Ten Tips for Thanksgiving Guests, Vol. 22, Issue 75

Are you dining away from home for Thanksgiving? Whether you are celebrating in a place you’ve been before, or someplace brand new, Etiquetteer has a few tips to help your Thanksgiving Day go smoothly.

1. Be on time. If the invitation has been given for a specific time, be there then. Often Thanksgiving invitations are on the informal side — “Oh, show up around 2:00, and we’ll sit down to dinner somewhere between 3:00 and 4:00 depending on the turkey” — but you’re within your rights to ask when dinner is served if that hasn’t been stated.

2. Know how you’re getting there. Perhaps it’s just because looking things up on GPS or a map app is so immediate, but your drive to your destination will be less stressful if you look up all the directions before you get in the car — preferably the day before. You will take to the roads with greater confidence, and that will result in a calmer atmosphere for your passengers, and yourself. If you’re traveling by train or bus, confirm the schedules in advance, too. Never assume.

3. Bring your assigned contribution accurately. Etiquetteer is by no means excusing the super-specific bossiness of “Marney” over at Awkward Family Photos (that is just Beyond the Pale), but if you have been asked to bring dry white wine, don’t show up with a Riesling, or mashed potatoes if you’ve been asked to make yams. That means not waiting to the last minute for shopping. (In other words, today is your last chance, so get busy!)

4. Yes, you should offer to help. Yes, even if you really hope your hosts decline. If you are particularly good at something, offer to do that. (“Can I help arrange the flowers? Do you need me to look after the children?”) Keep in mind that often help is needed more after the feast than beforehand. Etiquetteer’s Dear Uncle (may he rest in peace) was not efficient around the house, but he was excellent at drying dishes and could be counted on in a pinch for that needful task. (And if your hosts do decline, don’t insist. They know how they like to do things.)

5. Know when you need to step away. Sometimes Thanksgiving feels overwhelming and we need a moment alone. Recognize when a retreat to an empty space (the guest room, the bathroom, the back yard, even the garage) is in everyone’s best interest.

6. Don’t make a fuss at the table. Missing your favorite casserole? Turkey’s not quite done to your liking? Unless you’re offering to host next year, Etiquetteer wants you to hush up.

7. Keep the food moving. Whether your feast is served family style* or it’s just rolls, gravy and cranberry sauce on the table, keep passing everything to your right until everyone has been served. If you’re not having any yourself, don’t just leave the serving dish in front of you. Others may want some! (If you are the first person to pick up the bread basket, you may offer it to the person at your left, then help yourself and pass to the right.)

8. Expect to be part of the conversation. Thanksgiving is like any other dinner party, and that means actually talking to other people (whether you want to or not) and not just burying yourself in your phone. Have something to say about what’s happening in your own life. Those who define themselves as Conversationally Challenged should arm themselves with open-ended questions to deflect, e.g. “I don’t have a lot of experience with [Insert Topic Here]. What was your experience like?” or “Tell me how that impacted you.”

9. Napping is Perfectly Proper, just not at the table. Whether you blame tryptophan** or just good old-fashioned Gluttony, we are often sleepy after Thanksgiving dinner. Etiquetteer can find no sin in succumbing briefly to post-prandial unconsciousness, but don’t take up all available space on the sofa.

10. Send a Lovely Note of Thanks. So what if it’s a relative who hosted? Hosting Thanksgiving is a lot of work! And this is a holiday about being thankful, yes? Dash off a Lovely Note the next morning, brief and sincere. Protip: kill two birds with one stone by adding to your holiday card “And we loved spending Thanksgiving with you. Thank you for including us!”

Etiquetteer wishes you a stress-free, smooth and very Happy and Perfectly Proper Thanksgiving.

*Or service à la française if you want to sound highfalutin’ — which is not really Perfectly Proper.

**Which is not actually why we feel sleepy after Thanksgiving, according to Psychology Today. Surprise!

Thanksgiving Preparations, Vol. 22, Issue 74

The Time of Great Feasts is here! Welcome to the first day of Thanksgiving Week! It’s a wonderful day, if you haven’t started already, to inventory your gear to help keep the Happy Day as joyous, calm, and stress-free as possible. Let’s go through your storage and consider what’s what and what might need to be done.

LINENS

Do you have a tablecloth for each dining table? Do you know where they are? Find them and check for unexpected spots or wrinkles. There’s still time for laundering, ironing, and repairing. Are there napkins, both for dinner and for that long period beforehand that’s anything from snack time to the cocktail hour? If you’re using cloth napkins, check for flaws and iron when needed. If you’re using paper, make sure you have enough for everyone and buy what you’re missing. (Etiquetteer has written about cloth vs. paper napkins before.)

CHINA and Glass

Moving to the china cupboard, do you have enough dinner plates and dessert plates for each person? Check for nicks or breakage, and also have a stack of extra plates handy for unexpected arrivals. (On Thanksgiving it’s awkward to turn anyone away.) Look over your water goblets and wineglasses (and any others you may need) for nick, cracks and spots. You still have time to make them sparkle.

SILVER

Emily Post Herself used to say “Use silver that shines or none at all.” This was not an excuse to Use Disposable Instead! Do you have enough silverware for each person?* Do you have all the serving pieces you need: platters, trays, utensils? Check each piece for spots and tarnish; there’s still time for polishing.

FOR THE TABLETOP

Do you know what your centerpiece(s) will be? Are those items near at hand? Have you checked the good salt and pepper shakers to be sure they’re filled and that the salt hasn’t caked solid since last year? Are all your sauceboats and bread baskets and butter dishes and the special dish you use for cranberry sauce clean and ready to go?

Etiquetteer made this survey last night, and there are some challenges to take care of now. Most everything is in Perfectly Proper condition, but the cork stoppers in the salt and pepper shakers are wedged solid; I must find a way to coax them out without breaking the corks. Conversely, I cannot seem to fit tapers into a large brass candelabra firmly enough that one or two don’t fall out. Recent discovery of a set of large damask napkins is going to require some dedicated ironing.

But, in the words of the late Belle Poitrine, “The answer to the challenge is always yes!” It’s easier to give that answer, though, when there’s time enough for a Perfectly Proper response. Etiquetteer wishes you well as your preparations continue.

*For a buffet, one dinner knife and fork, and one dessert fork and spoon per person should do. For a seated dinner, you may need more, depending on the menu and style of service.

Buffets, Vol. 22, Issue 73

Each household has its own way of celebrating Thanksgiving, from booking a private room at the club to sitting on the sofa in front of the TV like every other dinner, just with a nicer plate. But a buffet seems to be the most popular way to serve Thanksgiving dinner, with its Glorious Bird and galaxy of required favorite side dishes and desserts. Buffets can be easy, but they also have their issues. Let’s look at how to manage a Thanksgiving buffet with Perfect Propriety.

By definition a buffet is informal (although Perfectly Proper households use the Good Stuff for this important holiday). For Thanksgiving it is arranged either in the dining room (on the sideboard or on the dining table itself if everyone is seated elsewhere) or even along the kitchen island*. Many of the old etiquette books put symmetry and aesthetics over user convenience, putting the plates in the center of the buffet in front of the main course. But darn it, that means only one person can approach the buffet at a time, and we all know that’s not efficient for a big family feed! Please position your plates at the end where guests will start serving themselves, and the main course immediately next to it. Then side dishes, and then silver and napkins at the very end (if not already set on the dining tables, see below). Desserts should be brought out after everyone has finished dinner.

“The buffet supper is clearly rising in favor among smart metropolitan people” rhapsodizes Lila Haxworth Wallace in The New American Etiquette of 1941. “In a small house or apartment, more guests can be entertained at a buffet supper than at dinner. Late arrivals do not upset seating arrangements . . . and it can be make one of the prettiest and gayest of social occasions . . . Candles on the table and on the buffet, of course. Lovely flowers. Fine laces, or bare mahogany, or shining glass surfaces. Stacks of plates, piles of dainty small napkins, knives, spoons and forks arranged in graceful patterns.” What could be more Perfectly Proper?

The only problem with this Vision of Loveliness is the bounty of the Thanksgiving menu. “Graceful patterns” of silverware, no matter how pretty, take up valuable real estate. Take a tip from Etiquetteer and set each place at your table(s) in advance. This not only leaves room for the creamed onions, it means your guests have fewer things to carry as they search for their places. Whether you have one or two large tables or several small ones, save more buffet space by placing bread baskets and condiments (butter, cranberry sauce and other relishes) on each one.

Because it’s a buffet, you just need to have one dinner knife and fork per person, and one dessert fork and spoon. Remember, dessert silver goes horizontally at the top of each place. Set your water goblets and wineglasses to the right of each place as well.

Finally, a couple things people sometimes forget. Protect the surface of your buffet table with a trivet or pad for each hot dish, especially the platter for the Glorious Bird. Second, if you use candlesticks, get a bobeche for each one, a small glass collar that rests on top of the candlestick and prevents melted wax from dribbling onto your best table linens.

And one last word about napkins. Thanksgiving is one of those holidays when people go on and on about cloth napkins vs. paper napkins. Etiquetteer covered it all before, and while it scandalizes some cloth-minded people, paper napkins can be Perfectly Proper. Read it all here.

Etiquetteer wishes you smooth and happy arrangements for your Great Feasts! And please send any further queries you might have here.

*This is how Dear Mother managed holiday buffets for a family of eight.

Intrusive Questions and Difficult Topics, Vol. 22, Issue 72

Dear Etiquetteer:

Is there a gracious way to say “None of your gosh-darned business?”

I am widowed, and now live with an opposite-gendered human being to whom I am not married. People always try hinting at a definition of our “relationship,” and while it is complicated and ever evolving, we are two full grown adults, and I really am tired of, “No, not my husband. Had one of those once,” and leaving it at that. I will sometimes shorthand it as “partners” as we run a farm together, work on various projects together, edit each others’ writing, and the like, but then he worries people will treat that like LGTBQA etc. folks who call their spouses “partners.”

The same “None of your gosh-darned business” phrase (less politely thought but never verbally expressed using profanity) comes to mind in other situations as well. I often just deflect and change the subject. I do not want to debate politics with you, near stranger, or hear your thoughts of vaccines, and my vote is my own business and no one else’s. In political terms people then always seem to think I must be their opposite (whatever that issue is) and try to “change my mind” anyway.

That’s my puzzle.

Dear Puzzling:

Intrusive questions do get frustrating, no doubt about it. And here we are, heading into the Time of Great Feasts, when they seem to come up more than usual. In your case, the most charitable explanation is that your inquisitors — oh, excuse me, your neighbors — might want to know what social unit to invite to a dinner: a couple, or two singles, or just one.

If “We’re not a couple” divulges more information than you wish to share, or prompts even more questions, you might try turning the questions back. “I'm really puzzled why you take such an interest in my personal life. Were you thinking about asking me over for dinner?” or “Do you take this much interest in everyone’s personal arrangements?”

While Etiquetteer often suggests an air of Infinite Regret over such comments, what's important to you is that the inquiries stop. That requires a less accommodating delivery. Etiquetteer has never forgotten a particular exchange in 1776 in which Dr. Hall of Georgia deftly deflects the attempts of Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina to get him to make a public statement about independence:

Hall: “I am here without instructions, able to vote my own personal convictions.”

Rutledge: “And they are . . . ?”

Hall: [a pause; he examines him] “Personal.”

The most important part of that exchange is the pause. Dr. Hall used it to give Mr. Rutledge notice that his question was out of bounds. Timing is important. Learn to use it to your advantage.

But for those who lack the ability even to take that hint, spell it out. “I think of myself as a reserved person, and there’s just a lot that I prefer not to talk about. Thanks for respecting my choice to be more circumspect about things that a lot of other people do prefer to talk about.”

Etiquetteer wishes you cordial and reserved interactions throughout the Time of Great Feasts, and beyond.

Dear Etiquetteer:

I would love to hear about how to handle Israel-Palestine discussions. Help! Many of us are scared to say anything for fear of being attacked or misunderstood. 

Dear Scared:

First, if you don’t want to have the discussion, you don’t have to. If you want to initiate a discussion with someone, ask their permission first.

More important than that, actually, is where and with whom to have the discussion. Not online, and not with total strangers, especially online. Etiquetteer has always said not to engage with bots and trolls on social media, and never has Etiquetteer witnessed such incendiary baiting and wharrgarbl. Bots and trolls are eager to misunderstand and attack you. Know who you’re talking to! Have your discussions in person if possible, or at least on platforms where you know all the participants and what you share won’t be open to the general public.

The same rules apply to discussing the war as they do for any difficult topic: keep calm, be prepared to listen, explain your position carefully, and know your facts (and get them from more than one source). Finding out where others get their facts will also be important; if it’s the Platform Formerly Known as Twitter, for instance, gently express a preference for more reliable sources. Be honest with yourself about why you’re participating: to change minds, share your beliefs, understand others, or express your emotions. Each choice will see you choose your words differently.

Accept from the beginning that there is no guarantee your talk will resolve any differences. Etiquetteer was deeply impressed by the story of two Georgia women on opposite sides of the war who had a discussion about their differences anyway. While they in no way came together, Etiquetteer admires Samara Minkin and Sanadia Oliver for committing to talking with each other respectfully about their differing viewpoints.

Caught by a Funeral, Vol. 22, Issue 71

From the daily life of Etiquetteer, a lesson on what to do when taken unawares — but Etiquetteer yields the floor to That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much:

During the pandemic a nearby cemetery became my happy place — because there was almost no one else there. But one of the risks of frequent cemetery visits is the sudden appearance of a funeral cortège. After four years I’ve learned that when pre-recorded hymn tunes start pealing from the tower, a new Permanent Resident is entering by the front gates, followed by a long cortège of cars. Just what are you supposed to do?!

Well, you are really supposed to stop and stand with your hat off until the entire procession passes you. This time I was not on the same avenue as the procession, though it was visible to me. I felt I could continue on my way, though I had to slow my pace until all the cars passed my intersection. On one occasion last year I ducked hastily through some shrubbery to another avenue, which was Not Really Perfectly Proper At All. But there have been other times when leaving the cemetery I have encountered arriving funeral processions, and then there’s no escape. The only course was to stop and remove my hat until the entire cortège has passed. Yes, that might be a while, but inconvenience means nothing. Death itself is inconvenient. Death waits for no one*, so respect must be shown. Be patient.

Now when I say remove your hat, I mean men remove secular headgear (religious and military headgear have their own rules), and people of all gender expressions remove baseball caps. There are etiquette writers in this century ready to make hat removal entirely gender neutral, but I am not ready to tell ladies that some large-brimmed hat needs to come off every time they walk into a building . . . or every time a hearse passes by.

The only other incident I’ll mention happened a couple weeks ago on a rainy afternoon under my rainbow umbrella** when I unexpectedly walked by an interment. Thankfully there was enough distance between us, but I felt uncomfortably like Ruth Gordon in Harold and Maude (see above). But in such bad weather it would have been folly to furl it while continuing on my way. No, I won’t be getting a new black umbrella, either.

At least today I was soberly garbed.

*Etiquetteer has been saying “Death waits for no man” over 30 years, but the only attribution I can find for it is a writer named Markus Zusak, from his novel The Book Thief, which was published in this century. Further information about this quote is more than welcome.

**Middle-aged man + rainbow umbrella = I think we know.

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.