Divorce Etiquette, Part Two

There recurs to me here a funny little anecdote heard not long ago, when a man died from whom a lovely woman had obtained a divorce after being beggared by him and separated for years. The man had assumed other relations; the woman, however, had been satisfied to remain unincumbered. But little good could have been truthfully said of the deceased. A few days after his funeral an old and very dear friend called on the newly widowed divorcee. “My dear,” she said sympathetically, “so he’s dead after all these years. I did not know what to write, whether to condole or to congratulate you, so came myself. I feel like the old country parson who was called upon to bury a man who had been lynched for horse stealing. He could not say anything good of the man, and his conscience would not allow him to say anything unkind of the dead, so he confined his remarks to, Brethren, we have before us a nice, cold, quiet corpse,’ and that applies to your ex.”

To marry again before the ink signing the decree is dry is self-evidently the most damaging testimony against a woman. It is very true that she may be in an awful hurry through her fear of losing the other fellow, but worldly wise people look askance at the woman too manifestly eager to be “off with the old love and on with the new.”

A woman in such cases, or the woman who has been the defendant in a divorce suit, should under no circumstances be the one to signify a desire to continue to receive or to be received by former associates. There is much good old-fashioned respect for morality still existent in this led astray old world of ours, that would lead people to resent even a bow of recognition from a woman against whom slander has raised its hydra head, though granting that they may have cherished a friendship for years. Such a woman should wait until advances are made by her friends or other days, and by so doing she may save herself the humiliation of a cut direct.

Where the woman has applied or and obtained the decree she should have some short notice to that effect inserted in the local papers by her lawyers that the decree has been granted her, provided, of course, the case has not been violently agitated, in which event etiquette demands that cards or a note of congratulation be sent her by such friends as may wish to continue the acquaintance. This will settle definitely the question. Personal calls and congratulations should be to made at once where greater intimacy exists. 

For a newly divorced woman make the first call upon friends is horribly bad form. She should wait until in some manner assured that the friendship is desired on the same footing. To send out invitations for any formal social gathering without such guarantee is infinitely worse.

For a woman to don mourning attire for a man from whom she has been divorced is the worst possible taste and will subject her to ridicule; this is always excepting where unexplained extenuating circumstances may exist. If neither one nor the other married subsequent to the divorcement and a deathbed reconciliation is effected, then the woman would be perfectly justified in pursuing either course that appealed to her. 

Not to assume mourning would be tantamount to letting her friends see that a deathbed repentance and reconciliation did not efface the records of old wrongs, or the woman may have learned to love elsewhere and simply went to the man who lay dying because of her womanly sympathy and to soothe the last hours by the evidence of forgiveness. Under such circumstances it would be a mockery to assume the habiliments of woe.

On the other hand, if some love combined with an infinite pity mastered her heart and blotted out old memories with tears and no other love had entered into her life, then she would be justified in assuming the role and garb of a widow.

For a woman who has lived miles apart from her husband until the bitter end, whether divorced or only separated, it is folly to change her mode of life or garb in any way, particularly if the husband's life has been a living affront to her. To assume a widow’s role under such conditions is horrible, although there might be unknown reasons justifying it; yet a woman’s pride should deter her from betraying grief for a man who had lived and died as the companion of another woman.

When the man dies from whom a woman has been divorced for years it is good form to ignore the fact, and not even to mention it to the former wife unless she should introduce the subject and signify should introduce the subject and signify that any comments can neither wound, offend nor grieve her.

There recurs to me here a funny little anecdote heard not long ago, when a man died from whom a lovely woman had obtained a divorce after being beggared by him and separated for years. The man had assumed other relations; the woman, however, had been satisfied to remain unincumbered. But little good could have been truthfully said of the deceased. A few days after his funeral an old and very dear friend called on the newly widowed divorcee. “My dear,” she said sympathetically, “so he’s dead after all these years. I did not know what to write, whether to condole or to congratulate you, so came myself. I feel like the old country parson who was called upon to bury a man who had been lynched for horse stealing. He could not say anything good of the man, and his conscience would not allow him to say anything unkind of the dead, so he confined his remarks to, Brethren, we have before us a nice, cold, quiet corpse,’ and that applies to your ex.”

There is something awe-inspiring in the contemplation of death to many sensitively organized women that no matter how great the wrongs one may have suffered, or how deep the resentment, in that awful presence the voice of justice is hushed and the former wife remembers only the days when he was of her soul a part. It may be a sort of hysterical reaction accompanied by a few tears, but they are rather a tribute to old memories than to the lifeless form so long in reality dead to her.

In the question of stationery, a divorced woman should immediately resume her maiden name, if she has embodied such a prayer in her petition, but if she has children she should retain the surname of children of the husband and her full name before her marriage should be substituted for the husband's given name on her cards. A widow should retain her husband’s full name. The divorced woman uses her maiden name, which designates each. 

The philosophy of this mandate of etiquette is evident, because should a divorced woman through pique or for any other reason continue to use cards bearing her former husband’s full name, in the event of his marrying again it might lead to embarrassing complications.

It is wisdom for a woman, no matter how independent or outraged she may feel, to observe conventionalities, and during the few months following the obtaining of a decree to guard every act, for in the end very few people genuinely respect a woman who puts herself on exhibition.

To marry immediately on gaining legal freedom stains a woman indelibly and tends to confirm any gossip to her detriment, besides an unhappy marriage should keep a woman in holy fear of again getting into matrimonial mischief.

Divorce is always horrible. The flaunting of mussed-up domestic linen is nauseating when accompanied by revolting exposes, and while there’s no denying that an unhappy marriage is a pocket edition of hades, yet if it can possibly be endured I am a hearty advocate of the “kiss and make up” theory and practice.— By Kate Thyson Marr for the San Francisco Call, 1903

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