Dear Etiquetteer: I work at a non-profit with a group of volunteers who are old enough to be my parents. We all have a strong professional relationship, but that’s all it is, professional. We don’t socialize in any way outside meetings. A few months ago I got started on Facebook. It’s been great finding friends from old jobs and high school. But over the last week two of my volunteers have sent me friend requests. It may not sound very nice to say this, but I don’t want to be friends with them! Besides, there are parts of my life that are strictly social on Facebook and which don’t look at all professional. And I’d rather keep how I relate to my volunteers professional. How can I ignore their friend requests without hurting their feelings? Dear Faced Book: No one should have to socialize with business colleagues if they don’t want to. On the other hand, that’s more and more difficult with everyone putting comprehensive personal dossiers on social networking websites open to the world. Etiquetteer frequently wonders how surprised George Orwell would be that civilization has taken so willingly to the telescreen of "1984." Because no matter how much you think you control the access,nothing is private on the Internet. Etiquetteer can think of two solutions, neither of which seems ideal, but still workable. You could ignore the friend requests from your volunteers and hope they don’t say anything about to you. If they do (which Etiquetteer would find very rude) simply explain that you use Facebook for social networking and that you prefer to keep your relationship professional. Indeed, Etiquetteer sent a friend request to someone he knows both professionally and socially and was a little hurt when he realized that the Person In Question had blocked Etiquetteer from their profile. This made Etiquetteer realize that the professional relationship carried more weight than the social one, but Etiquetteer knew enough Perfect Propriety to Leave It At That. You could also make your volunteers friends using the "Limited Profile" option, which means you could control which aspects of your profile they get to see. For instance, Etiquetteer has no idea what sort of "social" photos you’re posting on Facebook. But the ability to tell someone has a piercing under their clothes is one thing; to be able to see the piercing in photos on line with lots of surrounding flesh is quite another! Etiquetteer highly recommends browsing through the Proper Facebook Etiquette Blog for even more information. Dear Etiquetteer: An acquaintance who formerly has been in trouble with the law for drugs has been incarcerated for several months but has not revealed what he was convicted of. If he was an accessory for a murder, for example, I might not want to stay friends with him! What is the diplomatic way to find out what he's been serving time for? Dear Innocent Bystander: The most diplomatic way would not be through your friend or his/her legal representative. Etiquetteer suspects that this would be a matter of public record. Check with the Department of Public Records or the police to see what they have on your friend. Only you can decide whether or not to retain the friendship after you discover the crime of which your friend was convicted. Etiquette does not compel one to maintain friendships when one no longer wishes to maintain them. Should you decide to sever all contact, stop contacting him/her, and don’t respond. Back in December Etiquetteer was privileged to be invited to a Hanukkah party for the very first time. It was a beautiful occasion (Etiquetteer was delighted to discover that fried foods are an important part of this holiday) and it was also the first time Etiquetteer had heard anyone refer to a yarmulke as a "lid." Reflecting on that today recalled a scene from Etiquetteer’s early career when he was called upon to attend a funeral at a Jewish funeral home. Etiquetteer will confess to having been puzzled when the usher handed him a yarmulke; after all, Etiquetteer looks unmistakably like goyim. But not wanting to show disrespect, Etiquetteer slipped it on and took a seat. Later during the service, Etiquetteer was nonplussed to find himself the subject of snickering from the back of the room. Two colleagues, who later confessed that they were "herbally enhanced," found it hilarious to see such an obvious non-Jew wearing a yarmulke.From this memory of his twenties, Etiquetteer derives two lessons in Perfect Propriety: 1) If you’re not Jewish, don’t wear a yarmulke, and 2) don't get stoned out of your mind before the funeral.
Invitations and Condolences, Vol. 6, Issue 10
INVITATIONS and CONDOLENCES Vol. 6, Issue 10, March 11, 2007 Dear Etiquetteer: Please tell me whether I was right in a dispute about how an invitation was to be worded. At a school where I’m involved a new dining hall was to be dedicated at a catered dinner for major donors. The invitation used the phrase "the honour of your presence." I saidno, that the term should be "the pleasure of your company." "The honour of your presence" is only for marriages held in a house of worship, isn’t that so? Using that phrase for a dinner to dedicate a dining hall was ludicrous to me. Happily the school staff listened to me and changed the invitation in time. But if I’m not correct I’ll take you to dinner. Dear Honored Guest: You are correct, but Etiquetteer has to tell you what a great deal of fun it’s been researching "chapter and verse" on this. While no one’s ever specifically said "‘the honour of your presence’ may only be used on wedding invitations for church weddings," examples for invitations of charity balls and other such functions (with which Etiquetteer would group invitations to university dining hall dedications) always use the form "the pleasure of your company." And from that Etiquetteer infers that you are correct. While checking up on this issue Etiquetteer has been vastly entertained reading about relics of bygone days like train cards for country weddings (when a private train is engaged for guests), cards of admittance to church weddings (for weddings when the general public is not allowed into the church), and invitations to the weddings of young widows issued by her parents. Dear Etiquetteer: I received an e-mail, sprayed to a number of members of an informal group to which I belong, that someone we all knew had a death in his family. I've seen this person off and on for a few minutes or so at a time, here and there over the years as part of this group. Otherwise we never socialized. We’ve never been to each other’s homes. I've always enjoyed his company whenever our paths have crossed. To contact him, all I have is one of his e-mail addresses. I was raised that when one heard of a death one dropped everything, made food if possible, and immediately went to the house of the bereaved to offer any and all assistance: cook, make beds for arriving family, mow the lawn, whatever they asked. If the bereaved were more distant one called them on the phone but, under all circumstances, send them a contemporaneous, handwritten notice of condolence. This ran into an iceberg a number of years ago when, after having sent my handwritten note of condolence, I overheard at the wake that the family thought I was cheap not to have purchased a sympathy card. Further, although my ancestors on my father’s side are Protestant, my mother’s side is devout Catholic, and I have been often faulted for not bringing a Mass card to the wake. To further compound my confusion, in this case, the only way I have to communicate is this person’s e-mail address, and I don't even know if that is his main e-mail address. I've e-mailed a mutual friend asking if he could provide a street address and any particulars as to the arrangements since I feel that condolences by e-mail are far below par and that the more proper course is to send a sympathy card with a personal note of condolence. In this new strange world, what is the proper etiquette? A sudden death, especially of anyone other than the elderly is a horrid, emotionally wrenching situation whatever the relationship between the survivor and the deceased. I feel that an e-mail is so de minimis in the face of such heartbreaking circumstances. Can Etiquetteer help? Dear Condoling: First of all, Etiquetteer has to say that a bereaved person who is going to criticize the way a condolence is sent does not deserve to be condoled. Etiquetteer can only identify these people as Trash Pure and Simple if they can’t realize that correspondence on one’s own stationery is much more meaningful and intimate than on some pre-printed sympathy card (especially the kind with some treacly poem inside). Etiquetteer bets they didn’t even bother to write you back the mandatory Note of Thanks . . . Second, if you’re not a practicing Catholic yourself, Etiquetteer sees no reason for you to send a Mass to the bereaved, even if they themselves are practicing Catholics. As your acquaintance with the bereaved is slight, in spite of its long standing, Etiquetteer doesn’t think it necessary for you to provide food or attend the funeral, as you already well know. Tracking down the street address, through mutual friends, or even an on-line directory, really is the best plan of action to send a Perfectly Proper Condolence Note. If you know the name of the deceased, check for the death announcements in the relevant newpaper (again, frequently on-line), and the church or funeral home might be able to assist you. Should all these avenues still leave you without the information you need, Etiquetteer would allow you to e-mail your acquaintance with your condolences and a request for his street address (without of course, implying that you want it handy for the next time he has a death in the family). 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.
The Etiquette of Death, Vol. 4, Issue 42
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:
Note the specific elements that are included here:
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: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.
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.