Notes from a Memorial Service, Vol. 13, Issue 32

Etiquetteer recently attended a memorial service for a Public Figure, and had this to observe:

• Perfectly Proper dress is most important at a funeral or memorial service when respect is shown both to the dead and to the living. While Etiquetteer naturally prefers black - always Perfectly Proper in the West - many tasteful and respectful ensembles in black, gray, and white were observed. Down jackets and flannel shirts, regardless of the weather - and Etiquetteer does understand that this has been a brutal winter - simply are not Perfectly Proper.
• For such events, Etiquetteer wears a black necktie that incorporates stripes of purple and silver gray, having learned that the combination of black and purple symbolizes triumph over death. Etiquetteer tends to avoid wearing a black bow tie with a plain black suit, as too many people believe it's pretending to be a tuxedo - which it certainly is not!
• To leave a funeral or memorial service before it has ended is the Height of Bad Form, no matter how much longer it continues than you expected. Etiquetteer was outraged to see between 10-20% of the assembly scurry out. At such times your convenience means NOTHING! This is not an entertainment for your benefit or curiosity. Remain seated and attentive until the service is definitely over - or at least remain seated, close your eyes, and think of England.
• For Heaven's sake, turn off your devices before the service begins! Etiquetteer counted three cellphone interruptions (two possibly from the same phone). If you can't prevent yourself the embarrassment (should you be incapable of feeling embarrassment), at least prevent the rest of us the annoyance. Sadly, it's become necessary to indicate at least by signs of printed announcements, if not by a verbal announcement, that devices must be switched of.

Mourning Clothes, Vol. 7, Issue 8

Dear Etiquetteer: I am puzzled at funeral fashions these days. Whatever happened to tasteful subdued dignified attire for funerals? I behold now the advent of funeral “flair” with a combination of puzzlement and dread. Dear Mourning: Like you, Etiquetteer is sometimes puzzled by what passes at funerals and memorial services these days. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to understand the original color code of mourning clothes, from deep mourning (all black with no ornamentation) to half mourning (black, white, gray, purple, brown, and sometimes green). These days a lady wearing black is more likely to be mistaken for a bridesmaid than a widow! Appearing all in black now is more likely to initiate the Question of Humorous Intent “Who died?” Humor is seen fleeing the room when the deceased is identified. Etiquetteer’s point is that mourning clothes are supposed to prevent stupid questions, not prompt them.Etiquetteer blames this Sad State of Affairs on Sally Kellerman, whose character in the 1980 sex comedy Serial wore white, with ostentatious spirituality, to a memorial service. (Actually, Etiquetteer really blames Coco Chanel, who famously designed the Little Black Dress after her lover Boy Capel was killed in a plane crash).These days Etiquetteer feels fortunate if everyone attending a funeral shows up neatly dressed without athletic shoes/clothes and without denim. One should be somberly dressed: no skin visible from neck to knees, no ostentatious bling (that’s redundant but Etiquetteer really wanted to make the point), nothing that looks fussy. And it seems necessary now to point out that one's shoes should be CLEAN!What one does see more of these days is mourning buttons or T shirts with the picture of the deceased on them. You may be surprised to find out that Etiquettteer rather likes this custom. It hearkens to the mourning ribbons and badges that used to be handed out when presidents were assassinated. Some beautiful examples from Abraham Lincoln’s funeral observances may be found at the Gilder Lehrman Institute for American History at http://www.gilderlehrman.org/collection/docs_archive/docs_archive_lincoln.html Last week Etiquetteer saw in the press a bolder example of the memorial T-shirt. At the sentencing of convicted murderer Daniel Tavares, the families of his victims, Beverly and Brian Mauck, all wore T-shirts with pictures of the deceased underneath the legend “Among the Angels.” Obviously this was not a funeral, but Etiquetteer was moved by this visible call for justice. To some, however, such attire might not be appropriate in a court of law. What do you think, readers? Please share your opinion at query (at) etiquetteer.com.In case you needed more proof that “low riders” are not Perfectly Proper, seacoastonline.com reported February 21 that a young woman was tossed off a bus because the driver could see her, ahem, rear cleavage – enough of it that he was offended. The young woman in question gave her address as a homeless shelter, and appears to have been in and out of trouble with the law over the last few months. Now if Etiquetteer was going to be flippant (which is easy to do) he would declare that it’s a good thing the look of the early 1960s is coming back and why isn’t Grace Kelly her role model anyway. But it seems clear that this young woman is what is called “acting out,” seeking negative attention. Apparently she is being helped by a mental health center in her area. So without flippancy, Etiquetteer can only turn to the title of that Victorian tearjerker “She Is More to Be Pitied Than Censured,” and hope that she will choose Perfect Propriety for her lot in the future. Have you had enough of that revolting troll checking you out in the locker room? Feel like a prude but just don’t want someone’s, uh, business in your face while you’re dressing? Sick and tired of workout benches glistening with the sweat of another? Etiquetteer is preparing a simple guideline for a future issue on Perfect Propriety at the Gym and is eager to hear from you at query (at) etiquetteer.com.

Random Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 4

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.

Mourning and Help Wanteds, Vol. 6, Issue 13

Dear Etiquetteer:Last week my mother called me to tell me the child of neighborhood acquaintances had died. It was a baby, and I guess it was sudden and unexpected. I haven’t seen these people in awhile, and I wasn’t sure if I should have gone to the funeral or not. I haven’t seen these folks in a very long time, and I wouldn’t want them to think I was intruding. We also, I know, have different opinions about gay marriage; would they think I was rubbing it in their faces? Dear Sympathizing: Conventional wisdom has always been "When in doubt, don’t." But whenever attending a funeral is in question, Etiquetteer says DO. The bereaved are more likely to be grateful for any effort taken to console them, rather than think of slights and disagreements. And if they WERE to think of slights and disagreements, then they wouldn’t be very worthy of consolation, would they? But that would be their fault for thinking it, and not yours for going to the funeral. Etiquetteer hopes you will at least send a letter of condolence (not an e-mail) to let them know you’re thinking of them. Dear Etiquetteer: An elderly cousin in North Carolina died last month. She was an eighty-year-old first cousin who had not married, but had a large town full of friends. While she had cousins on the other side of her family, my wife and I were the closest next of kin. We were the ones to make funeral arrangements. While she had already prearranged her funeral, there are those final details to take care of: getting proper clothes for her to be buried in, arranging a time for the funeral service that would fit the church, minister and family that had to make travel arrangements. Finding the cousins on the other side of the family was a problem. We had to be escorted into her apartment by the security man at her group residence to look for her address book. Looking up the phone number of the cousins on the other side along with other friends and finding out who is the custodian for her mentally retarded god child in New Orleans. After recording all the addresses and phone numbers of people we recognized as being our cousin’s close friends, the address book was turned back to the security man. Our cousin had been very generous in helping just about every good cause in town and out. I was informed by the administrator of the county school system that she had given over 90 scholarships. This did not include the city school system.Writing the obituary was really a joy as we included facts about her life. The funeral home had their web site or e-mail address included at the end of the obituary. Yesterday, I received from the funeral home several copies of e-mails from some of those who had received college education due to her scholarships. These are people that could not make the funeral due to time or may not have known until days later. And, if they had come to the funeral, I would not have the email to read again in my mourning time or to share with those other cousins. Dear Next of Kin:Permit Etiquetteer to offer you sincere sympathy on your bereavement, and also congratulate you on handling all the arrangements with such organization. But Etiquetteer must take issue with you over one tiny item. Whether mourners attend the funeral or not, they still must write a Perfectly Proper letter of condolence to the family. So if everyone was pulling their weight, you’d have these stories to read later anyway, whether you’d met the people at the funeral or not. Dear Etiquetteer:I put an ad for a Medical Assistant on [Insert Name of No-Cost On-line Community Here] last week, outlining job responsibilities with instructions to call and speak with the office manager, leaving her name and office number. Almost immediately, I started to receive e-mails with résumé attachments!I deleted the first ten or so, thinking that, if they cannot read and follow instructions, then they could never work for me.But dozens of responses kept coming in via e-mail. And we did eventually start to review them - thinking maybe we are not keeping up with the times. Who doesn't want to be au courant? But, we did get a near equal number responding in the manner suggested.While reviewing the applications I also noted one e-mail address in particular, because it included the word "sexy." My first impulse was to e-mail them and tell them if they were to ever be taken seriously for a position as a Medical Assistant (and not a call girl) they should change the e-mail address! But, I didn't.So my questions for you are:1. Is this what society has come to? If so, do I have to accept this?2. Should I have expected this 50/50 split in responses - i.e. those who can follow instructions versus those who cannot - considering the medium I chose to advertise the position?3. Why do I seem to notice (and then have to relay) all the oddities I observe daily - like sexy's e-mail address? Or is that a question for the shrink? You don't have to answer that last one! Dear Ad Doctor: Etiquetteer very much fears that this is what society has come to, but you do not have to accept it. You will aid and abet Perfect Propriety by not advertising on [Insert Name of No-Cost On-line Community Here]. Etiquetteer promises you’ll get better responses by going directly to medical communities on-line. The first rule of any advertising is "target your market!" As to the even split between responsible applicants and ignorant doofuses unable to read what’s put before them, Etiquetteer isn’t really surprised. While it’s common now to expect to respond to something seen on-line via e-mail, that’s no excuse for missing the instructions not to do so altogether. Really, Etiquetteer doesn’t see why you shouldn’t reply to them via e-mail that their applications will not be considered because they were sent improperly. As for your last question, Etiquetteer’s Polite Explanation is that you notice these sexual references because they are Absolutely Improper in the workplace. 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.

Past Imperfect, Vol. 6, Issue 11

PAST IMPERFECT Vol. 6, Issue 11, March 18, 2007
		Many people assume that etiquette writers, not just Etiquetteer, believe that everything was better in the past than it is today. Etiquetteer is here to tell you "Not so!" Many old customs have fallen out of fashion because they became overdone and not particularly conducive to good human relations. Etiquetteer would now like to look at some of the "vices and virtues" of the past, both things that we can do without and those we would do well to bring back. MOURNING AND MOURNING CLOTHES Grief and sadness are common emotions when a loved one dies. Society has developed traditions and rituals to comfort the bereaved: letters of sympathy, offerings of food or flowers brought to the home, funerals and memorial services, and even mourning clothes. The latter, including armbands, memorial buttons or badges, black-bordered handkerchiefs, and of course the famous mourning veil, served two purposes: to show respect to the dead and also to warn others not to bring up sensitive subjects. But the idea of having to wear all black for at least three years after the death of a spouse or be thought not to have loved him or her . . . well, it’s just silly. Enough people in the mental health profession have already shown how excessive mourning prevents people from resuming their daily lives. The sort-of cult of mourning in the 19th Century, complete with memorial illustrations, restrictions on where one might go and to whom one might speak there, could lead one to Distraction, and probably did. Now Society has moved to the opposite end of the spectrum by denying grief altogether. We "celebrate the life" of the deceased instead of mourning the death, wear colors to actual funerals if we attend at all, and use the convenience of e-mail when the special effort of writing a letter is so much more appreciated by the bereaved. And black, now so fashionable, is no longer a signal of mourning. Etiquetteer has witnessed on more than one occasion one person joke with another "Wow, black! Who died?" only to hearexactly who the deceased was. One of the innovations of which Etiquetteer heartily approves is the mourning button with the picture of the deceased on it. Frequently made in the 19th Century for public figures (Presidents Lincoln and Garfield come to mind), they are now more widely seen and more easily made than they were 150 years ago. Etiquetteer would like to see a middle ground between these extremes: a service where one could acknowledge one’s sadness by mourning the death as well as "celebrating the life," wear mourning colors at least through the funeral (but not for an extended period unless the bereaved chooses to do so), and yet not be thought insensitive when one feels the need no longer to demonstrate mourning. CALLING AND CALLING CARDS "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. The rules and regulations governing calling and leaving calling cards in the homes of friends and associates must have collapsed under their own complexity and inconvenience. Rules about who called on whom first, the time in which those calls had to be returned, members of the household for whom one (and/or one’s spouse) left cards and how many, even different messages to send by folding certain corners of the card, had to be rigidly obeyed or interpreted as slights or insults. Mrs. Slayden recorded in her journal getting a cold shoulder from someone new in town whose call she couldn’t return because she lived too far away. Not a satisfactory system at all, and rife with misunderstandings. At least it kept the engravers in business. Now we have the Internet, which solves some of these problems, but creates new ones. RECEIVING LINES Etiquetteer loves a receiving line, let’s not be mistaken about that. But too much of a good thing can implode, and it’s no wonder to see this useful custom kicked to the curb. The first problem with a receiving line is having too many people in it. Etiquetteer’s beloved Ellen Maury Slayden recorded attending an afternoon reception in Washington where "there were twenty women in the receiving party ‘bunched,’ as we say in Texas, on one side of the room . . . " And many of us remember weddings with a receiving line of twelve or more people: bride, groom, four parents, and eight or so bridesmaids. This is overkill, to say the least! The second, and perhaps more noticeable problem, is that they take a long time. And the only reason for this is the garrulousness of the people in it. A receiving line is no place for a conversation! You are not rude if you say only "How do you do," "Congratulations!" or "It’s so nice to see you again" and then pass to the next person. Really, it’s rude if you say more and hold up everyone behind you. The time for conversation is during the party. Thoughtful brides and grooms (or other guests of honor) circulate among the guests during the reception in order to talk more. 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.

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: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.

Two Delicate Situations, Vol. 4, Issue 5

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.