If you are looking to make a fresh start and right a past wrong then why not start with reviewing your policy on thank you letters. An alarming majority of people now eschew sending written thanks to their nearest and dearest who have spent their hard earned money on presents. Some will half-heartedly try to express their thanks by sending a thank you text or email. I can’t imagine doing such a thing. I am coming out in hives as I write. That said, I suppose they are better than nothing.

I am certain that one of the main reasons for the decline in thank you letter writing is that people simply don’t know how to start. This will most likely be down to parents failing to enforce the writing of such letters from an early age.

My parents always told me that I would never receive presents if I didn’t thank gift givers. Being a shallow, materialistic child this was an unbearable prospect and so, sometimes battling against a mirage of unwillingness, I duly wrote them. Now, I find them no effort whatsoever and it takes me about two minutes per letter and thirty seconds per envelope.

Here are my tips for writing perfect and gratitude-filled thank you letters.

• Keep a list of who gave you what as you open presents on the day as this will make sure you don’t forget anyone
• Use good quality writing paper (never ‘notepaper’) with matching envelopes
• For social correspondence writing paper can be around A5 size
• Stick to blue or black ink from a fountain pen
• Write your address at the top if the writing paper has no pre-printed letterhead
• Avoid starting the letter (after ‘Dear X’) with the words ‘thank you’. This is not a solecism but from a stylistic point of view it can seem a tad prosaic. Opt for something like, ‘It was very nice of you to buy me the Le Creuset serving dish…’ But don’t forget to actually say thank you within the letter!
• For Christmas, send out letters as soon after the event as possible when a normal postal service resumes but no later than two weeks. That said, a later thank you letter is better than none at all. Or a text!

But this little worn, and to some people – little known, dress code has its rules, just like any other. It used to be the standard dress for evening dinners in the age of Downton Abbey, as indeed we see on the hit costume drama. Black Tie then came in (from America) and the aristocracy decided that it was a lot less hassle to wear every evening than White Tie.

Lord Grantham from Downton Abbey

Working from top to bottom, the gentleman should wear…

Bow tie The clue is in the title of the dress code – a white bow tie (hand-tied) is correct. Make sure your hands are spotless before tying as the brilliant white of the tie will show every mark unforgivingly

Shirt A white, winged collar (sometimes detachable from the dress shirt) should adorn the top of the dress shirt, which should be fastened with studs. I have white mother of pearl studs for such an occasion. Cuffs should be double-cuffed (i.e. cufflinks)

Jacket The black (sometimes midnight blue) tailcoat is double-breasted although never fastened and should just show a hint of the white waistcoat beneath

Decorations These may be worn if the invitation decrees – always on the wearer’s left lapel

Waistcoat This is white, made from a pique cotton and is fastened

Trousers Black and tapered with two pieces of braid running down the side of each leg (unlike Black Tie trousers, which should have just one). They should be held in place with the aid of braces, not a belt

Socks Long black silk evening socks are preferable, although merino wool is an acceptable modern alternative

Shoes Patent black and Oxford-style

Unlike with Black Tie where one sometimes sees people trying to inject colour in the outfit, one should not even contemplate such a solecism with this dress code.

Ladies have some rules to follow, although the design, patterns and materials of their gowns will change with the fashions of the age. Dresses should be sweeping and to the floor, but hair should not be. This should be restrained to avoid knocking out dancing partners. Long white gloves should be worn at all times, except when dining. Tiaras may be worn if the occasion warrants them.

The short answer is that no one was wrong. In Britain – and some other countries, there are two different types of salute. The Army and the Royal Air Force, who do not generally wear white gloves as part of the uniform will salute with the palm facing forward, as the Prince of Wales is doing in the picture below.

The Prince of Wales salutes

The Navy, who are typically found in white gloves when in their dress uniform, will salute with the palm facing down so not to show dirty palms. The Duke of Edinburgh, being a Naval man, saluted in this style earlier today.

The Duke of Edinburgh salutes naval style

Ladies who are not in the military but are accompanying people who are should bow their heads, as the Duchess of Cambridge did when travelling back from Westminster Abbey with her new husband after April’s Royal Wedding.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Finally, a salute should only happen when one is in military uniform.

Firstly, if there is a dress code in place for the event, stick to it! No one is above dress codes. You simply cannot turn up wearing whatever takes your fancy: this is the height of bad sartorial manners. If you are unhappy with the dress code, then decline the invitation.

The spring of each year sees the interminable cycle of awards ceremonies begin and such events always depress me as the men start messing around with what is a perfectly smart dress-code to begin with – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Perhaps the male actors, singers and television personalities feel upstaged by the women, who for each ceremony get to wear a colourful dress, which the men may think deflects attention away from what they are wearing. So they start to wheel out skinny ties (which will be top of my list to put into Room 101), or just plain black neck ties (which, to me, shows ignorance that ‘Black Tie’ does not mean a neck tie).

William at a Black Tie event

So what to wear for the gentlemen?

Working from top to bottom…

Hair This should be washed and brushed. Similarly, you should be clean-shaven (unless you always have a beard or moustache). There is no point going to a smart event if your head and face looks like it hasn’t seen a comb in years

Shirt A white shirt with a turned down collar is called for with Black Tie. Winged collars, often mistakenly worn, are the reserve of the White Tie dress code. The shirt should be a dress shirt, which are generally slightly thicker in material, with a pique or frilled front.  Button down collars are a no-no. Dress shirts can be fastened with buttons or with studs. Cuffs can be standard or double-cuff, depending on preference

Bow tie As I mentioned above, Black Tie does not mean a black neck tie. They are for funerals. Bow ties should be hand-tied in my opinion (Her Majesty is said to be able to spot a ‘fake’, pre-tied bow tie a mile off – as can I. We’re quite similar.) If you cannot tie one, then I suggest you learn, or try to look good in a pre-tied one

Jacket Black. Lapels can be notched or shawl. Jackets can be single or double breasted. Double breasted jackets (of any variety) often look best on very slim men. Dinner jackets are never fastened when single-breasted

Pocket square If you wish to wear a ‘top pocket handkerchief’ then you may do so. In white

Cummerbund Nowadays, these are optional and if worn should be worn with the folds pointing upwards. It goes around the waist

Braces Don’t wear a belt, even if hidden by a cummerbund. Instead opt for braces, preferably black, if you need to keep your trousers up

Trousers These should match the material of the jacket and are usually tapered slightly

Socks Black silk evening socks are technically correct but these are not widely sold and most people are opting to wear conventional wool or cotton socks

Shoes Well-polished, smart black shoes are perfectly acceptable. If you have black patent leather shoes by all means wear them to Black Tie events. I do!

Finally for the gentlemen, a question I get asked a fair bit: ‘can I inject some colour into Black Tie?’ My advice is to try to steer clear of playing with the monochrome colour palate of Black Tie, however boring you think it may be. Where people have added a red cummerbund, or bright blue socks it has generally looked a bit tacky. One has to be a highly skilled fashionista to break the dress code with style.

As for what the women should wear: evening dresses are correct. They shouldn’t really be floor-length, this used to be reserved for just White Tie events, but this rule has been relaxed. Inject as much colour as you so wish, ladies: it doesn’t matter what colour you wear as your male partner will only be in black and white which means you will stand out, without clashing with him, and (hopefully) look radiant.

Click here to read the rest of this article on The Huffington Post.

Here is my simple guide on how to launder your shirts properly, to ensure you look your best at all times.

1) Wash shirts as per laundry symbols. Most shirts range from a 40 degrees C wash to a 60 degrees C. Make sure you have removed any collar bones/stays and cufflinks before washing

2) Do not tumble dry! Hang shirts up to air dry, fastening the top button (this will keep the collar in shape)

3) Iron your shirts when damp. They should not be bone dry (if they are, use a spray-bottle of ironing water) but they should not be soaking wet either

4) Iron shirts with coloured patterns on inside out as this will help prevent the colour from fading

5) Iron in the following order: collar, yoke (shoulders), cuffs, sleeves, back, front left side, front right side (for these last two section there is no right or wrong as to which front side you iron first)

6) Air the shirts for a couple of hours before putting away in your wardrobe. Make sure you hang shirts on proper hangers with the top button fastened (as I said above, it will help keep the collar in shape)

A good iron is recommended, although the above applies to whichever iron you use. I have a Laurastar iron, which are by far the most superior and effective.

I was lucky enough to be in London that week to do media engagements, as being an etiquette and protocol consultant this event was like a big birthday present crossed with exam time. Weird people like me who make it their business to examine human behavior, etiquette, customs and protocol will have noticed a few things that went wrong. Some things went wrong because there was not enough planning, some because of nerves of people concerned on the day, and others down to a few select guests’ lack of research or political motivations.

This blog post has been a long-time coming, but I have finally found time to give a brief overview of a few things that went wrong, intentionally or unintentionally. I will point out now, however, that these tiny (in most cases) mistakes may not have been visible to the ‘untrained’ eye and did not spoil the marvelous event for me in any way shape or form.

SamCam and the Wayward Wardrobe

The Prime Minister of Great Britain’s wife, Samantha Cameron, was wearing a fetching emerald green dress, which would have looked so much better with a hat. Indeed, etiquette dictates that with morning dress (one of the dress codes for the Wedding) hats are worn by the women. As the wife of the Prime Minister, and so theoretically representing the women of the country, she should have been sporting one. The argument from Downing Street was that she wore jewels (emeralds) in her hair instead. But this is still not correct form. Unfortunately, Mrs. Cameron made another error by choosing not to wear tights. With formal dress codes, women are expected to wear tights or stockings.

Photo below.

David Beckham and the Moveable Medal

As a friend of Prince William, and a premier footballer, David Beckham and his wife, Victoria, were obviously invited to the wedding. Beckham turned up in morning suit, which surprised me as (truth be told) I thought he’d opt for a lounge suit. It may have been designed by Polo Ralph Lauren, but the collar was winged, which is incorrect for morning dress (but correct for White Tie – worn for very formal evening affairs: state dinners, etc). He also chose to wear his OBE, an honour given to him by The Queen a few years ago. He entered the Abbey with it hanging from his right lapel, but medals should be worn on the left lapel. HOWEVER… correct lapel or not, he shouldn’t have been wearing it at all as morning dress does not stipulate medals. Only with White Tie should medals be worn. Beckham did switch his medal to the left lapel once inside the church, but he should have removed it all together.

Photo below.

Buttoned Up

Mr. Middleton’s morning jacket was fastened, which is incorrect for morning dress. Buttons should remain unfastened.

Photo below.

To Bow or Not To Bow?

When Kate Middleton walked up the aisle of Westminster Abbey, protocol states that one curtsies or bows when you reach The Queen. Dear Kate forgot to do this when arriving. Previous Royal brides have all done this, as well as curtseying when leaving (which Kate did do). I put this down to nerves. She did have a couple of billion people watching her every move, so I think we can let her off.

The Queen’s Car Door

When Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh arrived at the Abbey, a soldier opened the car door on the road side, at the same time another soldier opened the pavement side door. The former footman was wrong as the door should never be opened onto the road (even though in this case the road was closed and car-free). Had Her Majesty, who always sits behind the driver when with her husband, got out of the car on the side of the road she’d have had to walk around the car to get to the entrance of the Abbey. All very clumsy. Although I doubt anything was done in this case to the soldier, ten years ago this would have been a very serious offence indeed.

Photo below.

Watch Your Step, Ma’am

When The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were getting into the carriage to take them from the Abbey back to Buckingham Palace, there should have been a footman on the roadside of said carriage to balance the carriage. There was not and as such the carriage almost tipped over as the Duke was trying to embark. No such mistake was made when the Queen and Duke arrived at the Palace; a footman promptly used a stabilizing weight to stop the carriage from tipping.

Photo below.

The old “two countries divided by a common language” conundrum.

I grew up in North America where dessert was the sweet course that followed the main, from the simplest home meal to the grandest restaurant.  A simple meal was usually just two courses, main course and dessert; for special occasions a starter course was added (often shrimp cocktail served in a small glass dish that sat within a larger bowl of crushed ice, or just a green salad). This was the 60’s and things were much simpler then. Of course, dessert might have actually been a pudding, such as bread and butter pudding or something we called Lemon Snow, but more often “pudding” referred to a soft custardy mixture that came as a powder in Shirriff  or Jell-O boxes and was cooked with milk, until the instant variety came along that needed no cooking, just mix it up and refrigerate. This was a standard and simple dessert that mothers across the continent could rely on along with its counterpart, jelly, which was synonymous with the brand name Jell-O. Sadly, kids today think Jell-O has something to do with bar shots. So, your North American audience believes that dessert follows the main course and may include any variety of sweets. These are their long-held beliefs and as we all know, best not to try to mess with people’s beliefs.

Then I moved to England where I learned that the fork is only ever held in the left hand with the tines down and that pudding and dessert are two separate courses. Of course, I would eventually learn there are times when it is alright to hold the fork in the right hand, tines up, but the rules of engagement are not for the faint-hearted. And sometimes there is only a pudding course, and sometimes we just skip to dessert. But “pudding” refers to a prepared sweet dish (boiled, steamed or baked) while “dessert” refers to the fruit course. The main course is not always followed by a sweet course, sometimes we continue with a savoury such as mushrooms on toast before we reach pudding and eventually dessert. This really confuses North Americans.

I am old and beyond insisting to my audience that there is only, ever, a single right answer to any question.  Customs differ, we all travel so much. I defer to perhaps the greatest personification of the word “gentleman” known in our time, the late John Morgan, who without ceding an inch would answer Mr. Remer’s argument with the kindest of words, “How interesting.”

John G. Robertson
Protocol and Etiquette Consultant since before it was a gimmick

The Prosecution, given by the Honourable John H. Remer, Jnr…

According to British tradition, pudding is defined officially as the dessert course of a meal. It is usually made with eggs and milk and flour and other ingredients and is baked or steamed or cooked in some fashion before being served either hot or cold. Pretty straight forward, right? Not exactly. There are some puddings, such as Yorkshire pudding which are not served as dessert at all but as part of the main course, often with Roast Beef.

Now why would anyone think to argue about something so clear and simple. Enter my worthy and trusted colleague William Hanson who has decided in his infinite wisdom that pudding is so erudite that it should not be relegated to the lowly ranks of mere dessert, but should have its own very exclusive place on the menu. He mistakenly goes on to insist that only fruit served absolutely plain without the benefit of a pie crust of other delicious accoutrement is dessert, full stop. Is he mad?!

But I am just a simple man from the other side of the pond and pudding over here is altogether considered a sweet dish eaten at the end of a meal, as clearly defined by The Oxford English Dictionary. I grew up on butterscotch and chocolate pudding; there was also rice pudding and bread pudding. But by today’s definition, puddings encompass every gooey, sweet or otherwise delicious dessert.

I understand that in another age there existed a peculiarly British class distinction whereby ‘dessert’ was eaten by the upper classes and ‘pudding’ by the lower classes. Mind you, it was the same food, just with a different name attached. Early in the 20th Century this mysteriously flipped, sort of like upside down cake. And this, my friends, seems to be where William is mired. Today puddings/desserts are no longer labeled separately nor as a matter of class, but rather by flavor, consistency or even season.

As far back as the 16th Century, dessert and pudding were considered to be identical and were definitely eaten at the very end of the meal, often even in a separate room. Later a final cheese course became de rigeur with the swish folks who also enjoyed it with Port. And this marked the real end of the meal. This cheese/Port course was never considered dessert (nor pudding). It was called the cheese course. Pretty simple, eh?

I think one piece of this puzzle which my learned adversary may not willingly share is that he would live on pudding alone if given half a chance. As a budding domestic cook, he has gravitated into the dessert realm with gay abandon where he may just be suffering from sugar shock.

I mean how seriously can you take someone who calls something they eat at the end of a meal “spotted dick” and actually argue that it is a pudding and not a dessert?

I do believe in giving credit where credit is due however. William is a student of rare Mancunian literature and has chosen to base his threatening opening argument on a (unbeknownst to me) best selling 19th Century novel (and made for TV mini series) written by the notable author Elizabeth Gaskell entitled “Cranford”, who allegedly in a footnote, has offered at least a crumb to support his stance. But I ask you, how much faith can one ‘pud’ in an imaginary tale from 150 years ago?

But, I ask you, what more universally acceptable source can one find than Margaret Vissar’s two well respected books devoted wholly to the subject of dinner. In one, pudding is not even mentioned; in the other it is synonymous with dessert. My gauntlet is laid.

My fair haired prodigious friend is one to whom I confer on any number of matters concerning etiquette, yet as far as his ability to accept defeat in a dignified way, I am afraid the jury is still deliberating. His desserts may just be plums and apples, but his puddings are far from just desserts. Just ask his personal trainer! They are dessert masterpieces. I count myself amongst the lucky ones to have had my just desserts from the young lad upon occasion, but I also just love his desserts which are almost always puddings.

The Defence, given by the Honourable William R. H. Hanson, Esq…

Much of what I have had to say about this matter I outlined in my blogpost on the 17^th July, and I will not go over old-ground. I shall use my allotted 700 words to present my sources as to why I’m right in this matter of national, no – international, importance.

Arthur Inch, a former butler and technical advisor to the Oscar-winning film Gosford Park, writes in his 2003 work ‘Dinner is Served’, ‘…pudding (never called dessert, as this term was reserved for fruit at the end of the meal)’ (Inch & Hirst, 2003, p21). I could leave my case there and go and have a nice slice of cake, but I shall continue to present my sources.

Although Kate Fox is not an etiquette consultant, she is an astute social commentator and has lived both in America and Britain (she was born in the latter country). In her 2005 book ‘Watching the English’, she includes the following in her chapter on Linguistic Class Codes. ‘The upper-middle and upper classes insist that the sweet course at the end of the meal is called the ‘pudding’ – never the ‘sweet’, or ‘afters’, or ‘dessert’, all of which are déclassé and unacceptable’ (Fox, 2005, p79). She does, I admit, later state that ‘Some American-influenced young upper-middles are starting to say dessert’ (ibid). Yet, she then flies back into my camp by writing ‘[this term] can also cause confusion as, to the upper classes, ‘dessert’ traditionally means a selection of fresh fruit, served right at the end of a dinner, after the pudding, and eaten with a knife and fork’ (ibid). Well, this, I think you’ll find Mr. Remer, is exactly what I said in my original blog post.

The book I was given at 12 by my grandmother, which started me off on my road to becoming an etiquette consultant, Debrett’s New Guide to Etiquette & Modern Manners, has this: ‘Pudding, never ‘sweet’, ‘afters’ or ‘dessert’ (except when describing a fruit course)’ (Morgan, 1992, p330).

I have several other sources to hand that say the same thing, including Elsie Burch Donald’s 1982 book, Nancy Mitford’s 1956, and several books by Professor Allan S C Ross. I will not cite them in full, as it would just be repetition of the above. To me, and I hope to the more astute of the readers, it is clear that dessert is the fruit course and nothing else.

In my quest for backup I turned to a trusted colleague, namely Diana Mather, who belongs to the aristocratic family of Edward Weismuller von Vimis, a representative at the St James’s Palace court. Diana tells me ‘The dessert course is the fruit served at the very end of the meal. Dessert knives and forks are small and sharp in order to peel the fruit.’

Mr. Remer will, I am willing to bet, cite Margaret Visser’s largely excellent work ‘The Rituals of Dinner’. Visser is Canadian and I think this is perhaps the reason why Mr. Remer and I have been, civilly, disagreeing. Mr. Remer is American, although now living in Canada. Americans do call the course post-main course ‘dessert’. Today’s Americans all have British ancestors and so I conclude that the pilgrims who traipsed over to Newfoundland all those years ago went across calling said course ‘pudding’. But some bright spark got a tad confused one day and started calling it ‘dessert’. And over there they all went along with this, hence the muddle.

Earlier in the week Mr. Remer sent me some web links to prove his (wrong) point. One of said links was to Answers.com (need I say more?); the other was something a local school had done as a class project. Hardly very authoritative or conclusive. Remer also suggested to me that ‘pudding’ was considered ‘Non-U’ (meaning ‘not of upper class speech’). He is so far barking up the wrong tree here, in fact – the wrong forest, it’s unreal. As someone who just did a University dissertation in U/Non-U speech, I feel that I have some gravitas when it comes to saying what is U/Non-U, and I can say that ‘pudding’ is very much ‘U’. (See Nancy Mitford’s book Noblesse Oblige if you don’t believe me).

I admire my friend’s efforts to prove his point, but, alas, he is wrong. We all know that Britain is etiquette HQ and so what we do over here is pretty much always right – especially in this case.

———————————————————————————————————————–

So who do you think is right? Post your comments below, please.

This is not going to be a long blog post as, quite frankly, there is very little to say on the matter as in this instant it is an open/shut case. I just had to get this off my chest and into the ether for the poor, misguided souls who are going about thinking they are being sophisticated by using the term ‘dessert’.

Dessert was/is the fruit course. It came after pudding and was often eaten (if available) with dessert cutlery. These would be a very small, kind of fiddly, fork and knife that would aid in removing the skin from an apple, a plum and the like.

This is a 'dessert'

Pudding is the pudding. It’s the rhubarb crumble, it’s the lemon meringue pie, the chocolate cheesecake. That is pudding.

This is a 'pudding'.

Desserts were so called as it came once the table had been ‘deserted’ of the other accoutrements. This course began to vanish after the Edwardian times (probably due to the wars, I would guess) and the term ‘dessert’ kind of hung around like an unwanted guest at a party, before it unashamedly assaulted the sweet course and beguiled everyone into calling said sweet course ‘dessert’.

Restaurants, cafés, books, people who should know better, all over the world persist in calling my favourite course by the wrong name and it really, really winds me up as they (especially restaurants) think they are being more sophisticated by using a word of French derivation, rather than an admittedly clumpy Middle English one.

So please from now on can we all go about calling fruit ‘dessert’ and the course that we eat after the main, ‘pudding’.