Whatever happened to the Wedding Police?

Few besides Miss Manners remember them, but they were a social force in their time. Their job, as they saw it, was to maintain the integrity of wedding customs. Or perhaps it was to entertain wedding guests by mixing some acerbic commentary in with the usual treacle.

Their specialty was to declare whether each bride was "entitled" to wear a white wedding dress. And it didn't take much to be disqualified. The couple having been spotted in a parked car would be enough to put the question on the docket. Having been alone under a private roof for more than a few minutes was sufficient for a conviction.

The verdict had little effect, not only because the evidence was denied -- although the basic premise was rarely disputed -- but also because it was generally rendered at the wedding itself. Even if there had existed a cowed bride who wished to submit at that point, the logistics would have been overwhelming.

Society's change of morals did in the Wedding Police. What fun is it to question the bride's purity, as it was so quaintly called, when her toddler son is serving as best man?

Miss Manners confesses to having cheered on their demise. Her oft-stated position was that killjoys have no place at a wedding, and that the real vulgarity here was the notion that the color of the dress should advertise the history of the body it contained. (Besides, she had long since discovered how much mental and emotional effort one can save oneself by not much caring who is doing what with whom.)

But now she misses the Wedding Police. Not in regard to the original white dress issue, which remains as unseemly as it is hopeless, but to enunciate standards on the real taste issues of weddings.

They have been replaced by those reciting, "It's the bride's day, and she can do whatever she wants." In the absence of a sense of propriety, it has become commonplace for brides to discount parental wishes, demand specific presents and donations of their guests, issue orders to bridesmaids, and repeat the entire pageant at will, with the original or subsequent bridegrooms.

The white dress is still prized -- so much so that pregnant brides often postpone their weddings until after the birth so that they will look slim in the dress, an effect that apparently takes precedence over the legal standing of the child. However, the look has changed. Wedding dresses have become strapless, no longer demure but (redundantly enough) sexy, and topped with tiaras.

And how do we read that symbolically?

The Wedding Police might read it as a combination of Miss America and Queen for a Day -- complete with ladies in waiting and the right to expect obedience and collect taxes. Miss Manners is far too sentimental to think any such thing.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Our beloved dog of 11 years died three weeks ago from cancer. His passing left a great emptiness in our hearts.

Our vet thought he was a special dog as well, and he made a generous donation to his veterinary college in memory of our dog. We were very touched by this.

My first reaction is to send a thank-you note, but I am unsure of the proper etiquette. What are your thoughts about this?

GENTLE READER: You go first, please. Miss Manners would like to know what possible reason you could imagine that it would violate either the spirit or the practice of etiquette to express gratitude for kindness and generosity.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: After the death of my father only two months ago, my mother and our family have all found that our mourning is more acute now that our perspectives have cleared of initial confusion. Our church family, colleagues of my father's, friends and neighbors have been extremely generous with us, and I have been honored and humbled at once to see the graciousness Dad's kindness has engendered in those who will miss him most.

Unfortunately, not everyone in the church family has apparently been able to understand what we are going through. My mother has been a member of the choir for 30 years or so -- but, during a decline in his health and Dad's eventual hospitalization, Mom "took time off" to be with him. Both before he died and -- as I have found out -- since, the minister of music has pressured Mom to rejoin the choir over and over. Just this week, she and I met him by chance in a restaurant, and he smilingly enjoined her to "come on back, it is time!"

Not only is my mother still in pain, but she was on her way, the very next morning, out of state for three weeks. I gently explained that the minister was going to have to wait at least that long for her return, but that I would honestly like to see Mom take as much time as she feels necessary before rejoining the choir.

My brother's and my concern about this seems to make Mom more defensive of the minister of music, but I truly feel that his persistent approach is unkind and insensitive. It is difficult to make a joyful noise when still choking on sorrow.

My question is whether it would be grossly inappropriate to write either to him or to the church asking for forbearance during this difficult time, which may not be "over" quite by this gentleman's expectations. Your guidance would be much appreciated.

GENTLE READER: While sympathizing with your complaint, Miss Manners wishes you had used a kinder and more sensitive phrase than "unkind and insensitive."

The gentleman means to be kind. He is not bludgeoning your mother because he needs an alto, or whatever she is. It is because he wants her to know that she will be welcomed back, and also because he feels that the activity would be good for her.

The insensitivity is in not yielding to her judgment about what is best for her -- rather like a host who cajoles a guest to take more food or drink, under the impression that it is hospitable to ignore repeated rejections.

This is annoying, but it is not intended to be mean. What he needs to be told, firmly, is that your mother appreciates his invitations, and that she -- as the best judge of her emotions -- will let him know when she is ready.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is there a correct way to slide the food off a fork into one's mouth? Should one use one's lips, or is it acceptable to use one's teeth?

GENTLE READER: The lips. Miss Manners is afraid that the screeching sound involuntarily made in reaction to the sound of teeth scraping over a fork is not conducive to gracious dining or gracious digestion.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: There is nothing nicer, most would agree, than having a friend say that he or she is thinking of you. Lately, I seem to be having friends and acquaintances tell me this more and more.

They are doing so from their cellular phones, generally from the line at the bank, the service station or on their way to dinner with a more deserving friend. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that their intention is not to tell me that they are thinking of me, but to kill time during their tedious routines.

More often than not, when I receive these calls, I am involved in a routine myself, but my routine often consists of eating dinner, reading a book or playing with my dog.

Miss Manners, how can I, without sounding utterly harsh, tell them that I would be glad to hear from them when they return home or schedule a time to meet for coffee so that I am not barraged by background noises of honking horns or bank tellers noting that postdated checks are not acceptable?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners' idea of progress is when the invention of potentially intrusive gadgets is matched by the invention of protective gadgets. That way, with a little effort and a lot of money, we can end up where we were before the cycle started.

Thanks to the cellular telephone, your friends are now able to reach you wherever they happen to be. But thanks to the little button on your telephone, you can turn yours off and let it take their "Thinking of you -- oops, dropped my deposit slip" messages.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At my baby shower, a friend of mine asked my elderly mother if she was excited for the baby to come. My mother replied in complete seriousness that she was indeed not excited and stated that she already has 20-some grandchildren.

While I realize the truth of this statement, I feel hurt that she could have said as much at my baby shower to my friends. Isn't there a time when not uttering the truth might be the right thing to do? How do I approach her about this, or should I even bother? It seems to sit in the back of my mind.

GENTLE READER: There are plenty of times when not uttering the truth is the right thing to do. One such opportunity is to refrain from telling your mother that you are annoyed at her for an awkwardly worded statement.

The only purpose of that silly question is to allow an opportunity for the expression of pride. That your mother chose to highlight her wealth of grandchildren, when it might have been more graceful to focus only on your child, does not mean she is bored with having grandchildren.

Miss Manners suggests you clear that grudge out of your head. You will soon need that space to sympathize with mothers whose children keep too strict an account of their grievances.

: