Circumstances Dictate The Choice
Dear Miss Manners: With all the mixed-up families that exist today, I have a question on what people should be called.
I am the grandfather of five fine kids and I remarried after a divorce. No one has a problem with calling me Grandpa, but what is a reasonable title for my current wife? She has been married to me for about 10 years and has seen each of the grandchildren born and raised, but no one knows for sure what label to attach to her. (The original “grandmother” lives near by.)
Is she “Grandmother Sarah” too (as I feel she is), or Aunt Jane or plain Mary or what? It would ease feelings to know if there is any customary title which is accepted under these circumstances. In a way, I know that the answer is “Whatever everyone feels comfortable with,” but there is no consensus, and my wife doesn’t want to cause unnecessary turmoil on the subject.
Gentle Reader: Never in her life has Miss Manners been guilty of uttering the statement “Whatever everyone feels comfortable with” - much less passing it off as etiquette advice. The very idea! But the rule is so complicated that it looks almost as namby-pamby.
If the stepgrandmother came late into the grandchildren’s lives, particularly if this is because she arrived in the world more or less when they did, her first name may be used. (And by the way, Miss Manners suggests you make up your mind what your wife’s first name is. Sarah? Jane? Mary?)
Otherwise, she is conventionally addressed as Grandmother with her given or last name, or, if there is an affectionate relationship, by a derivative of that title. Grandmother is not, by definition, an exclusive title, even though your putting the title of the other such relative - probably your former wife - in quotation marks unpleasantly suggests to Miss Manners that you consider them rivals.
Dear Miss Manners: My question concerns the moral and social dictum that one never flirts with another’s spouse, fiancee or date. Does this edict extend to singles’ mixing places at which one friend meets a desirable, interested person and the other friend consciously or unconsciously steals that interest?
My daughter and her friend, both of whom are attractive, intelligent, and outgoing went to a singles club dance together and her friend talked to a personable young man for a half hour. But when she introduced the young man to my daughter, he immediately turned his attentions to her. Her friend, who felt betrayed, walked away and when the young man asked my daughter to dance, left the club without saying goodbye.
Several days later, the ladies talked about the situation. The friend felt that my daughter should have graciously excused herself when the young man overtly shifted his attentions, and that my daughter should have left the club when she left, instead of staying with the young man.
My daughter claims that she was just having a conversation, and that when she has attended other singles functions with other female friends, the ladies share new acquaintances, accept dances with them, and show no jealousy, let alone animosity, if a gentleman shows a preference.
Is her friend justified in being upset? What about the young man’s behavior? Was he flagrantly rude in turning his attentions so quickly from one newly met female to another in this social context?
Gentle Reader: In more innocent times, Miss Manners would have argued it was not disloyal for attached people to flirt at parties - that was what used to make parties interesting. But things have gotten a bit more direct and vulgar, and she sadly recognizes that people now feel obliged to stake their claims. Even so, a claim based on half an hour’s conversation appears to be ridiculous.
People who chose to go hunting together must be prepared to wish each other well in the chase.
The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Judith Martin United Features Syndicate