Bad Manners Cause for Divorce

Wives beware… any husband, who is even half-way bright, is bound to know that his wife doesn’t consider him worth pleasing if she wears her old clothes and her bad manners for him and carefully hoards her becoming clothes and manners for others! 

WE the Women

A Minneapolis husband, in a cross bill of divorce, claimed his wife wore stockings with runs in them “from ankle to knee”while she had 140 pairs of new ones put away.

Evidently that wife, if the charge is true, just carried to an extreme a mistake that many wives make after a year or two of marriage- the fault of hoarding their most pleasing and personable selves to dazzle outsiders.

Such women don't pay any attention to what they are wearing if they don't count on seeing anyone but their husbands. Only if they expect guests to drop in do they pay attention to what they wear around the house.

They wouldn't think of bothering to have flowers on the dinner table just for their own and their husband's appreciation. They try to set a pretty table only when there are to be guests.

Seek to Impress Others

Their manners-even the simple matter of an unfailing “please” and “thank you” suffer a terrific let-down when there is no one around but their own husbands. But they are always courteous to the people they want to impress.

Such hoarding-even though it is never brought out in a divorce suit-is bound to do a lot to make a marriage lose its charm.

For any husband, who is even half-way bright, is bound to know that his wife doesn’t consider him worth pleasing if she wears her old clothes and her bad manners for him and carefully hoards her becoming clothes and manners for others. – By Ruth Millettt, for Imperial Valley Press, 1944

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

A Bon Ton Divorce of 1850

We have already stated that there is no positive criminality testified to by the witnesses against Mrs. Forrest, although many of the circumstances described by them give a very curious picture of the fashionable manners among a portion of the “elite,” or those who call themselves the elite, in New York. – The bon ton of 1850 in their Easter Parade fashions. – image source, Pinterest

Literary and Fashionable Socialism—

The Recent Divorce Cases

We have published, elsewhere, the whole of the evidence presented to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, in the Forrest divorce case. It presents some remarkable features, illustrating the morals and manners of the day, in such a way as to draw down a great deal of attention upon certain literary and fashionable leaders of the “bon ton” in these latitudes. 

We have already stated that there is no positive criminality testified to by the witnesses against Mrs. Forrest, although many of the circumstances described by them give a very curious picture of the fashionable manners among a portion of the “elite,” or those who call themselves the elite, in New York. 

The principal persons figuring in this testimony are N. P. Willis, Chevalier Wikoff, Jameson the actor, Professor Hackley, of Columbia College, and we may add, Capt. Calcraft, who is represented to be a relative of Lord Clanricarde, Postmaster General of England. When the trial comes on, these gentlemen will have an opportunity to make their own statements. 

One thing strikes us in regard to this and other divorce cases, which are now before the Legislature of Pennsylvania. The manners, the style of life, the mode of social enjoyment, which are developed by the evidence in these cases, and particularly in those of Mr. Middleton’s and Forrest’s, are, we believe, copied or imitated from the manners and customs of fashionable society and literary socialists in Paris and other great cities of Europe. 

Mr. N. P. W. Tillis, the very pink of fashion, and editor of a fashionable journal, has been endeavoring to indoctrinate the fashionable people of this community, for several years past, with all the graces, all the elegance, all the classic freedoms of society, which have prevailed so long in Europe. An elegant French writer, connected with certain society here, is also publishing a French periodical, having the same purpose in view; introducing in our fashionable circles the tone, temper, and elegant characteristics of European society and literary socialism of the most attic kind. 

The house of Mr Forrest, during his absence on professional tours, appears to have been made the centre of much fashionable enjoyment, conceived and executed according to the latest doctrines and ideas inculcated by such writings. Still all this style of society, or character of social enjoyment on the “European plan,” by no means seems to have suited the straightforward, calm, considerate, regular notions of Mr. Forrest, who is a native of the Quaker city of Philadelphia, and though an actor, seems still to possess many of their upright notions of propriety. Yet not a season passes at Saratoga or Newport, that the fashionable classes, who frequent these resorts, do not practice, and “carry on,” as it might be called, in the same style, with the same grace, and with as much freedom as that described in the Middleton and Forest testimony. 

In fact, our watering places in summer, and our opera circles in winter, present scenes of poetic enjoyment and sentimental freedom, equal to any thing exhibited by the classic socialists of Europe, of the highest and most fastidious kind. High poetic temperament, great mental cultivation, duly mixed with slices of canvas back ducks, and little oceans of sparkling champagne, will scarcely fail to produce such scenes of enjoyment, and such testimony for divorces — equal to anything of the like kind in France or Germany. Alas! alas ! We pity Mr. Forrest — we pity as fervently Mrs. Forrest. They have both been made the dupes of these new doctrines in philosophy, manners, morals, and classic socialism of the latest pattern.— The N.Y. Tribune, 1850

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

Impolite Language Cited in Divorce

As early as 1898, in Reno Nevada, a six-week residency requirement was all that was needed to be fulfilled for a “quickie divorce.” Nevada soon became known around the world for a willingness to shorten its already brief residency requirement in order to reap the economic benefits of the divorce industry.

‘Dam’ in Divorce Paper Ambiguous

F. B. Finley of Cherokee has furnished a new definition of ambiguity. It appears that in a divorce complaint Mrs. Sadie F. Finley is accused of calling her husband “a dam fool,” which ordinarily is considered explicit enough.

A demurrer filed in the Superior Court, however, declares that this language is unintelligent and ambiguous. According to the demurrer it appears that the time at which such language is used constitutes an important element in judging it.

But the demurrer leaves the public up in the air at that point, failing to state whether the language quoted is to be considered as polite in the morning, harsh at noon and naughty at night, or vice versa. It apparently will be up to the court to fix the rules of etiquette governing the use of endearing terms of the character quoted. 

Here is the language of the demurrer:
“Said complaint is ambiguous in that it is alleged that defendant called plaintiff a ‘dam fool’ and used foul and vulgar names in addressing her; it is nowhere therein alleged, nor can it be ascertained therefrom the time during the month referred to in each of the paragraphs or the occasion upon which the defendant called plaintiff said names and used said language to her.”— The Chico Record, 1916

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

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

Etiquette of Divorce, Part One

Divorce is peculiarly an American institution that must tally with Americanism in all its forms and adaptations that must govern the future life of those interested, particularly the woman. To the man, it signifies little, being often but the transfer of a trunk and a few parcels from one domicile to another; but to the woman it means the aftermath of social recognition.

We are aping the Old World rapidly in many of the fads and fancies that regulate the social code, but divorce is peculiarly an American institution that must tally with Americanism in all its forms and adaptations that must govern the future life of those interested, particularly the woman. To the man, it signifies little, being often but the transfer of a trunk and a few parcels from one domicile to another; but to the woman it means the aftermath of social recognition.

A man whose business standing is good among men and whose club affiliations are congenial, rarely meets a frost, no matter what kind of record he unfoids to a gaping world, whose nostrils are always ready to expand when scenting a new scandal, but it is on the woman that the burden falls, either of sorrow, shame or the support of herself and her children.

There is an infinite pathos in the matter of the divorce itself, the severing of ties where the common interest should center in the children, dear to both; but the world deals leniently, almost loosely in many instances, by condoning the moral lapses that climax in divorce.

A man is never censured by the world at large, no matter what his sins may be, and the same world that formerly so bitterly condemned the woman now seems to be inclined to smile pityingly and ignore the facts until it would appear that society is verging to a level of equality by estimating woman’s peccadilloes with the same indifference formerly on the marital obligations and by whom divorce is regarded with horror.

A woman, no matter how true and loyal her love may have been, is always an object of suspicion, irrespective of which business end of the divorce suit she may have figured. Men smile knowingly when remarking that Joseph, James or John was a “devilish nice fellow,” whom any woman should have loved and been proud of, and it is frequently the case that these “devilish nice fellows” make the most unsatisfactory husbands. They are often too devilishly nice to everybody else at the wife’s expense, and then, too, they are habitually too much in love with themselves to entertain much love on the side for a wife, and when later she is made desperate by the charms so lavishly on exhibition everywhere save in the home people tacitly condemn her because he was such a “devilish nice fellow.” 

A good, solid business proposition in the man-line will stand the wear and tear of strenuous matrimony more satisfactorily than the spoiled bargain counter products, whose sum total is an assortment of unctuous smiles and cordial hand-shakes. A woman who procures a divorce is in a very different position from one whose husband divorces her.

I do not endorse the magnanimity of a man who thinks that a woman should be shielded even in her dishonor by furnishing her the evidence against himself and allowing her to obtain the divorce, although it is common among men to protect the woman, especially in New York City, where a man who will not agree to such a compromise is liable to be subject to very harsh criticism. They fail to recognize the injustice done there-by to every good woman forced into the courts by an accumulation of wrongs.

The code of ethics governing a woman’s life and conduct after securing a decree should be rigidly adhered to if she would escape gossip. It is a difficult matter to quiet criticism or to live down adverse commentaries, but in time, despite the cruelties of calumny, a woman can do so, and provided her life be worthy it will prove itself in a wordless but all potential vindication.– By Kate Thyson Marr for the San Francisco Call, 1903

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

Bad Manners Caused Divorce

So Gigi's aunt was correct?
“Bad table manners, my dear Gigi, have broken up more households than infidelity.” ~ Aunt Alicia instructing Gigi in proper dining etiquette.

Base of Divorce is Lack of Etiquette 

Mental cruelty caused by table manners, free and unrestrained, and a habit of calling names not recognized in books on etiquette, constituted the grounds on which an interlocutory decree of divorce was granted in Judge Shields' court yesterday to Mrs. Marie F. Crawshaw from John V. Crawshaw. 

Mrs. Crawshaw informed the court that her husband made various noises at table while engaged in gustatory exercises that were not exactly tolerated among the socially elect, in addition to a directness in the manner of addressing her that was not agreeable. 

Their two minor children were given to the mother, and defendant was ordered to pay $30.00 per month for their support. Crawshaw is a yardman in the employ of the Shell Oil company. The family home is in North Sacramento. — Sacramento Daily Union, 1919

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