It is estimated that 93 per cent of the British population owns a smartphone, so it is scarcely surprising that we’ve all become used to the selfie phenomenon. Whether you’re visiting a top tourist site, a panoramic viewpoint, or an exclusive restaurant, you will inevitably see someone taking a selfie (sometimes with friends included) against an alluring backdrop.

While many of these selfies will languish, unlooked-at and unloved, in the phone’s memory, you can be sure that many will find their way to Instagram or other social media platforms. Selfies can be a very strong statement about who we are, and what we want to project about ourselves. They are primarily aspirational and do not tend to chronicle failures and tribulations (unless it is to elicit sympathy). Their primary purpose is to broadcast a positive and upbeat message about our life and our experiences to the wider world.

Taking a selfie is not necessarily an exercise in self-love. It can simply be a way of recording interesting moments and creating a photographic chronicle of a trip or experience. It can also be used as an aide memoir to ensure that you don’t forget an interesting meal or location, or as a visual shorthand that is used to communicate with friends. Sometimes there is nobody around to take that vital, never-to-be-repeated shot, and a selfie is the only option.

However, it is an unfortunate fact that it is quite possible to become addicted to taking selfies, to the point that it becomes a compulsion (if you’re posting several a day you’re pretty far gone). Compulsive selfie-takers are frequently accused of narcissism and an obvious danger signal is when selfies only include images of the photographer – no friends, partners, children, pets, landmarks. A relentless focus on the photograph-taker shows worrying signs of egomania and self-aggrandisement, although in fact the selfie addiction might be really be an indication of acute self-consciousness and insecurity.

Whatever the interpretation, the stream of selfies is not producing the desired effect. It makes the poster look self-obsessed, needy, boastful and insecure – none of them attractive traits. The impact of a barrage of self-regarding poses can border on black comedy because it reveals so much naked self-absorption.

Selfie Etiquette

If you are still on the nursery slopes of selfie obsession and feel that you can take, and post, the occasional selfie without entering screaming narcissism territory, brush up on your selfie etiquette, to ensure that you are not causing offence:

• It’s not all about you

Think about the other people who will appear in the photograph, whether intentionally or accidentally, and ask them if it’s okay.

• Have some respect

It’s all about context and there will be places where a selfie is entirely inappropriate: in church; at weddings or funerals; at the scene of an accident or misfortune; at any time when taking a picture of yourself draws attention away from the main focus of an event.

• Safeguard privacy

Many people do not appreciate being subjected to compulsive photography and may feel that your habit of snapping yourself and your friends is intrusive. Check with other people before posting images of them and understand that not everyone wants his/her life laid bare online.

• Follow the rules

If you’re taking selfies you should adhere to accepted rules of photography; don’t take photographs if you will offend or upset anyone; ask permission if necessary; if there’s a no photo policy, respect it; never take a selfie when you’re doing something else that you should be focusing on 100 per cent (eg cycling, skateboarding, extreme sports).

• Get out of the way!

Your photo might seem like a top priority, but always remain conscious of the people around you, and ensure that you’re not obstructing them, blocking the view, or preventing them from taking photographs.

• Be courteous to celebrities

If you’ve spotted someone famous, your first thought might be to document the event for posterity by taking a selfie with them. But you should never barge into their personal space with camera held aloft and a huge smile pasted on your face. You must always ask permission first, and do so politely: “Excuse me, would you mind….” etc. If they show any hesitation, instantly melt away – no ifs, no buts.

• Enjoy real experiences

Don’t get too hung up on getting the perfect photograph. You don’t want to be missing out on real life experiences because you are too preoccupied with recording them. Selfies should be a useful tool, not a way of life.

Amsterdam has launched a “stay away” campaign, which is aimed at male British tourists aged between 18 and 35. The much-visited tourist destination has been suffering from its reputation as a convenient city break location, with a world-famous nightlife, cannabis cafés and a lurid red-light district. For all these reasons, it has become an extremely popular destination for young men, especially stag parties, and they have been singled out for special opprobrium.

City destinations all over Europe have been bruised by encounters with young British men, whose idea of a good time doesn’t go much further than getting blind drunk and making a lot of noise, preferably late at night. Infectious high spirits and bonhomie, which most local citizens will tolerate, can all too easily turn into raucous and threatening behaviour, which will push many residents over the edge. This is the modern tourist dilemma: the huge boost to the local economy that tourism brings must be offset by the negative impact of visitors and the disruption they bring to local inhabitants.

Why do so many of our countrymen save their worst behaviour for export? Getting away from home is obviously an escape into oblivion, a suspension of normal life, which encourages wild disinhibition and grotesque antics. “What happens in ______stays in ______” seems to be the prevailing attitude. But these tourists are suffering from a disastrous failure of imagination and empathy. The cities of Europe are not theme parks, conveniently laid out for their riotous enjoyment. They are historic centres, filled with intriguing sights and experiences, and populated by ordinary people who are trying to bring up their families and go about their everyday business. If tourists fail to notice, or appreciate, the daily life of the places they visit, then misunderstandings, resentment and conflict are bound to ensue.

Tourism should never be about inflicting yourself and your own limited agenda on the place you are visiting. You should always approach new places with a keen sense of curiosity, a desire to understand how they operate and a willingness to moderate your behaviour if that is appropriate. This means engaging in civil interactions with residents, asking questions, observing and listening. As you acquire a deeper awareness of your destination, you will find much more about it that engages you and your horizons will be broadened, which will enhance your enjoyment. Follow these simple rules:

Responsible City Breaks

• Choose your destination with care. If you are organising a riotous stag party and your expectations are extremely limited and alcohol-orientated, do your research and choose a place where your hosts will encourage pure hedonism, ply you with ridiculously strong drinks, invite you to all-night parties, applaud your drunken antics and even tend your hangover the following morning. These destinations do exist, but do not confuse them with a civilised European city where the residents just want to go peacefully about their business.

• Check local laws and customs before you travel, to ensure that you do not unwittingly transgress local norms. Remember these may cover a wide range, from appropriate dress to table manners and behaviour in places of worship.

• Embrace the host culture by trying local food and drinks. Approach everything with an open-minded and positive spirit, ask for recommendations, and always show your gratitude and appreciation.

• Do not assume everybody can speak English, and always politely ask locals if they speak English before you address them in your own language. Demonstrate your willingness to respect local life and culture by learning a few phrases in the local language – you should certainly learn basics like “Good morning”, “please” and “thank you”.

• Be civil and courteous at all times: that means smiling and greeting locals and remembering to use phrases like “excuse me”, “please” and “thank you” during transactions.

• If you are visiting a city, be very conscious of noise nuisance in quiet residential areas. Remember, behind the historic facades there are apartments and sleeping residents, so don’t come rollicking back to your hotel at 3am shouting and singing. Save that behaviour for bars and clubs and show some consideration.

• Keep a sense of perspective and try and be as flexible and accommodating as possible. Things will inevitably go wrong – there will be cancellations or transport delays, mix-ups over hotel rooms or arguments over bookings. Do your best to maintain a calm and friendly demeanour – you’re a guest in a foreign country, so make sure you’re a good one.

Image from Panorama's 'spaghetti harvest' in 1957.

April Fools’ Day, 1 April, is one of the world’s most widely acknowledged non-religious holidays. There is much dispute about is origins, but they can probably be traced back to the Roman festival of Hilaria, which was celebrated at the end of March by followers of the cult of Cybele, and involved people dressing up in disguises and mocking their fellow citizens.

It was several hundred years later before the first recorded mentions of the festival appear. In 1586 a Flemish poet wrote some comic verses about a nobleman who sent his servant on a number of “fool’s errands” in preparation for a wedding feast on “Fools’ Day”, 1 April. Other historians argue that Fools’ Day can be traced back to the transition from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, decreed by the Council of Trent in 1563. According to the Julian calendar the new year began at the time of the vernal equinox, around 1 April; new adherents to the Gregorian calendar began to celebrate the new year on 1 January. In France, people who were slow to adjust to the new timings and persisted in following their traditional April new year, were mocked as “poissons d’Avril” (young fish were easily caught in spring and therefore seen as foolish and gullible) and became the butt of jokes and hoaxes. The first mention of April Fools’ day in Britain was in 1686 when the biographer John Aubrey described 1 April as “Fooles holy day”.

April Fools’ Day became an occasion for pranksters and mischief-making – the intention was to play light-hearted tricks, for example gluing money to the pavement, or swapping sugar for salt. As time went on, these pranks became more elaborate, and newspapers, media outlets and businesses now use the day to set up elaborate scams or to launch false announcements as a way of boosting business or publicity – the BBC’s 1957 straight-faced report on the Italian spaghetti-growers, who harvested spaghetti from trees, is legendary; spaghetti was still seen as an exotic food in 1950s Britain and many viewers were fooled.

There is a tradition that pranks can only be played until noon; if anybody transgresses and plays a prank after that cut-off time, they are considered the fool. In 1855, the following ditty was recorded in the county of Hampshire:

April Fools’ Day has also long had a reputation as an unlucky day, and therefore a bad day on which to schedule important events, such as a marriage. After Napoleon married Marie-Louise of Austria on 1 April 1810 his subjects mocked him, as follows:

April Fools’ Etiquette

We have established the historic credentials of April Fools and some of the traditions associated with it. But should we be participating and playing practical jokes, and how do we judge when April Fools’ horseplay is inappropriate?

If you’re an inveterate prankster, remember a good practical joke will do no more than showcase the victim’s gullibility, ideally in an ingenious and amusing way, and should not therefore inflict lasting damage. Before you devise a fiendish array of practical jokes, just pause and consider the following:

• Think about the target

While nobody wants to be played for a fool, many of us are robust and self-confident enough to laugh off any embarrassment. However, there are some people who will find being targeted genuinely upsetting; they may be shy, self-contained, self-protective, thin-skinned and vulnerable. Refrain from putting people like this through the practical joke trauma – it may do much more damage than you intend.

• Only play pranks on people you know well

For all the reasons given above, you should be very cautious about blithely assuming that someone you don’t know very well shares your sense of humour. If they don’t, the embarrassment and discomfiture you inflict on them may be the cause of deep resentment and may make you look cruel and vindictive.

• Don’t make jokes about serious matters

You might think it’s hilarious to shatter your target with lies of the “You’re fired!”, “Your mother and I are getting divorced”, “We’re moving to Australia” variety. But if they’re taken in, even if it’s for just a few minutes, they will experience a genuine sense of shock and desolation and may find it very hard to recover or forgive you for your insensitivity.

• Be prompt to admit you’re the prankster

If you’ve played a practical joke and your victim comes to the realisation that you’ve done so, hold your hands up and admit it when asked. Otherwise, you’ll be wielding the power of uncertainty over your target for the whole day, which will justifiably build up a feeling of animosity.

• Don’t be mean-spirited

Think about your proposed prank and how it would make you feel if you were the victim. If that makes you recoil in horror, you can safely assume that you have crossed the border into transgressive behaviour, which will cause shame and distress rather than good-natured laughter.

• Think about consequences

Playing practical jokes can make you feel like a powerful puppet-master, but don’t take it too far, especially in the work context. If you play on someone’s vulnerabilities or desires (for example, a workplace crush or a secret ambition), you may end up causing such painful humiliation that you run the risk of being accused of workplace harassment or bullying.

Our ancestors made much of their honour and reputation; indeed, they took insults with the utmost seriousness, and sometimes felt obliged to challenge their antagonists to duels in order to defend their reputation. The practices of duelling were elaborate and codified: the offended party sent a challenge through his ‘second’, who was chosen to represent his interests throughout the affair. If the recipient chose to meet the challenge with an apology, it was usually accepted, and the affair was forgotten. If he refused, and accepted the challenge, it was up to the recipient to choose his own second and select the place of combat and the type of weapons used. Right up to the encounter, the seconds for each party attempted to mediate and prevent violence.

The purpose of the duel was not necessarily to kill, but to gain ‘satisfaction’, that is to restore one’s honour by being willing to risk one’s life for it. In the 17th and 18th centuries duels were fought with rapiers or swords, but over the course of the 18th century duelling pistols became the most popular weapon.

In the age of Enlightenment duelling was increasingly seen as an unfortunate relic of Britain’s medieval past. With increasing industrialisation, wide-circulation newspapers, and a growing tendency to have recourse to the libel courts rather than pistols, duelling became marginalised as an arcane aristocratic pastime, which had no place in the modern world. The last-known fatal duel between Englishmen occurred in 1845; from that point on antagonists had to find other means of resolving matters of honour.

Throughout the long, drawn-out demise of duelling, many voices were raised against the primitive practice, including that of our favourite 18th-century etiquette expert, the Rev Dr John Trusler. While he accepted in his Principles of Politeness (1775) that in certain circumstances duelling was inevitable, he argued that in many cases it could be avoided, and recommended ways in which disputes could be defused and smoothed over before they turned violent. Inevitably, these methods involved displaying a devastating civility, wielding impeccable manners as a weapon, rather than the sword or duelling pistol:

“In the course of life, we shall find it necessary very often to put on a pleasing countenance when we are exceedingly displeased; we must frequently seem friendly when we are quite otherwise. I am sensible it is difficult to accost a man with smiles who we know to be our enemy: but what is to be done? On receiving an affront, if you cannot be justified in knocking the offender down, you must not notice the offence; for, in the eye of the world, taking an affront calmly is considered as cowardice.”

This wily and pragmatic advice is to effectively turn the other cheek. Given that, if you publicly acknowledge an affront and do not act upon it you will be condemned as a coward, it is safe and sensible to ignore affronts if possible and put on a ‘pleasing countenance’.

“If fools should attempt at any time to be witty upon you, the best way is not to know their witticisms are levelled at you, but to conceal any unease it may give you: but should they be so plain that you cannot be so ignorant of the meaning, I would recommend, rather than quarrel with the company, joining in even in the same laugh against yourself; allow the jest to be a good one, and take it in seeming good humour.”

Defuse mockery and laughter at your expense by joining in. A display of affable good humour will take the wind out of the sails of even the cruellest satirist, and laughing at yourself is always the best way of winning friends and gaining popularity.

“Never attempt to retaliate in the same way, as that would imply you were hurt. Should what is said wound your honour, or your moral character, there is but one proper reply which I hope you will never be obliged to have recourse to.”

Retaliating in kind, or answering back, when you are the victim of cruel or slanderous accusations is a dangerous game as it makes it quite clear that you feel dishonoured and offended. If you make these feelings known, then you are escalating the situation and honour bound to act – in other words you will be forced to challenge your antagonist to a duel.

“Remember there are but two alternatives for a gentleman; extreme politeness, or the sword. If a man openly and designedly affronts you call him out; but if it does not amount to an open insult, be outwardly civil; if this does not make him ashamed of his behaviour, it will prejudice every bystander in your favour…”

Here Trusler signals out the ‘open insult’, which was clearly a premeditated attempt to discredit and dishonour. He concedes that, in these circumstances, a challenge must be thrown down; but other insults, which emanate from the heat of the moment, misunderstandings, and possibly intoxication, should be met with exquisite, and mortifying, civility.

“Wrangling and quarrelling are characteristics of a weak mind… pride yourself on showing it, if possible, more civility to your antagonist than any other in the company; this will infallibly bring over all the loafers to your side, and the person you are contending with will be very likely to confess you have behaved very handsomely throughout the whole affair.”

Perhaps the most sensible advice of all, Trusler contends that it is a sign of weakness to allow your self to be drawn into senseless disputes. If someone is trying to pick a quarrel with you, meet their aggression with faultless civility, and everyone – including your antagonist – will agree that you have behaved extremely well.

Duelling (and sensible advice against it) could only thrive in a society where notions of gentlemanly honour were strictly codified and adhered to with great tenacity. A gentleman’s ‘honour’ (his good reputation) was his most valuable asset, ensuring that he could move freely within the upper echelons of society, make an advantageous marriage and advance himself socially and professionally. If his honour was in any way besmirched, he was therefore compelled to defend it, by any means.

Looking at this dilemma from a 21st-century perspective, it is hard for us to grasp how much was invested in the sense of honour. While a personal calumny, or unsubstantiated accusation of corruption may land us in the libel courts, a sense of honour, or good moral character, seems to have become a debased currency for many people in positions of power. The idea, for example, that a person in power is “honour bound” to resign because facts have become public that severely damage his/her reputation, is not inevitably adhered to, and while there may be rumblings of disapproval, this refusal may not inevitably be fatal to a public career. Our duelling forebears would undoubtedly look on in consternation…

Personal space became a much talked-about issue during the Covid pandemic as we all struggled to obey instructions to ‘keep your distance’ and attempted to surround ourselves with a much larger than average ‘exclusion zone’. Life has returned to a semblance of post-pandemic normality, but for many of us personal space is still an issue. These concerns may also have become more pressing as we enter a ‘cyberspace’ era; many of our social interactions are online, where the subtleties of body language are irrelevant, and our notions of personal space in the real world may have become impaired through lack of practice.

Scientists argue that our concept of personal space is the foundation on which we build all our social interactions. It emerges from an atavistic urge to protect ourselves from threats or predators, overlain by social expectations and by our own attitudes to other people, which may have been formed by our upbringing, our experiences or social conditioning. Different cultures also have quite clearly defined attitudes towards physical space.

To some extent our sense of our own physical comfort zone and our reactions to threat are hard-wired, although we are clearly attuned to social expectations and need to make countless micro-adjustments as we move through the world. Most of the time, we react to the people around us, accommodating and, to a certain extent mirroring, their use of physical space, without any conscious thought. Our own sense of space is contextual: we are likely to be much more comfortable, and therefore happy being physically close, with friends and family, than in our encounters with strangers or work colleagues, where our spatial boundaries are naturally magnified. It is an important social skill to be able to make these judgments and adjustments; this ensures that we are never accused of inappropriate or intrusive behaviour.

Most of us are broadly average when it comes to our physical comfort zone; we maintain a distance of 3–4 feet (unless we are with people we know intimately), we are happy to shake hands, kiss in greeting, and we don’t react violently to being touched.

But some people require a much larger exclusion zone: they create more physical distance, are reluctant to touch strangers when being introduced, and flinch if their space bubble is invaded, for example if somebody reaches out to touch them or places a hand on their back.

By contrast, we’ve all encountered ‘close talkers’, people who are physically overbearing, who are often tactile and invasive. Frequently, these people are tall or substantial, with dominant personalities ­– they are clearly demonstrating that they are not intimidated by their fellow human beings and have very limited exclusion zones. Or they may simply be oblivious extroverts, who are blissfully unaware that they are treading on toes, barging into other people and overwhelming them, because their exuberant bonhomie propels them towards close encounters with their fellow human beings.

It is common courtesy to respect other people’s space bubbles and to resist being invasive and overbearing. But it should also be acknowledged that if you are a person who requires a large amount of space, you may well be broadcasting subliminal messages that are chilly and stand-offish. If you recognise this about yourself, try and make a conscious effort to stand a little closer to other people and, even if you do not initiate physical greetings, at least try to reciprocate without flinching.

How to deal with a space invader

• Stand back

If you feel someone is looming over you or touching you more than you like, just take a step back. You may find that they react by taking a step forwards and re-closing the gap you have created, in which case further action is required.

• Use furniture defensively

Standing behind a well-placed table is an excellent way of heading off a space invader. Alternatively, if chairs are available, you can always say “shall we sit down?” – chairs are bulky and awkward objects and it’s much harder to enter someone’s space bubble when you’re sitting in a chair.

• Deploy non-verbal signals

There are other ways in which you can demonstrate discomfort and deter someone from violating your space. You can fold your arms or put your hands on your hips, which are closed, defensive gestures. If you are seated, cross your legs and sit at a slightly oblique angle from the target and lean back. Minimise eye contact, or fix your gaze on another object, avoiding eye contact altogether.

• Speak up

If you’ve worked your way through your entire armoury of non-verbal signals unsuccessfully, you might have to say something. While it is tempting to say, “Back off!”, it is undeniably rude, so try saying something more subtle like “Sorry, would you mind stepping back a bit? I’m feeling a bit claustrophobic!” or “Oh dear, it’s very crowded here – shall we go somewhere where there’s more space?” It should be possible to convey the message without being offensive.

Wedding season is fast approaching so we thought it was time to take another look at our enquiries inbox, and put some of your wedding-related questions to our etiquette experts:

1. “We haven’t got the largest sum of cash for our wedding in August and have accepted help from both sets of parents with the finances. As my parents are taking care of most of the costs of the reception and have requested to be named hosts of the wedding (I've agreed, but my husband is not so thrilled), they believe it gives them the right to choose who can come to OUR wedding. We have 20 friends who we wouldn’t want to get married without, which our parents kicked up a fuss about for six months before letting it go. My husband has a big family so there are more guests on his side, which has made my parents want to invite their friends to equal the numbers. Are numbers that important? And don’t we get a say in it?”

Firstly, this is your big day, and it is imperative that all your closest friends are invited. Unfortunately, if parents are shelling out large sums for a wedding, they can feel that this entitles them to fill the wedding party with guests of their own choosing. This is where money can complicate issues. There is no absolute obligation for each family to invite equal numbers of guests, and if one side has a big family, it may be inevitable that this distorts the guest lists. But really, your parents should remember that they are doing this for you, not themselves, and should be able to live with it. The basic rule is to compile a guest list in this order: family (from both sides of course); closest friends of the couple who are marrying; others. You should compile the guest list yourselves, and then present it to your parents for negotiation.

The fact is that, if you are accepting parental help with the finances, you may find yourselves forced to make compromises.  If too much ill-feeling is being caused by this arrangement, you may want to consider downsizing your plans, and meeting the majority of the costs yourselves. You would have a smaller, less elaborate wedding, but everything – from the guests to the venue – would be chosen by you and you would remove any sense of obligation towards your parents.

2. “We’ve just got engaged and are planning our wedding next year. We’d like it to be a really special day and know we can be much more ambitious in our plans if our parents help out, but so far they haven’t offered. How do we raise the money question?”

Traditionally, the bride’s family bears the cost of the wedding, but this is by no means expected today. Often the groom’s parents will pay for a certain element of the day - eg the dress, the wine. Alternatively, they may just write a cheque towards the total cost of the wedding.

If you want to raise the awkward question of cost with parents, it is best to be direct, but also to show you have an alternative that does not require subsidy. So, sit down with your parents and say you’ve been thinking about the wedding, and present two options with a breakdown of costs: option 1 (lots of guests, big marquee, evening reception) will cost £xx, which is beyond your budget.  Option 2 (limited guest list, afternoon reception only) will cost £xx which, as a couple, you can just about afford. What do they think? This way, they can jump in and offer to help subsidise option 1. If they can’t afford to help, they have a non-embarrassing exit-strategy – they could even suggest a compromise, with their help, between the two options, or could choose to take care of one aspect of the day, eg wine.

3. “Numbers are very tight for our long-planned wedding this July and – like lots of couples – we’ve been poring over our guest lists and RSVPs, juggling numbers and being forced to make sacrifices. So, I was completely thrown when one of my best friends, who has been single for ages, dropped me a note asking if I’d mind if she brought her new boyfriend. What should I do?”

You really have no obligation to accommodate friends’ new partners at your wedding. These events are planned months in advance, and numbers are set in stone well before the date. If a new boyfriend can’t be squeezed in (perhaps because of a cancellation) you should feel no guilt about saying no. Just be perfectly honest; say you’d have loved to invite the new boyfriend, but unfortunately planning took place months ago, numbers are fixed, and there really isn’t any way he can be included. You could soften the blow by suggesting that you and your fiancé meet up with your friend and new partner for dinner before the wedding for a ‘private celebration’.

4. “I love my mum, but clothes are really not a big priority for her, and she tends to make rather bizarre choices when she’s required to dress up! How do I tactfully avoid a potential fashion embarrassment?”

Of course, you’ll want everyone to look their best on the big day. For close family members, such as your mother, it’s a really good idea to pre-empt the problem by suggesting a pre-wedding shopping trip. You could combine it with buying something for yourself (eg wedding shoes), so she won’t feel over-managed, and you could build the trip around a special mother-daughter lunch so she’ll feel more attracted by the prospect of clothes shopping. If you’re too late, and you find her modelling a hideous outfit, the most tactful way out is to suggest that your mother-in-law is thinking of wearing a similar colour and it might be wise to find something that will really stand out. Alternatively, you could use flattery – and say, what a shame, you’ve spotted an outfit/colour that would look absolutely stunning with her eye/hair colour/figure etc.

5. “One of my closest friends is a talented dressmaker, who makes all her own clothes, and I know she’s going to offer to make the wedding and bridesmaids’ dresses. But I’ve got my heart set on a specific dress designer, and I don’t know how to turn down her offer politely. Can you help?”

If friends are offering to bake the cake/make the dress/do the flower arrangements and you don’t want to use them, the best way out is to say very firmly, at the outset, that arrangements are already under way. If necessary, you can soften the blow by hinting that the decision is out of your hands, and that your mother/mother-in-law/fiancé have insisted on taking control of all these aspects of the wedding. The important thing is to nip these suggestions in the bud at the outset. Don’t prevaricate and say “yes, I suppose that would be helpful, I’ll have to check…”  Any ambiguity may lead to confusion and embarrassment. 

6) “We’re having a 4pm wedding and thinking food will be around 6pm, then hoping for evening guests to arrive at 8pm and food again at 9pm? Do you think this is ok? I don’t think the daytime guests will eat again but presumably evening guests will expect food?”

Pacing the day and managing guest expectations is a very important part of wedding planning. It is vital to ensure that guests are not left for long intervals, drinking and not eating, or the proceedings may get out of hand. The best option is to have a sit-down meal for day guests, and then provide a simple buffet for evening guests. That way you can stick to your timings and ask evening guests for 8pm. If the sit-down meal is no later than 6pm, you will be confident that formal proceedings will be over by the time the evening guests arrive. Daytime guests probably won’t want to eat again in the evening, but you should certainly provide enough food to ensure that late night ‘snacking’ is still a possibility, and a buffet is an ideal solution. Make sure that tea and coffee is available throughout the evening, as you may find some of your day guests are beginning to wilt.

We live in a noisy world: jets fly overhead; juggernauts accelerate outside our window; engine noise is a constant background hum; sirens wail. Even when we retreat into interior public spaces, anxious to escape the cacophony of street noise, we must deal with “background” music played at top volume, broadcast announcements, loud conversations.

It’s true that, outside our own homes, we have little control over most of these causes of noise pollution, but we can take responsibility for our own noise levels; that means modulating the volume of the voice and being very circumspect about the volume and noise leakage of our various devices. Of course, you do not have to slip silently through the shadows, never emitting any sound louder than a barely audible whisper. As with all good manners, adjusting your own volume is about being self-aware and observant, judging the situation in which you find yourself, and ensuring that your noise output is not going to cause inconvenience or distress for the people around you.

• In Restaurants and Bars

Many venues play music at an unfeasibly loud level of amplification, which is compounded by hard echoing surfaces such as wooden floors. Inevitably, voices are raised to counteract background noise and you are soon shouting to make yourself heard. In many places this is inevitable, and you have to accept the hubbub with good grace. But if you are in a tranquil restaurant or a pub where locals are enjoying quiet conversation at the bar, you should be very aware of the volume of your voice.

We all tend to shout as we become more animated and excited, or to emit loud, shrill laughter. Look around you, assess the situation and try to dial down the noise level – lower your voice and test whether your companions can hear you. If they’re constantly cupping their ears, asking you to repeat yourself, or looking confused and disengaged, then you’ve overdone it, and you will have to adjust accordingly. If one member of your party is very loud, it’s quite acceptable to politely point this out. Don’t assign blame, just say, “I think we should keep our voices down – it’s very quiet in here and we’re probably disturbing other people.”

• On Public Transport

Most people on buses and trains tend to close themselves off in their own world, lost in their phones, laptops or books and quite possibly also wearing headphones or earbuds. If you are travelling with somebody, then you may well want to talk but remember to keep your voice down and don’t distract an entire train carriage with your conversation. The same rules apply if you are having a conversation on your phone; lower your voice and, if reception is poor on the bus or train, don’t respond by shouting ever louder, just explain where you are and suggest that you’ll talk later.

Remember, commuter journeys are much more likely to be hushed and silent, especially on trains. People are preparing for, or recovering from, a day’s work and want to retreat into silent contemplation, and this should be respected. You may find journeys in the middle of the day, when trains and buses are packed with families, kids and gangs of friends, are much noisier and you will simply have to accept that this is the case and arm yourself with headphones. At any time of day, it goes without saying that you should respect “quiet zones”, mute your devices and take a vow of silence.

Finally, if you’re one of the self-contained passengers who is communing with their device, always use effective headphones that will block any sound from escaping. It is the height of anti-social behaviour to listen to music or watch a video without headphones, or to hold a phone away from your ear when conversing, inflicting both sides of your conversation on neighbours. This may seem self-evident, but it is happening with increasing frequency.

• Other Public Spaces

There are certain public spaces where, by mutual consent, noise should be kept to a minimum. If you are visiting art galleries or museums, it is perfectly acceptable to chat with your companion, but the expectation is that you will do so in a low, discreet murmur, so that you do not distract other visitors. Chatting on mobile phones should also be avoided.

It is fine to chat quietly while you are waiting for a film, performance or play to begin, but there is a strong presumption that you will be silent during the performance or screening and, if for some reason, you feel that you have to say something to your companion, you will do so in a barely audible whisper. We’ve all been to cinemas, for example, where some members of the audience behave as if they were in their own sitting room, chatting audibly throughout the film. This is the height of bad manners, as it takes no account of the situation or the comfort of other audience members.

• At Work

Open plan offices are increasingly common, and while they can be great spaces in which to communicate and work as a team, they can also be very noisy and distracting. It is sensible when planning an open plan layout to take noise into consideration: locate the kitchen, which is always a focal point for conviviality, away from the main space; provide meeting rooms or ‘break-out’ rooms for occasions when conversation is imperative; create a layout where people are encouraged to get up and move around – don’t block in desks so that people feel obliged to shout across the room.

Don’t be the office loudmouth. Restrict yourself to quiet conversations with your immediate neighbours and take yourself into the kitchen (or any other designated area) if you’re having an animated chat. Never shout across the room to get a colleague’s attention: it’s always better to walk over to their desk or even send them a quick text. If you’ve got a video call booked, use your headphones and warn your neighbours, and try to keep the volume of your voice down. You really shouldn’t need to shout if you’re using sophisticated modern phones and computers.

You might feel that music while you work is an excellent way of enhancing energy or signalling that the weekend is approaching, but you should never inflict it on your colleagues. There will always be someone desperately trying to concentrate, or who has entirely different musical tastes and is being slowly driven mad by your playlist. Remember, if in doubt, always use headphones.

Our means of communication are multiplying, offering us a growing range of choices – texting, emails, messaging apps, video calls, chatbots – but increasingly we’re steering clear of the humble phone.

In a work context many of us argue that communicating by digital means offers us a range of advantages: it enables us to multitask, to work when and where we please, to pause for thought and consideration, without having to come up with an instantaneous response. Above all, communicating in these ways gives us a feeling of control: we are setting the agenda, choosing when to respond and giving ourselves a sense of psychological distance, which may help to relieve the stress we feel when we are bombarded by information and requests all day long.

In a social context, phone calls are also in decline. Many people find their phones intrusive, preferring to switch them to silent, and to communicate by text or message. It is increasingly common to use text messages to arrange phone calls at a set time, thereby asserting control over the phone, rather than letting its insistent ringing rule our lives. We are beginning to feel hesitant about spontaneously picking up the phone and making a call – we project our own desire to control input on to others and choose more circuitous routes of communication.

Many of us also find ourselves reluctant to use the phone when we are administering our own lives. If we have a query about our bills, our broadband contract, our bank account, or if we have a customer complaint, we tend to hide behind the anonymity of the online complaint form or the chatbot, opting to avoid direct connection with another human being. This tendency is greatly magnified by many companies’ phone systems, which seem to be designed to deter all contact by putting up barriers such as multiple menus, automated answering, and protracted waiting times (with or without musical accompaniment). The more we avoid using the phone, the less appealing phone calls become; we find ourselves turning phone phobic, always attempting to find other routes to access information and help.

Yet, despite the benefits and effectiveness of digital forms of communication, using the phone can be the most practical way of getting things done. It is a well-tested and universally available tool, which does not require computer equipment, programs, or a reliable WiFi connection. A phone call will circumvent unnecessary bureaucracy and obfuscation – anyone who has had to wade through an epic email thread will know how very easily the nub of the matter can be buried or obscured. Providing you get through to the right person, a phone call is also gratifyingly direct; questions can be asked and answered, clarification can be sought, a course of action can be agreed – all in the space of a few minutes and without an intervening and protracted layer of written circumlocution.

Above all, a phone call is person-to-person. It gives you a chance to experience a moment of human connection, to exchange pleasantries, or comment on the weather. You will be able to respond to the tones and nuances of the human voice, convey subtle feelings of friendliness, gratitude, frustration or irritation that would be completely lost in a text exchange. Phone calls are an excellent way of communicating humorously, deploying irony and self-deprecation, which is much more open to misinterpretation in writing. This will allow you to build up a constructive rapport, which will inevitably expedite the business in hand.

Phone calls are also an ideal way to make discreet enquiries or circumvent official channels, bearing in mind that we do not always want all our communications to be recorded for posterity, or forwarded to other people. They allow us to be diplomatic and strategic.

We are lucky enough to be able to choose from many different types of communication; it would be a great pity if the phone is overlooked. If you feel you’re suffering from incipient phone phobia, try the following:

• Take calls more frequently – don’t let every incoming call go straight through to voicemail; if you recognise the number pick up the call. This will prevent you becoming rusty and may help you to avoid phone shyness.

• Make everyday phone calls – if you want to order a takeaway, book an appointment or find out if your dry cleaning is ready, consider using the phone rather than going online. You may find it much more efficient and pleasant.

• Don’t overthink making a phone call. If you’re worried that you’re bothering someone by making a call, preface your conversation with a polite query “is this a good time to talk, or would you prefer me to call you back?”

• Don’t forget the pleasantries. Phone calls are undoubtedly a good way of cutting through obfuscation and misinformation, but they will always be more successful if you establish human contact first. This can be as simple as asking “how are you?” – it’s only polite.

• Smile. It helps if you smile in a friendly manner when you speak on the phone. You can’t be seen, but the tone of your voice changes when you smile, and the caller will “hear” the smile. Even if you are making a difficult phone call, perhaps about a complaint, remember that a smile will aways be disarming.

Our home-grown ‘Mother’s Day’ originated in the 17th century as a religious feast, called Mothering Sunday. It was a feast day held to celebrate the Virgin Mary and the idea was that people would return to their ‘mother church’, to make it a family celebration. It took place on the fourth Sunday of Lent and allowed for some easing of the Lenten fast – it was sometimes called ‘Simnel Sunday’ because it was traditional to bake simnel cake, a delicious concoction of dried fruits, spices and marzipan, which is also eaten at Easter. Inevitably, it became a family reunion, with mothers taking pride of place.

Like so many high days and holidays, Mother’s Day has become highly commercialised in recent years. Few of us can have failed to notice the banks of bouquets in supermarket entrances or the serried ranks of mass-produced cards. Like Christmas or Valentine’s Day, we are being sold a simple message about our obligations and encouraged to behave in socially homogenous way. But every mother is unique and there are myriad ways of celebrating this day that can be a more nuanced reflection of how you feel about this relationship.

Remember the main function of Mother’s Day is to acknowledge your mother’s role in your life and find a way of showing your appreciation. In these straitened times you do not need to squander large sums of money on expensive gifts – the emphasis should be on thought, planning, and taking trouble, rather than on extravagant ostentation.

Here are some suggestions:

• Most mothers will be delighted with a spring bouquet. Daffodils or narcissi are an inexpensive option – hand-wrap and tie them to make them look special. Lilies are a historical symbol of motherhood, or you can capitalise on the plenitude of beautiful tulips that are available at this time of year. Roses are a perennial favourite; opt for pink, yellow or white. Whatever your choice, buy flowers that are well-wrapped, preferably by a florist, and do not signal last-minute panic at the supermarket checkout or garage forecourt.

• If your mother loves to garden, why not buy her a special plant – a traditional English rose is always a good choice, and you might even be able to find one with a name that has some special meaning in your family lore.

• Create your own spring planter for your mother’s patio or window box. If you have children, they will enjoy helping. At this time of year inexpensive violas, hyacinths, primulas can be found in abundance, and once the display is past its best, they can all be planted out in the garden.

• For mothers who enjoy a drink, a bottle of champagne is always a good option. Alternatively, you could opt a special English sparkling wine.

• Give your mother an experience as a gift, and if possible, accompany her so it becomes a special excursion. The possibilities are legion: a wine-tasting and lunch in an English vineyard; an exclusive tour of a stately home or garden; a cooking class; an evening at the theatre or opera; a luxurious day at a hotel spa. Alternatively, you can suggest a simple outing that you know she will enjoy – a long country walk and pub lunch, a day at the seaside with fish and chips, a trip to an art gallery or exhibition.

• Take your mother out for a celebratory meal. You might want to eschew the crowded restaurants, with their ‘Special Menus’ on Mother’s Day – if you’re unlucky, it can feel too much like a celebration production line. But a date in the weeks ahead will be something she can look forward to.

• Encourage young children to contribute something special: they can hand-draw cards, create their own bouquets, or help to bake a cake. By giving them a role, you will be reinforcing the message that mothers play a fundamental role in family life, and showing your gratitude to them is of paramount importance.

• Make sure she enjoys a lazy indulgent day. Think about bringing her breakfast in bed or enlisting the help of the whole family to cook a delicious Sunday lunch (and wash up afterwards). Young children will enjoy helping.

While it is useful to have a ‘special day’ to remind you of everything you owe your mother, don’t make the mistake of guiltily piling on the treats, gifts and celebrations and then ignoring her for most of the year. Most mothers would be much more appreciative of regular contact and acknowledgment than an annual cornucopia.

If you are fortunate enough to have a close and bonded family, devoted children, a doting mother, then no doubt you will be looking forward to Mother’s Day and you are right to celebrate this good fortune. But spare a thought for the large numbers of people who dread the day and find it intensely depressing – they may be divorced, estranged or bereaved. Think about friends that are in this situation, take the trouble to ask them how they are going to spend the day, and enquire if you can help or participate in any way.

Think carefully before you post about your delightful Mother’s Day celebrations and try your best to avoid gloating and self-satisfaction. Remember, universal celebrations are delightful if you are happy and prospering, but they can also be painful and alienating reminders of everything you have lost.

The phrase 'virtue signalling' is ubiquitously deployed to describe people who express opinions (predominantly on social media) that demonstrate their moral rectitude and garner approval. Whether they are expressing compassion for disaster victims, denouncing a racist comment, or demonstrating their support for a good cause, they are clearly asserting their high moral standing. There is really nothing new about this phenomenon – unfortunately, there have always been people who promote their virtues rather than acting upon them – but social media provides a perfect platform for this kind of behaviour.

Virtue signalling is not just about individuals’ behaviour. This is clearly demonstrated in the world of corporate promotion, when large companies trumpet their compassionate employment policies, their ethical sourcing practices, or their prioritisation of environmental concerns (greenwashing) simply as a way of honing their image and making themselves more acceptable to a concerned public.

Virtue signalling is used as a term of disapproval because it is seen as a performative gesture, designed to make the perpetrator feel better about themselves while making minimal effort. Volunteering at a food bank or helping with your elderly neighbour’s weekly shop involves expending energy and demonstrating commitment in the real world. Supporting a political cause or movement on our online profile is the work of a moment. Without real-life engagement, it begins to look self-serving, a lazy short-cut to the moral high ground. An obvious motivation for virtue signalling is to seek an endorsement from our wider social circle for our demonstrable sense of responsibility and compassion. These self-centred agendas imply that perpetrators may not actually believe in what they are professing and are acting out of bad faith, opening them up to the charge of hypocrisy.

Doing the right thing when nobody is watching or applauding your actions, is a virtue, because you are acting for others’ benefit, not for your own gratification. The tendency to burnish your social reputation by broadcasting your moral attributes is a form of boastfulness, and not ‘practising what you preach’ makes it an empty gesture.

Is virtue signalling always bad? It could be argued that at least virtue signallers are highlighting causes and concerns and bringing them to wider attention. They are contributing to public discourse, reminding us of current issues and – even if their own motivation may be dubious – they may play their own part in bringing about positive change. They may, of course, feel genuinely passionate about the causes they espouse and accusations of hypocrisy are therefore ill-founded

While many of us may be outraged by other people’s tendency to jump on various bandwagons, then have the temerity to sanctimoniously lecture us about their moral superiority, we should be careful about over-using the term virtue signalling. It is all too often wielded as a lazy term of abuse by people who hold opposing political views, who are ever ready to condemn anyone who posits an argument that puts them in a good light, even if they are making that argument from a passionately held and committed viewpoint that has very little to do with advertising their moral credentials. Dismissing other people’s arguments as ‘virtue signalling’ or ‘self-serving’ is an excellent way of casting doubts and aspersions without troubling to engage with their point of view or properly rebut it.