Modern Manners
Q. I am writing on behalf of my husband, a doctor, and my brother, who is a lawyer. They complain that whenever other guests at dinner or cocktail parties hear their profession they instantly assail my husband with their symptoms and my brother with disputes about boring neighbours. How can they tactfully make it clear to people that they do not want to discuss work during social hours?
A. There are various tenacious little tactics that should help when dealing with this problem without aping the famous case of a doctor and a lawyer who chatted informally at a party and promptly sent each other a bill the next day for services rendered. Initially it is best to brush it off quickly with an anodyne response and a swift change of subject. If this does not work, there are various stock phrases that can be used depending on the persistence of the perpetrator: “Goodness, that is far too technical for me to deal with now, but please do come and see me in the office whenever you like” or, if appropriate, “I’m sorry, I don’t do that type of law”, should the inquiry be the usual litany of barking dogs, boundary disputes and messy divorces. You could also try: “I’d love to help you, but people can be so vicious about suing over advice, even if given off the record, that we have a cardinal rule never to discuss professional queries socially.”
Q. Our daughter, who is 24, has never been to a wedding, so she was excited when she received an invitation from an old friend. It was to be a small family affair and she was invited only to the social gathering after the reception. However, her excitement was diminished when the wedding list arrived and it was obvious that she was expected to provide a present, the same as other guests. While I do not subscribe to the principle that a gift is some kind of payment for the wedding breakfast, do you not think that this is a case of the brides’ parents wanting to have their cake and eat it?
A. Only slightly, but they have breached wedding manners by sending a wedding list rather than allowing guests to apply for one. However, it is a long-standing custom that wedding guests should bring a present for the bride and groom. Obviously, I understand that your daughter would not be attending the service, but this should not exonerate her from making a contribution, no matter how small. There is never any compulsion to buy from a wedding list: it is merely a convenient guide for givers, and if your daughter cannot find anything that suits her taste or pocket, then she should buy whatever she feels they might appreciate. As with all present giving, the gesture is important and all newlyweds deserve the best of thoughts on starting married life.
Q. When invited to a supper party or luncheon, we would usually take some flowers and a bottle of decent sweet white wine. I feel that such wine does not presume that our host has no wine for the meal, nor imposes on him the need either to open it then and there. However, I have become aware that such wine is less popular these days. Desserts are also going out of fashion, it seems. Should I change my practice?
A. You could: a bottle of sweet wine remains a useful present for hosts who are well-stocked on run-of-the-mill reds and whites. However, if you are convinced the sweet palate is in decline, opt instead for a small box of delicious chocolates, as although people may well be rationing the quantities of pudding they are putting away, chocolate retains its tenacious hold on the culinary psyche.
Q. We recently invited two couples to a very informal Sunday lunch – the Earl X and his Countess, and Major General Sir Y and Lady Y. We know them all well, but the two couples had not met each other before. I had no idea how to introduce them to each other (or who to whom), so got around it by telling each couple in advance who the other guests were to be, and then introducing them quite informally as James and Mary X, and Charles and Sarah Y: but how should I have done it?
A. Generally speaking, the same rules that govern the use of Mr and Mrs apply to titles. Nowadays, among groups of the same generation, the almost automatic use of first names is pretty widespread, particularly within younger age groups. However, care must be taken with older people who have a much more formal take on making introductions and still expect to be granted their handles. Although in formal precedence an earl comes before a knight, in social life there is no distinction made and the usual rules apply: men are introduced to women and juniors to seniors.
Q. I have been asked to give away, at a formal wedding, the daughter of one our greatest friends, her father having died a few years ago. The daughter became engaged last month and a year ago my wife and I gave her a significant sum to assist with the cost of refurbishing her newly acquired flat. What is the appropriate etiquette? Should I offer to defray some of the wedding expenses (about 150 guests are expected), and do I make a speech at the reception?
A. Etiquette expects only that you expertly and elegantly fulfil your role as a bridal escort. The other functions you mention are optional. Unless the mother of the bride makes strong hints that she would welcome a contribution to the wedding, there is no need for you to stump up, particularly in the light of your generous contribution to the couple’s housing needs.
There is also no obligation for you to make a speech at the reception, although as you are obviously an old family friend, you would be an ideal candidate. Such a decision, however, resides with the bride. If you feel you would like to do a little extra, how about throwing an engagement party for the couple, something her late father would probably have enjoyed giving.
Q. My parents, both in their nineties, have recently entered a residential care home which meant that the contents of their house have had to be disposed of. I was surprised to learn from my father that my sister and her husband had presented my parents with a list of items that they had given to my parents over the previous 30 years with a request that all the items be returned to them.
They based this on the belief that presents should be returned to the giver when no longer required. I find this principle unacceptable, and was always led to believe that the giver of a present had no deferred rights over its disposal other than gratefully to accept or decline its return if offered. I would appreciate your views on this vexing subject, as the request from my sister and her husband to return the items has greatly upset my father.
A. I am outraged as well as surprised, particularly as this transgression of good manners and human kindness is made even worse by the no doubt vulnerable state of the victims. Presents once given instantly become the property in perpetuity of the recipients, unless it is made clear that items are merely being loaned. The future dispersal of these chattels is entirely within the gift of the owners – in this case your parents. Your sister’s and her husband’s views on the return of presents are quite wrong and very upsetting. Now is the time for a few strong words with your sister: immediate action will nip in the bud displays of greed clouding your parents’ declining years.
Q. How can one graciously avoid shaking hands? Having clammy palms I have always disliked shaking hands; now as I get older the “firm” handshake is positively painful. I find Lord Baden-Powell’s advice on firm handshakes unhelpful: surely to crush someone’s hand cannot be considered good manners?
A. Crushing is never courteous. I suggest you fall back on tradition which dictates that nobody shakes a woman’s hand unless she offers hers. The custom is to give a radiant smile accompanied by a gentle bow of the head. This, with all its old-style charm, still provides an excellent and effective alternative to hand-shaking, particularly when practised by a senior female.
Q. I was taught that is was bad form to finish eating while another person at table was still doing so, but this does not seem to be observed now. I am a slow eater and have often found myself eating alone, feeling self-conscious and trying to hurry, or leaving some of the meal. Is this courtesy now out-moded?
A. Not entirely, but it is certainly a dying art among younger people. However, it is still to be applauded, as it shows a certain amount of charm and consideration, and is particularly recommended when dining formally. This being said, the well-mannered snail should strive not to linger too long over his food and thus make courses unnecessarily protracted.
Q. I have long believed that (a) a patterned tie should never be worn with anything other than a completely patternless shirt, and that (b) a gentleman would never wear a pullover under the jacket of a two-piece suit. Am I right, or are the increasing numbers of men who flout these sartorial conventions right?
A. Nothing stands still, particularly in the relentless steeplechase of fashion. Both innovations show the contemporary interest in self-expression and the emphasis on comfort in an increasingly casual age. Neither can be thought of as bad manners, indeed mixed patterns can look sophisticated, although I would recommend the eschewing of the sweater where complete correctitude is expected of the wearer.
Q. Would you clarify how a man should introduce himself? My parents told me that whether on the telephone or in person he should say “Smith” or preferably “John Smith” without the prefix “Mr”. However, most men now say their name is “Mr Smith” (unless as is increasingly common they just say “John” without the surname).
A. Men’s names should be expressed clearly and simply as in “John Smith” and without the use of Mr which manages to be pretentious, pompous and genteel. The use of surnames alone, outside the services and some schools, is becoming archaic.
Q. My ex-husband’s widow has invited me to her wedding. How do I refuse, as I feel it would be inappropriate to be present? She has also invited my son, her stepson, who also has no desire to attend as he did not enjoy her company. Do we send a wedding present?
A. Simply reply on the conventional third person form, by first thanking the hosts but then explaining that “owing to a previous engagement” you are unable to attend. You will also probably be pleased to hear that such a refusal entirely excuses you from sending a wedding present.
Q. Could you please enlighten me about second, third, etc. cousins and how they relate with the once, twice, etc. removed structure. We have recently become reacquainted with the great-granddaughter of my husband’s late grandmother. I would like to know if there is indeed a correct way to describe her relationship to my husband.
A. These convoluted familial structures have their own crazy logic. First cousins are the offspring of siblings, second cousins are the issue of the offspring of the siblings and third cousins are the children of the issue of the offspring of the siblings. The word “removed” is used to denote generational differences that often occur between cousinly complexities. Thus the distant relation you describe is your husband’s second cousin once removed.
Submitted by Natalya Khmelik