Etiquette and Sport Shooting

“Sport enters into polities, it colors literature, it controls society. It affects dress, manners, etiquette and entertainments, the relations of master and servant, man and wife, father and son —the characteristics of whole classes in the state. It is one of the principal causes and results of aristocracy to-day.” – Image of Downton Abbey hunt shooting party scene source, Pinterest 

“Let's Go Out and Kill Something”? – Devotion to Sport Not Elevating

One-third of the soil of England is devoted to the pleasures of the aristocracy, the principle of which is sport. The story is old of the foreigner who stayed at a country house where every morning the men of the party exclaimed: “Tis a fine day! Let’s go out and kill something.” The picture is not exaggerated. 

Many Englishmen of fortune seem to suppose they are sent into this world to hunt foxes and shoot grouse and deer. This is the purpose of their existence and the occupation of their lives. Among the aristocracy the man who does not shoot is an anomaly, almost a monstrosity. There must be something wrong about him.

All the engagements of the upper classes, political or social, in town or country, are made with reference to sport. The fashionable season and the parliamentary season are determined by the game laws. Country house parties in winter, and tours to the continent in summer depend upon what is called “close times.” 

Courtships are carried on, marriages postponed to suit the convenience of sportsmen. Great political revolutions are precipitated or deferred, questions of peace or war are taken up or let alone because ministers want to go to Scotland, because grouse shooting begins in August, and fox hunting is not over till February. 

The gravest crisis in the history of a government is neglected when legislators are anxious to be off to the moors, and the sessions of parliament can not be held till the frost is out of the ground and the foxes begin to breed.

Estates are purchased and houses built because of the proximity of the covers; properties are valuable for the same reason. Scores of fortunes are lost through the excessive love of sport. Every circumstance and event of English high life revolves around this point, and the results are as visible as those of religion. 

Sport enters into polities, it colors literature, it controls society. It affects dress, manners, etiquette and entertainments, the relations of master and servant, man and wife, father and son —the characteristics of whole classes in the state. It is one of the principal causes and results of aristocracy to-day.

More often, however, society is combined with sport. At a great house the party is usually large. The men sally out each morning “to kill something,” and sometimes the ladies accompany them. Of late years, a few of these are shooters themselves. This is, of course, when the game is driven to the guns; at such times the bags made are enormous, hundreds of birds often falling to a single sportsman. The labor is less, and the glory; but the boasting is prodigious.

The devotion to sport that characterizes the English aristocracy is not elevating. It not only makes them indifferent to more serious occupations, taking the hereditary legislators from the affairs of state to which they are supposed to apply themselves, and often distracting them from their own more important interests, but the incessant practice is brutalizing. 

To be forever planning and inflicting death and pain even on animals cannot be refining. The English nature is coarse in itself, but sport renders it still more so. Like everything else in England this pleasure is a matter of privilege. Game is strictly preserved for the great. The unprivileged may not carry a gun. 

Every Englishman loves sport, the peasant as well as the peer, but poaching is a criminal offense, and the poor man is sent for two months, six months, or even a year, to jail for doing what gives the rich man his keenest satisfaction. Five thousand committals for poaching are made every year in England alone,-Adam Badeau's Letter, 1886

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

Late 19th C. Water Party Etiquette

A gilded age presentation piece for the “1893 Yachting Season” in an advertisement by Gorham Silversmiths. Yachting, boating and canoeing racing and parties were popular ways of entertaining and recreational sporting in the latter part of the 19th century.  

There are many ways of arranging a water-party, at yachting stations and at all riverside places. At yachting stations, for instance, a sailing yacht is hired to convey a party of from eighteen to twenty-five to some point of interest on the coast, in which case luncheon and tea are provided at an hotel in the vicinity of the place where the party have landed, and the expenses are equally divided.

Not infrequently, on the return journey, the yacht is becalmed, and does not reach its destination until between two and three the following morning. If it happens to be a fine moonlight night, this prolongation of a water-party is an additional source of enjoyment; but if there is no moon as well as no wind, and the calm betokens a storm, it is the reverse of pleasant. But these little contretemps, when they do occur, rather lend a zest to the day's pleasure, and are something to talk about afterwards. 

Water-parties are often given by owners of yachts. These are invitation parties, and luncheon, tea, and sometimes dinner, are served on board, and the party land and stroll about, but return to the yacht to be entertained. Water-parties in general include as many gentlemen as ladies, whether they are invitation or contribution parties, although sometimes a majority of ladies is unavoidable. 

Ryde is a favourite station for water-parties, as the island itself, as well, as the opposite coast offer innumerable points of interest for picnicking, and many are able to combine the pleasures of the yacht with those of the steam launch in one and the same water-party; thus a party sails from Ryde to Yarmouth, I. of W., and then proceeds in a steam-launch to Alum Bay. 

Steam-launch parties are immensely popular, both on the river and on the coast, and parties are given by the owners of steam-launches, or a steam launch can be hired by the day. Some picnic on board, and others on shore, as they feel disposed. When, however, a steam launch is hired for the day, a good look- out should be kept upon the engineer, or he will insist on landing at the most undesirable spots. 

Canoe-parties on coast and river side are also popular with both ladies and gentlemen, and here again the steam launch is brought into requisition to convey the party home, as an hour and a-half to two hours is an average time to paddle a canoe; after that time the party land either on the rocks or on the shore, and light a fire and boil the kettle for tea. If the tea-drinking and the after-tea ramble are unduly prolonged there is a chance, if on the coast, of the steam launch running out of coal, and of the party having to return home in their own canoes considerably later than was expected, and not a little fatigued.— From “Manners and Rules of Good Society,” By a Member of the Aristocracy, 1873 

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

House of Lords’ Etiquette Ruling

 

A new Duchess of Norfolk was introduced in 1905 – LONDON, Jan. 19.-England's premier nobleman, the Duke of Norfolk, was today married to the Hon. Gwendolin Mary Maxwell, who thus takes her position at the head of English official society. her position being only one step below rovalty. The Duke of Norfolk is in his 57th year and is very wealthy. His first wife was a daughter of Baron Donington and died in 1887.

The latest pamphlet published by the commission of historical manuscripts in London contains the following interesting and curious travesty on etiquette: “The Duke and Duchess of Norfolk, having been summoned to appear before the House of Lords in 1692 in order to plead their suit for divorce, it was debated whether the Lord Chancellor, sitting as Chairman, should lower his dignity by bowing to the Duchess and speaking to her only with his cap in his hand. This question was argued for several days in the House of Lords until debate exhausted itself and several duels resulted. At length it was decided that the Lord Chancellor should first receive the bows of the Duke and Duchess and return them with uncovered head and after that he should replace his cap.” This rule was followed to the letter and is still adhered to today when similar contingencies arise. – Triplicate, Volume XVIII, 1897

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

Etiquette and Entertaining Royalty

A visit from the King and Queen was fraught with expenses, and one could not turn down the request for a visit. The cost of entertaining during a royal visit in the Edwardian era could run up thousands in extra expenses, like the extra food and drink. When the Duke and Duchess of Manchester were honored by Edward's presence in 1904, newspapers estimated that the cost of the visit was $150,000.00 American dollars. That is nearly $5,000,000. In today’s dollars. And 16 new frocks would be needed as, “One could not wear the same ensemble twice, and what reasonable woman would not want completely new outfits for such a momentous occasion? Sixteen new ensembles (four dresses for each of four days) from, say, Worth would substantially increase the cost of a royal visit.”

When the Manchesters were honored by Edward's presence in 1904, newspapers estimated that the cost of the visit was $150,000, paid of course by the Duchess's papa, Mr. Zimmerman, who had bought Kylemore for Duchess Helena.

Part of the cost was dressing the part. The King, for a week's stay, would be bringing forty suits or uniforms and at least twenty pairs of shoes and boots, and costumes were expected to be splendid in his presence. Consuelo Marlborough remembers at least four changes of clothes: an elegant silk costume for breakfast in the dining room, a tweed suit for lunch with the “guns” (the men who were shooting), a tea gown, and the most formal brocade or velvet evening dress with the grandest jewels possible (always includ ing a tiara) for dinner.

One could not wear the same ensemble twice, and what reasonable woman would not want completely new outfits for such a momentous occasion? Sixteen new ensembles (four dresses for each of four days) from, say, Worth would substantially increase the cost of a royal visit. — From “To Marry an English Lord,” Gail MacColl and McD. Wallace, 2012

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

Etiquette for Upstairs and Downstairs

Responsible for all the actual lifting and carrying in the front of the house: calling cards on silver salvers, a tray of tea, newspapers for the gentlemen.

One of the shocks for the new American bride was having to deal with English servants. She must always be aware of the hierarchy — and of its principal members.

THE BUTLER
In charge of the front of the house. Too elevated for menial tasks (decant ing wine was the most physical he got), the butler oversaw the men servants and the silver.

THE HOUSEKEEPER
In charge of the bedrooms and the servants’ quarters. Matters of cleaning and household maintenance (linens, in ventories) and the house maids’ morals were the housekeeper’s bailiwick, a huge ring of keys her badge of office.

THE CHEF
In pretentious houses, always French and paid outrageously. He was often locked in a vendetta with the housekeeper.

FOOTMEN
Responsible for all the actual lifting and carrying in the front of the house: calling cards on silver salvers, a tray of tea, newspapers for the gentlemen. Footmen also waited at table, accompanied Milady on errands to carry her packages, and stood around wearing livery and looking decorative on formal occasions. The best ones were easy to look at.

MILADY’S MAID
Entrusted with washing and arranging Milady's hair, mending and refur bishing and cleaning her clothes, and helping her in and out of them. She also took care of the jewels and accompanied Milady on visits.

THE HOUSEMAIDS
Numberless faceless creatures who did all the cleaning and dusting in the front of the house (at the crack of dawn before the gentry were awake) and in the bedrooms (when their occupants were down at meals).

THE VALET
Responsible for keeping Milady’s husband neat. Besides laying out and caring for his clothes, the valet made travel arrangements, loaded his guns at shoots and boasted about him in the servants’ quarters. — From “To Marry an English Lord,” by Gail MacColl and Carole McD. Wallace

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

A Gilded Age “Calling-Hat”

An English lady, one of the combination English set now here — the H.O. Bax-Ironside, Dunraven, Marlborough, Paget party— appeared twice in a fall hat of lace. Once it was at Newport and once in New York. The appearances were only brief “calling afternoons,” but the hat was much admired. American women are quick to pick up what is good, and immediately the lace calling-hat was adopted. “Not because it is English,” explained an American lady very earnestly to her milliner, “but because I see — what you have often tried to impress upon me— the becomingness of anything soft and full around the face.”

The Tulle Lace Hat of 1895

The Autumn winds which blew Lords and Dukes over here for various purposes of conquest, more or less successful, blew along a style that is much in vogue in London, but has never been popular here. This is the fashion for wearing the tulle or lace hat for dressy occasions. We like it for golf or tennis or the lawn party or the country drive. But Londoners like it for the theater, for the park and for the calling occasion.


An English lady, one of the combination English set now here — the H.O. Bax-Ironside, Dunraven, Marlborough, Paget party— appeared twice in a fall hat of lace. Once it was at Newport and once in New York. The appearances were only brief “calling afternoons,” but the hat was much admired. American women are quick to pick up what is good, and immediately the lace calling-hat was adopted. “Not because it is English,” explained an American lady very earnestly to her milliner, “but because I see — what you have often tried to impress upon me— the becomingness of anything soft and full around the face.”


As all who want a sudden lace hat for fall, who do not boast a regular milliner nor know one who would get up such a creation inexpensively, the rule for making it may be briefly stated. It is from the memorandum book of a Fifth Avenue milliner, who jotted it down the lines for aiding her head milliner, who was desirous of getting up a number of them.


“Take the wire frame of a summer tulle hat. The larger the frame the better, no matter what the shape, so long as the brim is flaring. Gather three yards of fine lacy chiffon upon the brim, letting the lace weave in and out of the wire until not an inch of wire is visible. This is done by laying the chiffon on top of the frame and pulling it through into big loose scallops. A few stitches hold it smoothly in place.


“The chiffon should be exactly the color of the trimmings of the fall suit. The very swell Newport caller chose white, embroidered in pale brown. Cover the top of the frame with the plain part of the chiffon. Now get two yards of striped velvet ribbon that includes all the shades of the costume, and make into a great, broad upstanding bow. Fasten with an emerald pin at one side of the crown and you have the the fall lace hat. It is simple enough and very becoming to everybody.” — San Jose Mercury, 1895

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

Manners and Mistaken Identities

Evidently, Lady Violet was not the first person to make this mistake! 

“Celebrities” Graciously Accepting Tips

Visitors at an English country house are allowed to do whatever they like during the forenoon. An eminent geologist, who was entertained at one of these houses, asked for coffee early one morning and started out with a suit of old clothes and a bag of tools to make a special study of the rock ledges of the estate. During the forenoon, one of the country gentry came upon him by the roadside, and supposing him to be a workman entered into conversation with him. The geologist was seated on a ledge of rock and was making vigorous use of mallet and chisel.

The stranger talked with him in a patronizing way, and, while not receiving an intelligible account of the work on which he was engaged, was impressed with the supposed workman's intelligence and good manners. Indeed, he fumbled in his pocket and brought out a half crown, which he tossed to the man with the mallet. The geologist seemed surprised, but picked it up and put it in his pocket after thanking the gentleman. There was a dinner party at the country house in the evening and the same gentleman was introduced to the eminent geologist, who at once began to laugh. “I have the half crown,” he said at once, “and I shall not give it up. It is the first tip I ever received, and I shall show it to my friends as a trophy of superior intelligence.” 

Lord James once had a similar experience. He was strolling through the Temple Gardens in London when a party of tourists encountered him and asked to be directed to some of the most interesting places. He volunteered to show them about, and took them first to the Temple Church and Goldsmith's Grave, and finally to the famous Elizabethan Hall of the Middle Temple. His explanations were lucid and interesting, and when he parted from his new acquaintances, one of them gave him a schilling, and remarked that few guides were equally intelligent. The nobleman took the shilling demurely and thanked the stranger. He is said to have kept it to this day, and to have frequently told the story of his experience with the innocent tourists in the Temple Gardens. 

Another story is related of an English Duke who was standing at the door of his house when a carriage rolled up. A near-sighted gentleman alighted, asked if it was the Duke's residence, and on receiving a respectful nod from the supposed servant, gave him a shilling. The Duke, perceiving that he had been mistaken for a footman, kept the shilling, raised his hand to his forehead and made the usual salute. The near-sighted gentleman went into the house, and in due time was presented to the Duke, and never had a suspicion that he had tipped one of the highest members of the British aristocracy at his own door. The Duke could hardly have offered a more striking proof that he was a gentleman by instinct, as well as by birth, than by pocketing the unintentional affront to his dignity. – San Francisco Call, 1898

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

Etiquette and the Fancy Dress Ball

Engaged to Duke of Roxburghe, Miss May Goelet (photographed  in a suitably elaborate costume for a fancy dress ball) went on to become the newest “American Duchess” of her day. – The Devonshire House Fancy Dress Ball was held on the 2nd of July, in 1897, to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. Hosted by the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, with many prominent royals, aristocrats, and society figures in attendance, it was considered the highlight of the 1897 London Season. Throwing a fancy dress ball was undoubtedly the most fashionable and lavish way for a society hostess to establish herself during the later part of the Victorian era. The fabulously and richly costumed affairs, were widely covered in the newspapers of the day. Every detail of who wore what was covered. For those with more money than social savvy or fashion sense, fancy dress etiquette advice was dished out in costume manuals and books. Guests dressing up as famous historical figures was most popular, but in some cases, peasant costumes from a particular historical era, or dressing up as food, was at times de rigueur.

Royalty Danced in Golden Robes

Duchess of Devonshire's Ball Ends Jubilee Gayety – The Titled of Earth Caparisoned in Costliest Costumes of History – Fancy Dress Event In London Which Rivals the Noted Bradley-Martin Function

LONDON, England, July 2.— The Duchess of Devonshire's historical fancy dress ball to-night was the final gayety of the Jubilee season.

It was an affair which gained only less advance notoriety than the Bradley-Mar-tin ball given in New York City last winter. No royal palace in England was ever filled with a more gorgeous throng than assembled to-night in Devonshire House. The Duchess of Devonshire, as Zenobia, wore a costume of green, white and gold and many huge diamonds. Diamonds hung from the horns of her gold helmet, which was studded with jewels, while beautiful pearls gleamed in chains about her head and shoulders. The Duke of Devonshire appeared as Charles V of Germany.

On the arrival of the royal guests the Duchess conducted them to a dais, where they formed a magnificent group. All wore sixteenth-century costumes, most of them blazing with jewels. The Princess of Wales, masquerading as Marguerite de Valois, appeared in a white and gold dress, with an Elizabethan ruff and with a heavy train gorgeously embroidered with gold and silver, bestudded with many colored jewels. In attendance upon her were her three daughters and the Duchess of York, the last named in a pale blue gown embroidered with silver. Princess Victoria of Wales was attired in a blue and gold brocade costume, embroidered with fleur-de-lis in gold and white.

Six courtiers, members of the highest nobility, wearing handsome costumes of the period of Henri Trois, accompanied the Prince and the Princess of Wales. The Prince, as Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, wore a doublet and trunk hose of black Genoese velvet slashed with gray and white, with a Maltese cross embroidered on his left breast. He wore orders of the Garter and of the Knights of Malta. His hat, high and narrow, was encircled by a jeweled chain. There was a diamond cross in front and white plumes behind. A velvet cape embroidered with a Maltese cross completed his sumptuous equipment. 

The Duke of York as Earl of Cumberland, Queen Elizabeth's Master of Horse, wore one of the most striking costumes. It was composed of a gray velvet doublet and cape embroidered with broad bands of gold, a steel gorget inlaid with gold, crimson velvet trunks slashed with gray satin and embroidered with gold, and high boots. His cape was lined with crimson satin. The Duke of Connaught appeared as an Elizabethan general, he wore a steel cuirass inlaid with gold, and the remainder of his costume was of dark gray velvet slashed with satin and embroidered with gold. The Duchess of Connaught as Anne of Austria wore a costume of pale tan and rose.

Prince Charles of Denmark appeared as a Danish student in dark purple. The Grand Duke Michael of Russia wore a black and gold Henri Quatre suit. The foregoing in no wise exhausting the list of royal personages present, all of whom were caparisoned in the costliest costumes and with the greatest attention to historical accuracy. Many dresses had necessitated a dozen or more sketches by authorities, and were works of high art. Among the guests was Mrs. Ogden Goelet of New York, who wore a wonderful white costume covered with diamond crescents and stars. – San Francisco Call, 1897

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

Etiquette and “U” People

English novelist, biographer and journalist, Nancy Mitford, was one of the “Bright Young People” on the London social scene in the inter-war years. One of the famed Mitford Sisters, she is best remembered for her novels about upper-class life and her sharp, provocative wit. In the 1950s Mitford was identified with the concept of “U” (Upper) and “Non-U” language. Written in jest, but taken seriously whereby, the “U” and “Non-U” language was to identify social origins and standing by words used by people in everyday speech. Because of this, or in spite of it, Mitford was considered an authority on manners and breeding.

If Britain’s Upper-Class is Slipping, it’s Doing it Gracefully

With the gradual disappearance of the English aristocracy into a quagmire of death duties, imperial decline and middle-class impertinence, it is fortunate that we already have a manual of aristocratic behavior and speech which, if it does not entirely explain how a common man can tell an aristocrat when he sees one, at least explains how English aristocrats recognize each other. The book is “Noblesse Oblige,” edited by Nancy Mitford.

Miss Mitford starts off with an essay by Prof. Alan Ross, a Birmingham University, on Upper-Class English Usage which was printed in Helsinki Finland in 1954. Professor Ross, pointing out that “it is solely by their language that the upper classes are distinguished (since they are neither cleaner, richer, nor better educated than anybody else),” has invented a formula to set them apart from the common ruck of humanity. He classifies expressions used by Upper-Class people as “U” while those used by others are characterized as “Non U.” 

Miss Mitford goes along with most of the Ross classifications, and Evelyn Waugh, who contributes his shilling's worth to the discussion, adds some of his own, like Lord Curzon's dictum that “no gentleman has soup at luncheon.” However, according to Ross, luncheon is no longer “U,” having been displaced by “lunch.” “U” people also have dinner in the evening, although “Non-U” speakers (also “U-children” and “U-dogs”) have their dinner in the middle of the day. 

The worst of it is (or was) that a, “non-U speaker has no way of learning the rules sufficiently well to pass as U in U circles. If he doesn’t betray his lowly origins by pronouncing ‘girl’ as ‘gurl’ instead of a modification of ‘gel,’ he’ll probably goof by saying, ‘Excuse my glove’ when about to shake hands.” 

Of course, non-U people and Americans are likely to think that this kind of thing is intended to impress people who are in trade or wear white socks. Actually, according to Strix, who also contributes to Miss Mitford’s Book, “U speech is not, as many believe, an arrogant and ‘snooty’ institution, used mainly like lorgnettes, for outfacing non-U speakers. It is the natural idiom of a comparatively small class and exists to further the purpose of communication with that class.”

Mr. Waugh, in his amusing comment on the subject declares that as a rule grandees avoid one another "unless they are closely related." In a ducal castle, Mr. Waugh declares, you might find "convalescent penurious cousins, advisory experts, sycophants, gigolos and plain blackmailers. The one thing you could be sure of not finding was a concourse of other dukes." An irreverent American might suspect that unrelieved U-ness can be wearying even to the most indisputably U.– Editorial in the Saturday Evening Post, 1957

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

Royal Etiquette and Brewers

The Sole Exception –A Brewer is 

the Only Tradesman Permitted to Dine with Queen Victoria

“A very handsome woman now attracting attention in English society is a Lady whose title would appear to indicate that her lineage extended back at least to the crusaders. She is a fine figure to look upon; her manners are faultless, her carriage stately, her pride immense. She is always a conspicuous figure in London drawing-rooms, and the society papers have as much to say of her as though she were a Royal Princess, yet she will not be found further back than the last edition of Burkes. She is Lady Iveagh, wife of Edward Guinness, manufacturer of beer. 

It is a strange rule that in England a successful brewer is regarded with affection by the Sovereign, and may dine with her after he has become wealthy. No other tradesman or manufacturer is allowed a similar privilege, nor is ever ennobled. Beer is regarded as fondly as poetry by the aristocracy of the country. It applauds when the laureate is created Lord Tennyson, and exults when an Irish brewer is made Lord Iveagh. There is a wide range of intellectual appreciation in this that is startling but admirable. It is hoped that Tennyson will write an ode commemorative of the beauty of the scheme before he dies.”— Chicago Herald, 1891

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

Edward Annoyed by Vest Etiquette

Caricature of Sidney Greville, the Earl of Warwick's brother and  groom-in-waiting to the King.

King Annoyed by Guest's White Vest 

Britain's Ruler Resents Faux Pas 

*****************

Sidney Greville Commits Breach of Etiquette at Dinner — His Majesty Later Graciously Forgives 

LONDON, Feb. 11.— Sidney Grevllle, the Earl of Warwick's brother and groom-in-waiting to the King, is the latest victim of His Majesty's etiquette craze.

Dining the other evening to meet the King, Mr. Greville wore a white waistcoat — an unpardonable faux pas, seeing that the Court is in mourning. The King flung sarcastic remarks at Greville throughout the dinner and was quite angry ,when other guests, including Mrs. Keppel, Lady Essex and Lord Revelstoke, tried to treat the affair in a bantering spirit.

Afterward, when playing bridge, his Majesty sat with his back to Mr. Grevllle to avoid continued sight of the provocative garment.

But the King never harbors resentment, and three days later commanded a dinner party at Grevllle's rooms in St. James' Palace with the same guests. He was most gracious to his host and referred to the waiscoat incident laughingly. —Special Cable to The Herald, 1905

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

Etiquette and an American Monarch

Another unsolicited opinion from"Rita," the Brit who doesn't care for American women marrying into Britain's titled families... "Can America be induced to have a reigning monarch I should like to see King Theodore on the throne!" – Rita, 1910

“The happiest marriages I was fortunate enough to discover in America were the marriages of a professional man; the happiest homes of their wives and families. Possibly the brutalizing force of money-making was less an element of existence in these instances.

“Commerce and speculation get into the business man's blood and vitiato his tastes and habits. The perpetual excitement of ‘deals,’ the perpetual chink of gold, are always more vital interest than his wife's companionship, or his children's dawning intelligence. To the professional man such things are welcome relief.  To the mere "wealth accumulator" they are of secondary importance. Hence the very small amount of family life seen in the United States is in any way to the professional man such things are welcome relief.

“I could not discover if there was a "middle class" in America. I believe not.  Every one is enormously rich, or insignificantly poor. If they are not rich, they try to pretend they are by taking expensive houses or apartments, and keeping automobiles, and attending every possible millionaire function that gives out ‘names of the guests’ to the reporters.”

Was “Rita’s” disdain of American women marrying into Britain's titled families, due to envy? A broken-off love affair of her own? An over zealous feeling of British patriotism? We'll never know. But we do know that jealousy and envy are not conducive to maintaining a civil and polite relationship with others.  “Excessive gaiety, extravagant joy, great depression, anger, love, jealousy, avarice, and generally all the passions, are too often dangerous shoals to propriety of deportment. Moderation in everything is so essential, that it is even a violation of propriety itself to affect too much the observance of it. It is to propriety, its justice and attractions, that we owe all the charm, I might almost say, the being able to live in society. At once the effect and cause of civilization, it avails itself of the grand spring of the human mind, self-love, in order to purify and ennoble it; to substitute for pride and all those egotistical or offensive feelings which it generates, benevolence, with all the amiable and generous sentiments, which it inspires. In an assembly of truly polite people, all evil seems to be unknown; what is just, estimable, and good, or what we call fit or suitable, is felt on all sides; and actions, manners and language alike indicate it. Now if we place in this select assembly, a person who is a stranger to the advantages of a polite education, he will at once be made sensible of the value of it, and will immediately desire to display the same urbanity by which he has himself been pleased.” –From Elisabeth Celnart's, “The Gentleman and Lady's Book of Politeness and Propriety of Deportment, Dedicated to the Youth of Both Sexes”

 

The word “Equality” has more than one interpretation.

“I have spoken about the conspicuous absence of a maternal instinct as a feature of American marriages. The American woman does not desire a large family or indeed any family at all. When she has a child she proceeds to bring it up on the most free and enlightened principles. It's nourishment is a series of experiments in patent foods; it's clothing a compromise between French, German, Russian, and English ‘styles.’

“When it is three or four years old it is called a ‘kid’ and goes everywhere with its parents, and becomes a general nuisance to everybody in hotels, or on steamer, car, or train. It is never rebuked or kept in its place like an English child, because that would be acting against true American principles. 

“It has nerves; it looks pasty and unhealthy; it is allowed to eat any sort of food at any time of day or night and it would never grow up a healthy or intelligent human being if it were not for school life and college training. They do some good in that respect, and the American youth and the American-maiden are the result. 

“Whether the training explains that no one –even an American citizen– was ever born ‘free,’ or could possibly be the equal in brains, character, or social position, of every other American citizen I cannot say.  But it does turn out men and women of whom their country may be proud. 

“One need not go further than Col. Roosevelt as an example. He speedily discarded the false for the real; feeble things for the strong things. No one has read his countries limitations more accurately, its possibilities more proudly, than this much beloved and much-abused ex-President. Can America be induced to have a reigning monarch I should like to see King Theodore on the throne!

“What Napoleon was to France, what Wilhem II is to Germany, what Edward the Peacemaker was to Great Britain, so might Roosevelt be to the United States could they but see into their own future and throw aside their greed, brutality, and narrow-mindedness in one effort, to achieve greatness.” –“Rita,” for the New York Times, 1910

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

Etiquette and Gilded Age Daughters

The deck chair is a fearful incentive to sentimentality. What with it and the promenade for health's sake, and the dances and concerts and other amusements got up to enliven the voyage, it is nothing short of miraculous that any young man gets to land without being labeled “appropriated by Miss Columbia till further notice.”

Domestic unity in wedlock is not a necessity of the American marriage. But the majority are very happy and very satisfactory. The husband has his occupations, friends, and amusements; the wife hers. They often move in entirely different “sets” and meet at a table or an entertainment with pleasant sense of surprise. But it is understood that the husband must not intrude into a “higher” social circle then that of his own choosing, even if his wife be a shining light therein.

These matters are beautifully managed in the States. No wonder that an English husband finds it difficult to act up to the etiquette of such a position!

There is a word of which American people are very fond. It is “attractive.” It is an English word, but they do not use it in English fashion. It is a synonym for the seaside girl, and the engaged girl. They're always “attractive” when they fall short of being “just lovely.” It lets them down gracefully to a safe vantage point of exploitation.

The “attractive” girl is perpetually being engaged or breaking off engagements. If she is afraid of scandal she goes off to Europe and tries her “prentice hand” on the liner en route. The deck chair is a fearful incentive to sentimentality. What with it and the promenade for health's sake, and the dances and concerts and other amusements got up to enliven the voyage, it is nothing short of miraculous that any young man gets to land without being labeled “appropriated by Miss Columbia till further notice.”
                                                                      

May Van Alen was most certainly  an “Attractive Girl” 

At one point, May Van Alen was said to soon be engaged to the Duke of Manchester and the newspapers ate the story up, complete with all the necessary “family gossip” and pedigrees.

May Van Alen Weds in London

 

May Van Alen was a daughter of the Gilded Age.  She continually dumped suitors and fiances, one of who committed suicide over her breaking their engagement. She was also the granddaughter of the Astors and the eldest daughter of James J. Van Alen of New York and Newport Rhode Island. In fact, the New York Times described her this way; “Miss Van Alen, as already stated, is the eldest daughter of James Van Alen. She is a very odd, original girl, extremely clever, and with a reputation for slight eccentricity.” It goes on to say how the lives of all three Van Alen “children has not been of the happiest, not withstanding their money and their lineage.”

The article went on to remind readers of the Van Alen's mother's death shortly after giving birth to her youngest child, Sarah, and how James Van Alen took his brood overseas for an education. In the same article, it states about May Van Alen, "She is not pretty, but is chic and dresses in a very conspicuous and Parisian manner. She has an excited manner in talk and a fondness for saying startling things." Not a very flattering portrait of a young society girl in America's Gilded Age.

May Van Alen finally did choose a husband. She married Griswold Thompson in a private ceremony in St. George’s, Hanover Square in London, on September 24, 1913. The ceremony was conducted with the greatest level of secrecy and included a modest ten persons as guests. Never mind the fact that the wedding was actually scheduled for that coming Sunday. 

Odd? Yes. But May Van Alen left many people in her wake, even invited guests it seems. The strict etiquette of the day (and even the much lamented relaxed etiquette of today), would more than frown on inviting  guests to a wedding, then marrying in secrecy just days before the date one's guests have planned to attend. 

Was the newspaper article their invited guests' only notice? Or were they sent cards, or notes, of explanation?  –From the blog “Etiquette with Maura Graber,” November 2012

But it is quite right for an American girl to flirt, or even engage herself as often as she pleases. It only proves her attractiveness. Her father and mother have let her do exactly as she wished in childhood, and she carries on the habit when she is “out.” It is no wonder therefore that marriage has to be considered a pastime, not an obligation.

I expect to be told that my views are wildly exaggerated and that I “must not judge of American marriages by what I've heard, read, or seen in America.” But my readers must please remember that I am looking at them through English binoculars. Possibly I do not focus them a right. Possibly we do not look at things in the same way even as we do not speak the same language, or follow the same rules of life.

But of this I am sure— as long as the wedding is nearly an exposition of vanity and extravagance—as long as it is made an excuse for getting headlines in the papers, and treated as a mere theatrical spectacle, so long will it be a travesty of the name and it's sacred and social obligations!

Do not suppose I consider America as the sole offender in this respect. We are getting just as bad on our side. We, too, send the unimportant photograph, the list of wedding presents, the names (especially titles) of the wedding guests to any paper that will publish them. As yet our press is a little more decorous, but they are following close on the heels of their transatlantic brotherhood. America first showed us the value of advertising. It remains for us to prove it in the interests of the marriage– as well as the commercial– market." –“Rita” for the New York Times, 1910

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

Gilded Age Title Hunting Etiquette

"These matters are beautifully managed in the States. No wonder that an English husband finds it difficult to act up to the etiquette of such a position!"– From "Rita," in New York Times, 1910 

“Transatlantic matches became so much the rage among the newly rich that a whole industry sprang up to serve their needs, including professional matchmakers and magazines. Typically, the American heiress would start by consulting the quarterly publication The Titled American: a list of American ladies who have married foreigners of rank. This contained a register of all the eligible titled bachelors still on the market, with a handy description of their age, accomplishments and prospects – for example:

‘The Marquess of Winchester is the fifteenth Marquess and Premier Marquess in the Peerage of Great Britain. He is also the Hereditary Bearer of the Cap of Maintenance. The entailed estates amount to 4,700 acres, yielding an income of $22,000. He is 32 years of age, and a captain of the Coldstream Guards. Family seat: Amport House, Hampshire.’ From ‘The Titled American’ No 2, March 1890

This 19th-century version of match.com was in great demand in the Fifth Avenue and Newport mansions where these American heiresses lived. Many came from families whose wealth was very recent, and who were desperate to stand out in a famously snobbish New York society where mere money was no guarantee of acceptance. The upper echelon, known famously as The Four Hundred, was based on the number of people who could fit comfortably into Mrs Astor’s ballroom – Mrs Astor being the most powerful woman in New York society on account of both her breeding and her fabulous wealth.” –Daisy Goodwin, Cash for Titles: The Billion-Dollar Ladies, for Daily Mail Online 

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

Etiquette and a British View of Dollar Princesses

“Rita” was actually British
authoress, Mrs. Desmond Humphreys – Dollar Princesses, unlike their British peers, had loads of confidence, were not as restrained by rules of etiquette, and were considered very outspoken. They made an indelible impact on British society that continues to this day. Princess Diana's great-grandmother, Frances Work (later the Honorable Mrs. Frances Burke-Roche), was the daughter of another Wall Street millionaire, and was a Dollar Princess whose great, great grandson is now heir to the British throne.

It may seem as if I was prejudiced, but indeed I am not. If the real truth were spoken of most of these international alliances they would be proved not only unsatisfactory but immoral. Wholly and entirely immoral as concerned with the true obligations and the true meaning of marriage. But the truth never is spoken of such matters. It hurts too much; or humiliates to cruelly.

I had been told so much of the perfections of the American husband that I naturally studied him as a valuable addition to my snapshots of American character. Except that he made money for his wife to spend, and gave her too little of his time for quarreling, and let her do exactly as she pleased, there was nothing to discover. His public attitude was what his National pride in himself demanded. His private life and his views of marital obligations were just those of the ordinary selfish polygamist creature who has existed since the foundations of the world.   

Luncheons and teas in New York, at the Plaza, the Waldorf, Delmonico’s, or in private houses or clubs, did not interest me very much except as a surprise at the absence of men. No American — I ask pardon — New York man attends any “function” until the evening. He is too busy making money, commercially or professionally; but the women take so much pains to entertain each other and their guests that one scarcely notices the omission. Also, they have the good sense to dress as carefully and expensively for their own sex as the women of Europe deem necessary for the other. Still, I must confess to some natural surprise at the absence of men. Not that I consider the American man an ornamental addition to room or restaurant.

The American husband is neither better nor worse than any other husband, but it is considered unwise for his wife to say so. She praises him in notes of exclamation, and effects of pity for her English sister who has "freedom," and less money to spend on her own pretty, selfish, vain person.

The story was going through the length and breadth of the States as to a bogus title purchased by the usual American dollars for the new usual American daughter. I felt so sorry for the sordid story, the shame and misery that it entailed that I could not even say, “Well, you deserve what you get!” But I did ask, “Will this be a lesson to the American father, and the American daughter?” No one believed it would.

Which brings me back to my starting point. If marriage is not looked upon as a sacred obligation, it must of necessity sink to sordid barter. And when an “alliance” between two absolutely indifferent, yet commercially minded people is published, advertised, and gloried in, there is no one on earth to be more commiserated than those two people. And in their heart of hearts they know it, or will know it, ere the echo of their wedding bells has ceased to haunt their ears.

I was perpetually worried by interviewers as to my idea on divorce. American divorce, of course. I refused to give any opinion, so it was given for me in that airy independent fashion of your American interviewer. However, I read up on “statistics” on the subject, and made all sorts of judicious inquiries, and I learned that reports as to the number of divorces being a third of the number of marriages, were much exaggerated.

True that marriage is not looked upon as a binding contract; it has a pleasing illusion of instability, but that does not necessitate divorce. It only simplifies marriage. The “lamb” is led to the “slaughter” with a chastened hope of green meadows and sweet pasturage beyond the slaughter house. She grows less fearful of the ordeal, and looks forward to the escape. Just a leap into blindness, darkness, momentary confusion and then – Freedom.

To the American girl, Freedom is the breath of life. She expects it as her right and she only accepts a marriage as one of its prerogatives. Thus it is that no self-respecting American husband denies his wife her coterie of boys; her faithful admirers; The donors of candy and flowers, and corsage bouquets; the escort to theater and restaurant; the glad wild hooliganism of Coney or Manhattan Beach, or Long Island, or the romantic shelter of the Adirondacks. With all this liberty there is absolutely no need for any radical “change of partners,” unless indeed the lawful husband desires it or obliges it by some untoward scandal.

With a little discretion an American marriage might be the happiest and most tolerant of American contracts. Far less exacting than the professional or business one. It is certainly less important. –“Rita” for the New York Times, 1910

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

More Etiquette and Dollar Princesses

English society resented the way the Prince of Wales, Queen Victoria’s oldest son, was so keen on the interlopers. But he defended his choice saying, “American girls are livelier, better educated, and less hampered by etiquette. They are not so squeamish as their English sisters and they are better able to take care of themselves.” The Prince, or Bertie as he was known, almost certainly had an affair with Jennie Churchill and was friendly with a number of the dollar princesses. 

Bertie once said to Winston Churchill, “If it wasn’t for me, you wouldn’t be here” – the implication being that without Bertie’s patronage, a British aristocrat such as Lord Randolph Churchill would not have married a mere American like Jennie Jerome. As Jennie says in her memoirs in 1910, “Thirty years ago, in England as well as on the Continent, the American woman was looked upon as a strange abnormal creature with habits and manners something between a Red Indian and a Gaiety Girl.”

– Daisy Goodwin for Daily Mail Online's “Cash for Titles: The Billion Dollar Ladies”

Transatlantic Marriages Begin with a Show and Usually End up with a "Show—Up" 
– More from "Rita" on America's Dollar Princesses

Example after example we have had, and still will have. The American Duchess, or Princess, or Countess, or Baroness soon learns to loathe her empty honors. She is been spoiled, petted, adored in her own land by her compeers. But when it comes to holding her own against blue-blooded rank, against European exclusiveness, against the heredity assurance of the well-born and a haughty aristocrats of Court circles, she feel she is as out of place as a ballet dancer in a monastery.

This does not mean that the American Duchess or Countess is not very charming, very chic, very popular, but it doesn't mean that she is only a sham Duchess, a copy of a Countess, and that the genuine article always makes the imitation look–well, let us say– an imitation. No one is to blame except the nationality that marks division. When the Daughter of Independence takes a fancy to a title, or desires to exchange democracy for Royal prerogatives, her adoring parents never seek to deny her wishes. On the contrary, they beat them with such glittering tempt that the foolish Princeling or needy Peer rushes into clinch the bargain with all possible speed.          

Winston Churchill, Lady Jenny Jerome, and Randolph Churchill – "American girls are livelier, better educated, and less hampered by etiquette." – Queen Victoria's son, the Prince of Wales, aka "Bertie"

It's a purchase– money is paid; the press has a good time in cataloguing presents and making ludicrous mistakes over the arrogance of titles. The beautiful bride (no American bride was ever anything else) is carried off into exclusive banishment, there to find out the worth of her bargain, or reconcile herself to its obligations.

But the free and enlightened spirit usually kicks at restraint, mocks at feudal customs, and lives by “comparisons,” the aristocratic union soon falls short of promised bliss. Sometimes for sake of pride, for fear of mockery, the disappointed wife puts up with dissolution and consoles herself with frequent visits to her own beloved land and the home of her dyspeptic but heavily-dollared “poppa.”
                                                                   

From 1933 – Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage, Knightage, and Companionage comprises information concerning the royal family, the peerage and baronetage. First published in 1769 and revised every 5 years. It is a comprehensive guide to the titled nobility of the United Kingdom.

Sometimes the English husband or the foreign “blackguard” agreed to go their way and leave the American wife to go hers–irrespective of confusion in Debrett’s, or the Almanac de Gotha. Sometimes a real desire for genuine happiness and the real things of true marriage give one or other the courage to break conventional fetters. But very, very rarely doesn't happen that the transatlantic marriage is a suitable or happy one.

When I visited American homes and noted the paramount importance of the wife I was not surprised that the American girl does not bear transplanting. We may be “cousins”; we may even regard ourselves as belonging to the same race, but apart from far-off claims of blood or birthright, the American, and the English are absolutely foreign to each other. They live a different life, they hold a different creed, (of honesty,) they speak a different language (metaphorically,) they are domestically and physiologically apart in all matters appertaining to domestic life. Each in his own country is admirable and admirably suited to what that country demands, but let them change places and they are a failure all the time. – By “Rita” in the New York Times, 1910

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

Etiquette, Manners and Dollar Princesses

A parody of the brokered 1895 marriage of Consuelo Vanderbilt and the Duke of Marlborough? Don't sugar-coat it, Rita. Tell us how you really feel... “The American Duchess or Countess is only a sham Duchess, or copy of the Countess, and the genuine article makes the imitation look an imitation.”

                                                                   

American Marriage a Mere Jest, 

says “Rita”

Our Wives Have No Maternal Instinct, According to Her, and Our Weddings Are of Less Importance Than Business Contracts

“That another life may be born, another soul sent into this world of misery and suffering. That high duties and great responsibilities attend this possibility, and these should not be lost sight of beneath the overwhelming importance of worldly considerations.”  According to correspondent “Rita,” “The American child is allowed to eat any sort of food at anytime of day or night.”

“From the obligations of things spiritual to the supreme necessity of things temporal, is not such a wide leap as it appears. Therefore I place the importance of wedlock as only secondary to the importance of those Invisible Mysteries we take in Faith and feed on in secret. Religion and Marriage are both possessed of spiritual significance-rightly considered. Of course this consideration is not obligatory on the contracting persons, even in America, the country of half a million creeds.

It has become the custom to treat marriage as a jest, or a mere legal contract capable of being dissolved at will. Ambition, rank, wealth, policy, necessity, each and all of these are concerned in that contract. What is more concerned and less considered is the one important factor in the matter. That another life may be born, another soul sent into this world of misery and suffering. That high duties and great responsibilities attend this possibility, and these should not be lost sight of beneath the overwhelming importance of worldly considerations. 

When the American bride concerns herself so deeply with the details of her wedding toilet, the latest thing in bridesmaid eccentricity, the probable amount of diamonds she will receive, and the knowledge that a tiara is eminently be coming to a Gibson girl head, she is not entering into the true spirit of marriage. She is merely setting herself up as an ornamental figurehead at which reporters can aim pallets of admiring adjectives, and the monde ou sont amuse may sneer.

The more I see of transatlantic marriages the more convinced I am that they are disastrous to anything like mutual happiness. Of ‘respect’ the less said the better. They begin with a ‘show’ and usually end up with a ‘show-up.’ And who can wonder?

The Englishman and the American woman are the most dangerous objects for the experiment of marriage. The one is perpetually running up against ideas, manners, and customs for into his own: the other is engaged in a continuous high-handed battle with such prejudices, manners, and customs. She takes refuge in defiance, and her husband in disdain. The chain girds and irks and tortures both until it is forcibly snapped in twain, or dragged through mire of scarcely concealed scandal.”–The New York Times, 1910

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