Starting the New Year/French/Save the Date, Vol. 15, Issue 1

Happy New Year, readers! Allow Etiquetteer to wish you a most Perfectly Proper New Year for 2016. Alas, Etiquetteer began 2016 inauspiciously with a faux pas - at least That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much did. Sunday began with the horrifying discovery that a party invitation was not, in fact, for Sunday, but for the day before. On the other hand, it could have been the week before. Etiquetteer remembers many many years ago getting a phone call from a party guest excited about the next evening's party; Etiquetteer felt badly having to explain that the party had already taken place the previous weekend. Etiquetteer is going to have to put That Mr. Dimmick through another course of Grovelling Abjectly. In the meantime, many of us could benefit from a New Year's resolution to check and double check our calendars.

And speaking of faux pas, it is interesting to note how fashions in manners and language come and go. Once upon a time the crème de la crème moving around in the beau monde would sprinkle their speech and correspondence with bits of French, but these days it really isn't considered le dernier cri of the bon ton. Malhereusement, it's more likely to make an unfavorable impression, as though one was too cultured, as though one was not comme il faut. (Can one be too cultured? One has only to look at Ashley Wilkes to learn the answer to that question.)

Although it might be malentendu or passé to resume the practice now, some phrases in French get bandied around enough that those who wish to appear au fait should be aware. Etiquetteer stumbled on many of these in The Book of Good Manners, by Frederick H. Martens (1923, published by Social Culture Publications):

• À la mode: in the fashion. Pie served à la mode means served with ice cream. To be dressed à la mode means to be dressed fashionably, not to be covered with ice cream (unless that becomes the fashion).
• Au contraire: on the contrary.
• Au fait: expert.
• Au naturel: in the natural state. Now used specifically to mean going without clothes. Please do not make the blunder of using au natural.
• Avec plaisir: with pleasure.
• À votre santé!: to your health, a popular toast.
• Beau monde: the world of fashion and its inhabitants.
• Bon ton: the fashion, or fashionable.
• Comme il faut: as it should be. Etiquetteer would say Perfectly Proper.
• Crème de la crème: the very best people.
• De rigeur: something not to be done without. Not to be confused with bon ton.
• Dernier cri: the last word.
• Divertissement: amusement or sport, something to divert one's attention. Not to be confused with a liaison.
• Double entendre: A naughty interpretation of an otherwise innocent word or phrase. Some 19th century etiquette books suggested that ladies did not even recognize double entendres.
• En déshabille or en petite tenue: in undress. Today this would be a grand way to say "bathrobe" or "pajamas." Not to be confused with au naturel, though Etiquetteer imagines that one might follow the other at a liaison.
• En route: on the way.
• Esprit de corps: team spirit.
• Faux pas: A mistake or error.
• Fille de joie: a courtesan or a "lady of easy virtue," or, really, not a lady.
• Flaneur: lounger.
• Gauche: awkward. Usually applied to someone's manners in public if they appear uncertain what to do.
• Grande dame: great society lady.
• Homme du monde: a man of fashion.
• Hors de combat: not in a condition to fight. Not to be confused with fille de joie.
• Je ne sais quoi: something indefinite that makes a difference.
• Laissez-faire: let things take their course.
• Les enfants terribles: misbehaving children, or those who always manage to do the wrong thing at the wrong time.
• Liaison: an alliance or an illicit connection, possibly with a fille de joie or an homme du monde, but most unlikely with a grande dame.
• L'inconnu: the unknown, possibly fatal after a liaison. Check with your doctor.
• Mal de mer: seasickness. Wags will sometimes refer to mal de belle-mère for mother-in-law trouble.
• Malentendu: a mistake.
• Malheureusement: unhappily.
• Passé: out of style.

Etiquetteer encourages you to save March 31, 2016, for the annual benefit of The Gibson House Museum, at which William Clendaniel will be honored for his work with Mount Auburn Cemetery, Massachusetts Historical Society, Friends of the Boston Public Garden, and the Trustees of Reservations. Etiquetteer is delighted to be serving as master of ceremonies for this occasion. More details to come, but some information may be found on the Gibson House event page.

How Young Etiquetteer Was Embarrassed, Vol. 14, Issue 36

You may have heard Etiquetteer tell this story before, but it came to mind vividly again, and Etiquetteer must tell (or retell) it now for the record. Etiquetteer has always had an interest in seeing things done with Perfect Propriety and with people Behaving Well. And as a college student, Young Etiquetteer had an equal and abiding interest in Free Food. So one day many years ago Young Etiquetteer received with pleasure an invitation from an elderly lady to a luncheon at the Ritz-Carlton. What could be more Perfectly Proper than a luncheon at the Ritz-Carlton? Young Etiquetteer accepted the invitation with alacrity and brushed off his best suit in preparation.

Now this elderly lady - let's refer to her as Madame - who Young Etiquetteer had never really met, was a friend of Young Etiquetteer's Stern Grandmother, but there was no reason to suspect she might be any different from the legions of elderly ladies Young Etiquetteer had been entertaining since birth: full of indulgent smiles, Christian rectitude, canasta, and a dash of genealogy. Young Etiquetteer's eyes were to be opened, as Madame's principal focus was Herself and Her Reactions, as we shall see.

In those days*, the Ritz-Carlton dining room was described by many as the most beautiful room in Boston, and to a young man who hoped to be Perfectly Proper it was considered a crucible of Perfectly Propriety. From its snowy napery to its brocade draperies to its famous cobalt glass chandeliers and goblets, the room represented what Americans used to aspire to (and should continue aspire to today) as the Good Life. But almost from the beginning, Madame set a very different tone.

She was first nonplussed (but quietly) about an odd feature of 1980s restaurant etiquette: maitre d's who kissed on the mouth. Next, loudly exclaiming over the beauty of the china, Madame picked up the service plate like the latest bestseller to read the trademark. Young Etiquetteer, who had not only been taught that the first thing you did at table was put your napkin in your lap but also that you never did anything so gauche as to examine the provenance of the china, was nearly demolished by this. But more was still to come.

This occasion proved to be Young Etiquetteer's first encounter with service à la russe, which requires one to serve oneself each course from large platters offered by the waiter. Negotiating salmon with asparagus and hollandaise sauce is difficult enough for the uninitiated, but made even more so with Ceaseless Commentary on the novelty of the service from Madame, who thought it was different and charming, and didn't fail to mention this at top volume anytime a waiter - any waiter - appeared within two feet of us. She was having a wonderful time, and wanted everyone to know it!

This luncheon was not an ordinary luncheon, but a fashion luncheon featuring beautiful models in exquisite clothes (day and evening) languidly strolling among the tables. The place Young Etiquetteer was filling was originally intended for a Female Relation of Madame's who was unable to attend. Young Etiquetteer was one of perhaps three men present, somewhat ambivalently relishing the Walter Mitty role, but enjoying the setting, the (free) luncheon, and indeed the couture promenade. Madame was enjoying it, too, and assailed each model with Expressions of Delight, and also some Embarrassing Questions. She asked one model for her phone number to share with her son! Etiquetteer did not know quite where to look.

But the most embarrassing moment came after dessert. With the conclusion of the luncheon, the models were circulating with little lipsticks as favors for the ladies. Madame dearly wanted one to share with her Female Relation, but she wanted one for herself more. And when a beautiful model presented her with a lipstick, Young Etiquetteer froze in fright to hear Madame respond with Six Horrifying Words:

"Aren't you gonna give him one?"

Young Etiquetteer withered under the icy stare of the model, who asked "Do you need one?" in such a way as to question Young Etiquetteer's masculinity, upbringing, and right to exist - none of which seemed to matter to Madame, so intently was she focused on a free lipstick. "Certainly not!" replied Young Etiquetteer, whose limit had been reached, and the model passed on. Words were passed, but the mood restored, and of course Young Etiquetteer omitted any reference in the Lovely Note mailed the next day.

The morals of this tale, if there are any, would be that a) consideration of the feelings of others is an important part of daily life, b) to be distracted by trinkets indicates a lack of breeding**, and c) that there is no such thing as a free luncheon.

*The mid-1980s.

**The lyric from Chess comes to mind: "Trinkets in airports sufficient to lead them astray."

Reacting to Offensive Comments, Vol. 13, Issue 39

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.

Unwanted In-Laws and Current Events, Vol. 8, Issue 8

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 say something 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!

Etiquetteer could not but agree with the Daily Telegraph's list of ten first date faux pas. 

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.

In Memory of Two Great Ladies, Vol. 6, Issue 32

It was bad enough losing Brooke Astor earlier this year. Mrs. Astor was perhaps the last Truly Great Lady known throughout the United States, and she left a legacy of Good Works and Perfect Propriety behind her when she died at age 105. There are two types of Great Lady. The Grande Dame is the type we’re used to, distinguished by wealth and a casual attitude toward it, flawless manners and presentation, ascetic figure, a general air of noblesse oblige, and Devotion to a Cause. The second type is characterized by a wealth of spirit, effusive manners, a comfortable figure, a general air of good humor and compassion, and Devotion to Those Around Her. The world became a lesser place last week when it lost two Great Ladies, one of each type: Cathryn Keith and Mary Alice Hollingsworth Hairston Gibson. Mrs. Keith’s devotion to her particular cause, Boston Ballet, shone as an example to others for around 40 years. She not only contributed generously but gave of herself: creating the Ballet’s boutique, stitching costumes, shelving office supplies, and even getting on her knees to tackle the office filing. Etiquetteer approached her about this more than once – she was, after all, in her nineties by this time – and her answer was always "I’m helping to build a cathedral." She cared about everyone involved in the Company. We often think of Grandes Dames as having their noses in the air, but Mrs. Keith was not That Sort. She was glad to be part of the "chain of human sympathies." Indeed, her kindness to others made one want to extend kindness to her. Her excitement over receiving a surprise plum tart, an invitation to tea, or a photograph of her beloved Rupert Brooke warmed the heart. Last week she left behind many friends, countless friends, who no doubt feel sad that they can no longer offer her favors. The one area of Perfect Propriety on which she and Etiquetteer differed concerned funerals. Mrs. Keith always insisted that there be no funeral or memorial service for her, no gathering of any kind. She once told Etiquetteer that she’d been to a funeral with everyone weeping and crying and sad, and she wanted no part of that. Etiquetteer must gently disagree. Tears aside, comfort may be found in coming together as a group to remember the dead and to acknowledge feelings of sadness. (Etiquetteer loathes the term "celebration of the life," which ostentatiously denies legitimate feelings of grief when a loved one dies.) But one does not contradict the wishes of Great Ladies – and Etiquetteer can show you the scars from when he has – and will privately lift a glass and reread Rupert Brooke’s "Dining Room Tea" to her memory. Very few Grandes Dames are made any longer; Etiquetteer can only think of one under the age of 50. Mere wealth isn’t enough – though many wealthy ladies think it is! The other type continues to populate our Great Nation in larger numbers, and let us hope it always does. Cousin Mary Alice, a cornerstone of any large family gathering, was such a Life Force on her own that it is difficult to think of her having Gone to her Heavenly Reward. She lavished her talents on those around her: making wedding and prom dresses for neighbor women, going into the Mississippi public schools to teach crafts, serving as church organist (and as a pianist at Sunday worship for every family reunion), and as a prodigious correspondent, even into her nineties. Under what many would have considered insurmountable odds – try raising five children on your own – she achieved two college degrees and a successful career in human services. A Great Lady also exhibits integrity, and Etiquetteer loved hearing the story of how Mary Alice resigned from the Daughters of the American Revolution when Marian Anderson was denied use of their Constitution Hall for a recital back in 1939. While she seasoned her conversation with the spice of reminiscence and the salt of an occasional naughty story, Mary Alice also paid attention to the troubles of others and could offer a word or a shoulder to encourage one to Keep Going. Even at age 93 her exuberance continued. What her mother called her "merry heart" she wore on her sleeve and her lips. As one of her family said "You know the angels are throwing a party for her in Heaven now!" Etiquetteer, who could not travel to Mississippi for the funeral, will certainly do so, but on a smaller scale. [All Etiquetteer's efforts to find a photograph of Mary Alice among his voluminous files have come to naught. When Etiquetteer can locate one it will certainly be added to this page.] So we see that the shared characteristic of Great Ladies is their ability to give of themselves. What better legacy could these ladies leave? 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.