Saturday, January 16, 2021

Etiquette for the “Windsor Widows”

 

1887 Jubilee postcard featuring Queen Victoria — Any of her daughters who were widowed had to remain single while Victoria was still in mourning from losing Prince Albert — “... all the widows of the court will marry. It is not royal etiquette for them to take another husband while their royal mistress remains single, but the widows of the castle will become the merry wives of Windsor before the year of state mourning has passed.”


When Queen Victoria takes off her crown forever and lays aside her gold-headed cane for good, there will step into her shoes a woman who will endeavor to point all things in the same direction. But certain changes will be immediately made. For one thing, all the widows of the court will marry. It is not royal etiquette for them to take another husband while their royal mistress remains single, but the widows of the castle will become the merry wives of Windsor before the year of state mourning has passed. Victoria has never smiled upon second unions, and for that reason, her widowed daughters are all single, but that there will be a change in this custom, rumor loudly states.— Mrs. Grey-Canfield, 1896


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

Friday, January 15, 2021

Etiquette for Guests Regarding Diet

There are allowances for some not eating what is being served. There are some people who really can not eat certain foods—they break out in spots or start sneezing or something. If they are served their own private poison, of course, it would be ridiculous for them to chance physical discomfort.















Don’t Hurt Your Hostess
By Deborah Ames

In these days of diet fads and foibles, more and more people, women particularly, are going on diets which prohibit their eating certain foods. Sometimes these diets are really necessary—often they are undertaken through boredom or a desire to become as slim as a favorite movie actress. Whatever the reason, they are producing a new problem in mealtime etiquette — the question of whether to eat or refuse. I have seen several answers to this question, but in my own opinion, there is only one. 

I think it is a little short of an insult to refuse a course at a dinner or luncheon. It doesn’t matter if the food is poison to you, your hostess is bound to notice and be hurt if you refuse to be served. Now, you don’t have to eat it, just because you have taken it—you can nibble at it, or even play with it if you really can not eat it. There are some people who really can not eat certain foods—they break out in spots or start sneezing or something. If they are served their own private poison, of course, it would be ridiculous for them to chance physical discomfort. — Albuquerque Journal, 1937


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




English Etiquette and Absurd Fads

“The Burdens of Fashion.” What we MUST come to before long! — “The fashionable coiffure is hideous— nay, revolting—and I'm sorry to say, it is affected by about eight in ten English women. It is simply a return to the most extreme style of the old chignon— an immense wad of hair, or imitation of one, stuck straight out from the back of the head. In its extreme development it is often fully as large as the head which it disfigures. Sometimes you see a woman who aims to be ultra-fashionable wearing two of these monstrosities, one atop of the other, and maybe a little sailor hat perched atop of the wad, but not covering her head at all.”
— Photo source, Pinterest 


Two Absurd English Fads

“There are two fashions very largely, almost, universally, affected by English women just now that I don't think will be copied over here even by the most pronounced faddist.” remarked a woman just back from a long stay in England. They are the chignon and the walking cane. “The fashionable coiffure is hideous— nay, revolting—and I'm sorry to say, it is affected by about eight in ten English women. It is simply a return to the most extreme style of the old chignon— an immense wad of hair, or imitation of one, stuck straight out from the back of the head. In its extreme development it is often fully as large as the head which it disfigures. Sometimes you see a woman who aims to be ultra-fashionable wearing two of these monstrosities, one atop of the other, and maybe a little sailor hat perched atop of the wad, but not covering her head at all. The only improvement over the old chignon is that the present one is a hair covered wire frame instead of a swab of hair. The vulgar people call it a ‘bun.’ 

In a trip around the continent I didn't see a single ‘bun’ except on traveling English women. It is purely English and likely to remain so. “The inevitable accompaniment of the chignon is the walking cane, and it was to me the oddest thing in the world when I arrived in England in the spring to see every woman walking with a regular man’s cane. The heavy fashionables carry heavy canes, just as our ‘Chollies’ do. I traveled all round England, to all the big towns and the fashionable watering places, and everywhere the cane was most conspicuous. “But there’s a reason for the cane, and, absurd as it is, it is a point for the cane above the chignon, for the latter is without any excuse whatever. Queen Victoria is compelled to use a walking cane whenever she moves about, and it is in compliment to her majesty—or from a silly aping of royalty, whichever you like—that the Euglish woman carries a cane. You remember, of course, the ‘Alexandra limp,’ which nearly every English woman affected so years ago and which had its origin in a lameness of the Princess of Wales. It is in just such ways that many of the fashionable absurdities of Europe originate. But heaven forfend us from the chignon and the cane.” — Editor Woman's Page, Boston Globe, 1895


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

Etiquette, Maté and the Bombilla

The once communally used, Bombilla, is a combination straw and strainer from which the maté is drunk. If stray motes of tea accidentally get stuck in the small holes of the bombilla, it is easily opened for cleaning. — “A gourd is hollowed and filled with maté, a tube to suck through, called a bombilla, is inserted and the contents absorbed. It is considered a serious breach of etiquette to refuse the maté cup when it is passed around. The same tube passes from mouth to mouth.”
Photo source, Etiquipedia private library 

Living In Buenos Aires—There is no “middle class” in the Argentine Republic. Society is composed of those wealthy enough to refrain from manual labor and working people. Wages as a rule are low, and the cost of living as high as in the United States, and not half so good. In the “camps” peons engaged in herding are paid from $9 to $12 per month, and supplied with meat and maté. Should they wish to vary this diet, it must be done at their own expense. Few care to do so. 

Maté is a peculiar herb grown in Paraguay, and is the national beverage of the country. It is dried, powdered and steeped in hot water and used as tea. It possesses considerable stimulating powers, and enormous quantities are consumed. All classes use it. A gourd is hollowed and filled with maté, a tube to suck through inserted and the contents absorbed. It is considered a serious breach of etiquette to refuse the maté cup when it is passed around. The same tube passes from mouth to mouth. — Los Angeles Herald, 1887


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

Thursday, January 14, 2021

The Fashionable 400’s Fortune Tellers

“She has taught all fashionable New York that to dream you see a poet is a sign you will lose money. It is supposed that this will widen the gap between Bohemia and McAllisterville. A girl who was going abroad for the London season, dreamed a Duke was in love with her and very much cast down on learning; that she would be apt to marry a needy and shiftless fellow.” — “Thanks to the meteoric increase in millionaires in New York due to the Civil War and the Industrial Revolution, many of whose fortunes rivaled or even surpassed the oldest of families, Mrs. Astor and Ward McAllister had a whole new challenge in deciding who of the nouveau riche was acceptable. This led to the creation of the famous List of 400 — the Four Hundred people who were New York’s high society.” —from MCNY.org
— Photo of old postcard from the Etiquipedia photo library



Fortunes in Tea Cups
A “Fortune Teller to the 400”


It wouldn’t be a bad sign, and really there is a woman who might also lay claim to the distinction, for in the revolutions of fads and fashions in their orbits, that which is oldest comes round again.  Of course, not a one of them would own to being superstitious but to put on one's “swagger” spring suit and pay a swagger price for a visit to a dark-eyed woman with a red turban marked with Egyptian characters about her head lends a wild flavor of interest to an afternoon. The woman is clever, for she really keeps an owl. It's a great mistake for a sorceress to grudge little additions like that to her paraphernalia. She wears broad heavy bracelets on her wrists and wraps something red about her shoulders. Otherwise her environment is prosaic, and, she being for a moment in luck, quite un-mysteriously and inartistically comfortable. 

She has taught all fashionable New York that to dream you see a poet is a sign you will lose money. It is supposed that this will widen the gap between Bohemia and Mc Allisterville. A girl who was going abroad for the London season, dreamed a Duke was in love with her and very much cast down on learning; that she would be apt to marry a needy and shiftless fellow. We all dread nowadays to dream of stockings, unless the are cotton ones, or of broken parasols. The dream we long for is of pots of jelly, or long life and good fortune, or of picking violets, for happiness in love.— San Francisco Call, 1890



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

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Nastiness and Social Pollution

“I believe our thoughts and words are powerful far beyond what we suspect, that they carry some sort of mysterious heft that ripples outward, like the tiny flap of the butterfly wings causing a hurricane. Our planet is being despoiled in a myriad of provable ways, but might our unkind words be contributing on some level? Consider it: What if we began to view unkindness as air pollution of the most toxic variety? Would we think twice before sending ozone-depleting nastiness from our lips into the atmosphere?” — Actor Josh Radnor 


A Suggestion on Hollywood Rules: Kind Over Matter



Here’s a theory I’ve been kicking around for a few years: Success in Hollywood—being incredibly well paid to do something very few people get the chance to do--won’t make you happier, but it should make you kinder. It never made sense to me that someone would achieve any kind of success in show business, only to become a jerk.

It certainly seems like the unkind—craven, wildly ambitious, stab-you-in-the-back types—are rewarded time and again. But bad behavior generally ensures a short shelf life. The question is really, What kind of person do you want to be once you’ve “gotten” somewhere?

When I left NYU in 1999, the year I turned “pro,” I was on the lookout for examples of what kind of professional actor I wanted to be. Before long, I had the great fortune to work with Judith Light, who, in addition to being wildly talented, seemed to place a premium on kindness. I remember how she greeted everyone with a smile—no matter who they were. She listened as if the fate of the planet depended on hearing someone’s every word.

Maybe it has something to do with my being from the Midwest, but witnessing actors like Judith—and the decidedly less enlightened behavior of others—confirmed my suspicion that it was possible to be both a good person andsuccessful in show business. I realized Vonnegut’s dictum was basically the only Hollywood rule worth following: You’ve got to be kind.

Kind to your fellow actors, to the producers and their spouses, to their assistants and their interns. You’ve got to be kind to the agents and managers (even if you often can’t tell the difference between the two), to the director and the people in wardrobe and props, to the photographer and the valet and the guy working checkout at Whole Foods, to the reporter at the press tour who thrusts a tape recorder in your face and says, “What song makes you want to get up out of your chair and dance?” And you must—and this is much tougher than it sounds in an industry that almost dares you to go insane—extend that kindness to yourself.

It really shocks me when I encounter people who think kindness doesn’t matter. Because I think it’s pretty much the only thing that matters. This should not be mistaken as a call for humorlessness or some naive, fussy moralizing on my part. It’s not about being “good” (a loaded concept, to say the least) or “nice,” which is really just a social convention that often has to do with worrying about being liked (occasionally masking real deviousness). It’s ultimately about compassion, recognizing that all of us are going through it all in our own particular way, no matter our social status.

It’s not our job to play judge and jury, to determine who is worthy of our kindness and who is not. We just need to be kind, unconditionally and without ulterior motive, even—or rather, especially—when we’d prefer not to be. For me, it’s simple and not entirely unselfish: When I’m kind, I feel good; when I’m not, I feel horrible. (Of course, the publication of this piece now ensures I will be caught on tape being a total schmuck.)

When my show How I Met Your Mother first went on the air, some people were quietly concerned the job would “change” me, as Hollywood lore is littered with tales of the monsters fame has created. Being a jerk was never all that interesting to me before I was on a television show. Now four years later, I’m happy to report no one has told me I’ve become one (to my face, at least).

Where will any of this get you in Hollywood? Maybe nowhere. That’s not really the point. Kindness is not about instant gratification. More often, it’s akin to a low-risk investment that appreciates steadily over time. One thing I’ve found to be true in show business, as well as everywhere else: Whatever you put out there comes back to you in some form eventually. Hopefully, one day you look around and say, “Hey, I’ve got a pretty nice life full of fantastic people.” If you have a better definition of success, I’d like to hear it.

This is bigger than Hollywood anyway. (Warning: If you think this is all a bunch of touchy-feely nonsense from someone who has clearly spent too much time in California, you might want to stop reading now.) I believe our thoughts and words are powerful far beyond what we suspect, that they carry some sort of mysterious heft that ripples outward, like the tiny flap of the butterfly wings causing a hurricane. Our planet is being despoiled in a myriad of provable ways, but might our unkind words be contributing on some level?

Consider it: What if we began to view unkindness as air pollution of the most toxic variety? Would we think twice before sending ozone-depleting nastiness from our lips into the atmosphere?

If you believe, as I do, that the state of the world is inextricably linked to our minds, that the external is a reflection of the internal, our minds are not in great shape. Every act of kindness, then, is not merely a sign of personal virtue. It’s saving the planet—the ultimate fusion of environmentalism, spirituality, compassion and common sense.

Of course, this is just a theory. In a more practical, less metaphysical sense, if you’re kind in Hollywood, people will want to work with you again. And if some unkindness is unavoidable, well, that’s why we have agents (or managers).

Josh Radnor stars in the hit CBS comedy How I Met Your Mother. He knows how to say “Houston” like a New Yorker but is still unsure exactly how to pronounce " Los Feliz.” — By Actor Josh Radnor, Los Angeles Times, 2008


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

Etiquette and Sleep Science

The etiquette of slumber will strike the average reader as a bit of absurdity, but, like most fads, this last new one has something in it. I believe, says a writer in the New York Press, the promulgator of this new idea, Miss Alice Cowell, names it the “Hygiene of Sleep,” and her theory is “the devitalization of the body.” That means that if you go to sleep properly and according to rule, you will be in the same state as if you were dead, save for the fact that the circulation goes on. 



A Science of Sleep

A Lady’s Plan for Preventing Insomnia and Suicide

Devitalization by the Will— The Body and Its Parts Must Be Surrendered Unconditionally— Physical Culture

Women have been instructed in almost everything that pertains to living. They have been taught how to walk and stand and talk and how to eat, and now there comes a lady from Boston to teach women how to go to sleep and how to behave after they have gone to sleep. The etiquette of slumber will strike the average reader as a bit of absurdity, but, like most fads, this last new one has something in it. I believe, says a writer in the New York Press, the promulgator of this new idea, Miss Alice Cowell, names it the “Hygiene of Sleep,” and her theory is “the devitalization of the body.” That means that if you go to sleep properly and according to rule, you will be in the same state as if you were dead, save for the fact that the circulation goes on. 

You will not dream, you will not move, neither will you talk and tell dreadful and fatal secrets, as people do in books. You simply lie an inert mass trusting to providence and the bed to take care of you and hold you up. Miss Cowell says it is “instinctive egotism” that makes people try to look out for themselves when they are asleep. They will not trust the bed for support, but cling to it frantically. As if some sudden and malicious freak of the springs might toss them on the floor. They dig their heads into the pillows as if some violent uprising might occur among the feathers. They clutch the bed-clothes, brace their feet against the foot-board, tie themselves in knots and writhe and wiggle as if they were upon red-hot spikes, it is no wonder that the sleeper gets up tired after such a night as this. 

Not long ago, I heard a lady say: “I feel as if I had been dancing all night.” Women seem to be the greatest sufferers from the antics of sleep. Miss Cowell tells of a lady in Boston who tore out whole handfuls of her husband’s hair when asleep. The poor man had either to seek another couch or buy a wig, he chose to do the former. Miss Cowell make, the statement that if people would train themselves to allow sleep its greatest mission, the woes of the world would be reduced to a minimum. Suicides would be a thing unheard of. It is this unabated state of nerve tension that brings about mental desperation. It makes people nervous and critical. Everything is awry, and the world is upside down. 

The mission of Miss Cowell is to tell people how to get unwound and lay them down in peace. She says it is the habits we take to bed with us that play the mischief with divine sleep. How shall we conquer them? Alter listening to a lecture by Miss Cowell, I deduce the following synopsis of her theory: First of all, you must learn the science of devitalization, and that is the spiritual side of physical culture. This great principle is embodied briefly in these words: “Mind active, body passive.” The physical result is the perfect independence of each member of the body. For instance, a seamstress would have not to accompany every movement of her needle with a like movement of her back and head. A school-teacher using one hand to clean the blackboard would allow the other hand to remain still. A writer would move the pen without working the lips, or gripping the pen until the whole arm ached. 

Few people converse without working the fingers in some way. There are orators who cannot speak unless they contort the body in the most absurd manner. In this way a lot of vital energy is wasted. The exercise which Miss Cowell gives begins with the head, which is supposed to be a wooden ball, and is rolled about at will, “It wont fall off,” says the teacher. “It can't fall off.” Then the arm is handled as if it were a log of wood, the leg swings like a pendulum from the hip, and thus every member of the body is devitalized. Even the eyelids are taught self-control. The results of these exercises are the calling into activity of all the muscles of the body, and at the same time rendering them wholly independent of each other. Each member is made immediately responsive to the call from the brain and wholly indifferent to anything but its own business. 

Now, how does this tend to produce restful sleep? Because the nerve, and muscles are trained to keep still when they are not wanted. Surrender yourself, lay your burden down. God will take care of you and the bed will hold you, says the disciple of devitalization. The mind and body are brought to this perfect state of obedience by the various exercises above mentioned. All the different members of the body are unlimbered, detached, so to speak. These exercises must be conducted with great seriousness and solemnity, but to the frivolous outsider, who is not familiar with the great principles of physical regeneration, these performances are awfully funny. 

After you have rendered your body entirely passive, then get into bed, sit upright and conceive of the backbone as a strand of beads. Then let yourself down slowly, bead by bead, until the head falls back inert upon the pillow. Drop the arms helplessly and let the entire body be divested of the responsibility which the bed is there to assume. You should lie upon the back if possible; if not, upon the side. Such is the Boston recipe for wholesome, restful slumber.— Pittsburgh Dispatch, 1891


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

Etiquette and a Bare Era of Arms

Because a woman's arms must be kept well within the picture and backed against the person, it does not follow that she should move her arms, as most women do, only from the elbows. No gesture could be worse possibly. It expresses the little, the petty, the ungracious, the over anxious to enter the camp of the 400. It stamps a woman at once as nervous and awkward, an overgrown school girl.” —
— The most common image exhibited on the cover of the popular Delineator’s Women’s Magazine throughout the 1890’s, was a bare-armed woman reclining in Grecian style gown. Etiquipedia has no idea whether she was “over anxious to enter the camp of the 400.”

 
 — Photo from the Etiquipedia private photo library



We are going to have an era of arms. In a general way, arms are things we have with us always, but the chances we are we shall see more of them. The long glove has moderated its ambition: it stops as soon as it is turned the corner of the elbow. One woman in twenty has a prettily modeled elbow and she, you may be sure, does not cover it's dimples with either glove or sleeve. Glove etiquette seems to be a little more liberal than it was before we wore the Greek gown. There are daring spirits who regard its classic folds as a warrant for baring the arm from the finger-tip to shoulder. There are even those who maintain that by wearing the Récamier dress, the same dispensation from gloves may be obtained. Ella Wheeler Wilcox, for example, when she puts on a short wasted white silk is never shy about exposing her long, rounded arms.

The smoke of the fight about the decollete bodice has never enveloped the arm. Annie Jenness Miller says that if a woman's arm is pretty she should give its shapeliness frankly to the world; if it is not pretty she should study sleeves. The ideal arm has a beauty of wholesome, almost a pastoral order; it bears showing. It is clear skinned and rounded, and there is a gracious dimple just at the side of the elbow. The skin is soft, but the flesh is firm. Beneath it's smooth contour it is instinct with the strength that supports a tired child. It is a blemish if the lines are so full as to suggest the seraglio rather than the green fields.

Women who know anything about arms, have thrown their bracelets away. It is a mistaken policy to call attention to a poor arm, and a good one is never so beautiful as when naked. One often sees the value of a wrist absolutely destroyed by a bangle. Gloved or ungloved, sleeved or unsleeved, braceleted or without jewels, the arm grows in importance every day. Genevieve Stebbins Thompson and Madame Albertti and Henrietta Crane Russell and Mabel Jenness and the rest of the esthetes and physical culturists and Delsarteans have been teaching us all winter to pose, and the pity is we begin to “make” our arms before we have taken our degrees. The results are commonly ridiculous or harassing.

The arms of the woman who is not naturally graceful always look stiff and harsh as they lie in her lap motionless. If she is not bitten with any of the artistic fads, she makes an awkward hoop of them, with fingers interlaced. If she has been doing a little amateurish studying of classical collections, she extends them or lets them hang at full length, unflexed in hard, straight lines. The first piece of advice which a well-wisher would give such a woman would be that she allow both arms to fall in free, easy positions, slightly relaxed at the elbows or with the hand drooping a little at the wrist, but she should not allow her left arm to know what her right arm is doing. One ought usually take a somewhat different position from the other, else you overdo the bilateral and look like a jointed doll.

But it is when a woman moves that real difficulties arise. Many a girl makes capital out of handsome arms when she throws them into relief on the tennis ground, flaps like a seal if she shakes hands in a drawing room. The difference is partly in the environment; partly, sometimes in the gown. There's no getting a graceful motion if your dress has a French-fit at the shoulder seams. Most women think there's a fine reserve in restrained gesticulation, and it is true that the woman does not exist who can attitudinize in private life without considerable danger of making herself ridiculous. 

It is commonly assumed that the effect has been calculated if a pretty girl indulges in movement as charming and natural as that of raising her arms to adjust her hair. But because a woman's arms must be kept well within the picture and backed against the person, it does not follow that she should move her arms, as most women do, only from the elbows. No gesture could be worse possibly. It expresses the little, the petty, the ungracious, the over anxious to enter the camp of the 400. It stamps a woman at once as nervous and awkward, an overgrown school girl. Every dignified arm motion starts from the shoulder. In this way only can one get curve or swing. Elbow motion is mechanical, all angles.

You can tell much about a woman by the way in which she shakes hands. The pump-handle motion, fashionable this past winter, was distinctly vulgar, almost as much so as the present squaring of the shoulders, extensions of the elbows and swaggering clutch of the pocket which is sold to one girl in every four with her best spring jacket. Many a woman who is gracefully cordial with an intimate, falls back on a marionette-like wagging from the elbow if called upon to say, “How do you do?” to an important person of whom she stands somewhat in awe. The giving of the hand must be a whole arm motion, but the arm should not be extended full length, except in impulsive welcome; it may be kept rather near the body and the hand allowed to fall low. —San Francisco Call, 1890

Glove etiquette seems to be a little more liberal than it was before we wore the Greek gown. There are daring spirits who regard its classic folds as a warrant for baring the arm from the finger-tip to shoulder. There are even those who maintain that by wearing the Récamier dress, the same dispensation from gloves may be obtained. Ella Wheeler Wilcox, for example, when she puts on a short wasted white silk is never shy about exposing her long, rounded arms.   
— 
A public domain image of a Récamier dress in Portrait of Madame Récamier by Jacques Louis David, 1800

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