Gilded Age Brides Want No Kiss

Is it possible that many Gilded Age brides and Dollar Princesses were married off into unions they did not actually desire, which left them not wanting to be kissed? Or was there a genuine wish to keep their kisses private due to a Victorian prudishness?— The most well-known of the “Dollar Princesses,” Consuelo Vanderbilt became the Duchess of Marlborough when she married the Duke of Marlborough in 1895. She was said to have cried unhappily throughout the wedding ceremony.

Kissing Not in Fashion for Wedding Ceremonies 

Kissing the bride at a wedding is no longer fashionable, so the clergyman who officiates at society weddings in future will miss the labial perquisite. Indeed, kissing in public is no longer permissible in good society, and a reserved and refined womanhood has been long in rebellion against this usage without having abolished it until quite recently. This public may be her own invited and welcomed guests, but all tho same she objects to being kissed in their presence, and very properly. Indeed, few brides are willing to have their veils raised and thrown backward until they have left the church. This also is in excellent taste. —Social Etiquette in The Banner, 1888

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

A Variety of Etiquette Across the Globe

The Māori culture is an integral part of New Zealand's identity. – Above, Māori women in traditional dress. — Photo courtesy of Elizabeth Soos, Auersmont Etiquette 

Curiosities of Behavior

It may be said, on general principles, that a person who does unto others as he would be done by, cannot diverge very far from the essentials of true politeness. Unobtrusiveness, self-denial, moderation of voice and cleanliness of habit, in a word, self-respect combined with consideration for others, these are the qualities which constitute politeness. A poor farmer’s boy may possess them, while a man who has rank, wealth and every sort of social pretension may wholly lack them.

But in every country there is an arbitrary code of politeness which is called etiquette, and its rules are often purely formal and meaningless, changing from year to year like the fashions. Even primitive tribes and indigenous people have a system of etiquette, and what is polite in this restricted sense, varies curiously in many different parts of the world.

As everybody knows, kissing is indulged in to a much greater extent among European nations than in our own country or England. The fact of two men kissing each other, which would pass without comment in many places abroad, would cause considerable amusement if practiced in the streets of New York or London. But in St. Petersburg or Paris the case is different.

Some of our readers will recollect Du Maurier's amusing sketch, which appeared in Punch a few years since. It depicted an Englishman awaiting the arrival of a French friend, who has crossed the channel in order to pay him a visit.

The Englishman hears the Frenchman's knock at the hall door, and not desiring to be favored with the osculatory embraces of the excitable foreigner, runs into his dressing-room, from whence he emerges, razor in hand, with his face plentifully covered with lather as M. Alphouse rushes up the stairs, half a dozen steps at a time. But M. Alphouse is not to be done, and seizing his friend round the neck, he, to his entire satisfaction, impresses an ardent kiss upon his bald and undefended pate! 

The custom of kissing in Russia is, however, never in such full swing as during the Fetes Paques, which answer to our Eastertide. Then every man, woman and child, from the highest to the lowest, as he meets his neighbor, utters the sentence “Kristos voskres” (He is risen), and the kiss of peace is given and taken in remembrance of the great event which at that period of the year all Christendom is engaged in celebrating.

The etiquette of more primitive peoples, however, includes stranger customs than kissing. Nose-rubbing is a form of salutation affected by the natives of many indigenous lands, and amongst them New Zealand. In that country it forms, in fact, the preliminary to the tangi, one of the strangest, if not the strangest, of the many strange forms of etiquette to be found scattered over the globe. To welcome with a cheerful countenance seems natural to man, of whatever part of the world he may be a native. Black, white, brown, or yellow, his face lights up into a pleasant smile, or expands into a broad grin, as he greets his friend.

But here, at the other side of the world, the case is different, and when friend meets friend at a tangi — a ceremonial Māori funeral or wake — especially if their absence from each other has been at all of lengthened duration, it is the correct thing for them to plant themselves opposite each other on the ground, cover up their faces with the exception of one eye with their mats, and weep and howl and roar for more than an hour together.

As the tangi goes on, the performers encircle one another’s neck with their arms, and covering their heads beneath one garment, sob to their hearts’ content. The proceedings are only varied when food is served, when the wailing and groaning ceases as if by magic, and they fall-to upon the feast with a will, each striving to outdo tho other in jollity. The moment the viand have disappeared, the performers once more to all appearance wallow in the depths of hopeless agony.

Frequently, as a part of the practice, they each cut their flesh with sharp mussel-shells, until their bodies in every part are streaming with blood. There is morality in politeness, but the etiquette of civilized nations is occasionally as absurd and unaccountable as that of the indigenous people above mentioned. - Placer Herald, 1884

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Royal Etiquette Rules in England

It is as well to avoid the too frequent repetition of “Your Majesty.” It gets on the nerves of some royal persons when introduced in almost every sentence.

ETIQUETTE WITH ROYALTY

Presentation to a royal personage is often regarded as a nervous business for the reason that the person presented does not exactly know what is the correct thing to say or do. Whether it be a formal or an informal presentation, the same rule holds good. The King is addressed as "Your Majesty," and the Queen in the same fashion. The ladies and gentlemen about the Court, and those who enjoy the friendship of the royal family say "Sir" or "Madam" when addressing King or Queen. The word "Madam" is usually pronounced "Ma'am" in this case.

It is as well to avoid the too frequent repetition of “Your Majesty.” It gets on the nerves of some royal persons when introduced in almost every sentence. “Your Royal Highness” is the mode of addressing all other members of the Royal Family than the King and Queen. In speaking of one member to another, one does not say "he" or "him," "she" or "her," but always uses the full phrase, “His Majesty,” "Her Majesty," "His Royal Highness," or "Her Royal Highness," as the case may be. —  Every Day Etiquette, by Mrs. Humphrey, 1900

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Decorum and the French 18th C. Stage

“When a declaration of love was made on the French stage, the actress turned away her head. The lover spoke to the back of her neck. He does so still. No approach to embracing is allowed.” —Above is an image showing 3/4 profiles. This was part of what was part of the strict theatrical conventions of French Neoclassical drama, which governed the stage during the 17th and 18th centuries. It encompassed the Principle of Bienséance (Decorum), "Three-Quarters" profiles, when actresses turned their heads toward the audience so the crowd could see their facial expressions and hear their voices clearly, and more…

French Stage Propriety

The Francais - perhaps the most corrupt theater in Paris, was the one in which traditions of decorum were best preserved. It was among other theaters as Lord Chesterfield would have been at the court of George II. Lord Chesterfield was an homme d'esprit, and never forgot the decorum which he doubtless learned to value in France. Nor did the Francais.

In respect to high decorum, that theater adhered to the traditions of French society prior to Marie Antoinette and the revolution. Everything was done with propriety and order at the Court of Versailles and in the salons of Paris. In the eighteenth century English, Belgian, Austrian fine gentlemen kissed the tips of ladies' fingers. But in France it would have been thought a liberty to do so. When a declaration of love was made on the French stage, the actress turned away her head. The lover spoke to the back of her neck. He does so still. No approach to embracing is allowed.

The most that can be done is, in a transport of admiration, to blow a kiss to the heroine as she makes her exit. At the other theaters there is the côte du jardin on the right-hand side. At the Francais there is the côte de la cour. The court is supposed to be present in the state box, and actors play to it as in the time of Moliere. I dare say the portraits of the ancestors greatly helped to perpetuate the decorous traditions and this particular fiction. No more than in the Letters of Chesterfield were immoralities, consecrated by courtly examples and social usage, thought any harm. But they must be wrapped up and dealt with in an insidious, subtle manner. Paris Correspondence for London Truth, 1900

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette and Untrained Servants

The well-trained servant is a perfect treasure, and a very solace in life, if one can afford him or her. The pleasant manner and gentle subdued voice are in strong contrast with the rough, half-defiant demeanor, of the newly-caught, cheap servant, accustomed to hard ways and want of consideration. 

People who are trying hard to get into society a little better than that with which they have had to be content till more favorable circumstances arose, often find a serious obstacle in badly trained servants. They cannot afford, perhaps, to employ domestics who have been accustomed to serve in wealthy or aristocratic families, the demands of such being excessive as to wages while their notions as to the work are of the most meagre kind. 

I remember once calling on a lady who was doing her very best to be “smart,” as she said herself. Two other callers were in the room and our hostess rang the bell and when the maid appeared said, “Tea, please.” Looking round the room, the latter said, “Oh, tea for four” and vanished. Her mistress held up hands and eyes, and said, “She's newly in to-day. Sounds as if she had been waitress in tea-rooms.” And so it did. 

In such simple ways do our servants manage to make us look very small indeed. Their worst side is turned out when they wait at table. However carefully we may train them when only the family is lunching or dining, they are almost sure to get flurried and forget when friends join the party, handing things at the right side instead of at the left, and serving the party in some erratic fashion of their own, instead of straight down one side of the table and then straight down the other.

The well-trained servant is a perfect treasure, and a very solace in life, if one can afford him or her. The pleasant manner and gentle subdued voice are in strong contrast with the rough, half-defiant demeanor, of the newly-caught, cheap servant, accustomed to hard ways and want of consideration. — By Mrs. Humphry, 1900

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

When to Use a Spoon or Fork

“The spoon is the proper medium for conveying many varieties of semi-liquid foods; but methods of preparing certain foods differ according to locality, and to this difference is attributable much of the misunderstanding existing between the use of the fork and spoon.” — You will find many more forks than spoons at place settings. This is because spoons are used for liquid and very soft or semi-liquid foods like sorbets, soups and chili. Forks are used for vegetables, fruits, meats, and nearly everything else at a meal which isn’t a finger food, like breads, etc…  Specialty combination utensils, like many developed in the Glided Age — ice cream forks, pie forks, orange spoons, etc, ... — are rarely seen on today’s tables, which is a shame. The only combination utensils regularly seen today, sadly, are plastic “sporks.”

No more nonsensical statement could be made than that everything eatable should be carried to the lips with a fork. The spoon is the proper medium for conveying many varieties of semi-liquid foods; but methods of preparing certain foods differ according to locality, and to this difference is attributable much of the misunderstanding existing between the use of the fork and spoon. 

Tomatoes cooked without anything to absorb their liquid contain but little pulp which can be eaten with a spoon, but the delicious manner of thus preparing them, which prevails throughout New England, more than counterbalances the satisfaction that the remnant of solid matter conveyed to the mouth upon a fork would bestow; and those to whom the preparation is agreeable would merely proclaim themselves ridiculously automatic in their ideas by attempting to eat them without the aid of a spoon. 

On the other hand the same vegetable, prepared so that but little moisture remains, is as easily lifted upon the fork as mashed potato. We have made an every-day selection to illustrate this point, but the rule applies as practically to the daintiest viand that rejoices in a French name, and should be as faithfully adhered to at the table of a King as at the humblest board. - By Eliza Lavin, 1889

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette and Decorum

         In the Gilded Age, one major, widely sold, best selling etiquette manual featured was Decorum: A Practical Treatise on Etiquette and Dress of the Best American Society. Originally published in 1877 by J.A. Ruth & Co., it was essentially the “bible” for Victorian social norms and ran through numerous, highly successful editions. Another related, notable, though smaller scale best seller was The Bazar Book of Decorum (1870) by Harper & Brothers.

The Word of the Day is Decorum

Today's word is DECORUM. 

It’s pronounced—de-koh-rum, with accent on the second syllable. It means—decency, seemliness, fitness, modesty. 

It comes from—Latin “decorum," comely. 

Companion word —dccorus. It’s used like this —“When in society you should behave with decorum .”

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor of the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Miss Manners Rescues Civilization

“The tiniest custom may offer a glimpse into how a mannerly concept, such as fairness, has been translated into behavior,” she writes. “Tradition is what gives a society meaning and the rules by which it lives are what make it work.” — Miss Manners

Handling More Than Mere Manners 

From Sexual Harassment, Frivolous Lawsuits, Dissing : and Other Lapses in Civility by Judith Martin

A Book Review

“Miss Manners insists on the E-word,” writes Judith Martin in “Miss Manners Rescues Civilization,” the latest in her long-running series of lighthearted lessons in behaving well in our benighted world.

The “E-word,” of course, is etiquette, and etiquette has long been a highly lucrative enterprise for Martin. Why, she has even registered “Miss Manners” as a trademark, and a federal trademark symbol is neatly affixed to the famous name on the cover of her book.

Still, Martin’s seriocomic approach to good manners conceals an earnest interest in what defines and preserves a civilization against decadence and decline. Much of what Martin writes is actually a kind of study in cultural anthropology, even if she dresses up her field notes with artful parody and self-deprecating humor.

“The tiniest custom may offer a glimpse into how a mannerly concept, such as fairness, has been translated into behavior,” she writes. “Tradition is what gives a society meaning and the rules by which it lives are what make it work.”

As she sets up and knocks down straw men, debating with carping letter-writers and always getting in the last word, we realize that Martin is passionately interested in the weightiest and most urgent issues in our troubled world— class hatred, senseless acts of violence, the struggle for social justice, the search for enlightenment and fulfillment. In that sense, the title of her book (like the book itself) only appears to be satirical.

So Martin ponders when it is appropriate to wear hats or white shoes or black tie; she pontificates on the correct way to address a former president; she protests against putting on make-up in public. But she also makes a convincing case for the proposition that good manners can be a matter of life and death.

“Miss Manners may be used to a certain loneliness in her devotion to etiquette as the basic force of civilization, but when a disaster occurs, she has plenty of company,” writes Martin. “After the bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City, large and small acts of consideration, thoughtfulness and kindness abounded.”

Indeed, there is literally no arena of moral controversy into which she hesitates to wander, no form of human encounter too bizarre to baffle her sense of right and wrong. Miss Manners instructs a ninth-grader on how to conduct a decorous argument on the subject of abortion; she counsels a woman whose waist-length hair attracts fondling by strangers to call the cops; she opines on the proper degree of decorum in dealing with a former neighbor who once molested a reader’s daughter.

Here and there, Martin bulks up her book with questions so dunderheaded and answers so predictable that one suspects she is simply running out of material for yet another book. “Is it ever appropriate to give one the finger?” one reader asks in apparent innocence. “Certainly not,” says the unflappable Miss Manners, surprising no one at all.

More often, though, Miss Manners finds herself drawn into the role of defining, rather than reporting on, the fast-changing standards of etiquette, a role she clearly savors and performs especially well. After all, what does the traditional rule of etiquette tell us about how to deal with a neighbor who watches pornographic movies with the window blinds wide open, or the mourner who brings his video cam to a funeral?

“It seems to Miss Manners that you are showing far too much interest in the nature of your neighbor’s habits,” Miss Manners scolds one reader, and the other reader she comforts: “To film weeping mourners is an appalling intrusion on their privacy.”

Behind the mask of Miss Manners lurks a subtle parodist named Judith Martin, and deep inside Judith Martin beats the heart of a an authentic visionary who is enraptured by the prospect of a world characterized by social equality and social justice. The fact that she uses the “E-word” to characterize her faintly utopian vision— and the fact that she uses such sly good humor in describing it— makes the whole enterprise no less stirring. — By Jonathan Kirsch, Special to the Times, 1996

🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia