To Be Read, Vol. 22, Issue 70

Most people know that Etiquetteer suffers from a mild form of biblioholism, which results in the accumulation of staggering numbers of unread books. That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much recently rounded them all up and counted over 50! This dozen are on Etiquetteer’s pile, since one way or another they cover matters of Perfect Propriety.

Etiquette

Woman’s Own Book, 1873, the author’s name not given — but you can just tell it’s by a man eager to tell women what to do, especially since the first three chapters are all headed “How to Be Beautiful.” This was the gift of a friend and reader, and it promises to be unintentionally amusing.

Town and Country Social Graces: Words of Wisdom on Civility in a Changing Society, a collection of T&C articles by everyone from Jay McInerney to Letitia Baldrige. Acquired sometime during the pandemic.

Elements of Etiquette: A Guide to Table Manners in an Imperfect World, by Craig Claiborne. Acquired sometime during the pandemic, Etiquetteer actually started this a few years ago. Witty, wise, and delicious.

Civility: Manners, Morals and the Etiquette of Democracy, by Stephen L. Carter. Acquired years ago, certainly the title indicates an up-to-the-minute need!

Debrett’s Guide for the Modern Gentleman, received as a gift some time ago, and by all appearances and absorbing guide not just to behavior but wisdom.

Food and Drink

The Philosophy of Cocktails, by Jane Peyton, acquired over the summer, promises to be an interesting exploration of alcohol and consumption customs.

Here Let Us Feast: A Book of Banquets, by the celebrated M.F.K. Fisher, acquired this fall at the also celebrated Montague Book Mill. Etiquetteer always loves feasting, and we are approaching the Time of the Great Feasts anyway — isn’t Thanksgiving about three weeks from now? — so this might need to vault to the top of the list.

“21” Every Day Was New Year’s Eve: Memoirs of a Saloon Keeper, by H. Peter Kriendler with H. Paul Jeffers, is the history of one of the 20th century’s most celebrated night spots. Having already devoured histories of the Stork Club and the Colony Bar, of course it’s time to move the party of “21.”

What to Wear

Items: Is Fashion Modern?, by Paola Antonelli and Michelle MIllar Fisher, the catalog to the thought-provoking MoMA exhibition of the same name.

Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History, by Richard Thompson Ford. Obviously fashions change, and what is Perfectly Proper for one generation is Entirely Laughable to another. We have only to look at the court dress of Louis XIV or wedding gowns of the 1980s to see this. This promises to reveal just how we got to the Place of Athleisure we occupy today.

Other

Contagious: Why Things Catch On, by Jonah Berger. This book promises to share “. . . the secret science behind word-of-mouth and social transmission.” Etiquetteer would love to figure out how we as a society could do that for good manners.

Heiresses: The Lives of the Million Dollar Babies, by Laura Thompson. From Mary Davies to Barbara Hutton, with Consuelo Vanderbilt and many others in between, Etiquetteer is most interested to see how these ladies used Perfect Propriety for self-preservation.

Surely you have your own recommendations, too. Please send them along!

Calling Cards, Vol. 22, Issue 69

“We can never go back to Manderley. But sometimes, in my dreams, I do bo back.” — Rebecca, by Daphne du Maurier

Dear Etiquetteer:

Are engraved social cards totally defunct in today’s digital and online world? (I believe that parliamentarians and diplomats still use them, but are they ever used by ordinary folk who appreciate refinement?)

Many thanks for your response.

Dear Calling:

Quite possibly the only time Etiquetteer has ever used calling cards was when sending high school graduation invitations — and that was Some Years Ago. (There may even be a slender sheaf of them lingering about somewhere in this Dusty Warren of Perfectly Proper Relics.) Originally calling cards were not supposed to include any information on them but one’s name — certainly not an address or, later, a telephone number*. The only information that they were meant to convey was that one had paid a call wherever a card was left, and additional information could be added by folding down a corner of the card as follows:

• Bottom left: Condolences (pour condoléance)

• Top left: Congratulations (pour félicitations)

• Top right: In person (one actually came to the door with one’s card and didn’t leave it to the coachman)

• Bottom right: Taking leave (pour prendre congé or p.p.c.)

Now of course we understand that this Not at All Practical, no matter how Perfectly Proper it might be. And we have more efficient, if not elegant, ways to communicate this information — through social media groups, for instance. If you’re going away for an extended period, one quick post to the neighborhood Facebook group saves you the trouble of leaving a card at every house on your street. On the other hand, not everyone likes to advertise their travels plans as broadly as hitherto either.

Does Etiquetteer think calling cards have a place in this century? Absolutely yes. It’s so much more elegant to hand someone your card rather than watch them type your contact information in their phone. But the rules have changed. Contact information may certainly be included (email, phone, mailing address), but a calling card should look like a calling card and not like an Item of Self-Promotion. Use them instead of a business card for social contacts. There are those who say that a business card should only be given to business contacts, because it represents not only oneself, but also the business. That’s a valid argument.

But the Way We Live Now no longer accommodates the kind of social life in which every household has an “at home” day every week when cards may be left (on a card tray or in a bowl on a table in the front hall). The custom died for a reason anyway; it was time-consuming and terribly inconvenient! “The old arbitrary Washington custom of calling has lapsed entirely, and I lay a wreath on its grave without regret . . . “ said Ellen Maury Slayden as far back as 1918**, and when you think now how difficult it is now just to schedule a dinner party . . .

But like you, Etiquetteer longs for a Life of Greater Refinement. We will have to indulge that longing in Lovely Notes written on the larger offspring of the calling card, the correspondence card. Bulked up from calling card size to 6-3/8" x 4-1/4", the name has been moved from dead center to top center, leaving ample space for your Brief and Lovely Handwritten Sentiments. Dempsey & Carroll engraves beautiful cards, and if you use “Etiquetteer” as your discount code, the price is discounted.

Etiquetteer wishes you brisk and vigorous correspondence with Like-Minded Ladies and Gentlemen.

*There are bewildering exceptions to every bewildering rule in the world of calling cards, and one of them was that a gentleman who lived at his club could include the club name in one bottom corner of his card.

**Washington Wife: Journal of Ellen Maury Slayden 1897-1919.

Who Killed Society? II, Part Two: Reader Suggestions, Vol. 22, Issue 68

Etiquetteer’s suggested update of Cleveland Amory’s Who Killed Society? last week generated quite a few interesting suggestions from readers via the mailing list, Facebook, and Instagram. Some of these were clearly invented to break down our individual Perfect Propriety. It is so very difficult to remain composed while repeatedly yelling “Representative!” into the automated “customer service” phone line!

And here they are now, with Etiquetteer’s thanks to everyone who contributed:

1. Murder in the First Degree

   1. With Deliberation, Premeditation and Malice Aforethought:

      1. Online help desks and automated customer service numbers.

      2. The hippie generation (“. . . although perhaps with the indulgence of their baby boomer parents. But primarily the selfishness and self-absorption of the hippies which continues to metastisize.”)

      3. “The youth not being respectful and well-mannered.” (NB: This from a reader clearly under the age of 30.)

      4. Book bans.

   2. Without Deliberation, Premeditation or Malice Aforethought, but Committed while Engaged in Another Felony:

      1. The Kardashians (all of them).

      2. The McMansion.

      3. Casual use of profanity (e.g. “use of the good old Germanic word ‘f***’ as an intensifier adverb in any and all situations.”)

2. Murder in the Second Degree, With Design to Effect Death but without Deliberation, Premeditation or Malice Aforethought:

   1. Use of smartphones on the street.

   2. Online shopping.

3. Manslaughter in the First Degree, While Engaged in the Commission of a Misdemeanor:

   1. Crocs.

   2. Jeans, hoodies, and baseball caps.

4. Manslaughter in the Second Degree

   1. By a Person Committing a Civil Trespass:

      1. Nostalgia for social ephemera.

   2. In the Heat of Passion by the Use of a Dangerous Weapon or by Cruel and Unusual Means:

      1. Rush Week for fraternities and sororities.

   3. By any Culpable Negligence, such as Negligent Use of Machinery, Care of Animals, etc.

      1. Supermarket self-checkout technology.

Who Killed Society? II, Vol. 22, Issue 67

In 1960 Cleveland Amory published the third in his trilogy of books about American society, Who Killed Society? While proving that Society is in a continual state of decline (things are never as good/nice/Perfectly Proper as they used to be), he constructs scathing, incisive, and witty indictments against an army of defendants — everyone from the Servant Problem, FDR and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor through Café Society, the Cold War, Henry Luce, Harry Truman, the Telephone, the Sputnik, the Kennedy Family, Chorus Girls, Brenda Frazier, and Elsa Maxwell, all the way to Bermuda shorts and the Newport Jazz Festival, among many others. In every case he has a point. In fact the only people he seems to spare are John Roosevelt and Magda Gabor! (You may read Amory’s original indictment on pages 17-18 at the Internet Archive.)

But that was in 1960. Plenty of people and things have had a role in the continued killing of Perfect Propriety since then. If an indictment were to be laid out against subsequent killers, who would make the list? Following Mr. Amory’s format, Etiquetteer makes a few suggestions, with occasional commentary.

1. Murder in the First Degree

1. With Deliberation, Premeditation and Malice Aforethought:

1. Donald Trump. Nuffus dixit.

2. The Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter.

3. The Wedding Industrial Complex.

2. Without Deliberation, Premeditation or Malice Aforethought, but Committed while Engaged in Another Felony:

1. Woodstock.

2. Watergate.

3. Animal House. The influence of this film is the most underrated of any 20th century film.

4. Celebrity Sex Tapes (Rob Lowe, Paris Hilton, Aaron Schock, etc.)

5. Bill Clinton. He lost me at “It depends on what ‘is’ is.”

6. Roger Ailes.

7. Social media influencers.

8. Social media tycoons.

9. Reality television, starting with The Real World in 1993 and continuing through all the seasons of Real Housewives (but not The Great British Baking Show).

10. Destination weddings.

2. Murder in the Second Degree, With Design to Effect Death but without Deliberation, Premeditation or Malice Aforethought:

1. Bridezillas, especially those who reject heirloom silver.

2. The coronavirus pandemic.

3. Social media networks, all of them.

4. Skyrocketing Executive Pay.

5. Casual Friday.

6. Grunge.

7. SPY Magazine, the New York Monthly.

8. Airline checked baggage fees, and all such other extraneous fees.

3. Manslaughter in the First Degree, While Engaged in the Commission of a Misdemeanor:

1. Satire news websites.

2. Fast fashion.

3. Athleisure, active wear, jeggings, etc.

4. Bachelorette parties.

5. Gender reveal parties.

6. Cosplay (but not at actual comicons). This only leads to gentlemen thinking they can wear secular headgear with black tie indoors as Perfectly Proper.

7. Valley of the Dolls, the novel.

4. Manslaughter in the Second Degree

1. By a Person Committing a Civil Trespass:

1. Truman Capote's Black and White Ball.

2. Answered Prayers, by Truman Capote.

3. Truman Capote in Murder by Death.

2. In the Heat of Passion by the Use of a Dangerous Weapon or by Cruel and Unusual Means:

1. Extremist protests at funerals.

2. Love locks locked to bridge railings and other such places.

3. By any Culpable Negligence, such as Negligent Use of Machinery, Care of Animals, etc.

1. Extreme culinary trends, such as beetle-shaped jellies, foam entrées, and “one-bite” entrées.

This list surely is not complete! Etiquetteer will be interested to hear your own suggestions for a follow-up column.

Observations, Vol. 22, Issue 46

Elegance is unobtrusive. Earbuds are elegant. Boom boxes are not. The problem is that not everyone desires elegance, or considers it desirable.

When dinner is served family style* and dishes are passed around the table, they should all pass in the same direction. Serve yourself, and pass the dish to the right. You may offer the rolls to the person on your left before passing them to the right; don’t let your left-hand neighbor start them going to the left. (Etiquetteer gathers that in Great Britain, all dishes are passed to the left, but in the United States they are passed to the right.)

Don’t ask for someone’s email address (or other contact information) more than once, especially if you’re in retail. If they want you to have their contact information (which everyone suspects you want only to put on your mailing list), they’ll provide it. Persistence appears unattractive.

Candles belong on a dining table only when they are being used, or possibly when your home is being photographed for a shelter magazine. Otherwise, remove them to the sideboard. It is immaterial to Etiquetteer whether or not the wicks have been burned.

When dinner is announced, it is not really Perfectly Proper to bring your cocktail to the table. There will be other beverages served with the meal. Finish it, or don’t, and leave it on a table. (Etiquetteer has had to direct a Pointed Glance at That Mr. Dimmick on more than one occasion about this.)

When joining a meeting late, Etiquetteer does understand one’s desire to get caught up on what was missed. But it is unfair to more punctual attendees to insist on an exhaustive review, or anything beyond “We were just discussing [Insert Agenda Item Here].” It’s also unproductive to provide a dramatic or out-of-breath explanation for your tardiness. Just say “I’m sorry to be late” and listen attentively.

*In the 19th century this would be referred to as service á la Française. Everything sounds snappier in French, n’est ce pas?

Room Serving Tipping, Vol. 22, Issue 65

Dear Etiquetteer:

This isn't really etiquette, but I’m curious. When you stay at a hotel, do you give a cash tip to the person who brings the meal to your room? The hotel I’m staying at charges a 20% gratuity and $5 delivery fee. But I still think I should give $10 or something to the bellhop who brings it. 

I think hotel service workers are waaaaaay underpaid, and I was predisposed to giving a cash tip for the person who brings the meal. When the staffer came with the tray, she had one of those handheld machines for charging the bill, and it included an option to add a tip of $7, $8, and $10. (That’s about 15%, 17%, and 20%.) I had some cash in my pocket ready to go, but I asked her if that tip goes directly to her and she said it did, so I added a tip on right there.

Is it the right thing to do or is it just that I feel like a real cheapskate if I don’t give the staff something. What's your take on this?

Dear Tipping:

Opinions vary, but in a hotel, if they are already billing you a gratuity and a delivery fee in which you have no say, Etiquetteer would say that absolutely counts for the tip, and that it’s not necessary to provide a cash gratuity in addition. Not everyone feels that way — they value expressing personal appreciation with a cash tip to the staff actually performing the service — and Etiquetteer will not stand in the way of that.

Etiquetteer considered your use of restaurant tipping percentages for a room service delivery extremely generous, but apparently that is now the norm according to Travel and Leisure. And incidentally, it’s very wise to ask if a hotel employee personally receives a gratuity that’s added via credit card. Employers have a long history of skimming tips, including Sherman Billingsley at the famous Stork Club. Tips for the coat check girls went into a slot that led to a locked box; the contents went straight to the boss, not the girls*.

Etiquetteer wishes you enjoyable travel with reliable and courteous service.

*Etiquetteer promises this is somewhere in Ralph Blumenthal’s The Stork Club, but just cannot find the reference.

Placemats vs. Tablecloths, Vol. 22, Issue 64

“I would not care to dine formally every night — nor buffet-style every night, either. Dinner always served on the same china, with the same candlesticks or candelabra on the table, the same style of table covering, shows lack of imagination.” — Amy Vanderbilt

Dear Etiquetteer:

What is going on with meals in The Crown and Downton Abbey? They show HMQ and the Granthams eating with their plates on placemats. Sometimes it even looks like plates directly on the table. Nary even a runner. I thought the upper crust always used tablecloths.

Dear Tabled:

A white damask tablecloth defines a formal dinner; Etiquetteer has written more about that here. But for informal meals such as all breakfasts and most lunches* placemats are Perfectly Proper Indeed for people of all classes, even the highest ones. While they come in all materials, from woven straw to all sorts of cloth, the most severely upper class placemats are likely to be those cork-backed ones decorated with 19th-century hunting scenes.

“Small place-mats of linen or lace with runner to match are most practical,” wrote Emily Post in 1950. “A dozen mats with one runner can be used permanently as your one and only tablecloth.” Amy Vanderbilt even suggested “tiny straw disks to fit under a dinner plate and not be seen, so that the effect is that of a gleaming bare table.”

Etiquetteer wants to call your attention to that word “gleaming.” If you’re going to use placemats, be sure that your dining table is polished within an inch of its life to gleaming perfection. In days gone by that meant careful inspection after every meal, or at least every day, by the servants. “Dining-tables can only be kept in order by hard rubbing, or rather by quick rubbing, which warms the wood and removes all spots,” said Mrs. Beeton in her famous Household Book, and she wasn’t kidding either. One doesn’t want one’s mahogany or walnut marred by marks from hot dishes! If you’re using placemats, examine your table carefully first and polish as needed.

Now we have felts or table pads to protect against heat marks, including small ones that fit under placemats. But for these to be visible is Not Perfectly Proper. Dear Mother (may she rest in peace) used to have a beautiful set of thick pleated placemats, solid red and solid green, which she would alternate down the dining room table for Christmas. They were octagonal — the corners of the rectangles were truncated — so the corners of her vinyl table pads stuck out and spoiled the view. She simply would not trim them under any circumstances. Don’t you make that mistake.

Etiquetteer wishes you beautiful meals of all levels of formality, and the sort of company that makes you enjoy each one.

*Etiquetteer misses the noun “luncheon,” but it is now considered pretentious except for something exceedingly formal like a wedding (which would be more correctly called a “wedding breakfast” anyway) or a charity fund-raiser.

Black Tie, But Not a Tuxedo, Vol. 22, Issue 63

Dear Etiquetteer:

The fall season is starting up again, COVID be damned, and I have been invited to a small private event (not a fundraiser) I would really like to go to, except for one thing. The invitation says “black tie,” which of course means a tuxedo for the men. Aside from the fact that I’m at a stage in my life where I don’t even want to wear a tie, I don’t own a tux and cannot even imagine going to the bother of renting one. What do I do? I still have a suit. Can I just wear that, or do I have to miss out?

Dear Suited:

If this was a papal audience, a Court of St. James presentation, or a gala night at the opera, you would not have room to maneuver. But “a small private event” gives us leave to take our advice from the late Julia Child — “No excuses, no explanations” — followed up by Dear Mother, who always said “Do your best.” Wear your darkest suit (if you have only one, it will be that), your whitest shirt, your most resplendent necktie, and your brightest and most sincere smile, and you cannot go wrong. Only a churl would look down his nose at you, which would say more about the churl than you.

Fans of Tolstoy’s epic novel Anna Karenina may remember Dolly’s dilemma when she visited Anna and Vronsky in the country. “To change her dress [for dinner] was impossible, for she had already put on her best dress. But in order to signify in some way her preparation for dinner, she asked the maid to brush her dress, changed her cuffs and tie, and put some lace on her head. ‘This is all I can do,’ she said with a smile to Anna . . .” The redoubtable Ellen Maury Slayden recalled with admiration the forthrightness of a visiting politician’s wife. “Mrs. Harmon is . . . a good sport. She didn’t know our climate and came down in a heavy cloth suit and a close turban that didn’t shield her eyes, but she never turned a hair all day, and when her baggage failed to arrive, she wore the same thing to a reception in the evening without complaining or explaining.”

Black tie is black tie, and a dark suit is a dark suit. Etiquetteer is not a fan of mixing the latter with elements of the former. Pleated shirtfronts, shirt studs, waistcoats that clearly belong with black tie, and patent leather evening shoes really don’t go with a plain suit. While a formal occasion is one for dressing up, it isn’t time for cosplay or costuming unless it says “Creative black tie.” Save them for when you really do need to wear black tie.

Etiquetteer has more black tie guidance here, and black tie for clergy here. Etiquetteer wishes you a beautiful occasion.

Phone Calls in the 21st Century, Vol. 22, Issue 62

A few readers took care to direct Etiquetteer to this recent Washington Post article by Heather Kelly about etiquette for phone calls, which is most interesting and worth your attention. The development of communications technology has outstripped our ability to adapt its use courteously. Different generations have different ideas about privacy and appropriateness, but there is still Telephonic Perfect Propriety we can agree on.

Starting with the Very Basic Rule that we should not be using speakerphones in public, especially in enclosed spaces like public transportation. What on earth, people?! Ms. Kelly notes that if you’re going to do That Sort of Thing, you ought to use headphones (or earbuds), but “they only solve half of the problem, however, as people still have to hear your side of the conversation.” And having witnessed so many of these Public Speaker Calls, they’re usually about something entirely inane or inconsequential that could have waited until later. People! Put it on mute while you’re out and about and save it until you get home! You’ll be contributing to World Peace, Etiquetteer guarantees you.

Where things differ starts with when one actually takes a call. Before smartphones and texting, when the phone rang, we were all conditioned to answer it right away, even if it was inconvenient. That remains a powerful behavior for those brought up to it. One of the surprising points made is that just because someone is calling doesn’t mean you have to take the call, even when you know who it is. Ms. Kelly quotes the remarkable Lizzie Post, who says “If someone interrupts you and you’re ticked off about it, guess whose fault that is? You’re the one who answered the call when you shouldn’t.” Etiquetteer thinks this is maybe a bit unjust (“We were taught to answer the phone!”), but it underscores how valuable it is to embrace texting. Texting may be an adjunct to phone conversations, but before long the phone will be an adjunct to texting.

Opinions may differ about what the most impactful change is to telephoning in this century. To Etiquetteer it isn’t using a speakerphone in public, but having to check in advance by text for a good time to call. Once upon a time we just picked up the phone and called — there was no other way to do it — and that was that. Now These Kids Today (by which Etiquetter means anyone under the age of Etiquetteer) think that’s rude. This has given rise to the Inquiring Text, e.g. “You free?” “Time to chat?” “Call me,” or “Dahling!” On the whole this is a welcome development — really, it is not such a bad thing to consider how disposed your recipient is to getting a call — but it involves relearning earlier lessons of Perfect Propriety. And that takes time.

Won’t you send Etiquetteer your own concerns and queries about modern communications manners? In the meantime, Etiquetteer wishes you many Perfectly Proper interactions with your intimates.

Shod Guest at Shoes-Off Homes, Vol. 22, Issue 61

Dear Etiquetteer:

Here’s a topic for you, which I’m prompted to send after Dear Vanessa dealt with it in the Times. As the owner of a no-outside-shoes home I am perplexed by guests who are offended by this idea. It doesn’t take much cogitation to grasp why taking your shoes off when you enter the house makes sense. Think about why people wash their hands, and then consider where the soles of your shoes have been. As an etiquette question though, ought not one happily comply with “house rules?”

Dear Unshod:

Etiquetteer is just as perplexed that, 45 years after Barbara Walters had to remove her shoes to interview Muhammad Ali in his home*, people don’t recognize that removing your shoes in someone else’s home is still unusual for most Americans. No matter how sensible it may be, it’s still not the norm. You put on your shoes when you leave the house, and you leave them on until you get home.

When a request to bare feet comes unexpectedly, it can feel uncomfortable, if not downright inhospitable to be asked such a thing. The most common problem (and Vanessa mentions this in her article) is embarrassment about the condition of one’s socks. Protruding toes are embarrassing and make people feel uncomfortable. Surely that is not an experience you want for your guests. May not Etiquetteer appeal to your sympathy?

No one should be surprised by a request to bare feet. You, as a host, have a responsibility to create a welcoming and comfortable atmosphere for your guests. That means preparing them in advance that “Shoes off” is mandatory at your house. They may then accept or decline your invitation as they prefer; if people decline, receive that information without judgment. Consider how you might mitigate discomfited guests by supplying a basket of new (or at least clean) and comfy slippers or socks in a variety of sizes so that no one really has to walk around in their socks if they don’t want to.

Long story short, it’s not always easy to comply with house rules that are out of the ordinary, especially with no advance notice. Be understanding if a guest absolutely refuses. You may always vacuum or mop the next day.

Etiquetteer wishes you many lovely evenings of unshod and well-informed camaraderie.

*You had to take your shoes off to walk across the white carpet,” Ms. Walters notes at 02:05 in the interview video.

Polyamory and Professionalism, Vol. 22, Issue 60

Dear Etiquetteer:

I’m in a long-term ethically non-monogamous gay relationship. Currently I have a husband (together for 20 years, married for ten), see previous dates, and a boyfriend.

So, I’m traveling for work soon and my boyfriend is coming along. This is a conference in a large city, colleagues will be attending, and one I supervise is staying in the same hotel as I. I’m generally out and authentic at work, but I’ve not brought non-monogamy or my boyfriend into dialogue there. Should I take this colleague aside and let her know I’ll be there with someone that she may see me with, perhaps holding hands or leaving the hotel together? So that she’s not feeling awkward or have questions she might put to someone else, causing more consternation. Or do I just live my life and not worry about her or anyone else I know from work? What do I owe my colleagues in this regard?

Dear Conferee:

What you owe everyone involved, including yourself, is discretion. One couple’s open relationship or open marriage is another’s adultery. In private life, and even sometimes in social life, a “design for living” may be accepted or acknowledged with the consent of all parties, and has been with greater frequency. But in the workplace, that could still be challenging.

Etiquetteer couldn’t help thinking that if a straight male professional openly attended an out-of-town conference with his girlfriend, whether his wife approved or not, it would very definitely raise eyebrows, and possibly a call to Human Resources. Since polyamory remains to be generally accepted, the presence of your boyfriend should be invisible.

While in no way suggesting that your boyfriend is traveling with you ahem professionally, Etiquetteer turns for a solution to the Parisian demimonde before World War I, when wealthy men openly kept beautiful and capricious women for extramarital purposes. Cecil Beaton waxed rhapsodic about them in his delightful book The Glass of Fashion, and how they “thrived in an easy atmosphere that created a tacitly agreed place for them in the social scene.” The condition for that place meant never being acknowledged, especially by “respectable” women. “If a gentleman was seen at a restaurant by a lady of his world in the company of a grande cocotte,” Beaton continued, “there was never any question of ‘cutting’ him or of acknowledging his companion’s presence; while dining with this enigmatic woman . . . the gentleman was as invisible to his respectable friends as if he wore a magic cloak. He did not exist.*”

To see how this played out in real life we have only to look at the Titanic. At least two gentlemen in first class were traveling with mistresses. But the proprieties were observed by taking care not to parade their companionship — especially since the women of their families didn’t know and would not have approved. Benjamin Guggenheim and his mistress, Belgian cabaret singer Ninette Aubart, did not share a cabin; at least they each had separate cabins that did not adjoin. They took all their meals in the à la carte Ritz restaurant, to prevent as much as possible running into family members like Ida and Isidor Strauss. For handsome young Canadian Quigg Baxter that became unavoidable when he had to help his mistress Berthe Mayné into a lifeboat “introduc[ing] her to his puzzled mother and sister.**”

So Etiquetteer recommends an atmosphere of circumspection at your conference. Your boyfriend should not attend any of the conference’s social events with you (which it sounds like you aren’t planning anyway), and public displays of affection should be tempered. Should you happen to run into a colleague in the lobby or at a nearby restaurant, explain that your husband was unable to join you and that a friend came with you instead. There’s no need to be more specific than that.

Etiquetteer wishes you and all concerned a smooth and successful conference.

*Cecil Beaton, The Glass of Fashion (1954).

**Hugh Brewster, Gilded Lives, Fatal Voyage (2012). After the sinking, in which Quigg was lost, Berthe stayed for a time with his family in Montreal before returning to Europe. As for Ninette Aubart, the Guggenheim family may have helped her clandestinely “and kept the news of her existence hidden from Ben’s widow, Florette.”

The Dress Code of the United States Senate, Vol. 22, Issue 59

“Cousin Marie says politicians aren’t gentlemen.” — Agatha Christie, Death on the Nile

“We are not all held to the same standard. Leaders are held to a higher standard.” — Etiquetteer

“. . . first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” — Matthew 7:5

Several readers have forced on Etiquetteer’s attention that the dress code of the United States Senate has been revised to make it less formal. Against his better judgment, Etiquetteer has to cede the floor to That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much, who has complicated views on this matter.

I admit it. I want it both ways. I want people — elected officials, fellow citizens — to show respect by what they wear and how they behave. Is that too much to ask? Apparently yes.

With the U.S. government headed toward a shutdown, the latest distraction is the decision of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to relax the Senate dress code so that business attire — a suit and tie — is no longer required for Senators to appear on the Senate floor. This is widely, and correctly, seen as an accommodation to freshman Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), whose diagnosis of clinical depression since assuming office is now as well known as his long-established daily wardrobe of gym shorts and hoodies.

I could have a real “tuck in your shirt and get off my lawn” moment about this and rant about how the Casual Friday movement of the 1990s brought us here, about Sloth and about a Decline of Standards of Decency — but that’s both a) expected of me, and b) utterly useless. Here we are in this moment; what is there to be done? First, I might ask what you were wearing when you first read that news. Would it have passed muster on the Senate floor?

We must acknowledge that more than a few Senators have been skirting the dress code, voting on bills while keeping one foot in the cloak room. “The modification is in many ways a bow to reality: In recent years, there have been plenty of senators who have departed from the suit-and-tie uniform that for decades was considered the only acceptable attire,” says the New York Times. And since the national trend has been drifting ever more quickly to Business Casual or even Casual Everyday, could this Downward Revision of the Senate dress code not be said to make the Senate even more representative of the people?

More to the point, is what one wears more important than how one behaves? Of course I remember the words of the late Mary Haines: “They are equally important, darling.” Republican Senators (and Congressional Representatives) may wring their hands in despair, but they have no leg to stand on if a) they’ve even once voted with one foot in the cloakroom to circumvent the dress code, or b) “shattered norms of decorum and conduct” themselves. (This NYT article cites chapter and verse on several of them.) Your lapels may be sharper than anyone else’s, but if they cover a poisonous heart, of what good are they?

So, I want it both ways. I admire Senator Fetterman, I sympathize with his struggle with depression, and I still want him to suit up. The Republican Senators who wrote “The world watches us on that floor and we must protect the sanctity of that place at all costs” are not wrong, but should turn their attention to how their party, and its de facto leader, have already damaged that sanctity themselves, “shattered norms of decorum and conduct,” and decide to make restoring it more of a party priority.

The Correct Thing of 1888, Vol. 22, Issue 58

Etiquetteer loves a good etiquette book of Days Gone By, and has delayed too long the temptation to delve into The Correct Thing in Good Society from 1888, by Mrs. Florence (Howe) Hall. She has structured her book so that a page of “It is the Correct Thing*” appears opposite “It is not the Correct Thing.” While it’s wonderful, in this century, to be free of the burden of leaving calling cards, and people no longer have dancing parties in private homes**, a surprising lot of Mrs. Hall’s advice remains Perfectly Proper today.

For instance, on the subject of correspondence, “It is the Correct Thing . . . To remember that ‘the written word remains,’ and therefore to write with due caution and clearness.” Contrast this with “It is not the Correct Thing . . . To write when angry, or to write threatening letters, thus getting one’s self into much trouble, and perhaps incurring lawsuits.” Death threats have become so alarmingly commonplace (but still alarming) in our national discourse. Lincoln’s famous advice — to write the angry letter and then never send it — remains the Best Correspondence Advice Ever. Set it aside for a day or so, and then either tear it up, or edit for clarity and temperature before sending. It should not be necessary to say this, but threatening death or physical violence is never right. If you find yourself moving in that direction, it’s time to take a step back and ask yourself some Important Questions.

On the subject of conversation***, “It is the Correct Thing . . . To remember that conversation should never turn into monologue,” and “ . . . To preserve a certain moderation in the very whirlwind of one’s talk, watching carefully for signs of fatigue or sleep in one’s listeners, and never allowing that unruly little member, the tongue, to run away with its owner.” Etiquetteer has more than once had to prod That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much on exactly this subject.

Finally, Mrs. Hall covers a topic dear to many lovers of etiquette, afternoon tea. “It is not the Correct Thing . . . To give an afternoon tea (calling it by that name), and provide coffee as the only drink, or to give a “kaffee-klatsch,” and provide only tea.” To this we could also add “decaf,” but Etiquetteer would invite tea-drinkers to remember that a private home is not a restaurant. To invite six people to afternoon tea and have to have five different tiny teapots instead of one large one is unthinkable. (Etiquetteer has always loved the story of the British ambassador attending a large tea in the FDR White House. When asked “Coffee, tea, or cocoa?” he replied “Madam, I was invited for tea!”****)

She also includes “It is not the Correct Thing . . . For guests to deposit their cups or plates in the drawing-room in a careless or awkward manner, setting them on varnished surfaces or on silken cloths, or too near the edge of a table, so that they will be likely to fall upon the floor.” Instructions like this betray the myth that everything and everyone in the past was Perfectly Proper. It simply was not so.

Etiquetteer may well have more to say about this enchanting volume later.

*Like Etiquetteer, Mrs. Hall does love her Random Capitalized Words.

**Or if they do, they aren’t inviting Etiquetteer.

***Now we have texting, which is, um, not quite the same thing.

****From Upstairs at the White House, by J.B. West.

Windbags, Vol. 22, Issue 57

Dear Etiquetteer:

With the beginning of the academic year comes a flurry of lectures, conferences, and other gatherings that include opportunities for audience members to engage with the participants on stage. How does one properly deal with the guest who asks the interminable question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand but everything to do with said guest’s own ego?

Dear Frustrated Moderator:

Etiquetteer shares your frustration with the Off-Topic Question, the bane of the lecture circuit. Two things are worse: being contradicted by an audience member, and the question that begins “I don’t really have a question, but a comment.”

Why do people behave this way? Sometimes their minds have been opened by the speakers in such a way that they really haven’t formed their thoughts, but are so excited about their new knowledge that they have to ask something to share it. Others are starry-eyed fans of the speakers who have no other way to interact with them. These are charitable explanations.

Those you speak of just want to assert their importance, intelligence, and/or pedigree by bringing up elements of the topic that the speakers didn’t include, no matter how very tenuously they might be connected. Sometimes Windbags just want to score malicious points off the speakers. [Faculty on faculty takedowns are overrated.] Finally, there’s that audience member who must have decided “This is the question I am going to ask today” whether it has anything to do with the topic or not.

Both patience and at least the appearance of gratitude are needed to handle These People. Dear Mother used to say “When you lose your temper, you lose your point,” and she was right. As soon as the audience sees steam rising from a moderator’s collar, sympathy will begin to flow toward the Windbag. Etiquetteer freely admits that this can be a challenge.

A good Q&A question shouldn’t take more than a minute or two to ask; it’s not a time for speeches. When they still can’t get to the point, consider interrupting with “I do want to have time for other questions from the audience. What is your question?” A good response to something off topic begins by thanking the questioner and regrets that you can’t really weave it into the actual topic. “Thank you for that interesting question. I wish I could comment more, but that’s entirely outside my discipline.” Good speakers, especially good academics, are also aware of the wider world; if possible, direct your questioner to other relevant sources of information.

A certain amount of compassion is needed, though. At a panel discussion earlier this year Etiquetteer witnessed an audience member make a distressing appeal for assistance in repealing some healthcare-related issue (Memory fails on the details) that had absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. The moderator, a True Gentleman, admitted that that wasn’t the area of expertise of the panel, “but perhaps there is someone here in the audience who can help, who could approach you after the program.” That response deftly and kindly preserved everyone’s self-respect, while giving the audience a chance to assist after the Q&A period. What could be more Perfectly Proper?

At the other end of the spectrum, about 30 years ago Etiquetteer witnessed the incomparable Lily Tomlin handle a long-winded young woman whose “question” had gone on no little time. (Ms. Tomlin was heading a panel discussion at MIT with her partner Jane Wagner.) When it was finally Ms. Tomlin’s turn, she began “I was free-associating during your question . . . ” which led to prolonged laughter and applause. It was a harsh but necessary lesson that a Q&A period is not a time to flesh out and experiment with your own ideas, but to prompt the speakers to flesh out and share their own. But Etiquetteer has more sympathy for that young woman now; that must have been very embarrassing.

Only the star power of someone like Ms. Tomlin could take down a Windbag so dismissively. The rest of us need to have more sympathy. Snappy comebacks and putdowns are wonderful comic relief on television, but they sting more in real life.

Etiquetteer wishes you brief, concise, specific, and on-topic questions at all your functions this season.

A Gentleman's Rings, Vol. 22, Issue 56

Dear Etiquetteer:

My family had a long and historic provenance. We pass a signet ring generation to generation. It only fits on my pinky, and I’m unsure of wearing it thus. Are there any other ways to wear such jewelry that honors the family but fits 21st-century aesthetics?

Dear Beringed:

Etiquetteer can’t agree that an heirloom signet ring doesn’t fit the 21st century. According to Tiffany & Co. they are making a comeback — but then they would profit by saying so. Simplicity and severity are the traditional hallmarks of a gentleman’s jewelry, and remain a standard of Perfect Propriety.

The pinky finger, in fact, is the Perfectly Proper finger for your signet ring. The fourth finger is always reserved for one’s wedding ring, which Amy Vanderbilt observed became the custom during World War II. She also had opinions about rings on other fingers. “Rings worn on the index finger or on the second [middle] finger are just plain theatrical and affected, no matter how they were worn in Victorian days.*” Esquire Etiquette of 1953 barbs its warning differently: “A ring is just about the only pretty that a man can wear without looking pretty-pretty himself.”** The overall suggestion is that, for gentlemen, Less Is More.

Etiquetteer would not be quite so rigid, but any person’s jewelry should contribute to his or her attractiveness, not move the focus to the jewels themselves at the expense of the wearer. As Auntie Mame said to Agnes Gooch about a dress “Put down that lime green at once, Agnes. You’re supposed to dominate it!” You’ll find more of Etiquetteer’s ideas about a gentleman’s jewelry in Volume 19 here, and Gentleman’s Gazette has a marvelous piece about their collection of pinky rings.

If you want to wear your ring, but not on a finger, it’s not really unusual to wear it as a pendant on a gold chain. You could also, if there are not further generations to whom to bequeath it, have it altered into a lapel pin. Understandably some might consider this Next Door to Heresy, and Etiquetteer doesn’t really recommend it. But if you’re the Last of Your Name, it’s really up to you.

Etiquetteer wishes you quiet contemplation of family pride as you wear your signet ring out and about.

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

**Nuggets of Cold War-era homophobia pop up here and there in this etiquette time capsule, for instance “. . . a man who drapes his too-full polo coat over his shoulders may not be a queer . . . But if a man looks sharp or queer or corny, the people he meets may not stick around to discover the truth hidden by his off-beat clothes.” This anti-dandy stance may possibly explain the post-Woodstock Peacock Revolution.

Cinema Etiquette, Vol. 22, Issue 55

This summer two very different blockbusters — Barbie and Oppenheimer, also known as Barbenheimer — have brought astonishing numbers of people back to cinemas, some for the first time since before the pandemic started in 2020. Alas, many of them have not been behaving with Perfect Propriety. Perfectly Proper people take note of the impact their behavior has on others. That’s basic consideration, and one reason we haven’t yet erupted into civil war. That’s even more important in a space where people want to concentrate, like a cinema. So for National Cinema Day today, here’s a few tips for a Perfectly Proper Movie Show.

First, and most important, put your damn phone away. You’ve come to the cinema to see a movie. See the movie. Be with the movie you’re with, not social media videos, and not video chat with absent friends — especially with the volume up. Light from your phone seriously distracts people around you, not to mention sounds your device makes, and sounds you make at your device. Stop it at once.

Along with that, no selfies after the movie starts. Etiquetteer knows how important it is to document friend group activities, but doing so during the Main Event — the movie — is totally rude to people around you.

Keep your shoes on and your feet down. You’re not at home, and no one needs to know about your feet, or their odor. Yes, those armrest gaps in front of you are mighty tempting for footrests, but that’s not what they’re there for. Etiquetteer might look the other way if you prop your knees against the back of the empty seat in front of you, but you are only tempting fate.

Carry it in, carry it out. All those giant-sized popcorn and beverage buckets, all those candy wrappers — if you brought it to your seat, for heaven’s sake bring it back out and throw it away in one of the trashcans. Those poor ushers have enough to do as it is, not to mention what it would be like for the audience for the next feature.

And finally, quiet please! Of course you sometimes need to whisper a comment to your companion, but others in the audience are not, Etiquetteer guarantees, not interested in your running commentary, whether it’s about the movie or not.

Watching a movie in a cinema with a room full of strangers can be an absolutely wonderful experience. Etiquetteer will never forget the hysterical enthusiasm of packed houses for RoboCop and It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, among others. But Etiquetteer especially remembers a screening of Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious at some point in the 2010s at the Harvard Film Archive. In the movie something happens to Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in a wine cellar, and to hear the last five rows of theatre gasp in unison right before it happened — well, that’s what makes going to the movies so special. And we lose out on those experiences when we text and talk and trash all the way through.

Etiquetteer wishes you many magical and Perfectly Proper screenings.

Meddling in Professional Life, Vol. 22, Issue 54

Dear Etiquetteer:

How does one deal with a friend who insists on using his influence to get a position for someone who does not want the particular job? It is all the more awkward because the friend is relentless in pressuring his own contacts to try and “help.”

Dear Careerist:

What most concerns Etiquetteer about this is your use of the word “relentless.” Your Meddling Friend is likely as much a nuisance to his contacts as he is to the person he wants to place with them. Persistent, over-enthusiastic references sometimes do more harm than good* — especially in this case. The current situation can only end badly for the Meddler. Should his contacts actually approach that person about the position, and be declined (which seems likely), the Meddler will only look like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Which may be the case.

Candor is not always Perfectly Proper, but sometimes there is simply no other way. The unwilling recipient of the Meddler’s good intentions needs to thank him for his interest, but that NO, that position/company is not how that person chooses to continue his or her career. “I have no plans to leave my current job” or “I’m pursuing other options that I’m not at liberty to discuss right now” ought to satisfy anyone. If the Meddler protests, gently call him out on it. “There are many paths a career can take, and I’m surprised you’re so invested in me making this particular choice, especially since I’ve told you I’m not interested. Tell me more about that.” Firm and continued persecution on those lines — keep him on the jump answering questions about his own choices — should make the Meddler retreat.

Etiquetteer wishes you, as Sidney Greenstreet so economically expressed it in The Maltese Falcon, “plain speaking and clear understanding.”

*Etiquetteer heard of a case once when a long-departed colleague who had not been heard from in many years blanketed an office with fulsome praise for a candidate. Apparently the colleague’s blandishments did not have the desired effect. This is a good argument for staying in more constant communication with former colleagues. People are more kindly disposed if they hear from you when you are not looking for favors, too.

Etiquette for Very Hot Weather, Vol. 22, Issue 53

A Facebook reader (you are following Etiquetteer’s Facebook page, aren’t you?) has asked for advice on “etiquette for very hot weather.” We have certainly had our share this year, haven’t we? Etiquetteer offered a few tips for Perfect Propriety in the summer back in Volume 15. Here are a few more.

First, for heaven’s sake, slow down. Give yourself extra time to get where you’re going and do what you’re doing. Haste makes heat. Moderate your walking pace. And if you can, stay indoors during the hottest part of the day (typically the afternoon). The Spanish custom of siesta truly bears copying, and it’s surprisingly easy to keep going until midnight if you adopt it.

Perhaps the most underrated accessory is the plain white linen handkerchief, especially in summertime. This useful bit of fabric will help you mop your sweating brow and neck more effectively than just your hand, and certainly looks better than using your sleeve or (good heavens!) your shirttail. A severely plain hankie is best, perhaps with one’s monogram embroidered, or another favorite motif.

It’s also high time for the fan to make a comeback to the American summertime wardrobe. A wide folding fan is such a Spanish stereotype, along with the mantilla. But Spanish ladies (and a few gentlemen) actually do wield them for everyday use, and quite elegantly and effectively, too. Obviously they serve two purposes, to create a cooling breeze and to shield one from the sun. American men will find the palm leaf fan suits them better. Useful and elegant.

Hygiene takes on added importance at times of increased perspiration. Besides regular use of deodorants, scent, and soap and water, some may wish to combat moisture with body powder. This used to be generically referred to as “talcum powder,” but there was such a kerfuffle a year or so ago about talcum causing cancer . . . read here for what the American Cancer Society has to say about it, and then choose something that works for you.

Hydration is even more important during the hottest times of day, and there’s Nothing Improper about carrying about your thermos or water bottle. Reservoir backpacks, like the Camelbak, have their place for athletics and fitness, and quite possibly for stadium events, but aren’t Perfectly Proper for town wear.

Finally, your baseball cap will serve you better if you wear the brim in front as intended and not backwards. Want coverage for both your face and neck? Ditch the cap and wear a full-brimmed hat like a panama.

Etiquetteer wishes you cool breezes, cool drinks, and cool companions.

Friends and Food Allergies, Vol. 22, Issue 52

Dear Etiquetteer:

I’d love help with something! I have multiple food allergies, which can make getting together with friends/colleagues/etc. a bit more of a chore on my end (as I need to do some reconnaissance regarding menus of places being considered for a gathering). That has the unintended consequence of making it seem like I’m looking for a way out of the get-together, when I just want to make sure I can enjoy something during the outing. What are some suggestions for maneuvering a rather tricky social situation?

Dear Allergic:

First of all, be first with the suggestions! If there’s a restaurant, watering hole, or other eatery that you already know can accommodate you, don’t be afraid to say you’d like to go there. You’ll be able to make more suggestions first, too, if you start now researching establishments that meet your needs. Keep a list on your phone or person that you can refer to in the moment. Depending on where you live, that could be quite an undertaking. On the plus side, you may discover some hidden gems that become regular allergy-friendly hangouts.

You can’t bring your own refreshments to a restaurant, but you can (surprise!) when you’re going to someone else’s house. Famously vegetarian Gloria Swanson would slip her sandwich to the butler (if there was one) so it could be served with the entrée, or just slip it unobtrusively out of her handbag. (Think of Queen Elizabeth II and Paddington Bear. If she can get away with it, certainly we can!) The point is to do it without a lot of fanfare and flourishes, and certainly without any preparation time in the kitchen. If anyone is so rude as to ask about it, just tell them that your multiple allergies have you on a strict regimen and change the subject.

But you seem to be asking what to do when a venue has been suggested in a group text (or even in person), and no one knows for certain whether a restaurant’s menu has anything for you. There’s no use hiding it — you have to know. Commit to the time, and get as much info off the web as you can. (It seems a lot of restaurants just don’t have phones any more.) Thank the group for their patience, but without apologizing — “I really want to spend time with all of you, but I have to be sure I can have more than water and salad.” You can always counter with another venue you know can serve you.

Knowledge is Power, and when you have the knowledge of where you can go with Allergy Accommodation Assurance, you’ll have the power to say yea or nay on a dime. Etiquetteer wishes you many risk-free gatherings of Perfect Propriety with friends, colleagues, and et ceteras.

Beach Etiquette, Vol. 22, Issue 51

Hell is other people. — Jean-Paul Sartre

Dear Etiquetteer:

I’m sure you’ve addressed this at some point in your storied etiquette career, but if not, I’d like to know how to address the subject of beach behavior, particularly, the following:

1. If you’ve set up your beach spot for the day, and someone moves directly in front of you, blocking your carefully chosen view of the ocean, how do you deal with this in a perfectly proper way?

2. What about loud music players at the beach? I know the beach is a public space, but must people haul what amounts to the entirety of their homes onto the beach so as not to be without a single comfort of home for a few hours? I prefer to commune with nature and the sound of the sea—not someone else’s music!

3. Seagulls are smart little squawkers and they will find a way into your unguarded snacky-bits, but that doesn’t give you (or your loud and annoying children) the right to harass them in return! What should one say or do (if anything) to self-appointed wildlife wardens?

Dear Sandy Shores:

Etiquetteer knows those fresh few hours when it’s possible “to commune with nature and the sound of the sea.” They generally fall between dawn and 10:00 AM, after which time the Madding Crowd descends with their elaborate shelters, stereo systems, and seagull bait.

It would be lovely if everyone wanted to enjoy the beach in the same way that we did, but since American ideas of enjoyment (and manners) fill the entire spectrum, we have to learn to coexist peacefully. That means not being so sniffy about how much gear people drag along with them. Etiquetteer once witnessed a party of eight or so march onto a beach bearing a Cleopatran litter of gear surmounted by an enormous inflatable flamingo. The resulting campsite included a semicircle of beach chairs and umbrellas, towels, some sort of stereo, a generator, and three blenders on a folding table so the party could offer smoothies to passersby. It was vastly entertaining — but then Etiquetteer’s towel was nowhere nearby.

Staking out your space directly in front of someone else, however, is a jerk move, especially with one of those large sail-sized tarps that extend everywhere. Thomas Jefferson may (or may not, depending on who you talk to) have said “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Guard your view with a Cheery Greeting as soon as anyone even remotely looks like they might be stopping in front of your beach chairs. The more animated and eager to engage you appear, the more likely they’ll find another spot for fear of getting stuck talking to you all day. The moment you see one of those tarps come out, and maybe even an umbrella, ask nicely if they wouldn’t mind moving a few feet in either direction. If there’s still room to maneuver, they should accommodate, but some beaches are very crowded. Besides, the people next to you might say “Hey, now you’re blocking my view!”

On future visits you may wish to safeguard your view by settling right at the high tide line, but that’s no guarantee.

Etiquetteer really blames George I for the perceived need for beachside tunes. It was his wish for a concert on the Thames that led Handel to write his Water Music. Mass production of the transistor radio in 1954 made this elite pleasure possible for everyone — but they don’t often choose Handel, now do they*? Few problems are solved without communication. Beyond a “Would you mind turning that down a bit?” Etiquetteer could only suggest that you ask them to play something you like — and even then, that’s not likely to be received well.

As to the treatment of seagulls, Etiquetteer must gently disagree with you. Eternal vigilance is needed to protect one’s picnics from these avian menaces. Others are simply more proactive than you prefer. As long as no physical contact is actually made with a seagull, Etiquetteer has no qualm. Other sea birds, however, should be left strictly alone.

Etiquetteer would gladly join you for a Coastal Grandma-style beach day — plenty of unbleached linen, tattered cotton plaids, enormous hats, plain white umbrellas, trashy novels, and rosé, and no music — but in the meantime wishes you all the serenity of the tide gently lapping the sands.

*In fact, two dear friends of Etiquetteer were once reduced to helpless laughter when they could not escape the sounds of “Diva” by Club 69 blasting from the boombox of some Very Naughty Boys.