Dear Etiquetteer:
What do you say when someone makes inappropriate comments without creating a scene?
Dear Etiquetteer:
How does one politely yet emphatically interrupt conversation to deal with other participants who have dropped rude, crass, ignorant, racist or homophobic remarks?
Dear Offended Auditor(s):
We are blessed to live in a land that affords Freedom of Speech. The surprising advantage to this is learning how hateful people can be through what they say, which gives you the freedom to avoid them ever afterward. Etiquetteer wishes dearly that the memory of who said "I think if a man has opinions like that he should keep them to himself" in what movie would come back, but it is nevertheless good advice when one has Controversial Opinions about Other People, Beliefs, Practices, Behaviors, or Places.
Before getting involved, it's very important that you ask yourself honestly what outcome you expect. Do you expect to change this person's point of view? Do you want to warn them that someone who belongs to one of the groups being disparaged is nearby and could be offended? Do you want merely to change the topic? Do you just want to explain why your beliefs are different? Do you want to be sure they know that you think they are a Bad Person Unfit for Polite Society? Because let Etiquetteer tell you, if the answer to that last question is Yes, the most Perfectly Proper thing for you to do is to Remove Yourself from that person at once. Etiquetteer's Dear Mother wisely said "When you lose your temper, you lose your point." If you let anger overmaster you, you defend your point of view poorly.
As a general rule, it is safest not to respond to total strangers. With acquaintances and friends, there is slightly more leeway to offer Gentle Correction. With family . . . well, family dynamics are most challenging. While bound together by blood, differences in generation, region, and education do make themselves felt. Proceed with caution.
Let's establish the situation, which affects in part if and how you should react:
Are you in public, and are the offenders total strangers? If so, say nothing. That will surely create a scene.
Is this person just a Provocative Contrarian waving a red cape at a bull for his or her own entertainment? Stay away. You will always lose an argument with such people, who live only to humiliate others.
Are you a guest at a party overhearing a stranger? Say nothing, or speak to your host or hostess quietly.
Are you in a group of friends or acquaintances enjoying conversation? If it's necessary to prevent a scene, take the person aside - "Adolf, there's something I particularly want to ask you about" - and suggest Ever So Gently that they're making a bad impression and that more neutral topics are better for the occasion.
Are you in your own home or are you the host of a gathering at which these remarks are made? If so, it may be necessary for you to say a Quiet Word that the topic in question is forbidden in your house.
Irrepressible Elsa Maxwell recorded a Perfectly Proper example of the latter in her book I Married the World when the woman most known to History as Consuelo Vanderbilt had to react to an insult at her dinner table. It seems that the Earl of Carnarvon, her houseguest along with La Maxwell, suddenly popped out with "the French were a lot of frogs, anyway" in a discussion about postwar Europe. Alas for him, he had forgotten that his hostess was no longer Duchess of Marlborough but had been Madame Jacques Balsan for several years! La Maxwell related: "As Madame Balsan is married to a Frenchman and devoted to France the fat was in the fire. Icily, firmly and irrevocably the ultimatum was delivered to [the Earl]: 'Will you kindly leave my table and my house this instant,' Mme. Balsan demanded. Whereupon, his dinner half eaten, he left the room, went upstairs and had his bags packed and left the house.'"* Which just goes to show that it isn't Perfectly Proper to bite the hand that feeds you. Etiquetteer at least gives the Earl credit for recognizing his Stupendous Blunder and actually leaving the house without trying to have a Tedious Discussion about Feelings.
Etiquetteer will conclude by observing that sometimes Icy Silence communicates more effectively than any words.
Dear Etiquetteer:
When a friends posts something on a social network that you find offensive, is it proper to say anything? Is it simply proper to tell them they have offended you and why?
Dear Internetworked:
It is astonishing how people will toss off the most offensive comments online that they'd at least think twice about before uttering in person. To avoid making a scene (see above), Etiquetteer prefers sending a private message via the Social Media Being Used to explain, in as neutral and brief a way as possible, how what was communicated offended you. Depending on the Offensive Comment, you might include the possibility that they weren't aware their comment could be intepreted in an offensive way. You might also encourage them to delete it. But a flame war should be avoided.
Etiquetteer recommends NOT leaving a comment under the offensive post, which would be likely to prompt a public Airing of Dirty Laundry. Your goal is not to embarrass the other person (Etiquetteer hopes) but to express your own offense.
* Elsa Maxwell, quoted in Consuelo and Alva Vanderbilt, but Amanda Mackenzie Stuart, p. 479.
Since there seems to be some doubt on the subject, Etiquetteer would like to clarify that no one cares about your children. Especially when they are misbehaving out in public. No one cares! And no one cares especially if you, as a parent, do not care about the impact your children have on other people and/or their belongings.
What, you are probably asking yourself, launched Etiquetteer into this tiny tirade? The answer, dear readers, is this article, with photos, of parents blissfully unconcerned about their child climbing all over what is apparently a multi-million dollar work of art at the Tate Modern. One of the parents responded, "You obviously don't understand kids." To which Etiquetteer protests that the parents don't understand them. Children want a place to play! This is why there are places for children to play that are specifically for playing. This is why we have parks with jungle gyms. This is why we have playgrounds with swings. This is why we have traffic with . . . wait, no . . . no, that's not helping. Don't send the children to play in traffic.
Parents who fail to set boundaries for their children outside the home fail to teach them respect for other people. This is most often seen in restaurants, where parents of Children Too Young to Know Better are allowed to get away with terrible behavior, which usually has to be cleaned up by a long-suffering waiter or waitress who is insufficiently tipped. Parents, think honestly about the impression your family makes when you're out and about. It takes a village to raise a child, the old saying goes, and you want to be sure the villagers aren't coming after your Precious Snowflakes with tar, torches, and pitchforks.
Of course, when you look at the artwork on which the child was climbing, an obvious solution presents itself. A reasonable facsimile can be purchased from West Elm or some other stark and severe home furnishings catalog and installed in the nursery at home. Problem solved.
Dear Etiquetteer:
I recently sent a very nice gift for my niece's bridal shower. Unfortunately, the wedding was called off shortly thereafter.
A few weeks later, the mother of the groom sent me a gift card to "compensate" me for my gift and my inconvenience. I am the only one in my extended family who received such "compensation." I suspect she sent it because we occasionally run into each other in the same social circles. Although I don't care about the money, the gift card is actually for much less than the cost of the gift.
I was offended that the groom's mother sent me the gift card because I do not feel it was her place to step in. My niece should have been the one to communicate with her own family. I would have preferred not to hear at all from the groom's mother. My current concern is what to do with the gift card. Should I keep it or return it to the groom's mother? I really don't want her gift card, so if I return it, what should I say?
Dear Unregifted:
A few years ago Etiquetteer was invited to a wedding. About three weeks before the wedding day Etiquetteer received a card in the mail that matched the wedding stationery with the announcement that
The wedding between
Miss Dewy Freshness
and
Mr. Manley Firmness
will not take place.
Underneath and to the left one found the sentence "All gifts will be returned." Because let's face it, the first thought one has when learning of such a thing is "Am I going to get back that gift on which I spent so much money?"
It appears that your niece and her family have observed neither of these necessary social niceties, something you may want to take up with whichever Parent of the Bride is your Sibling. In the event that your niece does marry, Etiquetteer would absolve you from giving another shower gift -- but acknowledges that other etiquette writers may differ.
The involvement of the groom's mother certainly muddies the water. It's really not her business, but Etiquetteer has some sympathy with her, having been put in an awkward position (the cancellation of her son's wedding) through no fault of her own. And for all Etiquetteer knows, this lady has already raised the issue of returning gifts with the former bride-to-be and her family. Since you haven't yet received your gift back, the results may not have been satisfactory to her, prompting her to send gift cards to all her relatives and friends who sent gifts as well as to you. Etiquetteer does wish, however, that the lady hadn't used the term "compensation," which suggests that you needed to be paid for your troubles.
By all means return the gift card, but cut the lady some slack. Send the card back with a Lovely Note thanking her for thinking of you, but suggesting that you don't feel quite right keeping and using this gift card since your bridal shower gift to your niece was freely given. It's also Perfectly Proper to express sympathy with this lady over the cancellation of the wedding, and best wishes for the future happiness of her son.
Dear Etiquetteer:
I'm not even the one being slighted and I don't know how to act.
My paternal grandmother is nearing a milestone birthday, and my parents have organized a party for her at their home. This party is in less than two weeks, and original invitees included friends and her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Over the past week, my father's brother has been telling-- not asking-- my father to invite my grandmother's siblings' children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He lives out of town and has offered no help whatsoever in the planning or execution of the party. My father has not invited any more people, explaining on the one hand that he's not even sure that he saw some of them at the last funeral, and on the other that he doesn't want to have to rent more tables and chairs and buy more food. Today, my father received an RSVP in the positive via text message from one of these suggested invitees.
I am grown and live with my own family, and so in that sense I am every bit as much an invitee as my uncle. In that respect, I have no grounds for indignation. That said, these are my parents and I am very protective. Is there anything at all I can do to make this miserable situation less so for them?
Dear Daughter:
Family Occasions are incomplete without Family, but it appears that your uncle's definition of Family includes more branches of the Family Tree than your father's. While Etiquetteer does have to fault your father on one tiny thing -- family is still family whether or not they came to the last funeral -- it's his party and he therefore has the Unquestioned Right to invite (or not) whoever he pleases. Uncle Trouble is officially Out of Line by inviting other family members without the permission of your father (and presumably without even his knowledge).
This matter concerns your father and his brother, and it's up to your father to decide how he wants to address these issues. (For all Etiquetteer knows, they've been treating each other like this since childhood.) Unless you want to look like a real Madame Buttinsky, you'll stay in the background. But since your uncle is telling, not asking, your father who to invite, Etiquetteer thinks your father should tell, not ask, his brother how he is going to contribute to the success of the party through ordering extra furniture, food, etc. And for you to protect your parents, this may mean that you need to fulfill this function by actively getting involved in the preparations before, keeping these disagreements from your grandmother, and seeing that everything goes smoothly at the party, no matter how many "extra" family show up. Because above all, no one should be turned away once they show up! Whether their invitation came from your father or not, it will only reflect badly on him if they're told "Oh sorry, Uncle Trouble wasn't supposed to invite you."
And if things go well, perhaps Uncle Trouble will get his comeuppance when someone announces that he'll be hosting the next family reunion . . .
Dear Etiquetteer:
I have the problem that professional sex workers are using my backyard to entertain their clients. Is there a Perfectly Proper sign for my gate to gently dissuade them from doing so?
Dear Trespassed:
Your query reminds Etiquetteer of the story of the Boston theatre with the perpetually leaky roof. It was replaced and replaced, and kept leaking and leaking, until the building management threatened to sue the roofers. Someone got the idea to put up a videocamera to see what might be happening. To general surprise, it was discovered that Ladies of the Evening were bringing their Gentlemen Clients up to the roof via the fire escape, undoubtedly to Admire the View. Their spike heels were puncturing the rubber roof.
Etiquetteer is at least relieved that your neighborhood's Ladies of the Evening have not yet mounted your roof. Etiquetteer can suggest Perfectly Proper signage that might be found at the local hardware store: "No Loitering/Police Take Notice" and "Premises Under Surveillance" (with a small graphic of a camera). While Etiquetteer is unacquainted with your views on gun control, you would not be best served by posting "Proud Member of the National Rifle Association." Heaven forbid some Fatal Accident take place, your entire household would be put under suspicion.
It might be more effective to invest in a motion-detecting light that will turn on whenever anyone enters your backyard. While such solutions have their drawbacks, the last thing any of These People want is to attract attention. In the meantime, Etiquetteer hopes that you have notified your local police force about these occurrences.
Please do send Etiquetteer all your queries about Perfect Propriety to queries <at> etiquetteer dot com.
Dear Etiqueteer:
I have a question about hand-me-downs - a particularly thorny issue to begin with.
In my family, infant clothing is passed down. It is commonly understood and practiced without discussion. My daughter, Effie, is currently in line between two of my cousins who are sisters. We will call them Abby and BeBe. Their daughters are Cici and Deedee, respectively. Cici is a year old, Effie is four months old, and Deedee is currently wearing newborn sizes. In theory, this works very well.
In practice, to be short, it does not. Cici's clothing is generally off-season. Whether the print is sunflowers or snowmen matters less than whether it is a sundress or snowsuit. More importantly, the clothing is not wearable. It is stained, tattered, threadbare, and paint is peeling off of snaps. Goodwill and Salvation Army would not sell clothing so worn. I do not use this clothing. Currently, everything Abby has given me is in a box in the closet.
On one occasion, Abby borrowed a bib from me. She had it for only a few hours and returned it stained.
To further complicate things, Abby is pregnant. This child would very reasonably follow Deedee. The clothing that I pass on to BeBe would be passed on to Abby again within a matter of months.
BeBe and I take very good care of our things. The clothing that I pass on to BeBe is nearly new. When I see Deedee, I can tell that BeBe is treating these hand-me-downs as well as if they were freshly store-bought. We have also both received very nice gifts, and so our daughters each have beautiful clothing.
I get rags from Abby. Because the only hand-me-downs Effie gets are those previously worn by Cici, she effectively does not have hand-me-downs. Therefore, everything passed from Effie to Deedee is new. Everything BeBe passes down after Deedee has outgrown it, I'm sure, will still be in very good condition.
There is a social issue with Abby as well, in that she constantly requests my professional services without hesitating to point out that they are not worth what I am asking. When I stopped discounting, she stopped patronizing- but not requesting.
I am not at all comfortable with that clothing being passed on to Abby, who clearly lacks appreciation for a variety of things. I am also sad to know that anything she gets will be ruined.
I have another friend who is pregnant, but passing clothing to her would mean that BeBe would not get my hand-me-downs. Deedee would instead only get Cici's clothing. I would not wish on BeBe what I am I trying to escape.
It is important to note that my husband and I have decided that Effie will be our only child.
Question One: What to do with the box.
Question Two: How to avoid receiving more.
Question Three: What to do with my hand-me-downs.
I have been struggling with this for weeks now. Thank you.
Dear Gigi:
Let's see if Etiquetteer can untangle the path of the baby clothes through your Family of Alphabetical Pseudonyms. Three cousins share hand-me-downs as needed. Currently they begin with Abby, for her year-old daughter Cici; then to you, Gigi, for your four-month-old daughter Effie; and then to BeBe for her newborn daughter Deedee. They will then return to Abby for her expected newborn (probably Heeheeheeheehee).
Because the hand-me-downs you're receiving from Abby are no longer fit to wear, Etiquetteer assumes that you are having to buy new baby clothes and/or acquire hand-me-downs from another source which will then go into the family's collective bassinet. You resent the expense and the necessity for this, and would like to spare BeBe your troubles by eliminating Abby from this silently operating Family Tradition.
Etiquetteer suggests ending this Family Tradition because it is not equally respected by all the participants. Since you and your husband are not planning to have any more children, pass on the box to BeBe (Question One) and declare to all that you are Out of the Loop (Question Two). This then becomes BeBe's problem, to manage with her sister Abby in any way she sees fit. Which means that you should say nothing about it evermore unless BeBe asks you.
As for your own hand-me-downs (Question Three), since they're yours, direct them where you think they will be most appreciated and cared for: either to BeBe or to your friend, or divide the lot and send some to each.
And should you and your husband end up having another child - which has been known to happen - make it clear from the beginning that you won't resume the Family Tradition.
Dear Etiquetteer:
We live near my husband's brother, who is constantly inviting or letting my mother- and father-in-law invite themselves. We (my husband, two kids, and I) are always faced with the "threat" of their every other month visits. These visits usually last at least five days. The events involved are excruciating to me.
What should I or my husband tell my brother-in-law and his parents to make them understand this is totally inappropriate?
We have invited them one time in seven years. All the other visits, which have been every other month for the last seven years, have been them inviting themselves and no one saying anything. Or my brother and sister-in-law inviting them for some reason.
Bear in mind that I have a special needs son who is 11 and my daughter is very active; she is six. I home school my son as of about two weeks ago. We live in the country and my husband could be losing his job. Things are not perfect right now but it doesn't help to have people in your face that you would rather not see at all - ever!
Dear Daughter-in-Law:
You are correct to note that someone has to saysomething about this situation to solve it. Nearly everyone thinks that etiquette has a way to make problems disappear without them having to say or do anything. Unfortunately, since humans are involved, that's not possible. And Etiquetteer knows, to his sorrow, that the longer one seethes silently, the worse a problem becomes.
First of all, and this is true in any marriage, if it's his family, he does the talking, not you, and vice versa. On the other hand, you may find out that your husband isn't as opposed to these frequent visits as you are. Etiquetteer can't assume that he shares your revulsion for his family, although he may. Etiquetteer predicts a frank conversation between the two of you. Whatever the result, it's his family, and he has to deal with them.
Etiquetteer hopes that your brother-in-law is not actually inviting people for multi-day visits into your own home! Only you and your husband have that privilege.
All you have the power to change is your own participation and, in consultation with your husband, the participation of your children in these visits. If members of your husband's family want to get together outside your house, that's not your business. But Etiquetteer sees no reason for you to join them more than once over the course of five days.
Now, how are you going to change the expectations of your in-laws, who are used to seeing you and your children a great deal after seven years? Etiquetteer recommends that you start not being available. Oscar Wilde created "Bunburying" in The Importance of Being Earnest, the subterfuge of leaving town to visit a fictional sick friend (in this case named Bunbury.) Etiquetteer doesn't think you need to go to those lengths, but you can create special activities with one or both of your children, or your own friends, that keeps you from joining your in-laws. Send your husband alone with the excuse that you'd already made other plans, or he can bring the kids and say you "need some time alone being worn out taking care of the children." If he doesn't want to go either, he can tell his brother that all of you have other plans, every night of the week, if necessary.
You have probably already figured out that your in-laws are with you for life, until death or divorce severs your relationship with them. Rather than rely on those two courses (the first immoral and illegal if you arrange it, the second painful for your children), Etiquetteer very much hopes that you can stake out your own territory in your family life.
Etiquetteer has seen a lot in the news over the last week worthy of notice and comment:
Etiquetteer has seen a lot in the news over the last week worthy of notice and comment:
Etiquetteer applauds the Bill Duncan Opportunity School of Lakeland, Florida, for suspending Jonathan Locked, Jr. for deliberately disruptive flatulence. Unfortunately Young Master Locked's father is appealing the suspension, apparently believing that the punishment went too far. Etiquetteer cannot agree, and regrets that Mr. Locked isn't using this suspension to teach his son to respect the authority of teachers and school principals, respect for education and his classmates, and of course Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer can only hope that the Locked family eats fewer beans after this unfortunate, um, outburst.
In Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin, a pastor and a congregant got in trouble with the law for shooting an arrow in church during a service. Reading the article Etiquetteer certainly got the impression that the pastor is more devoted to using props to illustrate the Word than the Word itself. This sort of sensationalism, plus the way the pastor evicted an objecting congregant, violates every sense of Perfect Propriety to Etiquetteer.
Also in church news, Etiquetteer was very interested to read about the innovations of Rev. Anne Gardner's iSermon Sundays at Phillips Academy. Certainly technology and References to Popular Culture will follow us everywhere, and Etiquetteer really has no objection. What raised Etiquetteer's hackles was the fact that Academy students were eating breakfast in the pews during church! Forgive Etiquetteer for sounding just a bit old-fashioned, but eating in church is NOT approaching worship of the Deity of One's Choice with Perfectly Proper undivided attention. Stop it at once!
Finally, Etiquetteer was both touched and amused to read the obituary of Stella Trafford last week. "The Grande Dame of Boston Parks," who was unafraid to wield a hoe or take on City Hall, received from her stepdaughter what Etiquetteer thinks is the ideal epitaph for a Working Lady to the Manner Born: "She died with her pearls on."
Etiquetteer has a new address for all your etiquette questions, queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com.
Celebrities only seem to get into the news when they are behaving badly. Two recent mini-dramas have captured Etiquetteer’s attention.
You will be surprised – very surprised, Etiquetteer suspects – to find Etiquetteer defending Karl Rove about anything. But after the White House Correspondents Dinner last week, Etiquetteer must Wag an Admonitory Digit at Sheryl Crow and her dinner companion Laurie David for initiating a nasty little contretemps about global warming. Crow and David, whose self-serving account of the incident appears on Arianna Huffington’s blog, certainly make themselves out to be the Calm Crusaders. From ingenuous comments like "How excited were we to have our first opportunity ever to talk directly to the Bush Administration about global warming" to glossy acccounts of their own part in the barney ("We felt compelled to remind him that the research is done and the results are in"), they present themselves as Earnest Little Girls nicely asking the Big Man about a Bad Decision. Etiquetteer finds abhorrent their idea that Sheryl Crow’s beauty alone should compel Rove to speak with them ("How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?"). Feminists everywhere should be offended with this 19th century notion.
If they really wanted to have a meaningful dialogue about climate change with Rove, they would have used this opportunity to schedule an appointment. Indeed, courtiers of Louis XIV were always advised not to surrender petitions to him during particular audiences because the Sun King was likely to lose them while changing clothes. Instead, it just looks like they wanted to get in the paper themselves.
Not that Rove comes out smelling like a rose. Eyewitnesses indicate that he gave as good as he got, whereas a change of topic or a cold "This is not the time or place to discuss it" would have been Perfectly Proper. The truth, as is so frequently the case, is someplace in the middle.
Moving right along, we find that actress Kim Basinger has released to the press an abusive voicemail message from her ex-husband, Alec Baldwin, to their daughter Ireland. While hardly excusing Baldwin’s vicious telephone tantrum – did he miss that day in anger management class? – Etiquetteer is outraged that La Basinger and her attorneys leaked the voicemail to the press. Can you think of anything that would be more embarrassing to eleven-year-old Ireland? All this dirty laundry could have been kept right where it belonged – in the family – without the vengefulness of a celebrity divorcée selfishly shaming the father of her child, and her child as well.
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify <at> etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer:I received an invitation to an out-of-town baby shower a few weeks ago. Out-of-town in this case means the only way I could get there would be by plane. To top it off, the shower is on a Sunday afternoon, which bumps up nicely against the start of the work week. I have declined, and properly.Now I'm getting frosty vibes from one of the hostesses (my sister-in-law). I must attend a Thanksgiving get-together at said in-law's home in a couple of weeks. How do I contain the frost quotient?Dear Declined:By ignoring it. Please continue to treat your sister-in-law as you always have, which will only make her look like a petty and ungrateful fool. Honestly, these people!
Dear Etiquetteer:I hope you can help us. My 44-year-old daughter is marrying a 49 year-old man we believe to be a four-flusher and liar. I don't like him and never want to see him. I don't want to go to the wedding. He is not welcome in our home. One of her brothers feels the same, two don't care, and two of her sisters are supportive. My wife and I are in a quandary, 77 years old and not in the best of health. Our daughter is in tears because we don’t accept him. This is a first marriage for them both.Dear Father of the Bride:Well, looking at this strictly from an etiquette point of view, you’re making an unmistakable stand. You couldn’t communicate any better to the entire world how much you disapprove of the marriage than by boycotting the wedding ceremony as you plan to do. At anyone’s first wedding the bride’s parents are very much on display, and your absence would be lost on no one. On the other hand, absenting yourself would be better than actually objecting when the officiant calls for those who disapprove to "speak now, or forever hold your peace."You realize, of course, that this would create a complete and total break with your daughter. Once anyone chooses a life partner, that person’s allegiance is bound to be with that person, for better and for worse, etc. etc. etc. So once your daughter marries this Man You Hate, she would feel as unwelcome in your home as he would be. And Etiquetteer can only speculate what attendant fractures might appear in your relationships with your other children who support or don’t care about the marriage.Now, dropping the etiquette issues aside for the moment, you and your wife need to weigh whether your love for your daughter is stronger than your hatred for her fiancé. If Love wins, you will need to welcome this Man You Hate as a member of your family. It doesn’t have to be awarm welcome, but you couldn’t exclude him from your home or from family gatherings. If your love for your daughter is strong enough, you may find the strength to do this, buoyed by your children who are advocating for the marriage. If Hate wins, you must reconcile yourselves never to have your entire family at the same gatherings ever again, unless it’s a funeral.This is a tough choice, but Etiquetteer cannot make it for you. Of course Etiquetteer hopes that Love will win. This Man You Hate may be all the things you think he is (Etiquetteer can’t know that). If he is, and your daughter discovers so for herself a few years down the road, your acceptance of her now will make it easier for her to return to you without fearing the sting of "I told you so."And from the "Trust in God But Lock Your Car" Department, Etiquetteer suggests that you check your will to be sure that, when your daughter inherits, her husband can’t get his hands on her inheritance.
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer:My son died 13 days ago and I am feeling horrible heart-wrenching pain and grief. The funeral was last week and it was wonderful and touching to see so many of his friends there. I was amazed and comforted by the number of people that came to show their respect.The problem is, I was made fun of from my mother and her friend because I didn't stand by the casket and "receive" from 3:00 pm to 8:00pm. I didn't know I was supposed to do that! There wasn't a "line of people". It was a huge amount of people and the funeral home opened up two more rooms to hold people. I went from person to person and I was being introduced to people. I just remember hugging and crying and meeting and thanking countless people.So, in addition to the insurmountable grief I have, I also feel that I did something wrong! What should I have done? Dear Bereaved: Etiquetteer’s heart bled reading your letter, and not just because of your grief. What vicious jackals your mother and her friend are, to "make fun of" you at such a vulnerable moment! Such wickedness, such absence of compassion! Etiquetteer cannot condemn them enough and is so sorry you had to put up with this taunting along with everything else. It is usual for stated times for the family to receive to be published in funeral announcements, and Etiquetteer is assuming that your family did so. The world knows that Etiquetteer loves a receiving line. But after extensive research, Etiquetteer cannot find chapter and verse in any of the standard American etiquette books requiring the family to receive by the coffin. The tradition is there, but it’s local custom or religious requirement more than anything that dictates what to do. Etiquetteer vividly remembers his grandfather’s funeral in 1974, which took place in the South, when the family received at the funeral home, but not in the same room with the casket. But Etiquetteer has also attended New England funerals of Catholic families who have received next to deceased in an open casket.So Etiquetteer really cannot fault you for receiving your son’s mourners as you did, but it is not an approach Etiquetteer would permit at a wedding. All that remains to be said is that you and your family have Etiquetteer’s sympathy on the death of your son, and Etiquetteer’s sorrow that your mother has expressed her own grief by criticizing you.
Dear Etiquetteer: Today I received a tragic e-mail message from a cousin. Her husband was a career military man so they have lived in many countries as well as U.S. cities; hence, the message she was sending was forwarded to 65 people. This made her use of e-mail quite understandable.The message was to inform all of her husband's death. She told of his final illness and that he is to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Due to the many deaths of past and present service people, however, the next available time for a military funeral won't be for twelve weeks. Since they have adult children as well as many friends on base, I understand why she didn't have time to write notes or make personal calls, and I feel that she doesn't have time to handle so many incoming calls and notes. So, though I have never e-mailed a sympathy note, today I did just that because I wanted to extend condolences immediately.Later, I will call and write a note, as well as make a memorial contribution, but I'm puzzled as to when. I have never experienced this situation and wonder if Etiquetteer can suggest ways to ease the burden of families facing this long wait for closure. Sad duties are the most difficult. Dear Mourning: You raise an issue with which Etiquetteer has had to wrestle for some time: e-mail notification of death. Two or three years ago Etiquetteer got three such notices in five weeks. Needless to say they were each quite a jolt, and made Etiquetteer a little grumpy about how casual things were becoming.But then Etiquetteer changed his mind. Previous innovations in technology all were used to announce one’s death, like the telephone and the telegram, so much so that earlier etiquette books included instructions for the giving and receiving of these communications. Etiquetteer, after some initial reluctance, sees no reason to keep e-mail from replacing the telegram, but encourages the same unadorned style of the telegram in composing it, such as:
I regret to inform you of the death of Catherine Elizabeth Schulz on Sunday, March 4, after a long illness. A private funeral service will take place on Friday, March 9, at All Saints Church. A memorial service will be scheduled later. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to [Insert Bereaved’s Choice of Charity Here]. Smith Funeral Home, 15 Main Street, Anytown, handling all arrangements.
Note the specific elements that are included here:
Identity of the deceased. This should be obvious, but the griefstricken sometimes forget the most obvious things.
Date and cause of death. This may be as specific or vague as the family wishes, e.g. "after a long battle with tuberculosis" or "died suddenly."
Funeral arrangements. If the general public was to be invited to the funeral, more information would be provided, as in "A funeral service will take place on Friday, March 9 at 11:00 AM, All Saints Church, 112 11th Street, Anytown."
Information about flowers and contributions. People always want to know.
Information about the funeral home. Hopefully that will keep people from pestering the bereaved directly with questions about parking.
Assuming that the person sending the e-mail is a member of the family, Etiquetteer recommends closing with something like "Your thoughts and prayers at this sad time are most appreciated."The subject line of the e-mail should let people know that it’s the news of someone’s death, as in "Death of Catherine Elizabeth Schulz." It should NOT be something as ambiguous or neutral as "Sad News" or "I’m Sorry to Tell You," which provide more of a shock to the reader or could be mistaken for spam. Etiquetteer also thinks this is not the place to include photos of the deceased or decorative graphics. In some subsequent e-mail, perhaps, but not the first one.Now back to your question. Your e-mail condolence on receiving the news substitutes your need to telephone the bereaved, but not the condolence note. Take care of that and the memorial contribution you want to make now. In the months leading up to the memorial service, check in with the family once or twice, or as often as you would usually. If you live nearby, invite them to dinner at your home, or bring food to them at their home. After the services, continue to be in touch.
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer: Half-a-dozen times each year some friend or relative, out of the blue, writes or e-mails me with a thinly disguised request for money. Sometimes it’s for a business venture that allegedly will make me rich. Sometimes it’s to help with a medical problem (which they'll then refuse to document, even though they know I'm a health professional). Sometimes it’s to support their favorite charity (even though they're aware that I support a number of my own favorite charities). How can I - preferably early in the dialogue - let them know that I don't intend to fulfill their request, without - as is often the case - eliciting an angry response? The range of angry responses is impressive: shock ("How could you think that I was asking for money?"), a guilt trip ("Your parents would roll over in their graves if they knew what a skinflint you are!"), and sometimes it's just an above-it-all "I thought I knew you better" followed by a prolonged cold wind.) Dear Solicited: Etiquetteer has a lot of experience on both sides of this question, as an enthusiastic fund-raiser for underdog arts organizations and as one who has been "touched" for particular "opportunities." Etiquetteer can tell you recognize these conversations when they start. You have the power to make your position known early on by casually mentioning that your own investment strategy is more conservative now or that you’re focusing your charitable giving on your own favorite charities. This pre-emptive strike should alert your solicitors that you’re not interested. With illness it’s a little more challenging. Etiquetteer presumes that you may actually care about the people hitting you up. Confine the conversation as much as possible to the symptoms and treatment of the illness and not its financial repercussions.As the prospect, you have a few ways to react to your solicitors when they become less than polite. (And really, Etiquetteer is appalled by the reactions you detailed.) Etiquetteer frequently finds it beneficial to ignore the "elephant in the room" until an actual request for a specific amount of money is made. This gets you out of the shocked response you mention; then you can answer "Because you just asked me for money." Otherwise Etiquetteer finds you completely justified in observing "I’m so disappointed that only my money means anything to you. I thought we meant more to each other than that." Then you can blow the chill wind.
Dear Etiquetteer:
My partner and I recently hosted a sit-down dinner at our home for my extended family. The spouse of a cousin has the habit (yes, this has happened on more than one occasion) of placing, not to say grinding, his linen napkin into the remnants of his meal on the plate when he has finished his meal. Needless to say, this is rather unappetizing, not to say unhelpful when it comes to laundering the linens.
We obviously do not want to offend the spouse, but would like to have this behavior stop. Whatever shall we do?
Dear Harried Hosts:
The solution is obvious. Instruct your housemaid to keep a close eye on Cousin Zebulon. At the first sign of his completing his meal, she should whisk away his plate before he even has time to fold his napkin.
No housemaid? No kidding! You must forgive Etiquetteer’s longing for domestic service. Of course it’s so hard to find good help nowadays that no one even bothers.
It’s a grievous thing to have to correct a guest in one’s home, and it should only be done in grave situations (like bringing up politics at the dinner table or criticizing another guest to his or her face). Etiquetteer feels sure you have been tempted to give Cousin Zebulon a paper napkin instead, but singling him out from all the others would have an insulting effect you do not want.
Can you be sure that your backwoods relative sits next to you at dinner? This way when you see him start to remove his napkin from his lap, you can relieve him of it yourself, clearing his place at the same time. Purists will note that this violates the rule of clearing everyone’s places only after everyone has finished, but Etiquetteer thinks this the best way to preserve both the napkin and the feelings of the guest.
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer: I’m about to send out invitations for a "milestone" birthday party. One of the issues I have is space at the party place. Since the number of people I plan to entertain is limited to 80-100, and since this limitation has financial repercussions (open bar up to a certain amount of money) how can I emphasize that yes, in fact, I DO need an RSVP and we need it as soon as possible, and no, you cannot bring friends so don’t ask and for gods sake don’t just bring them.It’s particularly a problem for me since my guest list is used to my very casual brunch invites, which have encouraged people to bring friends and I long ago gave up even expecting a reply to an RSVP. At first I thought of asking you for a kind way to address these issues, but frankly with this bunch I want to find a way to say it that isn’t so veiled in social niceties that people don’t get it or choose to see beyond it. I realize that will always be some people who feel "Don’t even @#(*in’ think of bringing a guest!" doesn’t apply to them, but I am open to suggestions.Dear Hostly:Well, we are just infected with the spirit of hospitality, aren’t we? Etiquetteer knows many people who entertain casually who become alarmed when attempting a more formal party. Well, "formal" may not be the word – "advanced" probably sums it up best. This is the kind of party that one does outside the home, at a hotel or function hall, with a caterer when one usually just whips up an omelette in the kitchen at home for ten people. Weddings most frequently fall into this category.Because your guests’ expectations of this party will be different, you need to communicate that your expectations of them are also different. The most traditional way to emphasize that your guests may not bring guests of their own is to write the names of those invited on the invitation, as in "Mr. and Mrs. G.D. Fargin-Bastidge are cordially invited . . . " Somehow Etiquetteer doesn't see you superscribing all your invitations . . .How about adding "We regret that we cannot extend invitations to additional guests" at the bottom under the R.s.v.p. information? That would get the point across explicitly without pointing fingers. As to getting people to respond by your deadline, the traditional admonition on an invitation is "The favour of a reply is requested." (Please notice the u in "favour.") A more hard-line approach, which Etiquetteer does not necessarily endorse, is "Responses will not be accepted after _____________."As you calculcate your response date, take the caterer's deadline (usually five business days before the event) and add two days. But Etiquetteer knows you’ll spend them phoning and e-mailing everyone anyway.
Dear Etiquetteer: My husband and I heatedly disagree on the subject of who is obligated to attend an engagement party. His brother recently became engaged, and an engagement party is planned. My mother-in-law insists that her other two adult children and families travel 255 miles to attend. I maintain that the party is for the in-laws to get acquainted and siblings need not be present.The party happens to be the same weekend as a festival in my own hometown, 225 miles in the opposite direction, which I take our children to every year. Must I cave and go to the blasted party? Please respond soon! Dear Party Pooper: Etiquetteer feels obliged to point out that you have trapped yourself into going to this engagement party through your own definition: "for the in-laws to get acquainted." Ahem, do you not realize thatyou yourself are an in-law? Your brother-in-law is getting married, and over and above what your mother-in-law thinks, you may want to take his feelings into account. You might also want to welcome his bride-to-be into the family and give her some pointers on getting along with the matriarch. These alliances cannot be formed too soon . . . Incidentally, an engagement party need not be limited to the families of the betrothed, but may certainly include any friends or colleagues they wish. Frequently marriage brings together more circles than just family circles.Your hometown festival takes place annually, but your brother-in-law will marry only once (at least he’d better marry only once). Missing one year is not going to be as big a deal as missing this party. And let’s face it, no one at the festival will be visiting you in the hospital as much as your husband’s family. Etiquetteer urges you to take a pass on the hometown this time and attend the party with a happy heart.
Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com!
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer: My cousin, whom we shall call Gladys, is the youngest of a large, close family. Seven years ago, Gladys was married in a large, extravagant ceremony, with all family members in attendance. She had a large bridal party and wore a formal, white gown with a veil and chapel train.Sadly, that marriage ended in divorce. Gladys is now engaged and is planning to marry again. Much to my surprise, she is marrying just six weeks before my first wedding and, much to my further shock, is planning a large wedding with six attendants at a destination resort area. My query is twofold: Is it not somewhat inappropriate of Gladys to plan her wedding so very close to mine? And, is it not somewhat inappropriate of her to have such a large extravagant affair yet again? I cannot afford to travel to her wedding, as I am saving for my own. Further, I do not wish my family to suffer from "wedding burnout" by virtue of the fact that they are now subject to the expenses of two weddings within six weeks of one another. Dear First-Time Bride Second in Line: Etiquetteer always finds it so cute when brides think everyone should obey them and think about them first before making any decision whatsoever. Etiquetteer can just picture you, fluffy with rage that another bride has penetrated your Super Bridal Forcefield. Think of the dueling weather women in that terrible Japanese move Weather Woman(1995). Yikes!So while Etiquetteer shares your chagrin that Cousin Gladys scheduled her wedding when she did, Etiquetteer is compelled to remind you that it’s not all about you. Nor are you responsible for Gladys’s decisions, so don’t change your own wedding plans. Etiquetteer thinks your family can handle it. Etiquetteer just cannot find super-sized second weddings in the best of taste, mostly because of the national debate over the last 18 months about protecting the sanctity of marriage. Why underline that the sanctity of your first marriage meant nothing to you and that you feel it’s OK to disrespect it by marrying again with another Cecil B. DeMille Production Wedding that’s even being Shot On Location? Much better to do so in the chapel of your family church or even in your parlor, with only your close friends and relations present. You may be comforted to know that most people, when faced with a scheduling conflict, choose first weddings over second weddings. Etiquetteer wishes all of you well in your married lives.
Dear Etiquetteer: I just finished recommending etiquetteer.com to a friend who is planning her wedding and is looking for etiquette-related tips. As I was perusing the site, I came across your column from February, 2003, discussing reply cards for wedding invitations. When my wife and I sent out our wedding invitations, we did not include a reply card. Unfortunately, reply cards have become an expected part of a wedding invitation, and a rather significant number of our friends and relatives asked us, "You didn't include a reply card. How are we supposed to tell you that we're coming?" Our reply was some variant of "You just did. I'm delighted." Dear Uncarded: You are absolutely correct, as usual, and Etiquetteer could not agree more. What Etiquetteer has learned since then is that reply cards are necessary when they require more information than who’s coming. For bridal parties providing child care, you need a blank to know how many children to expect. For multiple entrée choices, you need multiple blanks (though Etiquetteer doesn’t really approve of giving a choice; the best entrée to serve is "Shut Up and Eat"). But when this sort of information is not required, a reply card is technically Not Perfectly Proper, because people are supposed to know that they respond in kind with a Proper Note.
Dear Etiquetteer: Who should be invited to wedding rehearsal dinners? If the answer is family, would that include great aunts (who are invited to the wedding)? Dear Rehearsed: Rehearsal dinners, traditionally held the night before the wedding and hosted by the parents of the groom, generally include the wedding party (attendants and clergy; musicians need not be invited unless personal friends). Technically it's given for the wedding party, but Etiquetteer thinks it Perfectly Proper and Very Hospitable to include out-of-town guests and extended family.But two other factors are at work here: the type of function and its size. Not all rehearsal dinners are dinners any more. This function can be anything the groom's family wants it to be, from a picnic to a black-tie dinner dance. Not to typecast anyone, but Etiquetteer can't see his own great-aunts (may they rest in peace) having much of a good time in a billiard hall, dive bar, or picnic ground. And generally rehearsal dinners are smaller than the weddings they precede, or verymuch larger. In other words, it's best not to be offended if you don't get invited.
Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com!
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer: I'm visiting friends overseas, a male couple I've known and loved for almost 20 years. Let's call them B and D. They have another friend, S.M., whom I've known almost as long, a vinegary, old-maidish man who can sometimes be a lot of fun. Unfortunately S.M. is also an extremely needy, hypochondriacal complainer who takes umbrage at any slight, and goes into a towering sulk whenever he feels he's being neglected, which is most of the time. At the beginning of any conversation he sails into a litany of his health problems that lasts for at least five minutes, but one can live with that. He's also hopelessly in love with D, and a couple of years ago they had a falling-out, to D's everlasting relief. I come over to visit every couple of years, and always stay with B and D. I always call S.M., too, and did so the other night. S.M. agreed to meet me away from the house, since he dreads, or affects to dread, meeting D. A few minutes later he called back and said that it would be best, since "I am not welcome at B and D's house," that we not meet. I insisted that I wanted to see him, but he went into his wounded dowager mode and refused to see me. At the end of the conversation I said, "Well, then I'll write to you, since I do want to stay in touch." But he sniffily said, "You can write if you like, but don't expect me to answer," at which point I hung up, absolutely stunned and quite hurt. B, when told about this, was incandescent with rage, and immediately called S.M. to give him a blistering dressing-down. It wasn't until later that I stopped feeling hurt and began to feel angry. I wrote S.M. a long and devastatingly frank letter which made me feel TERRIFIC, and which I knew I could not send. So I didn't. Have I exhausted my obligations to try to reconnect with this man? Dear Rebuffed: The late Coco Chanel, referring to her friend and fellow drug addict Misia Sert, famously said, "We only love our friends for their faults. Misia gave me ample reason to love her." While that dictum might generally apply to mild personal idiosyncrasies (such as consistently arriving late, never sending Lovely Notes, or rubbing a wedge of lime behind each ear when served a gin and tonic), Etiquetteer would find it a masochistic stretch to apply it to personal abuse such as you describe.You, sir, have been snubbed. Based on your description of S.M., Etiquetteer would not find his occasional bouts of fun overbalance his 24/7 impersonation of Anne Elliott’s married sister from Jane Austen’s Persuasion. In other words, you’re better off without this character.This only leaves Etiquetteer the opportunity to thank you for following the example of the late President Abraham Lincoln, by writing that angry letter and not sending it. President Lincoln was wise in many things, and this was one of the wisest.
Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com!
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer: My adorable little nephew came into the world last February. I’ve offered free babysitting to my sister and brother-in-law. Until recently, there haven’t been any problems. More often than not, I care for the little tyke for an agreed-upon afternoon or overnight stay. Don’t get me wrong, I love every minute I have with my nephew, but lately my post-babysitting engagements have had to suffer on account of his parents’ over-reliance on me.Lately, my sister and brother-in-law will be late in picking up their little bundle of joy. The agreed-upon afternoon extends into an unanticipated evening or even overnight. Five times in the past six months, I have had to cancel evening plans because my nephew’s parents took it upon themselves to extend their absence. Sometimes, it’s understandable (like a delayed flight). Other times, they just assumed I had no plans and thought it was no big deal to show up several hours late to take the baby home.I’ve held my tongue thus far. Granted, I’m still a "single old maid," but I do have a life! How presumptuous of them! Rather than let this fester, I think I should say something on both counts: "You presumptuous twits! I have a life, too!" and "Your child is adorable, but 4pm means 4pm. Unless there is some emergency, I expect you to be here at the agreed-upon time to take the baby home." How do I tactfully raise the issue?Dear Barry Poppins:First of all, how fortunate for your nephew that he has someone like you in his life who actually demonstrates care and attention. His parents sound a lot like Eloise's mother in the late Kay Thompson's engaging children's book Eloise.If your sister and brother-in-law are taking you for granted then you need to be sure that they don't. The way to do this at this stage (you're a doormat and they're walking all over you) is not to be available the next two or three times they ask you to baby-sit. You don't need to tell them you've been invited on an Adriatic cruise; but you can say that you have plans to go to the movies with friends, or that you yourself are giving a party, or whatever -- you're not available to baby-sit little Galahad because you're actively having a life.Etiquetteer knows all too well the self-absorption of young parents and their needs (as opposed to the needs of their mewling infants) and can only imagine their shocked protests when you present evidence that you're not available at their beck and call. It's then that you may tell them that they get what they pay for, and their carelessness in honoring pick-up times has already led you to miss out on several of the most glittering occasions of the season (which it has).Then, and most important, make outside plans and honor them and send your Lovely Notes afterward. No one can do this for you but yourself. Otherwise you could turn into old codependent Uncle Barry babysitting little Galahad's children 20 years from now.
Dear Etiquetteer: Can you comment on the advisability of parents bringing their little darlings into quiet adult environments if the children cannot be assumed to be disciplined past the age of making piercing squeals and running rampant? Not too long ago I was studying at the library on the "quiet floor," where signs reading "Please preserve the silence of this room" appear on every table. It just so happened that a family activity was scheduled on another floor; since the "quiet floor" is quite lovely, not a few parents brought their children to see it. That would have been fine if the parents had not let the little darlings treat the place as a playground and not a library. The truth was brought home even more as I noted one truly delightful little girl, of no more advanced age than the rest, who stayed by her proud papa and examined the books with not-undue curiosity while uttering nary a peep. That was most gratifying to see (and not to hear), but it certainly showed up the behavior of the other little hellions. Dear Besieged: Etiquetteer could not agree more that children who cannot behave, and/or whose parents cannot or will not make them behave, should not be brought to places where Perfect Propriety is expected. Parents who do not realize that the rest of the world doesn’t regard their children with Unquestioned Delight should be disabused of this notion with an Icy Glare or, as the last straw, with instructions from the management to get it together.
Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com!
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer: A terrible situation has arisen: in planning a surprise for my husband’s birthday, I conspired with a very good friend of his, who happens to be very wealthy. Because of the friend’s extensive travel schedule, we agreed to have an "early" celebration this weekend. We will meet up at a local cultural attraction in the afternoon then dine together afterward. My husband’s friend recommended a restaurant and I agreed to make reservations, which I did.Then my husband’s friend subsequently e-mailed to offer to pay for dinner (for four) and other "festivities." Because my husband’s friend always pays for dinner, I thought it would be best to say, "No thank you. I am delighted to do this for my man’s birthday." After all, I am his wife; this is my surprise to him, so I feel I should pay. Well, when I went online to get more information about the restaurant, I received a shock when I calculated that dinner for the four of us would cost approximately $500 - $600, conservatively. I can’t possibly afford that; the most I could afford is half. Is there anyway I can take up on our friend’s offer now? Dear Surprised and Surprising: Yikes, what a situation! This certainly highlights the importance of advance research. It’s dicey to ask for a previously declined favor, but there are two ways to do this:
E-mail your friend and apologize for your insensitivity in excluding him from co-hosting the dinner with you. You realize how much he wants to contribute to making this a special birthday for your husband – blah blah blah – and you would now like to include him in an equal arrangement where you would both pay half the bill.
Change the reservation to another restaurant in your price range that your husband would still find special and tell the wealthy friend that your husband had just been talking about it so you knew he’d like to go there for his birthday.Of these two, Etiquetteer vastly prefers the latter, since you made it clear the first time that you really wanted to do something where this wealthy friend would be truly your guest.
Dear Etiquetteer: A dear friend of mine lost her father recently after a long illness. After some indecision, the memorial service was scheduled by my friend’s stepmother to be held in the Southern town where they live, so that my friend and her siblings would have to travel from New England. Stepmom (they were married for over 30 years, so this is not a new relationship) had told my friend that she and one of her brothers would need to board elsewhere, as there simply wasn’t room in the house. Stepmom said that she’d ask some of the neighbors if they could put them up. In the worst case, Stepmom would find them a motel room.While waiting at the baggage carousel at the airport, my friend was informed by Stepmom that the neighbors hadn’t come through and that she and her brother would be staying at a motel that they were expected to pay for. My friend has been chronically underemployed for months and months, and was forced to book a longer stay than she might have because Stepmom couldn’t decide whether the service would take place in one or two days. Does my friend have any recourse at all, or does she just have to suck it up and pay her share? Dear Hand-holding Bystander: Death really does bring out the best and the worst of people, doesn’t it? What a pity that Stepmom didn’t make clear that she would only find the hotel room and not pay for it as well. While Etiquetteer can feel how taken aback your friend must have been at the baggage claim on hearing this news, Etiquetteer wishes she had spoken up then, saying "Steppy, you know how difficult my situation is right now. Work has been so difficult to get and it was all I could do to fly down here. There must be some corner of my father’s house where I can hole up until after the funeral." Silence is often taken for consent. Knowing nothing about the relationship between these two women and how it might have been changed by the death of their father and husband, Etiquetteer will take the plunge and allow your friend to ask her stepmother to cover part of the hotel bill. Etiquetteer can only suggest that the reading of the will should reveal who really needs recourse.
Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com!
Etiquetteer cordially invites you to join the notify list if you would like to know as soon as new columns are posted. Join by sending e-mail to notify@etiquetteer.com.
Dear Etiquetteer: My brother is in hell because of things going on with his kids. I don't think etiquette has changed that much in the last 50 years. Please help.HERE IS THE SHORT HISTORY: Mr. and Mrs. Original get married and have three children. Mr. Original works and Mrs. Original stays home but both basically raise the children. The oldest son completes college and gets married in a very traditional way. All is well.The next two girls complete college and move out on their own. Several years pass. Mrs. Original gets a job and is caught at work having an affair with her boss. Mr. & Mrs. Original get a divorce and Mrs. Original marries her boss (now she is Mrs. Boss).NOW THE PROBLEM: The youngest girl, living on her own for years, announces she is getting married. Mrs. Boss (formerly Mrs. Original) wants the invitations to read:
Mr. and Mrs. Boss
and
Mr. Original
Announce the marriage of their daughter, etc.
Mr. Original wants the invitation to read:
Mrs. Boss
and
Mr. Original
Announce the marriage of their daughter, etc.
The marrying daughter wants whatever her parents can agree on (or can't agree on); the fighting is ruining her wedding plans. Now the already married son is referring to Mr. Boss as his STEPFATHER. Mr. Original feels that he was the one who raised the children from birth until they moved out on their own and he is the ONLY father to these children. Mrs. Boss (formerly Mrs. Original) has, shall we say, a very "strong" personality and the children are caught between the birth parents fighting; the children don't want to upset either birth parent. QUESTIONS:
What is the proper way to address wedding invitations? Does the new husband (Mr. Boss) get in on the Father-Daughter dance at the reception? Does it make a difference accordingly to who pays how much for the wedding?
Should the already married son (he's over 30) refer to his mother's new husband as his "stepfather?" Am I old-fashioned, as I have always called the newer husbands by their first name?
The son now has two children and is teaching them to refer to Mr. Boss as "Popsi" or something close that means grandfather. Don't the children have only two grandfathers? Isn't it an insult to the grandparent who actually raised the parent? My paternal grandfather died young, my paternal grandmother remarried, and we never called her newer husbands anything resembling grandfather.
Dear Caught in the Crossfire: Reading this sad tale, Etiquetteer’s heart goes out to the daughter’s fiancé. Poor thing, he’s now seeing a preview of what all the major holidays will be like for the rest of his life! Perhaps they can refugee to his family instead and leave the minor holidays (like Arbor Day) for her family. Weddings are supposed to be times of joy and gladness, not platforms for publicly slighting your enemies, especially enemies with whom you’ve produced children. Mrs. Boss needs to understand that stridently insisting on putting her second husband in the spotlight takes it away from her own daughter . . . and it is always a grievous offense to upstage the bride! Mr. Original needs to get used to the fact, no matter how odious it is to him, that Mr. Boss has a place in the lives of his children and grandchildren since he’s now married to their mother and grandmother. The more he can behave civilly to Mr. and Mrs. Boss in public and refrain from griping about them behind their backs, the better the impression he makes on his children and grandchildren will be. And, one hopes, the more they will want to be with him! Etiquetteer has to Wag an Admonitory Digit at both of them for causing their daughter such a lot of grief. If neither of them love their Little Girl enough to work together at burying the hatchet, then neither of them deserves to attend the wedding in the first place. Now, to answer your questions:
When the birth parents of the bride have divorced and both will attend the wedding, whether either has remarried or not, the invitations correctly read:
Mrs. Ethelred Boss
And
Mr. Adelbert Original
request the honor of your presence
at the marriage of their daughter
Prunaprismia Original to
Mr. Reginald Romantic
The son of Mr. and Mrs. Beloved Romantic, etc,
Please observe that this is the language of the invitation, not a wedding announcement, sent to those out of state or uninvited, which would read ". . . announce the marriage of their daughter . . . "Now if this isn’t good enough for the Mother of the Bride, you can eliminate all the names of all the parents by substituting:
The honor of your presence is requested
at the marriage of
Prunaprismia Original
to
Mr. Reginald Romantic, etc.
And frankly, if they are all going to squabble about where they come on the bill, that’s just what they deserve. This is the bride’s day, and Etiquetteer already knows the whole town must be talking about the ugly feud between her parents instead of what people usually talk about before weddings: whether the bride is entitled to a white wedding dress.As for the dancing, oh honestly. Etiquetteer would consider if the height of rudeness of anyone, stepfather or no, to cut in on a father dancing with his daughter at her wedding. Etiquetteer finds absurd the growing list of "duty dances" announced by slick deejays at wedding banquets, and would discourage putting the bride and her stepfather in the spotlight this way. If, however, they are each willing to be seen on the dance floor with each other, there is no reason she could not accept his invitation to dance when everyone else is.Now, about the money: funny how everybody thinks that makes a difference. These days so many people contribute to the cost of so many weddings it’s like a limited corporation. Whoever pays is whoever pays, and the living birth parents of the bride are the hosts.2. Well, it’s certainly more polite to refer to him as "stepfather" than it is "that skunk who made an adulterous whore out of my mother," wouldn’t you say? If invited to call Mr. Boss by his first name, the son could do so, introducing him to others as "my stepfather, Ethelred Boss." He could say with Equal Propriety "This is my mother’s husband Ethelred Boss." Referring to Mr. Boss as "stepfather" does not imply that he had anything to do with raising him, nor does it usurp Mr. Original’s fatherhood. Etiquetteer understands completely why Mr. Original would be sensitive to this, but he should not look for offense where none is intended. 3. No, Etiquetteer can’t see an insult in referring to the spouse of one’s grandmother as something like "Grandfather." "Popsi" seems neutral enough, though Etiquetteer would prefer the 19th-century use of the prefix "Uncle," as in "Uncle Ethelred, tell us how you met Grandma!" Believe it or not, Mr. Boss gets to decide what he should be called – his wife does not – even if he’d rather have the children call him "Mr. Boss." Etiquetteer devoutly hopes that Peace and Harmony will reign supreme again before long in the extended Original family. Please write again and let Etiquetteer know what happens.
Find yourself at a manners crossroads and don't know where to go? Ask Etiquetteer at query@etiquetteer.com!
