Etiquette and Informal Titles

In 1974, couples moving in together without being married was not the norm, so Dick West had some questions… Wrote Dick, “I would have felt a little foolish going up to Goldang and saying: ‘How’s your mistress?’ That might be acceptable in Paris but it sounds much too quaint, melodramatic and sophisticated for the Washington suburbs. ‘How’s your girl friend?’ doesn’t do it either. ‘Girl friend’ is far too casual for the relationship involved here.”

WASHINGTON (UPI) - I ran into Preston Goldang at a party the other evening and I almost said “How’s your wife?” Then I remembered that Goldang and the woman he is living with aren’t married. This brings up a problem. What is the proper way to refer to single people of the opposite sex who move in with each other? 

A few years ago there weren't enough unmarried couples setting up housekeeping for Emily Post to bother with. But now the practice is widespread enough to require a whole new chapter in the book of etiquette. Somehow the terminology previously used in liaisons of this sort no longer seem appropriate. 

I would have felt a little foolish going up to Goldang and saying: “How’s your mistress?” That might be acceptable in Paris but it sounds much too quaint, melodramatic and sophisticated for the Washington suburbs. “How’s your girl friend?” doesn’t do it either. “Girl friend” is far too casual for the relationship involved here. 

On the other hand, I didn’t feel I knew Goldang quite well enough to ask “How’s the woman you’ve been living with?” So I ended up asking “How’s your roommate?” Judging from the look he gave me, that also failed to capture the essence of their arrangement. The nomenclature on the male side of these in-house affairs also is a bit awkward. “Lover?” 

It’s difficult to think of Preston Goldang as a lover in the classical, Don Juanish sense of the word. “Paramour” has a distinctly foreign ring to it, conjuring up visions of Italian balcony hanky-panky. As for “boy friend,” see “girl friend” above. Other terms that spring to mind sweetheart, beau, steady, suitor, swain, sugar daddy, etc... must be rejected as ambiguous or hopelessly old fashioned. 

What is needed is a new title or two along the line of the “Ms.” invented by women’s liberation leaders. Although “Ms.” has its uses, you wouldn’t ask a bachelor “How’s the Ms.?” Until someone comes along with a better suggestion, perhaps unmarried couples who are living together could be identified as “pad partners.” Which could be abbreviated as “Ppf.” for females and “Ppm.” for males. This may not be the perfect solution to the problem. But at least it answers the question of how to address their Christmas cards.— By Dick West, 1974

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

Did 80’s Manners Kill Smoking Customs?

Smoking in public is again becoming bad manners. The private label “impolite” may ultimately have more effect on people’s behavior than the surgeon general’s label “unhealthy.”

BOSTON The man seated at the table on my right is smoking. Actually, he is just holding. The cigarette is smoking. Nevertheless, due to my own charm and magnetic appeal, the smoke has chosen to drift directly from his left hand to my right eye.

With a gesture born of years of experience, I subtly wave my menu at the offending current. The man doesn't notice. I then lean over, tap him on the shoulder and ask if he would mind redirecting his smoke. The man apologizes sheepishly, and shifts the cigarette from one hand to the other.

The smoke now begins to drift into the eyes of another diner. This man tips his chair back, touches the smoker on the arm and asks if he would please rechannel the flow. The smoker sighs and with a gesture of defeat, squashes the glowing offender into the glass ashtray.

At the moment his cigarette meets its premature end, it occurs to me that the same vignette is being repeated a thousand times a day in a thousand restaurants, offices, airports, and shopping lines.

The smokers who once owned the air are being pushed back into special zones and corners and closets. They can be seen searching desperately for ashtrays, stepping out for smokes, and holding their cigarette over their heads, directly under an exhaust fan. It's all a bit like watching the Virginia Slims reel go into reverse. Smoking in public is again becoming bad manners. The private label “impolite” may ultimately have more effect on people’s behavior than the surgeon general’s label “unhealthy.”

If so, it won't be the first time that social pressure has made social history. This is precisely what happened to an ancient and honorable habit known as spitting. In Norbert Elias’ book, “The History of Manners,” he describes a host of changing attitudes and habits from medieval times to ours. He even gives a brief chronology of how spitting became a victim of “civilization.”

Medieval etiquette authors started with the basics: “Do not clean your teeth with your knife. Do not spit on or over the table.” Spitting under the table in those days was allowed even among the best company.

Sometime during the 16th century, our genteel ancestors were being advised to refrain from spitting during mealtime. By the 17th century, they were admonished not to spit on the ground.

The spit repression went on for centuries. In 1859, when spittoons had become a proper substitute for the ground or the napkin, one arbiter of good taste was advising: “Spitting is at all times a disgusting habit. I need say nothing more than never indulge in it.” Fifty years later by 1910, even the spittoon had vanished like some relic of a coarser age.

By now, public spitting itself has virtually disappeared except among the crude, the coughing, and the baseball players. Even writing about it feels vaguely improper. We now consider spitting “uncivilized” and this whole change in social behavior is called “progress.”

As Elias describes the evolution of manners: “The decisive role (was) played in this civilizing process by a very specific change in the feelings of shame and delicacy.”

Admittedly, during the past half-century smoking flourished. There was little support in this era for the virtues of “shame and delicacy.” People worried more about repression than rudeness. I suspect that smoking was an example of pseudo-freedom.

But now, with the help of medical researchers, civilization is creeping up again on the tobacco barbarians. You can see it in clear signs — “Smoking Not Permitted” - and dirty looks. The balance of embarrassment has shifted from non-smokers to smokers. The balance of rudeness has shifted from the critics of smoke to the purveyors of smoke.

Will smoking go the way of spitting, from rude to extinct? Remember what happened to the spittoon. If you have any stock in ashtrays, sell. — By Ellen Goodman for the Boston Globe, 1982

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

American Dining Style’s Roots

Fun Facts About the American Dining Style

Image Source: @peopleimages12 via 123RF

Ever caught yourself switching your fork from hand to hand mid-meal and wondered, "Why am I doing this?" You can thank centuries of etiquette evolution for that little dance. The American Dining Style has a surprisingly quirky backstory, and once you know it, you'll never look at your fork the same way again. Let's dig into some fun facts about the history of eating methods.

Fact #1: We Didn't Always Own Silverware

Long before place settings were a thing, hands, fingers, and sharp knives handled most of the eating. Utensils weren't mass-produced, so people didn't have drawers full of forks and spoons waiting at home. Many dinner guests actually brought their own knife to the table. And in a small act of old-world chivalry, since women typically didn't carry knives of their own, the men at the table would cut food for them.

Fact #2: Forks Were Once Considered Sinister

Believe it or not, the fork had an image problem. Its resemblance to a tiny pitchfork made some diners genuinely suspicious, and it was even branded the "devil's tool" in certain circles. While forks waited out their reputation crisis, the humble spoon had its moment in the spotlight instead.

Fact #3: The Fork-Switching Habit Has a Real Name

That cut-and-switch motion so many Americans do without thinking? It's often called the "zig-zag" method, and it's the heart of the American Dining Style. Here's how it plays out, step by step: cut the food with the knife, set the knife down, move the fork from the left hand to the right, then take the bite. Four steps in total, which traces all the way back to a workaround for right-handed diners using dull dinner knives alongside a spoon.

Fact #4: Europe Actually Invented the Four-Step Method

Here's a twist: the "American" style didn't start in America at all. It originated in Europe, back when spoons were used to steady food while a blunt knife did the cutting. Since most people are right-handed, it felt more natural to switch the spoon over before taking a bite. Somewhere along the way, as forks came into regular use on both sides of the Atlantic by the 1850s, the U.S. held onto this switching habit while European tables moved on.

Fact #5: Europe Simplified Things — We Just Never Got the Memo

Around that same time, upper-class Europeans decided the fork-switching shuffle was more trouble than it was worth. They dropped the extra steps and started keeping the fork in the left hand, tines down, the entire meal; what we now know as the Continental style. It's leaner, it's tidier, and it's the two-step approach most knife-and-fork cultures use today. Meanwhile, America kept dancing.

Fact #6: Etiquette Experts Called It Outdated Decades Ago

This isn't exactly breaking news. Back in 1948, Millicent Fenwick — then an editor at Vogue and later a U.S. representative to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization — declared the switching method out of date in Vogue's Book of Etiquette. And yet, nearly 80 years later, it's still going strong at American tables everywhere.

Fact #7: Fast Food Might Be Changing the Game

Here's a fun modern twist: some market data shows forks now outselling knives by roughly two to one in the U.S. Why? Blame convenience. Pre-cut pizza, ready-made meals, and grab-and-go snacks mean more Americans are eating one-handed than ever. As author Jacob Bronowski observed in The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination, "the rise of casual dining and drive-throughs has brought back an era of eating with our hands that hasn't been this common since the 1500s."

The Real Takeaway

Whether you switch your fork four times or keep it steady in your left hand the whole meal, there's no single "correct" way to eat — just the way that feels most comfortable and gracious for you and your table. The American Dining Style has an interesting and quirky history, but at the end of the day (and the end of the meal), good manners are what really matter.

Because no matter which utensil habits you inherited, sharing a meal together will always be in style. 

Sources: Colonial American History Stories—1215-1664: Forgotten and Famous Historical Events (Timeline of United States History) by Paul R. Wonning, “Origins of the Common Fork,” by Chad Ward, author of An Edge in the Kitchen, and Etiquipedia, an Etiquette Encyclopedia and Etiquette History Blog

 Contributor, Candace Smith is a retired, national award-winning secondary school educator, Candace Smith teaches university students and professionals the soft skills of etiquette and protocol. She found these skills necessary in her own life after her husband received international recognition in 2002. Plunged into a new “normal” of travel and formal social gatherings with global leaders, she discovered how uncomfortable she was in many important social situations. After extensive training in etiquette and protocol, Candace realized a markedly increased confidence level in meeting and greeting and dining skills and was inspired to share these skills that will help others gain comfort and confidence in dining and networking situations. Learn more at http://www.candacesmithetiquette.com/

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

Etiquette Ignorance and Finger Bowls

 

Another patented design for a new finger bowl, from Christmas of 1900 — “ Like most Americans, he hesitated to own that he did not know everything, but while counting his change he said shyly: “Two is enough, I think.”  He was not the first who had failed in understanding the finger-bowl mystery.”

Ignorance Cleared Up in the Finger Bowl Section of the Shop 

A man who had heard either of the Oriental fashion of pouring rose water on the fingers after a meal, or else of the French style, not very generally, adopted in this country, of passing around a large bowl of rose water, into which each guest dips his napkin and wipes his fingers therewith, went into a well-known china shop the other day and selected, and paid for, two finger-bowls.Like most Americans, he hesitated to own that he did not know everything, but while counting his change he said shyly: “Two is enough, I think.” 

“Certainly,” said the saleswoman, “if you have but one person beside yourself at the table.” “But I want these for a dinner party,” he said, “one at each end of the table!” “And one tumbler at each end of the table, too?” she asked, not pertly, but gently. “Why, no,” he said, light breaking in upon him. “I want —well, I only want four or five more, but I'll take a dozen. What a fool I am!” Before he went out he heard enough stories of queer blunders to convince him that he was not the first who had failed in understanding the finger-bowl mystery. — Boston Transcript, 1888

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

Etiquette and Dinner Diplomacy in India

“Mr. Modi is vegetarian and does not drink alcohol. At functions he attends, public or private, alcohol is removed from view; at wedding receptions, for example, his security agents have had bars closed before his arrival.” — Above, traditional vegetarian Indian fare. Image provided by Elizabeth Sóos of Auersmont Etiquette 

                             

“Modi Served World Leaders a Meatless Meal, and His Critics Pounced: Opposition politicians said a vegetarian dinner served at a diplomatic summit misrepresented India’s culinary heritage. A minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government rejected the criticism.” 

— The New York Times, 9/2026

“According to a New York Times article, “The world leaders who dined together at the BRICS summit in India over the weekend were served plate after plate of delicacies: Cubes of paneer simmered in gravy, Himalayan morel mushrooms with saffron, lentil broth with tomatoes and curry leaves. Meat was conspicuously absent.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political opponents, who rarely miss a chance to criticize him, accused him of promoting an incomplete image of India’s culinary landscape. Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition in the lower house of Parliament, pointed out on social media that most Indians are not vegetarian.” Was this an actual problem? Or was this simply an excuse for various political factions to rattle cages?

Kiren Rijiju, a minister in Mr. Modi’s government said, “I can’t believe that Congress party is making politics even on the food menu served to the leaders of BRICS nations,” referring to Mr. Gandhi’s Indian National Congress political party. He is quoted as saying the dishes reflected India’s “diverse regional traditions.”

Food has somehow become increasingly polarizing during Mr. Modi’s time as PM. Mr. Modi has a Hindu nationalist base and vegetarianism has particular religious and cultural associations among the upper castes Hindus and in Hindu communities in parts of northern and western India. Though many Hindus do eat meat, Modi’s government has, in recent years, sidelined Muslims and other groups, to promote Hindu causes.

The BRICS dinner was not an isolated example, as it was shown among a few others listed in the article. Noted the Times, “President Patrick Herminie of Seychelles and President To Lam of Vietnam are among the world leaders who were served vegetarian meals during visits to New Delhi this year.” 

In an interview with Keri Matwick, a scholar at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore who studies food and culinary diplomacy. she said that meals served to visiting dignitaries can have an important diplomatic function, adding that,  “It’s a way to try to highlight something about the country to another country… it can also be a way to show respect to a visiting leader or facilitate conversation.”

“At other diplomatic gatherings, food has been used to set the tone. In 1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of Britain were served hot dogs during a picnic at President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s family estate in Hyde Park, N.Y. ‘People laughed because of how informal it was but it added a uniqueness’ to the event,” according to Ms. Matwick. — Above, more traditional vegetarian Indian fare. Image provided by Elizabeth Sóos of Auersmont Etiquette 

Keep in mind that diplomatic menus can also cause offense, as was the case when President Trump was in South Korea for a 2017 state dinner. The South Korean host served shrimp caught near islands claimed by Japan, yet controlled by South Korea. This prompted  a complaint from an angry Tokyo.

“Ultimately, the goal of diplomatic meals is to help foster good relations,” Ms. Matwick told the Times, adding the caveat, if a meal is not handled well, “it can spark a lot of controversy.” — From an article by Yan Zhuang and Alex Travelli for the New York Times, Sept, 2026

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

Etiquette: Hold the Chicken Salad

“The year was 1919. 18-year-old copywriter, Lillian Eichler, was working for the New York Ad Agency of Ruthrauff & Ryan. Her first problem: To move 1,000 dusty copies of the pre-1900, Encyclopedia of Etiquette, written by Emily Holt, which were sitting on Doubleday’s shelves. Her second problem: Most of the 1,000 copies were returned after the 5-day-trial period. Respondents weren’t thrilled with the ludicrously archaic text and pictures. Lillian’s ad copy had emptied the shelves in mere days. Doubleday, being the smart publishers they were, realized if Lillian’s ad copy could move 19th-Century books, she was probably gifted enough to rewrite the book herself and have a second go at advertising it. The result: Lillian’s revamped effort, The Book of Etiquette, sold two million copies at $2 each, in the course of two years, resulting in $2.5 million in net profits. Nearly $26 million in 2008 dollars.
All inspired by the wish to unload a roomful of dusty books…and the vision of a young copywriter. Reading this copy, (in 2008) it’s stunning to realize it came from the pen of an 18-year-old girl, nearly 90 years ago.” — From Info Marketing Blog

When I saw the advertisement above for the first time, featuring a newly published, two-volume book of etiquette from the early 1900s, I smiled. I’m not a fan of chicken salad, but Lillian Eichler has always been one of my favorite writers of etiquette. The advertisement is, in itself, famous. It was created by a teenaged, Lillian Eichler, and was wildly successful. Selling more of the dusty etiquette books and anyone had dreamed possible.

I regularly use little stories when teaching etiquette, and this advertisement Lillian created always acts as a wonderful intro to a story from my own life. I share the story with kids, young adults and adults alike. I use it to illustrate a point about good manners and tact when invited out to eat. It involves looking for cues and clues of what to do in different situations when one is a guest. I believe Lillian Eichler would approve.

The story goes like this: Years ago my mother called to say that my grandmother, her mother, wanted to take all of the ladies in the family to lunch in celebration of the upcoming Mother’s Day. When I was growing up, we frequently had seasonal “Ladies’ Lunches” at one of my aunts' homes, or in our home. I even hosted a few after getting married and starting my new family. This was the first time a restaurant was suggested, and my mother said that grandma was insisting on paying for everyone’s lunch.

My grandmother was on a fixed income after my grandfather passed away. It was very small, so I immediately questioned the generous offer. My mother told me that she and her sisters had both pointed that fact out to their mother, but grandma was insistent. She also chose the restaurant she wanted to take us to, and it was not known for its low prices.

When we arrived at the restaurant and were seated at our table, we were handed our menus. Within a nano-second, one of our party (either oblivious to grandma’s financial situation or just sharing her enthusiasm for her favorite dish) said, “Ooooh.... they have the best prime rib here!” while opening her menu.

Before I could nudge her under the table and give her a look usually reserved for my children and students, my grandmother quickly closed her menu, the faux leather menu holder practically snapping everyone to attention. “I think we should all have the Chicken Salad,” she said. The guest itching for the prime rib seemed to deflate right before my eyes and closed her menu along with everyone else at the table. Everyone at the table except for me.

Third from right, standing next to my grandmother, in a 1980 snap after one of our seasonal lunches.

I was never a fan of Chicken Salad, but I certainly knew a cue from a hostess when I heard one. I just happened to have the menu open to the page with the featured luncheon salads. I quickly looked down at the price of the Chicken Salad. Way back then it was $6.95, so I needed to work within that “price point.” I spotted a Cesar Salad for $5.95, and said, “You know... I think I'd like the Cesar Salad instead. As I recall it is fairly good here.”

Grandma’s eyes got big and looking a bit ruffled, she quickly reopened her menu. She spotted the salad’s lower price, and said very enthusiastically, “That is a good choice!” Everyone else was reopening their menus, and perusing the salads priced $6.95 or less, while I quietly closed mine.

The luncheon turned out to be a fun affair, with all of us enjoying our salads and chatting away about how we needed to get together more often. I am not sure how many in our party wound up with the suggested Chicken Salad, but the bill was rather low and we convinced grandma to at least allow us to each chip in a small amount for the tip. There was also a surprise dessert that arrived at the table for each of us. No one confessed to ordering it, but I have always had my suspicions.

We haven’t had a “Ladies Luncheon” in several years now, what with grandma gone since 1999, all of us spread out in several states, and some of us younger ladies even becoming grandmas ourselves. I will always have sweet memories of the luncheons though, and even have a great instructional tale for my etiquette students and future generations to learn from, about reading and following a host’s or hostess’ cues. — By Site Editor, Maura J. Graber, a version of this article ran in the Etiquette Sleuth Blog, in 2016

Contributor, and Site Editor, Maura Graber has been teaching etiquette to children, teens and adults, and training new etiquette instructors, for close to 40 years, as founder and director of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette. She is also a writer, has been featured in countless newspapers, magazines and television shows and was an on-air contributor to PBS in Southern California for 15 years. She has written several books including, “What Have We Here?: The Etiquette and Essentials of Lives Once Lived, from the Georgian Era through the Gilded Age and Beyond...” on dining etiquette history and the art of fine dining, which are available on Amazon.

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

1960’s Party Attire Etiquette

“Many men know how to dress, but do not know how to coordinate their suit to the degree of formality of their wife's dress. As usual, on New Year's Eve, I saw nice white dinner jackets popping up among the crowd. Messieurs, they were out of place. They are appropriate after March 21st and are never worn with anything other than tuxedo pants. As for you, madames, New Year's Eve in most places in America is supposed to a dressy affair.”

In Tete-a-Tete: The Improper Male at a Party

Recently I warned Star News readers: “Beware of New Year's Eve parties." Well, last week I went to such a party and, in addition to seeing all the people over-drinking and using the mistletoe as an excuse to get in a little last-of-the-year flirting, I was amazed at the variety of costumes I saw.

The American male and female have at their finger-tips the largest supply of wonderful and inexpensive ready-to-wear apparel in the world. But they certainly do not know how to use it. Some of the husband-and-wife combinations at this party not only offended fashion, but common sense.

THIS IS NOT the first time I have been baffled by American dress. It seems to me that the gentleman should always dress up to the equivalent of his female companion. But in America, messieurs, your women may dress up in her best cocktail dress, while you disgrace her by putting on your tweed sport coat.

When she goes to the trouble of wearing a long formal gown, which is indeed a rare occasion in these parts, please, messieurs, have the good taste to wear formal attire yourself. Don't take the easy way out by committing the sacrilege of wearing a business suit and a striped tie.

MANY MEN know how to dress, but do not know how to coordinate their suit to the degree of formality of their wife's dress. As usual, on New Year's Eve, I saw nice white dinner jackets popping up among the crowd. Messieurs, they were out of place. They are appropriate after March 21st and are never worn with anything other than tuxedo pants. As for you, madames, New Year's Eve in most places in America is supposed to a dressy affair. I can understand why you may not want to buy a special long formal, although I really think you are losing out.

BUT WHAT I can't understand is why some of you refuse to wear even cocktail dresses and consider yourselves dressed for the occasion in skirts and blouses and black patent leather shoes. I don't think this represents lack of desire to dress correctly. I think it merely demonstrates ignorance- lack of understanding of what is right and what is wrong in dressing for the occasion. For your own good, It's about time you leafed through your etiquette books and glamour magazines and found out.— by Colette Michelle, National City Star News, 1964

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

Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Philip

FARMER JONES MOSCOW (UPI) - What does one say to the husband of the Queen of England at a cocktail party in the capital of the Soviet Union? Royal etiquette dictates, even in a communist country, you don't speak to a Prince until spoken to. The protocol of princely encounters is one of the hidden aspects of Prince Philip’s three-day visit to the Soviet Union to inspect facilities for equestrian competition at the 1980 Olympic Games. The test will come today when the British Embassy holds a cocktail party for the 57-year-old Prince. 

If the Prince approaches you, an embassy official explained, one should stop smoking, drinking or eating. Men should bow the heads and women half curtsey. If he speaks to you, address him first as Your Royal Highness and sir thereafter. Just to make sure the British diplomats themselves knew the proper form, the embassy circulated a memorandum in advance of the party explaining how to act in the Royal presence. 

Some embassy staffers bristled at the guidelines, but others found them helpful, one diplomat said. After all, it's not every day you meet the Duke of Edinburgh, he said. Prince Philip, in his capacity as President of the International Equestrian Federation, donned a hard hat, green gumboots and a windbreaker Tuesday to inspect the main Olympics equestrian stadium. He told his Soviet hosts spectators at the stadiums dressage arena would need more room. The 4,000 seats provided were not enough, he said. Dressage is the pride of Soviet horse-riding and we expect that a lot of people will want to come and watch it, he said. 

Responding to a comment the drainage in the stables seemed inadequate, an official said it would be adequate. I suppose he's hoping the horses wont all pee at once, the Prince said. "And where will the dung heap be? If you know what I mean. Protocol still applies when royalty visits. — The Californian, Salinas, 1979

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