hoving became merchant tastemaker par excellence by educating himself on what was Best. He was a great believer in education, not always with someone else’s curriculum. He emphasized to his sales staff and executives that they needed to be more knowledgeable about their merchandise and its design history than their customers. Clare Boothe Luce said of him that he “had an ‘eye,’ something present in every person of taste I have known.”* Hoving’s eye led him to good design and genuine materials. Under him Tiffany sold no silver plate and no Lucite. And the idea that no gentleman would wear a diamond ring came almost direct from Hoving, who would not even consider allowing Tiffany to sell them.

Part of being a tastemaker, like being a good hostess, is taking infinite pains (or having a staff to take infinite pains for you.) But Etiquetteer loves Walter Hoving most because, according to his obituary, he forbade “charge accounts for customers found being rude to the salespeople.” That is taking a stand not only for your staff, but also for Perfect Propriety. That said, he was not always easy to work for.

One of Hoving’s greatest blows for Perfect Propriety was the slender volume Tiffany’s Table Manners for Teen-Agers, a revolutionary book for a pre-revolutionary (1961) time. “At Tiffany’s, our interest in attractive tables set with good china, glass, and silverware makes us equally aware of the importance of good table manners,” he wrote in its Foreword. “It is dangerous to have one system, or no system, for home consumption and another for dining out . . .” arguing that consistent table manners would reduce anxiety. “There are other systems, and we don’t quarrel with them, but we think this system is attractive, graceful, and above all natural.” Consider this no-nonsense and non-judgmental book as a holiday gift for your favorite teen.

Lucius Beebe (born December 9, 1902) first came to Etiquetteer’s attention thanks to the celebrated Brennan’s of New Orleans. Breakfast at Brennan’s was Beebe’s idea for a cookbook to rival the runaway success of Dinner at Antoine’s, published in 1948 by Antoine’s, the restaurant most often associated with New Orleans. According to Breakfast at Brennan’s: The Egg Edition, Beebe and restaurateur Owen Brennan, Sr. “drafted a menu on the spot and the rest, as they say, is history.”

Beebe loved food and wrote extensively and exquisitely about the pleasures of the table, from fancy to plain. “Gustatory Souvenirs,” a column in his book Snoot If You Must**, celebrates not just “the jugged saddle of hare at Luchow’s,” but also the devilled grilled beef bones of Boston’s Durgin-Park, Hamburger Heaven on Madison Avenue "(“Only the original will do”), and “On Saturday nights in New England, the kidney beans baked by Friend’s Bakery in Malden, Massachusetts . . . something divorced from all the other baked beans in the world.” Because excellence is where you find it, and that doesn’t have to be the Ritz, or ritzy.

Beebe’s longtime companion, Charles Clegg, described him best as “a highly civilized nineteenth-century gentleman at odds with the mass uniformity and mediocrity he saw around him.” Beebe’s cri de coeur is really Etiquetteer’s, too: “If anything is worth doing it is worth doing in style, and on your own terms, and nobody’s Goddamned else’s!” As a journalist, Beebe embodied this creed with his professional wardrobe. “. . . he refused to adopt the average newspaperman’s tweed coat and slouch hat with press card stuck in the hatband. What he did wear on duty popped his employer’s eyes, and in self-defense he wrote ‘I wear formal clothes, morning or evening whenvever they are called for and regard them quite literally as the livery of my profession. I would no more think of appearing in a restaurant out of dinner dress than I would in swimming trunks.’ Then he thoughtfully added, ‘And anyway you get better tables and better service.’”

What qualities do Hoving and Beebe share? Impeccable tailoring, discernment, commitment to hard work, imperiousness (not to say autocracy), supreme self-confidence, and an absolute insistence on the Best, wherever it might be found — including from themselves. Beebe once listed some people he thought of, like himself, as Renaissance Men and Women because “they all did something well and never in their lives thought to consult anyone else as how to conduct their persons***. They all possessed that one radiant qualification: the knowledge of excellence.” This applies equally to Beebe and Hoving. They set an example in their day we might well do to follow. What could be more Perfectly Proper?

*Quoted in A Lady, First, by Letitia Baldrige, page 129.

**What a way with words! Who but Etiquetteer would know that this is a play on the poem “Barbara Frietchie” by Whittier: “‘Shoot, if you must, this old gray head//But spare your country’s flag,’ she said.”

***The inclusion of Tallulah Bankhead on this list raised Etiquetteer’s eyebrows, but no one can deny she did recognize excellence.

Receiving Lines, Vol. 21, Issue 62

Air moves things around, but Hot Air traps us in place. And that’s a problem when there’s a long line of people behind you.

President and Dr. Biden’s first state dinner last week was served at the impossibly late hour of 10:30 PM. Ten thirty. Why on earth did this happen? Because the receiving line took too long. “The lengthy hellos, which were supposed to run about an hour, led to a late evening for the president . . . photos turned into hugs. Hugs turned into chats — and shop talk . . .” The jovial longwindedness of the President, as well as that of his guest of honor, French president Emmanuel Macron, prolonged the cocktail hour so long that the bartenders ran out of clean glasses.

Etiquetteer dearly loves a receiving line, and they have important functions: for hosts to greet their guests, for guests to thank their hosts, and to meet guests of honor — for instance, a Happy Couple at their wedding. But it’s a receiving line, not a conversing line. The exchange shouldn’t be more than “Good evening, I’m so glad you’re here!” “Thank you! It was kind of you to ask us” and then off you go. Truman Capote and Katherine Graham had the right idea at Truman’s 1966 Black and White Ball. It was just the two of them, and they kept it brief so that guests weren’t backed up in the corridor.

Wedding receiving lines, in Etiquetteer’s opinion, once involved too many people. Back in the day they required all four parents, the Happy Couple, and all the bridesmaids! When Etiquetteer’s Dear Parents married in 1955, even the best man got in on the act — but that may have been because Dear Mother had only two bridesmaids. Eventually the line slimmed down to just the Happy Couple — what could be more Perfectly Proper? — but that didn’t trim the hot air in the sails of Deeply Moved Wedding Guests.*

A receiving line to meet a VIP, like a state dinner, offers a different temptation. When promised the opportunity to shake the hand of a Very Important Person, many people have a natural urge either to a) babble like a fan, or b) share at length exactly what they think of the job they’re doing. The latter especially allows them to wallow in a Sense of Importance. Nothing is going to stop them from giving that VIP a Piece of Their Mind!** Unfortunately, that includes any sympathy for anyone behind them in line, who want to do exactly the same thing. And as we saw with Presidents Biden and Macron, when the VIP is also naturally garrulous, you end up with a lack of consideration for the line. “Grip and grin” photos delay things even more.

Please, people! The receiving line is not the occasion. Keep it short, forgo your Big Speech, breeze through all that Hot Air, and let everyone have a good time in the party.

*Having gone to weddings since 1968, Etiquetteer has most often seen Elderly Relations Waxing Nostalgic take up the most time. This doesn’t make them bad people; they just need to pipe down and move along.

**Sadly, it often proves to be the last one.

Etiquetteer Reviews Emily Post's Etiquette: The Centennial Edition, Vol. 21, Issue 61

There were etiquette books before Emily Post’s Etiquette in 1922. But she set a new standard in how to write about Perfect Propriety and, without realizing it, became the grandmother of all American etiquette writers. So what could be more Perfectly Proper than that her great-great-grandchildren, Lizzie Post and Daniel Post Senning, set a new standard themselves to honor the 100th anniversary of Emily’s legacy? Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Centennial Edition is the definitive etiquette book for our times, streamlining Emily’s charm and correct instincts into engaging, readable prose for 21st-century situations. Etiquetteer couldn’t be more pleased; buy this book.

One of the most prominent things that’s changed about how Americans think of manners is that they don’t feel the need to ape the rich or take their cues from aristocratic ladies*. And the authors acknowledge this almost right away. “While Emily’s status in society was that of an older, wealthy white woman, her advice was anchored in principles that were effective and accessible for all, creating a long-lasting and adaptable foundation for her work.” Throughout the new edition, other cultures and traditions are treated sensitively, something most etiquette books rarely had to consider in Emily’s day. We recognize that traditions of good behavior come from many different places.

Emily’s language reflected her upbringing and status, and Etiquetteer has always found her books charming . . . if a bit rambling**. The authors of the centennial edition have taken a different, less remote approach: “We hope it will feel like a conversation about etiquette and not like an encyclopedia.” They have achieved this goal hands down, making the centennial edition just as tough to put down as Emily’s books, but with a fresh new Postian voice. Etiquetteer just hankers to chat with them over coffee.

One reason Emily Post’s books were fun for a little boy to read was her cast of characters: The Worldlys, the Oldnames, the Eminents, the Onceweres, Mr. Clubwin Doe, and of course the Gildings. “It will not do to ask the Bob Gildings, not because of the difference in age but because Lucy Gilding smokes like a furnace straight through dinner and is miserable unless she can play bridge for high stakes . . . while Mrs. Highbrow and Mrs. Oncewere quite possibly disapprove of women’s smoking at all and class all playing for money with ‘gambling.’”*** Mrs. Toplofty’s solution to sitting next to a mortal enemy at dinner remains an important moment in that edition. Mrs. Toplofty doesn’t appear to have survived in the centennial edition, nor Mr. Richan Vulgar and Miss Nono Betta. But Ms. Travelswell joins us, as well as Ms. Inher Heade, Mr. Chival Russ, and Mx. Dullasa Doorknob. Etiquetteer loves them.

Yes, Mx., pronounced Mix. The authors actively embrace the honorific for nonbinary, intersex, and gender-nonconforming people, the greatest shift in the etiquette world since the creation of Ms. “Name and pronoun changes are often part of a person’s transition [from one gender to another] or nonbinary identity, and recognizing any such changes and using a person’s correct names and pronouns is key to showing them support, respect, and basic courtesy.” [Emphasis Etiquetteer’s.] It took about ten years for Ms. to become unremarkable, so Etiquetteer predicts most people will be comfortable with Mx. by 2028. And they note that standards are changing to be less rigid: “A glorious dinner party today can allow us to enjoy gathering and celebrating . . . while no longer requiring us to alternate seating or divide activities by binary gender standards of old . . . anyone who’d like to may head to the study for an after-dinner cigar.”

Etiquetteer does not always agree — perhaps there will be another column later on where Etiquetteer just isn’t yet ready to follow — but everything the authors recommend is given with reasons why manners have evolved. Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Centennial Edition presents a blueprint for a kinder, more Perfectly Proper world. “Etiquette can be learned and employed by anyone,” they write, “at any stage in life, and is a choice that is available to all of us.” Etiquetteer has always referred to going back to Emily Post as “drinking the Pure Milk of the Word.” Now it comes in a delicious new flavor! Etiquetteer is going to curl up in a comfortable chair and start rereading it already. Buy this book. What could be more Perfectly Proper?

*There is a great difference now between Those Who Are Rich and Those Who Are Aristrocratic.

**Etiquetteer is not one to talk, and sees the fingers pointing back at him.

**1950 edition, page 331. How can you not love this?

Fears of Thanksgiving, Vol. 21, Issue 60

The holiday season begins once again in just a few days, bringing the full range of anticipation, from delights to fears. Let Etiquetteer help you through some of the latter, so that your Thanksgiving dinner can be as enjoyable and Perfectly Proper as possible. According to Etiquetteer’s Facebook readers, people are anxious about:

COVID: Alas, COVID remains with us, though masking has become a personal choice. Last week Etiquetteer was chatting with a Lady of New Orleans; her description of the situation there struck Etiquetteer as applying to the country overall: “Well, now you can walk down the street with a mask and not get laughed at, and walk down the street without one and not get attacked.” This may feel like Cold Comfort for those who are at greater risk.

Etiquetteer agrees with Jonathan Wolfe at The New York Times who wrote that it’s best to “plan around the highest-risk person. The calculations are going to be different for a family with older relatives than for a Friendsgiving of twentysomethings where no one is immunocompromised.” That may mean quarantining or increased masking starting a few days before (in other words, now), or declining an invitation. It’s also going to mean Candid, Honest Conversation with everyone on the guest list about showing consideration for those attending who have a greater COVID risk.

POLITICAL DISCUSSION: Abraham Lincoln, who fixed Thanksgiving only a couple weeks after Election Day, should really have thought that through a little more carefully. Politics and Religion have always been Subjects to Avoid, and that hasn’t changed in this century. Don’t you raise either topic, and if they come up, say “I would like it much better if we didn’t talk about that today, since it’s Thanksgiving,” and then deftly change the subject to something else. If a small clot of guests with Opinions Other Than Your Own gather in a corner to talk politics, that makes it easier to avoid them. But when that clot becomes Everyone But One Other Person, that is a problem. And that’s why we don’t talk politics at the Great Feasts, which are about coming together, not apart.

There may be someone present who is unable to take a hint. If someone persists, someone else — you or your hosts — will have to come right out and say “We aren’t going to talk about politics today, thank you.”* Dear Mother used to say “This is neither the time nor the place,” and she was usually right.

THE COOKING: One reader commented “My brother-in-law’s cooking. He likes to experiment with ‘flavor combinations’ like he’s the second-place contestant on Top Chef.” This can be challenging for a food-oriented holiday like Thanksgiving, when so many people approach the table expecting the same comfortable dishes they enjoy each year. That is probably why so many experimental cooks find Thanksgiving so tempting, because they have a captive audience. If he is only preparing one or two dishes, you may be able to avoid these skillfully, or just take a very small helping and push it about your plate. If he’s responsible for the entire meal, you may want to call a few days ahead (in other words, now) to find out about his plans, and offer to make something you enjoy that makes Thanksgiving special to you.

Etiquetteer wishes you a Truly Happy Thanksgiving free from anxiety of any kind — but please reach out if you need assistance in Perfect Propriety.

*You know Etiquetteer is thinking of Fay Bainter in Jezebel, delivering with stern hauteur the line “This subject is an unwelcome one.”

Dress Codes, Vol. 21, Issue 59

Yesterday a dear friend and reader drew Etiquetteer’s attention to a New York Times “Ask Vanessa” column about getting around a dress code. The woman writing discovered that it was required to wear pastels to an event, and she didn’t look good in pastels. But the way she posed the question was objectionable: “…do I really have to obey? Is there anything we can do about hosts imposing a requirement on guests?” Those pesky hosts! Just wanting to show us a good time in a certain way!

Eventually Vanessa Friedman provided some good fashion advice (choose gray or cream, highlight a darker outfit with an accessory). Etiquetteer would suggest a corsage of fresh flowers — why not? But in the Comments section* comes the advice Etiquetteer really recommends: if you don’t like the dress code, don’t go. Just don’t go! Send a Lovely Note of Regret and be done with it. Should the hosts beg you to come, remain steadfast and mysterious, or tell them you don’t like the dress code on the invitation and prepare for a Discussion About Feelings.

Ms. Friedman does call out the difference between a dress code, which indicates a degree of formality (e.g. formal, informal, business casual, costume, etc.) vs. a theme, often a color. A dress code “does help ameliorate guests’ confusion and insecurity about what to wear to a special event,” she writes, and she’s right. A theme, like a color, should not be thought of as a restriction, but as a framework for creativity. That’s what makes party-giving, and partygoing, fun. Etiquetteer has never forgotten a small dinner in high school to which everyone invited was instructed to wear something beginning with the letter I. We saw everything from Inverness capes to a tiny lightbulb strapped to someone’s wrist to represent an idea. What could be more Perfectly Proper?

The Anti-Elitist Killjoys in the Comments section, however, are having none of it! They just don’t like being told what to wear at all, and are proud of it. One commenter suggested that the hosts had “delusions of grandeur” for commanding people to dress in a certain way**. Etiquetteer can only laugh at these assumptions. Let These People stay home with Dorothy Draper’s “Will to be Dreary.”

A party is designed to be fun! And sometimes hosts add a theme to contribute a visual impact to that sense of fun. The column includes a photo of the famous Diner en Blanc, an event which makes such a fabulous impression because everyone obeys the dress code. It was the same for Truman Capote’s famous Black and White Ball of 1966. Years ago Etiquetteer attended a different White Party, the dress code for which was historically “Cool resourceful white.” One frivolous young man felt that Simply Would Not Do, showed up in some sort of colorful print . . . and was turned away at the door, quite rightly. This is akin to Bette Davis in Jezebel deliberately wearing a red ball gown to an all-white party, and we know what happened to her.

Ultimately you don’t want to look like you didn’t get the memo, like that Kimberly Guilfoyle at Tiffany Trump’s wedding, wearing what could be either black or navy blue with all the Trump women in pastels***. Long story short, if you don’t (or can’t) accommodate the dress code, for whatever reason, decline without sanctimony and enjoy your evening at home.

Bette Davis receiving everyone’s backs in Jezebel.

*So often the Comments section of any news article should be avoided, but not this time.

**That said, the term bridezilla exists for a reason . . .

***Etiquetteer has no idea what dress code information was (or was not) shared with any of the wedding guests.

Family Finances, Vol. 21, Issue 58

Dear Etiquetteer:

My family has four adult-age siblings, with ten children in the next generation. Three of the four of us have paid 100% of our childrens’ college education expenses. One paid zero.

The one who contributed nothing to his childrens’ college expenses is a tradesman who makes a good living in his relatively low-cost-of-living area. In addition to his house and car, he owns a sports car, an RV, a $1,000 turntable for his live-in girlfriend’s vinyl albums, and several expensive bicycles, all bought while his two children were in college. The other three siblings make more. (Our parents, by the way, thought that parents were not required to contribute to their children's education, so they thought it was fine my Brother didn’t pay anything.)

My former sister-in-law has helped both children a bit, but both will graduate with significant student debt. My niece graduated this past May and was recently married; my nephew is a junior in college.

As a big believer in education, I decided earlier this year to help my niece repay her student loans. The dollar amount isn’t that important (it isn’t that much) but I want to show my support. I intend to do the same for my nephew when he graduates.

My question is this: am I obligated to tell my brother I’m helping my niece and, eventually, my nephew? Personally I think it’s none of his business.

Dear Benefactress:

If a relative is old enough to go to college and/or get married, they are old enough to have independent relationships with other relatives without going through their parents. Nor should their parents expect to continue their roles as gatekeepers. Your generosity to your niece and nephew is entirely between the three of you and really doesn’t concern anyone else*. If you, or they, wish to share that information with him, go ahead; but there’s no obligation to tell him, especially given his lack of financial participation.

It’s interesting that you raise this query just as the Season of the Great Feasts approaches. In only a couple weeks most Americans will begin gathering together for Thanksgiving, Hannukah, Christmas, New Year’s, Kwanzaa, etc.** These occasions often cause anxiety about possible arguments. So, as a reminder, it’s best not to talk about money, politics, and religion. Henry Higgins had it right in My Fair Lady: “I’m telling her to stick to the weather and everybody’s health.” Of course that went awry when Eliza Doolittle started bringing up specific symptoms, which is never Perfectly Proper at the dinner table.

Etiquetteer wishes you joy as you forge strong adult relationships with your young relatives.

*Except possibly your niece’s spouse, since the financial decisions of one spouse do impact the other.

**Etiquetteer loves to conclude the season with Twelfth Night.

Unexpected Bequest, Vol. 21, Issue 57

Dear Etiquetteer:

My parents both died in the past year. When emptying out their storage unit my siblings and I found a bag of documents belonging to our step-grandfather. We never met this person (he died before the oldest one of us was born) and we don't know of any relatives of his still alive.

I recently attended my high school reunion and met someone there who did genealogy for a hobby. She researched our step-grandfather and found that he had no children. Without doing significantly more research there's no way for us to find out if he has any blood relations alive.

My question for Etiquetteer is: what should we do with our step-grandfather's documents? There doesn't seem to be anything of value in this bag. Is it OK if I just throw it out? I can't imagine I'll do that, but I'm more likely to do that if you say it's OK.

Dear Beneficiary:

This may come as a shock, but Etiquetteer has no qualm with your disposal of these papers. You have performed due diligence to find other kinfolk who might want them, found no one, and that’s enough. As no surviving family member ever met your grandmother’s husband, and you yourself have determined that there’s nothing of value*, the most Perfectly Proper thing you can do for the smooth running of your own household is to dispose of them.

Etiquetteer understands your reluctance to toss out these papers from personal experience. It feels like erasing someone’s existence when the time comes to clean out of a house and divide a collection of belongings, especially when there are no heirs. And it feels strange, a little like a violation, to throw things in the trash that have been preserved and maintained, sometimes with great care, by their deceased owners. But it’s clear that you have no use for them, nor will your heirs in their turn.

On the day you throw things out, ease the blow by offering up a special toast to your step-grandfather at dinner that night. And next day, start to go through your own papers so that your heirs won’t have to make similar decisions. Marie Kondo’s famous Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up is one very helpful resource**. The Gentle Art of Swedish Death Cleaning is another, but Etiquetteer hasn’t yet delved into it. Etiquetteer wishes you well as you begin this journey.

*Etiquetteer still has some mementos cherished by a deceased relative — for instance, a baseball autographed by an entire high school baseball team — that had value only to the deceased.

**This is how That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much discovered almost 100 empty wire hangers clogging a clothes closet, just one instance of how valuable this book is.

Small Plates, Vol. 21, Issue 56

Are restaurants that specialize in small plates a way of life or a ripoff? Some think it’s marvelous to sample many different things, and others think it’s just a more costly way to order a dinner that may not fill you up. Small plates are exactly that, plates smaller than dinner plates with a small serving of something delightful. That serving, by itself, could not be considered a meal. This style of dining is most often associated with tapas, a galaxy of appetizers from Spain, but dim sum also falls into this category. In the United States it’s not unusual for someone to suggest “dinner” at a small plates restaurant.

If you go, you need to be prepared to share, because that’s part of the ethos of small plates. Three plates for two people is one suggested formula. Everyone has a little bit of the Little Bit, and then moves on to the next Little Bit. Etiquetteer loves what this article from Toast has to say about it: “Small plates service tends to be quite social and collaborative, making it a great choice for large groups or smaller parties who want to try many dishes.” This establishes that those seeking out small plates are ready to experiment, and also to spend lots of time talking about the food.

But what if you’re quite social but also territorial about your food? Dining doesn’t just mean quality, but quantity enough to keep your tummy from waking you in the night. And continuous “debate” about who gets the last Tasty Morsel on each plate is not “social and collaborative.” Etiquetteer was reminded of what Tudor courtier Andrew Barclay* wrote about dinner service at the time of Henry VIII:

"If the dish is pleasant, either flesh or fish,

Ten hands a once swarm in the dish;

And if it be flesh, ten knives shalt thou see

Mangling the flesh, and in the platter flee.

To put there thy hands is peril without fail

Without a gauntlet, or else a glove of mail . . . "

It’s kind of like hip-checking people out of the buffet line, or stationing yourself near the kitchen door at the wedding reception to catch the waiters with their trays.

Etiquetteer enjoys both a hearty meal and an evening of small plates.** If you are more, ahem, cautious about getting your fill, or just not interested in “trying many dishes,” it’s best to be candid when asked to a small plates restaurant. “You know, small plates just aren’t my thing, but I would really love to see you,” you can say, before suggesting another restaurant.

Etiquetteer wishes you a happy, filling, and Perfectly Proper dinner, however small your plates might be.

*Quoted in Alison Weir’s Henry VIII: The King and His Court, page 76.

**Not on the same night, rumors to the contrary.

Theatre Etiquette, Vol. 21, Issue 55

Dear Etiquetteer:

I’ve been really pleased to return to the ballet starting last year, but I’ve noticed the audiences have become incredibly exuberant during the performances. During yesterday‘s performance, whenever the dancers did anything that was particularly athletic people would hoot and holler. It’s very different from how I remember in past years. Maybe it’s a good thing for the ballet that there’s an enthusiastic audience.

However I find myself cringing a bit and feeling like some thing about the etiquette is off here. I know when you attend the symphony one does not clap until the music is completely finished. I’ve even seen conductors, and I mean famous conductors, turn around and glare at the audience when the clapping was premature. Maybe I’m just getting stodgy in my old age. In any case I’d love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Dear Balletomane:

It may have been Miss Manners who observed that everything in America was slowly being patterned on the Academy Awards or the Super Bowl*. The performance you attended seems to have brought Stadium Behavior into the theatre. Or perhaps it is just a reversion to the etiquette of Elizabethan and Restoration audiences? Maybe the exuberance of the balconies has made it to the dress circle now?

Like you, Etiquetteer would prefer a little more Audience Reaction Restraint — a little more discernment and a little less histrionics. Performers need to earn their applause, and if it’s always there in excess, they have no incentive. Every performance can’t be standing ovation quality, can it? Interestingly, how to applaud/react to a performance isn’t one of the things covered by Broadway Direct’s page on theatre etiquette.

The headline of this piece from Theater Nook really sums up Etiquetteer’s attitude: don’t make a spectacle of yourself. Etiquetteer has never forgotten the man in the audience of the famous Sutherland Horne Pavarotti recital, who can be heard in the applause after one number honking out “Brah-VEE! Brah-VEE!” ostentatiously pluralizing “Bravo!” — no doubt to educate everyone around him. People — this is not necessary, and not really Perfectly Proper. Your reaction to a performance should not call attention to you.

That said, it feels prissy just to sit there while everyone else is losing their minds with excitement, and blocking your view with their standing ovation. Sadly, traditional concert and theatre audiences have seen their reputations move from intelligent and discriminating to snobbish and uptight.

Your question comes at an interesting time for theatre lovers. The internet have been bubbling over with commentary about Lillias White, star of Hadestown, who mistakenly reprimanded an audience member for recording the show with a cellphone. It turned out that the audience member was using a theatre-sanctioned closed captioning device. Etiquetteer feels deeply both for the audience member, who needed to use that device, and for Ms. White.

What exacerbated this situation was that the audience member was sitting in the front row, a prime location for performer distraction. The late Arthur Friedman, distinguished Boston theatre critic, taught Young Etiquetteer long ago that one never glanced through the program during a performance while in the front row, precisely because it could distract the actors. No, Etiquetteer is not going to suggest that anyone who needs to use a device can’t sit in the front row; that’s discrimination. But it does explain why Ms. White noticed it twice.

What’s really responsible for this contretemps is the selfish history of audience cellphone use for illicit recording, and the celebration of performers like Patti Lupone (including by Etiquetteer) for calling them out aggressively during performances. Etiquetteer doesn’t blame Ms. Lupone (and other performers) for demanding audience respect for their work. The behavior that needs to change first is the audience’s. Put away your blessed cellphone and enjoy the show!

*If you have the reference, please let Etiquetteer know.

More on Wearing Diamonds, Vol. 21, Issue 54

A couple nights ago someone told Etiquetteer the (probably apocryphal) story about two ladies at a Newport luncheon back when there were ladies luncheons in Newport. The Established Newport Matron was dressed in conservative good taste, while the Arrival was hung with some serious diamond jewelry. The first, who Etiquetteer understands had been quite restrained until then, couldn’t keep herself from saying “You know it’s really not in the best of taste to wear diamonds at lunch.” “Yes, I thought so, too,” responded the Arrival, “until I had some.”

Ha ha, that’s funny — everybody loves a Snappy Comeback! — but neither of these Newport Ladies comes out well. It’s never really Perfectly Proper to criticize a total stranger publicly that way, to begin with; that Established Newport Matron knew better than that. But preening and Showing Off isn’t Perfectly Proper either. So let’s review (again, briefly) just what’s what about diamonds.

Etiquetteer tends to stick with the traditional rule that diamonds should only be worn after 5:00 PM, excepting engagement and wedding rings, which are always Perfectly Proper. Beforehand, a lady’s generosity to the Annual Fund is more likely to be questioned. Coco Chanel’s rule should be followed: put on everything you think is right, then take one piece off. You might relax this restraint only if you are going to a ball.

As a general rule, when you wake up in the morning, you should ask yourself these three questions:

1. What do I have on my schedule today?

2. What diamonds do I have, and when and where would they look most Perfectly Proper?

3. Was I reincarnated as Queen Mary during the night?

If the answer to the last question is “No,” then some restraint is in order regardless of how you answer the first two questions. No one could, or can, get away with wearing as many diamonds at once as Queen Mary — including her mother-in-law, Queen Alexandra.

Emily Post gives the best definitive advice in the first edition of Etiquette: “Don’t wear too much jewelry; it is in bad taste in the first place, and in the second, is a temptation to a thief.” Etiquetteer wishes you both joy and Perfect Propriety in the wearing of your diamonds.

Napkins and Chins, Vol. 21, Issue 53

Dear Etiquetteer:

The soon to be released film Corsage, about Empress Elisabeth of Austria’s later years, has a trailer with a scene of Emperor Franz Joseph dining. He is depicted in his customary military uniform but with a napkin at his chin. The Habsburg Court’s Spanish etiquette was infamously rigid. It included oddities such as several small tables at court dinners rather than a single long one. I have read a description of Sigmund Freud having a napkin under his chin, but would the kaiserlich und königlich napkin have been so displayed? Or will this movie start chins wagging all throughout die alte Kaiserstadt?

Dear Hapsburgian:

Your query illustrates just why the movies are rarely, if ever, a reliable guide to Perfect Propriety. Filmmakers routinely, out of ignorance or a desire to create a particular impression, allow etiquette errors that strain credulity. Etiquetteer has written before about James Cameron’s Titanic. Another 1997 film, Amistad, depicted a gentleman’s dinner at which all the gentlemen kept their gloves on while eating — an absolute impossibility. And in 2001’s Gosford Park, a footman is shone spitting on a fork to give it a good shine when setting the table, a violation of Perfect Propriety and sanitation. Yecccccchhhhhh!

So whether Franz Joseph ever tucked a napkin under his chin or not, Etiquetteer predicts that this might be a vigorous topic on Austrian monarchy fan websites for only the first week of the movie’s release. As Celeste Holm so memorably said in All About Eve, “Lloyd says that in the theatre a lifetime is a season and a season a lifetime.”

But what about this whole Napkin Under the Chin thing? How did this practice get such a bad reputation? A napkin is supposed to protect our clothing, isn’t it? For more than a few the Danger Zone is less the lap than it is the torso. We are not all sylphs who can sit right at the edge of the table.

The rise of Refinement in the 19th century led to a rejection of anything that appeared greedy or emphasized otherwise normal appetites — for instance, the enjoyment of food. A period etiquette etiquette summed it up succinctly: “Unfold your napkin and lay it across your knees, never pinning it over your breast like an alderman [whom the genteel regarded as virtually synonymous with saloonkeepers] or a slobbering infant.”*

Fast forward a few decades, and Amy Vanderbilt makes the same point, but less judgmentally. “In this country, the napkin is never tucked in at the collar or in the vest, but must be put on the lap and opened lengthwise . . . “** Emily Post Herself notes in Etiquette (1950) that “The only thing that matters is that a napkin shall stay on your lap.” She, at least, acknowledges that not everyone has a lap by suggesting a napkin clip. “. . . [someone] who has a shelving lap will perhaps find it practical to carry a pair of small spring clips with which to clip a too little or too starched napkin to her dress or the edge of his waistcoat. After all, it isn’t much use on the floor!”***

Wait a minute — napkin clips?! Oh yes! Little sterling silver clips, often in pairs, were created in the late 19th century according to Maura Graber in her What Have We Here? compendium. But she also declares “that they were considered ‘not good form.’”***** Despite Graber and the blogger at Maurice Sedwell, Etiquetteer is not entirely convinced that these napkin clips were made to be used at bodice level.

Letitia Baldrige**** suggests a different approach, since “it looks pretty tacky to tie a large napkin bib style around your neck — unless, of course, you are a child.” For “splashy” food, she recommends leaning over the table and holding one corner of the napkin under your chin with your left hand and eating with your right. This approach has the advantage of both protecting one’s clothes and not leaving a napkin permanently around the chin during a meal. With all due respect to Ms. Baldrige, it also sounds like a suggestion from someone who hasn’t had to attempt it at three meals a day.

Where does Etiquetteer stand on this? Well . . . no one should have to leave the table humiliated by a stain when they’re doing the best they can. And life is too short to avoid delicious soups and sauces completely. So, avoid it if you can. But if you feel the need to tuck your napkin under your chin, Etiquetteer will fall back on Marty Feldman’s immortal advice in Young Frankenstein: “Say nothing. Act casual.” What could be more Perfectly Proper?

*Timothy Edward Howard, Excelsior or Essays on Politeness, Education, and the Means of Attaining Success in Life, Part I -- For Young Gentlemen, quoted in Rudeness and Civility, by John Kasson, page 204.

**Amy Vanderbilt’s New Complete Book of Etiquette, 1963 , page 255.

***Etiquette, page 497. Her greatest concern, though, was the lady in a satin evening gown who had to keep her handbag, gloves, and possibly a fan balanced on her lap during dinner.

****Graber also mentions mustache clips!

*****Letitia Baldrige’s New Manners for New Times, 2003, pages 198-199.

Little Courtesies, Vol. 21, Issue 51

“Courtesies of a small and trivial character are the ones which strike deepest in the grateful and appreciating heart.” — Henry Clay

With National Courtesy Month drawing to a close* Etiquetteer has been drawn to consider what might be called the Little Courtesies, the small acts of consideration and kindness that make daily life slightly less onerous — the Oil That Lubricates the Social Machine, if you will. It is always a pleasure to go back to Dear Grandmother’s Enormous Dictionary**, from which Etiquetteer pulled these definitions: “. . . graceful and considerate behavior toward others . . . an act of kindness or favor performed with politeness . . . an expression of respect . . . to treat with civility.” What could be more Perfectly Proper?

Chief among the Little Courtesies are the famous Magic Words “Please” and “Thank you,” to which Etiquetteer would add “Excuse me.” The first two acknowledge that someone is about to do you a favor that they may (or may not) be obligated to do, and that you appreciate it (or should). The last acknowledges that your own behavior has an impact on others that requires their accommodation (for instance, when you’re trying to pass them on the sidewalk).

Forms of address are also important because they show respect for the other person. One of the biggest but most subtle changes over the last 50-60 years has been how to address workers. It’s no longer Perfectly Proper to call out “Waiter!” or “Clerk!” or “Stewardess!”, or even just snap your fingers. Nowadays one says “Excuse me, please” or “Sir” or “Ma’am.” This is an improvement, because it acknowledges the humanity of the staff. There are exceptions. “Doctor and “Nurse” are still Perfectly Proper within medical settings, of course. “Conductor!” on a train is borderline. “Porter!” is obsolete now that we all have wheels on our luggage.

Etiquetteer was amused to see that automobile lights were once called “courtesy lights.” Now they’re an absolute necessity! And so is obedience of local traffic laws, a very big Little Courtesy. Have you considered the power you have over someone’s mood by simply allowing them to merge into your lane? Few things compromise our sense of Perfect Propriety more than the motorist or cyclist who runs a red light, for instance — or the pedestrian who just wanders into traffic secure in the knowledge that motorists have to stop because they aren’t allowed to kill them.

Recently Etiquetteer came within two feet of being hit in a crosswalk by a bicylist who was blithely unconcerned about pedestrians having the right of way***. Disconcerting as that was, the sizzling curse flung at him by another pedestrian was even more jarring. Nor was it helpful. But it illustrates another Little Courtesy: how we use our voices****. Profanity had more impressive power when it was more rarely employed (e.g. Rhett Butler’s famous “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”) Now it’s so common the only power it’s retained is to depress us with its ugliness.

Finally, how we remember others can make the greatest difference. You know Etiquetteer is going to mention the Lovely Note of Thanks, but remembering someone’s favorite dishes, anniversaries, and interests reinforces for them that they have made a positive impression, and that you value their presence in your own life. The well-turned compliment, the friendly message for no reason, the unexpected bouquet or inconsequential trinket — these little gestures reinforce and strengthen our relationships, and our sense of community.

Henry David Thoreau once said “A man can suffocate on courtesy.” But Etiquetteer considers him biased, since he rather ostentatiously wrote about preferring a hermit’s life at Walden Pond. Let’s give him his privacy and extend the Little Courtesies round about us. What could be more Perfectly Proper?

*Did you know this was happening? Did Etiquetteer? Have you been more courteous? Less?

**Merriam-Webster 1937, about six inches thick.

***He was most certainly aware that the stoplight was red.

****This will seem rich, since That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much could cut lead pipe his voice is so loud. Well . . . Etiquetteer keeps talking to him about that.

Lobster, Vol. 21, Issue 50

The late Emily Post described lobster as “finger food because otherwise the meat in the claws cannot be eaten, unless the claws have been not only cracked but literally broken in half.”* Etiquetteer thinks of it as Combat Food, because the enemy is formidable, the right weapons are needed, and it’s not always clear who the victor will be.

In your Lobster Armory, you will need for each diner-combatant:

• A bib, to be tied around the neck to protect one’s clothes. No matter if you believe yourself adept enough to go without, Perfect Propriety must be maintained. Wear the bib!

• Lobster crackers, to crack the shells of the large claws, and other bits you’re having trouble with. They are hinged at the very end so that the whole claw can fit inside. Novices might try to use a pair of pliers; don’t make this mistake.

• A nut pick or seafood fork, to poke about inside the various shells for tasty bits you missed.

• A finger bowl, because one’s hands will not come out of this unscathed. Etiquetteer loves it when a thin slice of lemon floats on the top of the warm-but-not-hot water. Of course the modern equivalent of the finger bowl is the moist towelette. Etiquetteer considers more than one per person not just generous, but necessary.

• A waste bowl for all the shells and other detritus. Some restaurants offer a rustic acting-and-appearing bucket as an element of Down Home Local Color.

When served your lobster, first tie on your bib. Then wrench off the large claws, with a minimum of dramatic flourish. “They should be cracked in the kitchen,” notes Amy Vanderbilt**, “but further cracking at table may be needed.” (If they have not been cracked in the kitchen, you are within your rights to ask the waiter to assist you.) You will need to use your bare hands to hold the shell apart so that you can extract the meat with your fork.

The lobster tail is where most of the meat is found, and you may need knife, fork, and fingers to get it all out. Best to get the meat out whole if you can. Once extracted, cut large pieces down to bite size. Then dip your lobster meat into your clarified butter with your fork and consume with Obvious Satisfaction.

For those who are really committed to vanquishing their lobster, there are the small claws to consider. “The small claws are pulled from the body with the fingers,” Mrs. Vanderbilt teaches us, “then the body-ends placed between the teeth so the meat may be extracted by chewing (but without a sucking noise).”*** That sort of Obvious Satisfaction is not Perfectly Proper.

Small wonder Etiquetteer prefers Lobster Newburg! To all the lobster enthusiasts Etiquetteer wishes a Perfectly Proper National Lobster Day today — and to those who prefer it not, a Perfectly Proper avocado salad with vinaigrette.

*Etiquette, by Emily Post, 1950, page 501.

**Amy Vanderbilt’s Complete Book of Etiquette, 1952, page 241.

***Ibid.

Observations on the Funeral of Elizabeth II, Vol. 21, Issue 49

Today’s funeral of her late Majesty Elizabeth II was obviously going to attract a lot of etiquette junkies. So why shouldn’t Etiquetteer offer a few observations along with everyone else?

Handkerchiefs: Etiquetteer couldn’t help noticing the number of bare hands drifting to Facial Features to wipe away tears or scratch. This is done with most Perfect Propriety with a proper, forthright cloth handkerchief — linen, cotton, or silk, Etiquetteer is not here to judge you*. People do go on about their paper tissues, but Etiquetteer remains unmoved. Handkerchiefs for mourning often have a black border; order yours now for the next funeral, as it’s best to be prepared.

Gloves: In the same vein, Etiquetteer misses gloves, and would have loved to see some Perfectly Proper hands gloved in black or white, as appropriate.

Public speaking: Practice, Poise, and Phrasing make all the difference when one has to speak in public, particularly at such an august event as a Royal funeral — not to mention Diction and Enunciation. Etiquetteer can only add that any speaker who can make listeners consider a familiar text in a new way has achieved the goal.

Mourning (Participants):As a rule, mourning is not ostentatious; it doesn’t call attention to itself. All the Royal ladies, unsurprisingly, appeared with unrelieved black; Etiquetteer might have subtracted a bow or two, but that would be “to cavil at the customs of the great.” The severely simple costume of the much-discussed Duchess of Sussex with its with cape takes the honors from Etiquetteer’s point of view, achieving what Shaw’s description of Ann Whitfield’s mourning dress in Man and Superman: “She has devised a mourning costume . . . which does honor to her late father and reveals the family tradition of brave unconventionality.”

Sticklers will recall the custom of the deuil blanc, when Royal ladies would dress in all white for deepest mourning. (The most famous example of this in modern times is Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother’s all-white wardrobe for an unavoidable State visit to France which was complicated by the death of her mother immediately before.) That example obscures another important part of the deuil blanc: seclusion. When Francis II of France died, his widow Mary Queen of Scots had to submit to “forty days of strict seclusion during which she might not for a moment leave her private apartments . . . “** We’ve moved on from that.

It was also more usual that Royal ladies didn’t attend funerals. Sometimes traditions need to be abandoned, and that’s a good example. Consider how very impressively the Princess Royal has participated, and also the granddaughters of the Queen joining a vigil around the coffin with her grandsons.

Mourning Jewelry: Again, mourning is about the absence of display and color. This is why, in general, mourning jewelry is limited to jewelry one wears every day (wedding rings, a string of pearls) and jet. Sentiment plays its part, too, and this is why it’s become more usual to allow jewelry that has a special link to the deceased. Princess Charlotte’s horseshoe brooch was a gift from her great-grandmother, for instance. Queen Camilla also chose a brooch given her by the Queen, which turns out to be a present to Queen Victoria from her Hessian grandchildren for her Diamond Jubilee.

Mourning (Shoes): Moving away from the Family, did you notice the woman marching in the procession wearing black sneakers? Many people would take umbrage over athletic shoes on such an occasion. But we don’t know her relationship with her podiatrist, or how many miles one has to march, and it's best not to judge under the circumstances. Certainly they looked clean and tidy, which could only be Perfectly Proper.

Mourning (Spectators): Did you also observe the mourner wrapped in the Union Jack and sporting a fur hunter's cap? Sorry dear, that’s not showing respect, that’s exhibitionism. That woman was a pair of horns and a tube of face paint away from the Crazed Insurrectionist. This is a funeral, dear, not a football game.

Steadfastness: Etiquetteer could not help noticing the evidence of horses dotting the route; “horse apples” is an old Victorian euphemism. Etiquetteer remained anxious for those marchers who found these in their direct path, but Duty and Protocol allow one to break stride only so much (read: not at all), and admired their self-control. Under the circumstances, they’ll need to tip their bootblacks extra.

*Or perhaps Etiquetteer is . . . 🤔😬

**Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles, by Stefan Zweig (1935).

Signs for the Tourists, Vol. 21, Issue 48

While traveling in Spain and Malta these last weeks, Etiquetteer has observed quite a few instructions to tourists about how to conduct themselves with Perfect Propriety, especially in houses of worship. So here’s a survey in photographs and commentary of Just What’s What.

Most signage involves both proper dress and respectful behavior, e.g. silence.

At the tiny Chapelle Saint Pierre in Villefranche, uniquely decorated by Jean Cocteau. “This is the house of God. Silence helps to pray. Proper attire is required.”

In the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Blessed Virgin of Ta' Pinu, in Gharb, on the island of Gozo.

Also at Ta’ Pinu. Dress code enforcement was non-existent here, but ladies with bare shoulders voluntarily used the paper shawls provided at the entrance.

A second group has to do with protecting fragile artwork, collections, and buildings. It’s really sad that it’s even necessary to post some of these signs, but then Etiquetteer has never forgotten the elderly lady (a friend of Etiquetteer’s grandmother) who just sat down on an ancient Chinese tombstone inside the Boston Museum of Fine Arts because she wanted to sit down. No dear, that is not Perfectly Proper! She was definitely old enough to know better, too.

At the Museu Picasso, Barcelona. Etiquetteer has rarely seen the Why of “Don’t touch” explained so well.

At the Cittadella, Victoria, Gozo. The limestone walls of this exceedingly old fortress are easily marked. Centuries-old graffiti here may be studied for what life was like in the Cittadella long ago, but you will not be given a chance to impress the archeologists of the future.

At St John’s Co-Cathedral, Valletta, Malta. Who knew, stiletto heels are dangerous for for the polychrome marble floors of this uniquely over-the-top baroque church.

Finally, there are warning signs to keep us, and others, safe. No use falling to a violent death just to get the perfect selfie.

On a parapet in Mdina, Malta. “Danger: Sheer drop with no edge protection. It is prohibited to sit or stand on the bastion.” No one should have to be told this twice.

But the Colosseum in Rome takes the prize for most comprehensive list of instructions. One can only imagine what they’ve been through to have had to spell out that you can’t “write on the walls, enter with masks and costumes, exhibit banners, flags, standards,” etc. Those looking to reenact a gladitorial combat will have to do so among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

Etiquetteer wishes you safe and Perfectly Proper travels!

Etiquetteer outside La Sagrada Familia, Barcelona — where the dress code was not enforced.

Precedence of People and Rules, Vol. 21, Issue 46

“Ladies first” is a general etiquette rule so old its origin seems lost in the mists of Time. “No cutting in line” probably came afterward, but not by much. What happens when these rules collide outside a public bus?

A crowd waiting to board a bus with no guides to mark an unmistakable line includes three people: a man who was one of the first to arrive, a woman who wants to get on board first, and another man who cares about chivalry. The crowd also includes a pack of about six Determined Older Women (DOWs) who are going to board the bus first so they can sit together; their body language, and the way they interfere to admit a straggling member of their party, indicates that a) they don’t care about the rules, and b) it would be unwise to mess with them. No one did.

The DOWs board, and now the brief drama of our three protagonists plays out. The first man is standing directly in front of the bus door. The woman tries to cut in from the right, but the man has moved forward enough that he is going to get onto the bus next. The second man, witnessing this, says “Ladies first!” in a loud enough voice. There are still quite a few people behind waiting to board themselves. So now we have a Situation Pregnant With Possibilities.

A brief exchange of glances between the first two characters sees the woman board and the first man follow her. Likely this was the quickest way to get everyone on the bus without Causing a Scene. No one would gain by responses like “If she was a lady she’d already be on the bus” or “I was here first,” don’t you agree?

But Etiquetteer finds fault with all our protagonists. Etiquetteer understands the burning desire to get on board any vehicle and claim a seat, but the woman in question should have waited her turn. The first man lacks a certain Generosity of Spirit and could have allowed that woman to cut in without inconveniencing himself greatly. The second man, of course, needs to learn how to mind his own business. It really is not Perfectly Proper to correct total strangers in public, except in extreme circumstances, which this was not. (Readers have offered some interesting insights and examples on Etiquetteer’s Facebook page.) Which rule do you think should take precedence, readers: Ladies First, or Don’t Cut?

Etiquetteer wishes you hassle-free transportation with Fellow Citizens Who Know Their Place.