Gilded Age Fashion of Dinner Service

There are several types of soups, therefore there are several types of soup bowls and soup plates, with appropriate soup spoons to go with each. Above is a low, wide bowled, “soup plate.” It is not referred to as a “soup bowl.” - “When the host helps the soup, a small ladleful for each person is the proper quantity, a soup plate should not be filled with soup.”

The usual and fashionable mode of serving dinner is called Dîner à la Russe, although at small or friendly dinners the host sometimes prefers to carve the joint himself in the first course, and the birds in the second course. But dinner-tables, whether for dining à la Russe, or for dining en famille, are invariably arranged in the same style, the difference being merely the extent of the display made as regards flowers, plate and glass, which are the accessories of the dining-table.

When the host helps the soup, a small ladleful for each person is the proper quantity, a soup plate should not be filled with soup.

When the party is a small one, and the joint or birds are carved by the host, the helps should be handed to the guests in the order in which they are seated, although occasionally the ladies are helped before the gentlemen.

The rule at all dinner-parties is for the servant to commence serving by handing the dishes to the lady seated at the host's right hand, then to the lady seated at the host's left hand, and from thence the length of the table to each guest in the order seated, irrespective of sex.

Double entrées should be provided at large dinner-parties, and the servants should commence handing the dishes at both sides of the table simultaneously.— From “Manners and Rules of Good Society or Solecisms to be Avoided,” 1898

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

Royal Dinner Etiquette

An etiquette conundrum – Either this screen shot shows that the t.v. series “Victoria” is historically inaccurate, as she is not wearing her gloves (a breach of etiquette, but Queen Victoria’s poor etiquette was well known and expected for the television show) or this is a historically inaccurate portrayal of a Royal state banquet. And what on earth is that crumpled napkin doing on the table? – “The Queen never removes her gloves during dinner, except at state banquets. This is a singular piece of etiquette, and one would think that it would be exactly the reverse. Her gloves are new, of white kid, embroidered with black, never worn but once, and become, after using, the perquisites of the Ladies-in-Waiting.” 

Royal Dinners

Peeps at the Tables Where Things Are Served in State

 

The strict ceremonial of dinners of Queen Victoria has not changed since her assumption of the throne. A quarter of an hour before the time fixed for the repast —generally 8 o'clock—all the party invited to dine with the Queen meet in the Grand Salon and form themselves into a half circle about the door where she is expected to enter. The Queen, on entering, makes a beautiful courtesy (for which she is reknowned), then bows to the gentlemen, and gives her hand to the ladies, who courtesy deeply. She then goes in first to the table, accompanied generally by one of her sons. If any Imperial or Royal person is present, he sits at her right hand. But even in the case of General Grant she placed the Princess Beatrice between them. 

The Queen never removes her gloves during dinner, except at state banquets. This is a singular piece of etiquette, and one would think that it would be exactly the reverse. Her gloves are new, of white kid, embroidered with black, never worn but once, and become, after using, the perquisites of the Ladies-in-Waiting. The Queen has a small but beautiful hand. As soon as she has finished a certain “plat” everyone else stops eating of it, as when she finishes her fish everyone else stops eating fish, etc... After she has spoken to her guests on either side, conversation may become general, but in a subdued tone, always deferring to the sovereign. Sir Arthur Helps, who was her Private Secretary, used to tell an amusing anecdote of being snubbed by her for telling a rather funny story down the table, among the Ladies-in-Waiting, to relieve the monotony of a dreary dinner, when the Queen remarked: “What is it? We are not amused.” She has, however, a love for fun, and sometimes laughs heartily. 

The dinners at the Quirinal Palace in Italy are far more simple as to etiquette. The same formality is observed in the entrance of the King and Queen, but the conversation is more general and the Queen does not wear her gloves. She converses in English fluently. The King only speaks Italian and French, so the conversation is generally in those two languages. French, of course, is supposed to be a universal language. The dinners of Germany are not long, but they are formal and tedious, and the cooking does not commend itself to all tastes. The perfection of a dinner is found in London, generally at the house of Ambassadors, who combine the Excellencies of all nations with the follies of none. After asking the consent of the ladies present, the Italian and Turkish embassies allow the smoking of cigarettes between the salad and dessert. This fashion prevails in France and Russia, ladies smoking quite freely as men. 

The dinners of the Czar and the richer Russian Princes are models of their kind. It was the Russians who invented the idea of serving the dishes all from the outside; hence a service à la Russe, which prevents the tablecloth from being smeared with gravy and other greasy substances. The choice porcelain and glass, the gold and silver, beautiful ornaments— these are the wonder of all travelers who visit Russia. The old fashion has returned again of a sort of elevated tray, or little table in the middle of the table, on which are placed the choice silver jugs, ornamented pieces, and the flowers, fruits, candied fruits — indeed, the ornamental pieces of the dinner. This sort of tray, to be at its best, should be of inlaid wood, bound in silver, and of the time of Louis Quinze. A real antique of this kind is highly prized in France, England and Italy. For the breakfast-table a rotating round china standard, in two parts for the jam, honey, butter, powdered sugar, potted meats, etc., and other belongings of a breakfast, is almost universal in England.— Harpers Bazar, 1887

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

Gilded Age Etiquette of Informal Dinners

“No matter how uninteresting one's partner may be, one must be thoughtful and entertaining...”

The informal dinner, daily served in thousands of refined American homes, is a much less pretentious affair than the name “dinner” technically implies. In most cases the service is but partially à la Russe, most courses, and all the entires, being set on the table, the serving and “helping” being done by some member of the family; the presence of a waitress being sometimes dispensed with except at transition points; as, when the table is cleared before the dessert. This formality is the most decided dinner feature of the meal, which throughout its progress has been conducted more like a luncheon. Yet, in all essential points of mannerliness, the family dinner is governed by the same rules that control the formal banquet. 

It is perhaps needless to remark that the dinner à la Russe in its perfection cannot be carried out without a number of competent servants. These may be hired when some special occasion warrants extra preparations for due formality. But for customary '”entertaining,” those who “live quietly,” with possibly but one domestic to assist with the dinner, will show good sense in not attempting anything more imposing than they are able to compass successfully. The “family dinner” has a dignity of its own when in keeping with all the conditions; and though its menu may be simple, its service unpretentious, it may be the gracious exponent of a hospitality “fit for a king.”

At the informal dinner it is customary to seat the guests in the order in which they enter the dining-room, without assigning any place of distinction; all the places at table being held of equal honor —comfort and convenience being the things chiefly considered. –From “Etiquette: An Answer to the Riddle When? Where? How??” By Agnes H. Morton

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

Etiquette of White House Table Service and State Dinners

State dinners had become so large by Ronald Reagan's presidency that none of the china could accommodate the number of guests. First Lady Nancy Reagan ordered 4,370 pieces of Lenox china, enough place settings of 19 pieces for 220 people. This was nearly twice as many placesettings as other recent services. The Reagans wanted a design that would display a strong presence for the subtly colored State Dining Room, now painted white. Nancy Reagan worked closely with Lenox designers to create a pattern with bands in a striking scarlet red, which was her favorite color. The pattern was bordered on each side with etched gold, which created a sparkling contrast with the soft ivory china. The presidential seal was in raised gold in the center, partially overlaying the red border. On pieces such as the service and dessert plates, fine gold crosshatching overlays the red.  The Reagans were often criticized for the $209,508 cost, but the china was not funded by taxpayers. It was paid for by the J.P. Knapp Foundation.

All through the Cold War, the White House maintained the tradition of Russian table service at its official luncheons and dinners. And now that the Russians have switched from threatening to bewildering, there is talk of abolishing Russian service.

Trust Miss Manners to discover the one political issue that excites no one except herself. But perhaps she can stir something up.The question is only whether food at formal meals should be offered around on platters, with guests taking what they want, or whether each guest should be handed a pre-filled plate, with some of everything on it. Who cares?

But we're talking about a republic. Surely we can turn this into an emotional debate with charges of elitism and the stifling of creativity on one side, and of throwing people out of work and wasting the earth's resources on the other.

Stereoscopic view of the White House State Dining Room tables set in the latter half of the 19th century.  The tables were long at the time.  Jacqueline Kennedy changed White House dining when she opted to make a switch to smaller, and more intimate, round tables during the Kennedy Administration.   They remain round to this day.

The teams are: Russian, French, American (known to the English as English) and Restaurant, listed in reverse order of probable popularity. But since people seem to feel so passionately about their food nowadays (which is why Miss Manners figured that restaurants would claim loyalty before any country), their respective positions - long since removed from any real national claims - should be examined.

All of these are types of formal service, in the modern sense of meaning that guests do not actually have to bus their own dishes. (The equivalent understanding of informal service probably involves keeping the refrigerator door open, and Miss Manners doesn't want to know the details.)

In French service, huge numbers of dishes are set out in symmetrical patterns on the dining table, guests being expected to help themselves and one another from what they find within reach. Standard until the late 19th century, this may be said to survive in today's buffet table. But how we evolved to being dumber than the Victorians, who realized how foolish it was to ask human beings to eat standing up, Miss Manners cannot say.

In Russian service, which replaced the French, food is arranged on platters that are taken around to the seated guests, who serve themselves. Leaving enough to go around depends on the honor system.

The success of a state dinner tends to hinge on a well-choreographed series of social gestures. Other than not fighting, the rules are common-sensical: For example, don't wear a pink pantsuit like the one Martha Stewart did during the official visit of the president of Hungary- to much derision at a state dinner in June 1999 - and never sit down until the president does.
"You stand in deference, you don't begin eating until everyone at the table is served, you talk to everybody," according to Letitia Baldrige,  the late etiquette expert who was social secretary to Jacqueline Kennedy. "And you never complain about the food."

In formal American service, the only formal service that still honors the noble and ancient ritual of personally carving for one's guests, the host or hostess carves the meat at the table after inquiring about the preferences of each guest. If the veggies are put on, too, and if everyone passes the plates down the table (and, if they are overly polite, all the way around and back again), it is "family style," but if servers do all that, it is formal.

In Restaurant service, which is to say at all except the truly best restaurants, food is "plated" in the kitchen, and each person is given some of everything. The commercial attraction is that this is the speediest service, which employs the fewest people.

Notice that this is the only formal service in which guests are not allowed to choose what they take (although in restaurants, they have already stated their preferences when they ordered).

You see where Miss Manners is leading. She is about to suggest that if the White House changes from Russian service to Restaurant (the French system being defunct and the American being impractical for big dinners, however comfy it would be to see the president carving), good food will be wasted.

And that guests may find things on their plates to which they have philosophical, medical or religious objections. And that worthy people with families to support may find themselves out of jobs.

Miss Manners really doesn't want to use those tedious arguments, any more than she wants to fight the even worse arguments that Russian service inhibits the creativity of chefs who would prefer to dribble sauces artistically on plates rather than on platters, or that it is elitist because the citizenry doesn't eat that way every day.

She prefers to argue that the mere continuing of a graceful tradition to distinguish special-occasion dining from more practical methods for everyday use is what is important. There is a vast difference between dignity and pretentiousness.

For Dining and Diplomacy; The Clinton White House's Tables for Queen Elizabeth II's visit. Gaffes in this setting are long remembered. For example, Jimmy Carter's 1979 state dinner for Mexican president, Jose Lopez Portillo. Carter shocked his guests with an indiscreet joke about getting "Montezuma's revenge" (a severe diarrhea) while visiting Mexico. And protocol can only go so far when so many ambitious people are going to be crammed into one room. Social secretaries of past administrations can recall movie stars refusing to give the Secret Service their actual birth dates for security clearances and guests who ran into the State Dining Room, attempting to change name cards for better schmoozing potential.

Dining at the White House has been steadily de-formalized over the past few administrations, until it is nearly comparable to eating in a fancy restaurant. Guests regularly bring dates, reply by telephone (or forget to reply and have to be called), dress for shock rather than decorum, or refuse the invitation altogether, if they have something better to do.

First-timers who consider it a command performance and strain to live up to it by polishing their conversation, their shoes and their manners soon find that the custom is to treat it casually.

And that the unflattering rationale is that anything nicer and more special would be wasted on ordinary citizens, who wouldn't know how to handle it.

The main article was originally published on June 14 1994, and was written by Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners

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