Etiquette and Finding “Good Help”

It has always been a ludicrous fiction that servants were deaf and blind to what was going on around them, and people who envy the household staff of bygone eras might reflect on what they did to privacy. There may have been fewer attempts to publish the family secrets then, although that was not unknown, but instances blackmail, from the gentle variety to the blatant, were plentiful. —Image of Douglas Sills, left, Michael Cerveris, Celia Keenan-Bolger and Kelley Curran in a scene from HBO's “The Gilded Age,” by Alison Cohen Rosa/HBO

DEAR MISS MANNERS - I have just been engaged as a maid in an exceedingly aristocratic household. I suspect it is true that “Good help is hard to find nowadays,” since I got the position without having had any previous experience. I think my false letters of recommendation may have assisted in this; at any rate, many uncomfortable moments have arisen from my lack of expertise. Most recently, my employer — who is rather eccentric, comme tout le Beau Monde, n'est pas? — insisted on introducing me to one of her visitors, a young woman who, according to the newspaper, is heir to $50 million. This heiress greeted me pleasantly, but didn't offer to shake my hand. I just smiled and clutched my dust-mop. Should I have offered my own hand? I would very much appreciate an answer to this and any suggestions you might have for my success in the domestic service. I want to stay hired at least until I have enough material for a novel entitled “The Dust-Mop May Eavesdrop.”

 

P.S. In all fairness, I think you should also include some advice for my employer. Thank you.

GENTLE READER - Miss Manners’ advice to your employer is: Watch out. You’re welcome. 

It has always been a ludicrous fiction that servants were deaf and blind to what was going on around them, and people who envy the household staff of bygone eras might reflect on what they did to privacy. There may have been fewer attempts to publish the family secrets then, although that was not unknown, but instances of blackmail, from the gentle variety to the blatant, were plentiful. Nevertheless, that fiction served the dignity of both employer and employee. If nothing is officially observed by the servant, then there is no need for commenting about what is going on —which always leads to trouble. — Judith Martin, aka “Miss Manners,” 1982

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

Manners Are For Any Sexual Identity

In 2005, Miss Manners tackled gay-etiquette. (Hint… It’s pretty much the same as ordinary etiquette!)  “Dear Miss Manners, What am I supposed to say when I am introduced to a homosexual couple?” “Gentle Reader, ‘How do you do?’ And ‘How do you do?’”

Gay Etiquette for the New Dark Ages

Minding your p’s, q’s and Queers with Miss Manners

From “Out There” 

by Roberto Friedman

Of all the many syndicated columns and features the popular papers depend upon to fill up their column inch es, ever-so-polite Out There's in disputable favorite has always been the unfussy “Miss Manners,” written by the impeccable etiquet tist Judith Martin. Now a “freshly updated” new edition of Miss Manners Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (W.W. Norton, $35) has arrived on our desk, and OT has spent many an idle mo ment thumbing through its pages – with white gloves on, of course. 

The niceties and no-no’s of social intercourse are all here, conveniently organized under headings like, “Table Manners for Particular (and Ornery) Foods” and, “Electronic Communication (Personal)- The Itinerant Telephone.” There are 858 pages of good advice, dispensed with wit and economy, on all sorts of heterosexual rites. There are charming illustrations (by Gloria Kamen) with amusing captions like, “The Awfuls Consider Becoming Perfect.” But a quick consultation of the book's index under “gay” first directs us to “see homosexuals” (oh we do, we do), then offers up only three, count 'em three, etiquette questions which concern us inverts. 

We present one of them in its delicious entirety:

“Dear Miss Manners, What am I supposed to say when I am introduced to a homosexual couple?” 

“Gentle Reader, ‘How do you do?’ And, ‘How do you do?’”

We [heart] Miss M's succinct way of pointing out good sense and common civility. She has the best of manners, leavened by a knowing and very modern sense of humor. For example, the second time gays crop up in a gentle reader's inquiry concerns bedroom assignments when a father's gay son brings his boyfriend along for a weekend visit with the parental units. Gentle Reader explains, “I am unsure if the boys want to share a room, or if this arrangement will be uncomfortable to my wife. I don't want to raise an issue if there isn't one, so my solution is to make up both guest rooms and let my son decide, and let my wife know that this should be our son's decision.”

Out There intimate activities of one’s adult guests always leads to disaster, even when the hosts are the parents of the houseguests. In other words, you can assign people separate rooms, but you can not insist that they stay in them after dark.

The third and final instance of homos in this annals of manners concerns lesbian partners of 26 years fretting needlessly over their straight daughter’s wedding plans. “If mom walks our daughter down the aisle, how should I as mom #2 enter with the wedding party?”

“How you assigned yourself to be ‘mom #2’ in this regard, you do not say,” Miss Manners replies with equanimity, “but it might also be fitting for you both to give away the bride.”

Our favorite non-gay-specific gems of advice include the proper way to eat a slice of pizza. “This may be lowered into the mouth by hand, small end of the triangle first, taking care that the strings of cheese also arrive in the mouth.” Yes, please attend to those cheese strands, we can visualize them and don't want to.

Good advice for us winos, erm we mean “wine aficionados,” follows the question, “When wine is ordered by the glass and I have not emptied the glass when an other is served, what do I do?” “Gentle Reader: Have you thought of not ordering a second glass until you I have finished the first?”

On the topic of those ubiquitous “itinerant telephones,” Miss M observes the tendency of bulletins barked on these phones to be of the very important, “Hi, I'm on the bus, I'll be there in 5 minutes” variety. “Miss Manners is astonished that so many people appear to be on parole, and that parole is so strict. It is apparently no longer a question of checking in at set periods, but of not being permitted to make a move without simultaneously reporting it.”

Paging through this veritable orgy of good, old-fashioned etiquette has OT day-dreaming about writing our own advice column on the side. “Dear Mister Man[nerd],” our not-so-gentle reader would write in. “When is it proper to interrupt a panicked columnist on deadline in order to exhort him or her to publicize my gay second cousin's upcoming one-man show about growing up asthmatic, Armenian, big-boned and a big sissy in the Northwest Territories, working title: Yukon!?”

“Gentle Reader: On the 21st of Never.” Miss Manners quite wisely replies. –“Out There” in the Bay Area Reporter,2005

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

Etiquette: A Teaspoon is for Tea

Why, indeed, is a teaspoon put on the dinner table, if not to be used? The answer is that it simply does not belong there. It is a very common error to place the teaspoon next to the knife, presumably to use in eating the dessert. Place settings are even advertised in that arrangement. But it is wrong.  – Common, Mid-20th Century cutlery and flatware for the home. Teaspoons are only for tea and/or coffee. They are generally not for foods being served, so they do not belong at the dinner table. They are allowable at breakfasts or informal lunches.

DEAR MISS MANNERS -What are the etiquette rules regarding the use of a regular teaspoon? My husband persists in using his spoon to eat vegetables such as corn and peas. He also sometimes uses his spoon for mashed potatoes and stew (not soup). I feel this is improper, but he maintains the spoon is on the table to be used. If the use of the spoon is improper, I would like to know before our sons start copying Dad! 

GENTLE READER - Unbeknownst to you, and probably also to himself, your husband is gently making a satirical point about the way you set the table. Why, indeed, is a teaspoon put on the dinner table, if not to be used? The answer is that it simply does not belong there. It is a very common error to place the teaspoon next to the knife, presumably to use in eating the dessert. Place settings are even advertised in that arrangement. But it is wrong. Dessert is correctly eaten with a larger oval spoon and-or a small fork. You will recognize this spoon, because you use it for soup. At least, Miss Manners hopes you use it for soup. 

That statement about your husband worries her. The teaspoon is used for –surprise!– tea. Unless you have the most formal service, the dessert spoon is placed above the plate, parallel to the edge of the table, with its handle toward the knife and its bowl toward the fork; a dessert fork is placed beteen the plate and that spoon, facing in the opposite direction. Try this, and please let Miss Manners know if your husband persists in using that spoon for his mashed potatoes. She will have a stern talk with him. – By Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, 1983

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

Etiquette and Unsolicited Advice

 

Vintage etiquette advice from Miss Manners in the 1990’s, that still holds true today.

Judith Martin, who writes the syndicated “Miss Manners” column, said: “The first rule of giving advice is you only give it when it's sought. It's rude to go around giving advice to people who haven't asked for it. And it's futile, too, because they won't take it. It's more than a rule of etiquette. It's a rule of practicality.”– Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1992

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

Tidbits of Victorian Etiquette

 
According to Judith Martin, aka “Miss Manners,” during the 1800s, “... until well into the century, lower- , middle- and rural upper-class Englishmen ate with their knives, and that until the latter part of the century, when a fork was used, it was used in the same manner as Americans use it today, switching it back and forth from right hand for eating to left hand when something was being cut.

Judith Martin, the etiquette columnist of The Washington Post, at a 1981, four-day symposium, especially on a subject as esoteric as “Dining and Drinking in the 19th Century,” noted that the Victorians kept erecting bigger and bigger hurdles in manners “so that they could sneer at those not familiar with them. There was never a period of time when the right way and the wrong way was stronger than during the Victorian era,”  she said. “Someone was always doing something wrong so it kept life interesting.” 

Some of the Victoriana she offered was that dinner guests were never assured of getting a napkin and therefore advised to use the edge of the tablecloth or a handkerchief, that until well into the century, lower- , middle- and rural upper-class Englishmen ate with their knives, and that until the latter part of the century, when a fork was used, it was used in the same manner as Americans use it today, switching it back and forth from right hand for eating to left hand when something was being cut. She looked back nostalgically at some Victorian practices, among them the professional guest, a man who was hired to come to dinner if someone dropped out unexpectedly.— The New a York Times, 1981

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

Miss Manners on Hollywood Manners

On the Yes-But-No Ritual: “Stringing someone along— that’s not fair. If you have something under consideration and you have reached a decision, you should let people know the decision.”

 Miss Manners on Hollywood Manners and Mores. . .

Judith Martin is the author of the “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” and has been writing the Miss Manners syndicated column since 1978. These are her views on how people should behave in Hollywood— or anywhere else.

* After screenings: “You’re obliged to be polite. You find something nice to say. I mean, the vaguer, the better. I’m not against the blatant, ‘It’s simply wonderful. I had a wonderful time,’ and you don’t specify whether it was seeing the person or the film or whatever. If I have you to dinner, I hope when you leave, you’ll say, ‘It was lovely. Thank you very much,’ and not say, ‘The beef was underdone, and you should have served this with that.’ The idea that everybody wants an honest evaluation of everything they do is highly exaggerated. The fact is it’s not your critical opinion that is being solicited. It’s your support as a friend. People are asking for a little cheerleading, not movie reviews.”

* On telephones: “The telephone in itself may be a useful instrument, but it is extremely rude in that it says, ‘Drop everything and pay attention to me.’ It’s funny that people do tend to consider phone calls so important that they’re more important than human beings standing in front of them.”

* On returning calls: “If you have the resources to be generous about affording some time to people who are not of immediate benefit, you should (return calls). Look at your phone calls as if you’re a polite person examining your mail. You’re not obliged to answer every piece of mail you get.”

* On call waiting: “Call waiting is rude. After all, you’re already on a call. If a second person can’t get through to you, they can figure out that you’re (already) on the phone.”

* On the Yes-But-No Ritual: “Stringing someone along— that’s not fair. If you have something under consideration and you have reached a decision, you should let people know the decision.”

* On rudeness to subordinates: “One of the greatest crimes of etiquette is being rude to people who are not in a position to defend themselves, because they work for you.”

* On responding to rudeness: “I never believe in answering rudeness with rudeness. That’s a blanket rule. Socially, if someone insults you, you refuse to have anything to do with that person. In a business situation, that might not be possible. I do not mean that you say, ‘Hit me again, please.’ There are polite ways of defending yourself rather than descending to their level.”

* On networking: “Don’t. You give up your private life. And you need your life. I doubt its effectiveness. People who neglect genuine leisure and personal ties and friendship and recreation end up paying a very stiff price for that.” — By Connie Benesch, 1992

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

More Faux Pas from Miss Manners

Invitations must always be specific, which means that a host who will allow a guest to bring someone else (and no host is obligated to) does not add “and guest” but asks his original guest who it will be and invite that person. 

More of the etiquette blunders which upset Miss Manners!

Why don’t people pay strict attention to Miss Manners instead of trying to argue with her? There is a body of etiquette beliefs, firmly held in this society that is wrong, wrong, wrong. If you only knew how weary Miss Manners gets of repeating the same things, in a never-ending crusade to separate gentle people from this misinformation, you would use your energy to fetch her a cool drink, instead.

Here, for positively (or possibly) the last time, is a list of common errors. It's not true:

That the right to make decisions concerning the form of a wedding is for sale within the family, so that paying for all of it buys complete tyranny, while paying for part is like buying so many shares of voting stock. No, no, no. One may gain control of wedding by “giving” it in the sense of the bride’s parents being the hosts, or the couple issuing their own invitations, but the money has nothing to do with it. 

That a widow’s formal name changes, with her given name substituted for his, between “Mrs.” and their surname. No, no, no! It stays the same, and why do her friends keep taunting her by telling her it doesn't? 

That social invitations are not meant exclusively for the person to whom they are issued, but contain the right to bring at least one date. If not several friends. No, no, no. Invitations must always be specific, which means that a host who will allow a guest to bring someone else (and no host is obligated to) does not add “and guest” but asks his original guest who it will be and invite that person. 

That greeting cards require being acknowledged. No. no. no! People require acknowledgements of their courtesies, but cards do not. Miss Manners has never liked the silly things, so much more trouble to select than it would be to write a line of congratulations or condolence, but will not permit people to use them and then complain of not receiving attention for them. 

That Miss Manners is willing to debate these matters further. — Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, 1984

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

Don’t Argue with Miss Manners

It’s not true that “high tea” is a fancy little British business, featuring witty people eating cucumber sandwiches and tiny cakes. No, no. no! That is just called tea. The “high” doesn’t make it fancier. Quite the opposite. High tea features potted meat and soft-cooked eggs, and is what you have when you don't want to bother with a real dinner. 

Your etiquette blunders are upsetting Miss Manners!

Why don’t people pay strict attention to Miss Manners instead of trying to argue with her? There is a body of etiquette beliefs, firmly held in this society that is wrong, wrong, wrong. If you only knew how weary Miss Manners gets of repeating the same things, in a never-ending crusade to separate gentle people from this misinformation, you would use your energy to fetch her a cool drink, instead. 

Here, for positively (or possibly) the last time, is a list of common errors. It's not true: 

That spaghetti properly is eaten by twirling the strands on a fork held in the one hand, into the bowl of a large spoon held in the other hand; that this method, if not correct here, is at least dashingly continental. No, no, no! Here and in Italy, this is peasant or family manners (like eating chicken from the fingers) and not proper table manners under remotely formal circumstance.

That a bride in a white dress is either a virgin, or a brazen hussy, trying to pass herself off as one, when everyone in town knows better. No. no, no. The white wedding dress symbolize a first marriage, not a first consummation later in the day’s schedule, after all the guests have gone home. 

That dessert is correctly eaten with a teaspoon. No, no, no. Teaspoons are for stirring tea, and a dessert spoon is a larger oval spoon. Miss Manners blames the manufacturer of silverware, with their “basic place settings” of dinner fork, knife and teaspoon, for this one. Fork, knife and dessert spoon would be much more basic, as the large oval spoon can also pass itself off as a soup spoon. 

That “high tea” is a fancy little British business, featuring witty people eating cucumber sandwiches and tiny cakes. No, no. no. That is just called tea. The “high” doesn’t make it fancier. Quite the opposite. High tea features potted meat and soft-cooked eggs, and is what you have when you don't want to bother with a real dinner. 

That Miss Manners is willing to debate these matters further. — Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, 1984

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

An Etiquette Warning

“For all its non-negotiable requirements, etiquette has never required anyone to be a patsy. Etiquette has always known how to fight back. The polite duel has been outlawed, but all kinds of weapons denunciations, snubs, rejections can be clothed in propriety and used, in a restrained and proper fashion, under legitimate provocation.” – Judith Martin

Etiquette practitioners: Beware the power of the dark side...

Perhaps there should be a warning: In rare cases, etiquette can be used against you. Miss Manners is about as pleased to issue warnings with her product as a tobacco company. In her case, the obligation is self-inflicted, and she is prompted to do so not only by her relentlessly impeccable standards (which can be a terrible nuisance) but by her satisfaction in being able to deliver the cure right after disclosing the complaint. Etiquette danger occurs when one person knowingly depends on the good manners of another to allow the natural consequences of a rudeness to pass unpunished. Or rather, it occurs when the second person allows himself to be imposed upon rather than challenging the deliberate bad manners of the first, because that in itself would be rude. Mind you, Miss Manners said that such cases are rare. She has never subscribed to the notion that etiquette requires one always to make others feel good even when they are up to no good. This popular belief accounts for much of the unpopularity of the practice of etiquette. 

But for all its non-negotiable requirements, etiquette has never required anyone to be a patsy. Etiquette has always known how to fight back. The polite duel has been outlawed, but all kinds of weapons denunciations, snubs, rejections can be clothed in propriety and used, in a restrained and proper fashion, under legitimate provocation. No polite person would fail to disturb the complacency of someone making a bigoted remark, for example, or omit to lodge a complaint when seeing the helpless bullied. Etiquette also recognizes the legitimacy of self-defense against ill-treatment, provided the defense is not itself rude. “How dare you?” is a proper retort to an insult. When the polite person wavers and allows himself to be taken advantage of, it is because the offender, far from being rude, seems to be engaged in an act of friendship. Geared toward being no less kind in return, the mannerly victim reacts to acceptable surface behavior, rather than the outrageous assumption underlying it. 

Examples: A house guest not only seems settled in indefinitely, but begins to feel at home enough to attempt to participate in family decisions and to offer suggestions as to how the household ought to be run. The borrower of a book, garden tool or chunk of money fails to return it; when the lender discreetly hints at the matter, the borrower acts hurt and insulted. An acquaintance makes unwanted social demands that are declined so often that the recipient begins to feel that he or she “owes” that person an acceptance. Professional advice is sought or professional opportunities are offered under social circumstances, where they appear as favors, which it would be ungracious to refuse. A perfect stranger uses compliments and other chatter to create an atmosphere in which allowing him or her the privileges of friendship demands on time and privacy seems appropriate. 

In each of these cases, the burden of politeness seems to be on the innocent person. The solution requires recognizing the facts under that aura of politeness. One is under no obligation to share one's home, possessions, friendship, professional expertise or time for the asking. Little explanation is even required when stating one's rights: “I'm afraid I must have that money back,” “Call me at my office if you really want my advice” – even a nose-in-the-air snub when one is familiarly addressed by a stranger. Miss Manners promises not only that this will not be a violation of etiquette, but that it is a service to etiquette to defend it from evil usage. –By Miss Manners, aka Judith Martin, 1988

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

Profiles in Etiquette – Judith Martin

As the daughter of a United Nations diplomat, Martin early on acquired a working knowledge of proper social etiquette. “After you've entertained Mrs. So-and-so who doesn’t speak anything but Flemish, life holds no fear,” she says with a light. She also became fascinated by historical etiquette. “I quickly learned that if you wanted to learn what a given society was doing at a given time, you looked at their etiquette books, and what they were being told not to do, they were doing. That's how this little hobby got started.” 

Gentle Readers: meet Judith Martin, columnist Miss Manners

My. My. Miss Manners is prolific isn’t she? Barely has the dust settled from the rollicking entrant of 1st etiquette epistle, “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior.” then we are inundated by 389 paces of “Miss Manners’ Guide to Rearing Perfect Children.” Oh, indeed. One can almost feel ones metaphorical knuckles being rapped. Not for falling to use ones fish fork correctly that was discussed previously but for violating the rules of the baby-sitting co-op. Or commiting faux pas at parent-teacher conferences. The list might be endless. Or at least worth 389 pages. 

Gentle Reader, as Miss Manners herself is wont to say, press on. For this tome on decorum that is receiving all sorts of highly favorable book reviews has as its core nothing less than the “passing on of civilization” as we know it. Or at least as we knew it prior to the 60s, a decade that, according to Miss Manners, was “without rules.” As a tonic to the aforementioned plight, Miss Manners, who in real life is the syndicated columnist and novelist Judith Martin, offers her “primer for everyone worried about the future of civilization.” What this heir apparent to the etiquette doyennes Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt proffers, is highly practical but spirited counsel, on modern-day manners and morals common to that process known as child-rearing. Wit is arguably one of Martin's strong suits, as is her no-nonsense advice.

“The baby doesn't think. ‘Well I'm hungry, but if I wait few hours they'll be less reluctant to get up’,” Martin says, looking very proper during a recent interview in her high-necked blouse and antique garnet earrings. “It's very hard to teach a child to let somebody play with his toys or to wait. But that's what civilization is all about, and you have to start very young.” Talking with Martin is no schmoot over the bark fence. Just as she crisply stated her intent in her book: “A good parent owes it to a child to teach manners as an interesting and useful skill, and not a a subject that is invoked to condemn whatever the child happens to be doing when the adult is feeling irritable.” So does she mince no words in person. “Things were in a rock-bottom state when I first went into the etiquette trade six years ago,” she says, sounding not unlike a modern Mary Poppins, “but now there is a realization that you don't have to live in a world where everyone is rude.” 

In waging her genteel war on rudeness which by the way, does not permit “being ruder back” Martin has modeled her second etiquette book on her column format: a brief commentary on a particular social breach followed by answers from “Miss Manners” to the “Gentle Reader,” one of 200 letters she receives weekly. Interspersed with her advice on the etiquette of braces, car pools, and the like, Martin tosses in counsel that will warm parents’ hearts everywhere: “The chief tools of childrearing are nagging and example.” “Lecturing, in Miss Manners’ opinion, is one of the rewards of child-rearing...” However, lest anyone think the author is one-sided, Martin throws out some for the children who may be listening: “Properly done, a sulk is wildly irritating to the parent ... the ideal revenge of a theoretically powerless person on a supposedly powerful one.” 

It hardly need be said that Martin, herself the mother of “two perfect children” well, that's how the book jacket reads, politely snorts at the “JeanJacques Rousseau school of etiquette,” the belief that natural behavior is beautiful and that civilization, including manners, spoils man's essential goodness. Unfortunately , those who pay the price for believing such nonsense, says Martin, are those children now in their late teens and early 20s who “were told that etiquette is outdated and you just do whatever you feel like. Well, these people have grown up and discover that it's not true, and they’re at a terrible handicap.” Job interviews, romances, all are in jeopardy, says Martin, when one is bereft of a general system of etiquette. 

As the daughter of a United Nations diplomat, Martin early on acquired a working knowledge of proper social etiquette. “After you've entertained Mrs. So-and-so who doesn't speak anything but Flemish, life holds no fear,” she says with a light. She also became fascinated by historical etiquette. “I quickly learned that if you wanted to learn what a given society was doing at a given time, you looked at their etiquette books, and what they were being told not to do, they were doing. That's how this little hobby got started.” 

But it wasn't until the end of her 25year career as a feature writer and sometime theater critic at the Washington Post, where she covered “everything it’s possible to write about in a newspaper except news.” that Martin broke into the etiquette business in earnest Her thrice-weekly column, “Miss Manners,” began in 1978 and is now syndicated across the country. With women’s growing presence in the workforce, Martin says, additional etiquette questions are being raised today. “In business, etiquette is based on rank not gender,” she says crisply. She also predicts that our social etiquette system based on gender will yield to one based on age. “What I would like to do is speed along the structure of American society and the working world so that people can have a decent life that is a mixture of the domestic and the career life.” Does Martin consider herself pivotal in promoting that change? “Well, I don't want to be immodest, but I'm trying my best.” – Hillary DeVries for Christian Science Monitor, 1984

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

Silverware and Forked Answers

An unusual and highly valuable, antique silver, fish-shaped, Victorian spoon warmer. These were used in very large, drafty estates, to keep the spoons from “downstairs” warm for the meals served “upstairs.” –  “It was here that for the first and last time in his life Mr. Campion made the acquaintance of those silver-plated cornucopias which, in Victorian times, were supplied to the diner filled with hot water, so that he might warm his spoon before partaking of that greasy delicacy called thick soup.” –Marjorie Allingham

Silverware Provides Golden Opportunity for Forked Answers

The secret vice of etiquette is to play guessing games with old pieces of silver. The stranger looking an object say, a combination of writhing bodies with spouts, or tongs and clawed footsies the more fun it is to ask, “And what do you suppose THAT is?” Then, again, perhaps this vice is not entirely secret. Miss Manners has noticed that people who fail to acknowledge the daily toils of etiquette as it strives to make the world bearable in small ways, believe its only function is in connection with peculiar silver. Under etiquette's kindly veneer, they seem to believe, it is really only a system by which people who have the time and money to waste in acquiring funny silverware, endeavor to make those who don't, feel inadequate. 

The object such detractors choose to bolster their slander is usually the humble fork. “I never know what fork to use,” they will brag, as evidence that they are above snobbish games. The fact that the fork is a household mainstay at all levels of society, the use of which can be, and routinely is, mastered by a child of 3, makes it a strange example. Therefore, Miss Manners will now offer some better ones. In the spirit of the parent who says, “Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about,” she suggests that the next time they complain about esoteric items of silver, they choose an example among the following items. Miss Manners has helpfully divided these into two categories and supplied some dubious etymology. 

A. What in the Heck Is That? 

1. Bougie box. This is where you keep your bougie, of course. A bougie is a coil of bleached wax, named after the Algerian town that supplied it, and it sticks out in a taper through the lid of your small, circular bougie box to provide a dim light for whatever dim activities you may wish to engage in. If you don't mind your bougie being uncovered, you can hang it on a wax jack, but it is well known that bougie boxes keep the mice from nibbling your tapers.
2. Monteith. Monteith was a Scot who made great punch and wore a scallop-bottomed coat. His name adorns a punch bowl with a scalloped edge on which you can hang the punch glasses to chill on ice before you make the punch.
3. Argyle. Either the fourth or the fifth Duke of Argyle, depending on whom you believe (Miss Manners doesn't vouch for any of this information), invented his own gravy boat, which has a hot-water compartment for keeping the gravy hot. 
4. Posset or caudle cup. This is a two-handled cup in which you can drink posset (curdled milk with wine or ale, oat cakes and spices) or caudle (wine with spices and sugar and crumbled bread) or, if those lists of ingredients get to you, grab both handles and be sick.  

B. Any Fool Can Understand What It Is, But What Do You Need It For?  

1. Wine wagon. This is a great toy, consisting of a little wheeled wagon that holds two wine bottles, so that you can send it careening down the length of the table at exactly the point when someone with sense ought to remove it and you from the table.
2. Sardine box. Why would you want to keep your sardines in a silver box with pictures of sardines engraved on it, when you can pack them into a can like people on a subway? Because sardines were once very expensive. 
3. Tea caddy. Ditto for tea, which is why lots of tea caddies have locks on them. 
4. Cheese toaster. If you think it's messy to make your toasted cheese sandwiches in the stove, try aiming a silver cheese toaster with a hot water compartment toward the open fire. 
5. Soy frame. This is one form of the cruet, a stand holding bottles of sauces, which is socially on a level with the ketchup-and-mustard stand at your local fast food restaurant.
6. Spoon warmer. You don't mean you've been using cold spoons to serve food with, do you? The spoon warmer contains hot water in which to keep serving-spoons on a buffet table.
7. Salver. This is just a small-footed tray for serving drinks, but Miss Manners likes the idea that it was named for the hope that it would save one's clothes from the dribble. 
8. Epergne. Miss Manners throws this in because its name also refers (in French) to saving. The epergne is a many-armed centerpiece to be filled with fruits, nuts and candy, and its name refers to a direction to the staff to save whatever is left after the guests have finished gobbling. – Miss Manners, 1989

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

Etiquette for Salt And Such

Individual salt cellars have the ability to elevate any place setting. They can take a look from “How nice...” to “How elegant!” Or, from “Drabulous to fabulous!” as a friend once enthused. And though we are not suggesting that salts and peppers are set on a table merely for decorative purposes, Etiquipedia kindly requests that you politely taste your food first, prior to adding anything like salt. Even after tasting the food, do not send a “non-verbal” complaint to the host or hostess by making a show of heavily salting and peppering your meal. As a thoughtful guest, please remember that you are not there to eat, but to dine and enjoy the company of your hosts.

– Photo of a Michael Aram salt cellar and salt spoon

Salt Etiquette, 

with a Touch of Pepper

🍴Polite guests always taste food prior to adding salt –or adding any spice or condiment– out of respect and graciousness to those who have prepared a meal, or invited one to a meal.

🍴If you are a guest, even after tasting the food, take care not make a show of salting your food. This is rude. It implies that the meal is “less than it should be.” It also could imply that you have an unsophisticated palate and are not able to taste subtle flavors in the meal. If invited to dinner in a private home, “non-verbal complaints” like salting food before tasting, or pouring catsup all over your food, is most impolite.

🍴In some countries, like Portugal, it is impolite to even ask for salt. It is considered an insult to the chef, whether you are a guest in someone’s home, or in restaurants.  If salt, pepper, other spices or condiments are not on the table, do not ask for them to be brought to you.

🍴The etiquette rule above applies in the reverse situation, as well. If one is hosting someone from another culture or country, and they prefer to have salt and pepper at the table, though it is not the norm for you, feel free to provide these items to make your guests feel more welcome. 

🍴 If invited as a guest to eat in a restaurant, or perhaps a wedding reception or birthday celebration, and someone else is paying the tab, such non-verbal complaints about the meal are impolite, as well. Remember, you are a guest!

🍴If asked to pass the salt, always pass it with the pepper, so that the two do not get separated.

🍴 Always say, "Excuse me" if you need to reach in front of someone caught up in conversation, when passing salt (or anything else) at the table.

🍴Be aware of those around you at the table. If the salt is nearest you (this also applies to butter, rolls, etc...) don't allow yourself to be so caught up or lost in your conversation, that someone has to reach in front of you to pass the requested item.

🍴 Judith Martin shakes out “The Salt and Pepper Question”

Q: In a set of identical salt and pepper shakers, should the salt be placed in the shaker with one or two holes? My friend's feeling is that the salt is used more, therefore it should go in the two-hole shaker; I feel that because it pours faster, the salt belongs in the shaker with one hole. We resolve to abide by your decision. 

A: If Miss Manners were to tell you, in a blustery way, to use salt cellars and pepper grinders, would you consider it a cop-out, as it were? Yes, of course you would. The truth is that Miss Manners didn't know that salt pours faster than pepper, and is now sitting here with little black and white specks all over her lap. Just a minute. (Brush, brush, brush.) 

All right now, the decision is that your friend's reasoning is incorrect, but her conclusion is correct. (Miss Manners used to get her arithmetic papers back with that remark.) Salt goes in the two-hole shaker, not because it is used more often, but because more of it is used. Put another way; over-peppered food tastes worse than over-salted food. – Miss Manners, Copyright (c) 1979 and United Feature Syndicate 

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

In Praise of Old Etiquette Books

“You don't happen to remember your name, do you?” 

Even dusty old etiquette books are nothing to sneeze at!

It was on a crumbling page of a 100-year-old etiquette book that Miss Manners came across the solution to that enduring problem: What to say when confronted with a person whose name you know you are expected to know, but don't. The answer comes to us from an anonymous Victorian, apparently a Hero of Etiquette but described merely as “a good-natured eccentric.” 

Beaming a jovial smile at a vaguely familiar face, he would inquire in a pleasant, oh-by-the-by tone, “You don't happen to remember your name, do you?” Miss Manners is given to perusing aged volumes for just such forgotten devices to ease the difficulties of life. Vintage etiquette holds up remarkably well. The human body may have changed, as anyone trying to squeeze into vintage clothing may discover, but the situations into which it manages to get itself, are not all that different. In some cases, whole sets of manners may simply be retrieved and dusted off. – Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners, 1988

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

Miss Manners on Parenting

“The easy-going parent may well be remembered as uncaring, and the demonstrative one as suffocating. There is hardly a parental instinct that cannot be perverted into a grievance by the efforts of a thoughtful child, especially if aided by an enthusiastic therapist. It is a mistake, therefore, to guide one’s parental behavior with the risky business of reputation in mind.” 

Reminiscences of Childhood

“Be kind to your biographer,” Miss Manners’ dear father used to say when carefully dating his letters, diaries and memorabilia. It is an idea that takes on a whole new meaning when you consider that your most likely biographer is your own child. That few parents will end up as the leading characters in films or books written by their children is probably just as well. But there is a natural and not unreasonable human hope that one will be remembered as a supporting character when that child comes to bore his descendants with his reminiscences. What the overall judgment will be on the parents performance is a gamble. The easy-going parent may well be remembered as uncaring, and the demonstrative one as suffocating. There is hardly a parental instinct that cannot be perverted into a grievance by the efforts of a thoughtful child, especially if aided by an enthusiastic therapist. It is a mistake, therefore, to guide one’s parental behavior with the risky business of reputation in mind. 

The rule is to do the best you can, in what you believe to be the child's ultimate interests, and be prepared to suffer through the child’s later explanation of how he (by that time a childless young adult who knows everything) would have done it better. Nature has its own revenge, in that these people usually eventually have children of their own. But there are certain factors that can enhance childhood in a memorable way. (Miss Manners feels that this is a more acceptable way of putting it than suggesting that the parent work on the image.) The most effective of all, according to Miss Manners’ dear mother (and you can see what a success Miss Manners’ parents were at figuring favorably in their child’s memory), is the simplest. A teacher, she often heard the parental lamentation of “But we give him everything” from those whose children confided to their teacher, separately, how much they cheerfully hated their parents. The parental complaint was followed by a list itemizing valuable goods given. “I could never find a correlation between the parents’ generosity and the child’s feeling about them,” noted Miss Manners' mother. “Then I began to notice a connection between the child's feelings and the parents’ facial expressions when they came to pick him up at school, or even when they just talked about him. The parent who beamed at the child had a loving child, and the one who didn't, didn't. After that, it didn't seem to matter what else the parents did or didn't do.” 

Miss Manners is happy to present such unmaterialistic news, although she does not deny that many people’s fondest childhood memories have to do with toys or other presents. But then again, it is the way the thing is presented. The parent who gives whatever is asked, when it is asked, seems to get no return except increased expectation. The generally sensible parent, who restricts giving to fixed occasions and the choice of presents to items that are educational, useful or apt to be of lasting, rather than fleeting, enjoyment, will give enormous pleasure by a rare wild deviation from this policy. A gentleman of Miss Manners’ acquaintance once, while out to lunch with his teenaged daughter, impulsively stopped in a jewelry store and bought her diamond stud earrings. Miss Manners’ own father achieved the same effect, at somewhat less cost, when she was 11 and on an educational sightseeing trip by suddenly, without apparent cause or warning, buying flowers and pinning them on her coat. It is of such that memories are made and, incidentally, standards for future entrance into the family. A young lady who has experienced spontaneous romanticism is unlikely to fall in love with someone of grudging manners. – Miss Manners, 1984

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

Miss Manners on Tea Etiquette

“Tea is made in the drawing room in full view of the guests, so get it right. The proper method is this: Rinse the teapot with boiling water. Give your teaspoons a chance to do the job for which they were trained by putting in one teaspoon of loose tea (tea is claustrophobic and hates being stuffed into little bags) for each tea drinker, plus one. Now pour on the rapidly boiling water. There are few things worse than tepid tea.” 

Tea for Two or 3,000 

Dear Miss Manners: I should like to begin having tea on a daily schedule with friends stopping in, with or without invitations. A couple of questions do require answering: At what time is “teatime,” and should coffee be offered or placed on the table? 

Gentle Reader: Miss Manners adores afternoon tea, from “oh-do-join-me-for-a-cup” to royal receptions for 3,000 people. She would advise you to get some practice in the former before attempting the latter. There are few more charming ways to spend an afternoon than to sit, surrounded by fine china and friends, wolfing down scones and bringing up epigrams. 

If you wish to test the water before jumping in even on a weekly basis water for tea should always be boiling invite people for a specific day writing: Tea Tuesday the Seventeenth. Four to Six o’clock. All should be written in the lower left corner of your visiting cards. Later it may be “Tuesdays 4 to 6 p.m.” Place on a tray a large silver or copper kettle over an alcohol burner and tea caddy, with a teapot, cups (which have been warmed with boiling water), teaspoons, a slops bowl, a tea strainer, a milk pitcher (cream overpowers a dainty cup of tea), a bowl of lump sugar, little plates and napkins. 

Tea is made in the drawing room in full view of the guests, so get it right. The proper method is this: Rinse the teapot with boiling water. Give your teaspoons a chance to do the job for which they were trained by putting in one teaspoon of loose tea (tea is claustrophobic and hates being stuffed into little bags) for each tea drinker, plus one. Now pour on the rapidly boiling water. There are few things worse than tepid tea. 

When the tea has steeped for about four minutes, ask your guest of honor how she takes it. Using the strainer, pour straight from the pot for strong tea and dilute it from the kettle for weak. Then add sugar (the reason for using lump sugar is so you may ask the traditional “One lump or two?”) and milk, according to the taste. Some troublemakers prefer lemon to milk and you may put slices in a glass dish on the tray, but you are only encouraging them. 

When this ritual is performed, the guest takes her tea from the hostess or if there is a gentleman present, he takes it to her. She then takes a plate, napkins and a modest selection from your platters of hot breads, tiny sandwiches, cookies and a slice of whatever luscious cake your cook has baked that day. If you become addicted to this form of entertaining, you may need to to move on to stronger doses, such as the reception, which is tea served in the dining room.

The tea service is placed at one end of the table, and the teacups napkins, plates, forks if needed, and a larger supply of tea food (at least two of each kind mentioned above) go in the middle. At the other end stands an urn of chocolate, boullion, or more often lately to Miss Manners' dismay, coffee. You may ask friends “to pour,” that is to serve the tea and chocolate for you as you move among your guests. Being asked to pour is an honor just short of knighthood.

The traditional time for tea is four o'clock, which is perfect if you have your afternoons free. However, coffee is only one of the sad things that has happened to tea over the years. Some people have the idea that there is something more important to do in the afternoon than sip tea and eat buttered bread, such as earning a living. If you have friends who work, Miss Manners suggests that you schedule your tea on a weekend or at a time convenient to them on their way home when you could give them yet another variation, “high tea,” so as to replace, rather than interfere with, their supper. 

High tea is more substantial in all matters of food and drink than afternoon tea. It could include a whiskey and soda tray. Along with the dainty foods traditional to afternoon tea, there are soft boiled eggs, sausages, sardines on toast, kippers, chicken livers and such. While some unscrupulous restaurants try to make afternoon tea sound more “high society” by calling it “high tea,” the word “high” is actually related to “it's high time we had something to eat.” As social events go, high tea is lower on the scale than afternoon tea, because the chances of being fed dinner are small on a day you are given high tea. In that respect it is like the “cocktail-buffet,” than which there are few lower social events. – From Judith Martin’s, “Miss Manners’ "Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior,” 1985

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

Etiquette, Royal Titles and Diana

Fondly remembered as the “People’s Princess,” Diana’s life continues to fascinate in books, traveling exhibits and television programs, over 20 years after her death.

In 1985, Titles Created a Royal Problem for the Masses, And Miss Manners Responded

She is not “Princess Diana.” You perhaps know the lady Miss Manners means –the blonde one who wears hats so nicely but has not always managed to keep her hair out of her eyes. 

Born a commoner, she was styled "Lady Diana" by courtesy because her father is an earl. She is now, having married up, “the Princess of Wales.” Only should she become Queen consort would a royal title appear before her first name, as “Queen Diana.” Is that clear? Of course not. 

We Americans decided long ago that the idea of classifying some people as belonging to a higher order of humanity was not for us. Our highest title is “Mr.,” as in “Mr. President,” and it takes the individual some doing to get it. But the British do show up on our shores now and again, so one may want to know a bit about titles. 

Besides, it is difficult to make one's way through 19th-century British novels or 20th-century British television without being able to figure out who is called what and why. The subject is infinitely complicated, and disputes have been known to last for centuries. Miss Manners will concern herself only with the basic outline. Only the reigning Queen and her mother (as the widow of the previous King) are addressed as “Your Majesty,” other members of the royal family being addressed as “Your Royal Highness.” Children of the Sovereign also use the prefix “the,” as in “Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales.”

The peerage has five grades: duke, marquess (most use the good old English spelling rather than the French “marquis”), earl, viscount and baron. The female equivalents, for wives or widows (the latter styled dowager, if the succeeding peer has a wife) are: duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess and baroness. Except for dukes and duchesses, who are called by those titles, peers and peeresses are addressed as “Lord” or “Lady” with the name of the senior peerage they possess. Legally, the children of these people are all commoners. 

However, dukes, marquesses and earls tend to have other titles as well, and by courtesy, their oldest sons use the next family title down until after, courteously enough, the funerals, not the deaths, of their fathers. Then there are titled commoners: baronets, whose degrees of honor are hereditary, and knights, whose are not. They use “Sir” before their full names, but are addressed with the title and given name only. Their wives use “Lady” with the surname only, never with their given names (a common American error). 

This is only the beginning. Miss Manners will not bore you with collateral privileges of the siblings of heirs presumptive who succeed, the rights of duchesses who were divorced in interesting trials, the children of peers who disclaimed their peerages, and so on. She only asks you to stop saying “Princess Diana.” – By Judith Martin, October 27, 1985

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

Etiquette and Seasonal Standards

The Prime Minister of Great Britain, who had been unilaterally escalating formality by wearing hats all summer, shows up dressed in silk with pearls and high heels. She is quoted as having refused to participate in “a lowering of standards.”– Judith Martin, aka Miss Manners 

When temperatures go up, fashion decorum goes out the window...

Now that “White Shoe Season” is closing (after today, offenders should expect no mercy), let us review the fashion lessons of this past summer. This year's two big fashion stories are, in Miss Manners’ authoritative opinion: 

A. The Prime Minister of Canada suggests that heads of government attending the 14th economic summit conference in Toronto dress casually.

The Prime Minister of Great Britain, who had been unilaterally escalating formality by wearing hats all summer, shows up dressed in silk with pearls and high heels. She is quoted as having refused to participate in “a lowering of standards.” 

The Prime Minister of Canada wears a suit. 

 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

B. A Washington messenger is barred from entering the Department of Justice while wearing a T-shirt referring to the then-Chief Executive of that establishment as a pig. He responds by:

1. Unsuccessfully arguing the right of free speech. 

2. Unsuccessfully offering to remove the T-shirt in return for access to the building, presumably shirtless. 

3. Successfully arranging to have an acceptably dressed replacement sent from the messenger service in time to deliver the goods as promised.

4. Delivering his problem to the American Civil Liberties Union, which successfully argues his right of free speech. The Department of Justice, charged with demonstrating that it “obviously doesn't understand what the First Amendment is all about,” reverses its ruling after talk of the ACLU's filing a lawsuit. 

Now, what do these two stories teach us? Quite a bit about politics, notably that it makes an awful lot of difference who is doing the talking. Also that anyone hoping to maintain a higher standard than the society generally recognizes has to be prepared to lend practical assistance. If the Department of Justice, like certain restaurants and clubs, kept articles of “proper attire” on hand to lend those whom it deemed improperly dressed, solution 2. might have worked, and there might not have been a need to escalate to 4. The etiquette angle of all this is, naturally, more subtle. 

High symbolism, and some of the low kind as well, is involved. Social symbolism is not something in which modern people are skilled, and summer heat seems to rob them of any dexterity they might have. Each year, a number of otherwise relatively civilized gentlemen can be counted upon to raise a battle cry against the tyranny of the necktie. The more adventurous even suggest a fullscale clothing revolution, so that each man can express his true self. Miss Manners hopes sensible people can see the fallacy here. Clothing does express individual taste, but only within the context of the community. One's identity involves not only the contents of the particular heart or mind, but the age, gender, era, nationality and particular activity in which one happens to be engaged. To choose clothing that violates those requirements is to broadcast that one is in conflict with them. 

When the British Prime Minister refused to don clothes appropriate to relaxation, she was refusing to pretend that the economic summit was an informal gathering of friends, rather than serious international business. Miss Manner is less ready to cheer on the messenger. Since T-shirts proclaim the wearer’s presumed sentiment, it seems reasonable to hold the wearer as accountable for them as if he were uttering the statements publicly aloud. In most situations, that would merely mean that the bearer should be prepared for counter-attacks by people expressing the right of free speech. The confinement of a necktie is nowhere near as risky in summertime as is offering one’s innermost views to the chance reactions of strangers. – Miss Manners, September 4, 1988

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