December is a time for socialising and whiling away the long, dark winter nights with companionship and conversation. Because it’s party season, it’s also a time of the year when your small talk skills come to the fore. You’ll probably meet new people, or barely remembered acquaintances over the next few weeks and you’ll get so much more out of the experience if you are able to connect with them and find common ground over a glass of wine and a canapé; a successful small talk exchange may well be a springboard to a deeper relationship, whether it is business or social.
Some people dismiss small talk as banal and mundane. It is true that you will never plumb deep philosophical depths while exchanging small talk, but it is also important to recognise this kind of conversation as an important bridge between introductions and deeper acquaintanceship. Even the most trivial small talk will tell you a lot about the people you meet: you might find that you establish common ground easily, that you are charmed, intrigued or amused by your interlocutor; alternatively, you might find the whole exchange awkward and prickly and feel sure that you don’t want to take the relationship any further.
Small talk is best when it flows smoothly. This means that everyone involved should both talk and listen; they should also resist the temptation to fire off a series of questions at their target, which will make the whole exchange feel more like an interrogation that a conversation.
Mutual observations are a good place to start and for centuries the British have fallen back on the topic of the weather. It might seem like a clichéd subject for consideration, but most people will enjoy an animated conversation about cold snaps, heatwaves, torrential downpours and howling winds. While British weather, compared to many parts of the world, is moderate and temperate, it is also changeable and unpredictable, which provides fruitful topics for discussion. Talking about the weather is an excellent icebreaker.
Making comments on the party venue, the décor, the catering, the music, the location is another way of relating to the people you’ve just met. If your conversational partner is responsive, this kind of chat can create a bond over the shared experience of being at the party.
Without turning into an interrogator, it is quite permissible to ask a couple of non-controversial questions, of the “how do you know the host?” or “did you come far?” category. Tracing networks of connection and friendship often leads into more interesting revelations – eg about work status, or family, which can help to spark off a deeper conversation. Inquiring about journeys and routes can also lead to more fruitful information – you might find, for example, that your conversational partner lives near you, or lives somewhere that you know well, and the conversation will naturally flow.
All of these topics are gentle and non-intrusive. Through subtle and tentative probing, you will seek out shared interests and find a place where conversation thrives.
While it is true that questions like “What do you do?”, “Do you have children?”, “Are you married?” are effective ways of extracting personal information from fellow partygoers, they are generally considered too blunt and intrusive in British society. Finding this information out through gentle probing and circumlocutory approaches is seen as a more sophisticated and subtle option. Conversation can become a gentle dance, where indirect inquiries are acknowledged by answers that communicate more than has been asked, leading to a gradual process of discovery.
If you do find it easier to fall back on asking questions, make sure they are open-ended (which stimulates conversation) rather than closed (which shuts it down). A closed question, such as “Have you lived here long?” demands a brief and factual reply, which might end up being a conversational cul-de-sac. Open questions encourage a more reflective and subjective answer: “What do you think of the new arts centre?”.
If you’re driven to asking blunt questions, remember they will sound better if you give away a little information yourself at the same time: “Are you a lawyer like everybody else here? I’m a teacher so I stand out like a sore thumb!”; “We need to leave quite soon, or our babysitter will be in a bad mood. Do you have children?”
You might find that, whatever technique you deploy, you are met with monosyllabic replies. Some people are resistant to small talk and refuse to answer simple questions. This can be seen as rude and obstructive, but they may simply be chronically shy or socially awkward. If you are confronted by a conversational non-starter, the only solution, apart from rapidly exiting from the encounter, is to take over the reins of communication – you can tell anecdotes, or even monologue (though preferably about a subject of general interest) if you’re desperate. If you’ve done your best to engage, nobody can blame you for taking over and becoming dominant.
Small talk is all about finding common ground and it is also about context. That means you will need to read the room and assess whether the guests are distinguished by an identifiable interest or passion (eg sports, politics, religion). If you are at an event organised by a local political party, for example, then you can be confident that you are mixing with members of your political ‘tribe’, which means that politics is a suitable topic for conversation. At most social events, however, which are attended by a range of people of all types of belief and political persuasion, it is safest to avoid potentially contentious or challenging topics like politics and religion until you are confident that you know people well enough to enjoy a robust exchange of views.
Keep your small talk positive. You might think it’s bonding to bitch with new acquaintances about the party venue or the food choices, but in reality, you’ll come across as graceless and hyper-critical. If you immediately start exchanging gossip (about the host, fellow guests or mutual acquaintances for example), your companions might be avid for your revelations, but at the same time they will be extremely wary of your lack of discretion. It is much safer, on first meeting, to play it safe and concentrate on being upbeat and enthusiastic.
Christmas is fast approaching, and you may well be sticking your head in the sand by refusing to sort out Christmas arrangements, make plans, agree spending limits or extend invitations. While it’s tempting to just assume you’ll be able to improvise and make it up as you go along, Christmas is a challenging time socially with many contending demands on your time. You will need to prioritise children and elderly relations, ensure that nobody feels left out, make time for friends and parties, not to mention organising presents and food. If you don’t make plans and confront Christmas quandaries now, you might find that the whole festive season turns sour.
So now is the time to bite the bullet and think about the following:
While some of us are lucky enough to have uncontroversial families and straightforward plans for the big day, many of us are having to juggle complex priorities. You might be divorced and therefore forced to negotiate access to children, have elderly parents or be dealing with illness or bereavement.
All these factors can make Christmas fraught but you will relieve your own stress, as well as the anxieties of all the people that are potentially involved, if you confront the situation now. Talk to friends and relations, explain dilemmas or express willingness to accommodate and be flexible. Sometimes Christmas arrangements involve considerable tact and diplomacy; carefully listening to other people and encouraging them to tell you what they really want is always a good start.
If you feel that you might be letting someone down or disappointing them by not extending a Christmas invitation, don’t procrastinate any further. Make a phone call or write a carefully worded email that explains your position or your difficulties. Forewarned is forearmed, and any potential guests that might find themselves disappointed will at least have time to think about alternative plans.
By locking down your arrangements for the big day, you can begin to think about other important issues.
Many of us find the gift-giving aspect of Christmas especially perilous and tie ourselves up into knots of indecision or throw too much money at the problem in a state of last-minute panic.
Now is the time to have honest discussions with friends and relations about the whole gift-giving dilemma. You might find that older relations are happy to arrange a gift-giving amnesty and concentrate their firepower on younger family members. Or you might be able to negotiate a mutually agreed price ceiling for family gifts or even opt for a Secret Santa arrangement.
If you’re really beginning to feel agitated and uninspired, you can always solicit ideas from your family and honestly explain that you’re out of ideas and in need of assistance. But if you do decide to go down this route don’t turn the tables on the poor recipient and torment them with requests for ideas for presents. If you ask and receive an immediate and decisive response, that is helpful; if you don’t, no amount of nagging and pleading is going to solve your problem and it will just make everybody feel grumpy.
Don’t leave present shopping until the last minute, which is when disastrous decisions are made. The magic of giving is inevitably somewhat tarnished by the experience of panic buying on Christmas Eve, so make it a bit easier for yourself by starting the whole process well before Christmas.
Remember, it’s always a good idea to equip yourself with contingency presents, just in case you’re nonplussed by an unexpected gift. A supply of soaps, chocolates, liqueurs etc, will be useful in case of emergencies.
Christmas is party season, and you may well find that there are many demands on your time as you approach the holiday. If you want to host your own party or social gathering, you really need to consolidate arrangements as soon as possible, or you will find yourself disappointed by the numbers of people who are already committed elsewhere.
Make sure you don’t over-commit yourself in the run-up to the big day. A week of protracted pre-Christmas partying can sap you of much-needed energy and enthusiasm, especially if you’re hosting. Sit down well before Christmas and make a note of really important dates (eg the children’s nativity play, the school carol concert, the office party, drinks with the neighbours) and structure socialising around these important milestones.
Once you’ve worked out the shape of your Christmas celebrations, you’ll have a good idea about the numbers of meals, and guests, that you are going to have to organise. It is sensible to think about what you are going to serve at each meal, and how much drink you will need to purchase. For hosts, Christmas can be a stressful time with lots of different events to manage, so it is best to go down the tried and tested route when it comes to home cooking. It’s not the ideal time to experiment with challenging new recipes, and it’s a good idea to prioritise meals that are comparatively simple, or can be substantially prepared in advance, so that you are released from the kitchen and can really engage with your family and guests.
Nobody is going to enjoy spending Christmas with you if you become a hosting martyr, who makes a big production number out of food preparation, refuses offers of help and resorts to passive-aggressive plate-clattering and theatrical sighs.
The whole season will go much better if you’re relaxed and flexible. Being organised and making plans is not about imposing structure and treating the whole event like a military exercise, rather than the hospitality highlight of the year. Planning for every contingency is important because it will give you a secure foundation, allowing you to accommodate sudden changes of plans (cancellation, unexpected guests, illness) with ease and good humour, which is the key to a successful Christmas.
The march of self-service checkouts in our stores continues apace, with the exception of Booths, a northern supermarket chain which announced last week that it was removing the machines from all but two of its stores.
Elsewhere, shoppers are promised greater speed and efficiency, and supermarket bosses reassure us that former checkout staff will be deployed throughout the store, patrolling the aisles and available to offer a helping hand to harassed customers. But it is now a perfectly normal experience to go to a supermarket and not to have any contact with the staff; self-checkouts have eradicated the all-important social interaction provided by friendly cashiers.
We’re told that for some lonely people, a brief exchange about the weather, weekend plans, exotic foodstuffs, rising prices and so on is the only social contact that they enjoy all week. Even for those of us who are lucky enough to have busy, sociable lives, a brief conversational exchange with a stranger will provide a boost to our spirits. It is positive, reassuring and, above all, it is polite. It might persuade you to crack a smile, to pause for a moment as you frantically bag up your goods; it will make you feel like an agreeable human being, rather than a frazzled automaton.
We all bemoan the drawbacks of self-checkouts: the “unexpected object in the bagging area”, the scales that don’t work, the codes that won’t scan, the alcohol and paracetamol that must be verified by a sales assistant. Frequently, we end up calling for assistance more than once during the whole experience. Older people, in particular, are confused and flustered by the technology; many of them find it a daunting challenge and bemoan the lack of helpful checkout staff.
But when we do finally summon a real human being, the interaction is inevitably utilitarian. We are annoyed because our check-out process has been stalled, and if we’re stressed or under time pressure, we might be rude and peremptory. The assistant has been called over to perform a specific function, not to engage in an enjoyable chat, and the encounter has zero social value.
It must be trying for the shop assistants too, who find their encounters with customers being reduced to snappy, irritable exchanges over an obstinately malfunctioning scanner. It is surely a much more attractive prospect to sit at a till, helpfully performing a function for shoppers, looking them in the eye, exchanging greetings and pleasantries.
Supermarkets all over Britain are reporting an alarming rise in shoplifting. While austerity is an obvious explanation, some storeowners are beginning to recognise that the de-humanising experience of the self-checkout, the glitches, the confusion, the lack of supervision, all make shoplifting considerably easier. Aggrieved and frustrated shoppers who can’t make a scanner work are increasingly likely to sidestep the whole scanning exercise and feelings of guilt will be considerably assuaged by the fact that they have not had a single interaction with a human being since entering the store.
Earlier this year rail companies proposed to remove manned ticket offices from most stations, unleashed a public outcry and were forced to reverse the policy. Many older passengers argued that they would find an entirely automated ticket transaction extremely challenging, while passengers with additional needs or those who were contemplating complex journeys contested the decision because they felt that helpful and sympathetic station staff were uniquely able to navigate and interpret the complexities of the system and find a pragmatic solution.
As with supermarkets, the proposal also carried a hidden cost, in that it deprived rail-users of an agreeable social encounter. Regular travellers, nervous passengers, older rail users who find travelling stressful, all confirmed that a friendly human interaction with a ticket-office clerk was an effective way of assuaging their anxiety and made the whole journey much more civilised and palatable. When it comes to reassuring interactions, listening skills and empathy, human beings trump machines every time.
In the past, running errands – such as going to the shops, the library, the bank, or purchasing a ticket from the local railway station – might have been slow, and was possibly inefficient, but above all it was a sociable experience. Greetings were exchanged with serving staff, small talk sometimes ensued, and a feeling of belonging to a human community was reinforced. We are beginning to lose access to these mundane social contacts and that loss comes at a price, reinforcing feelings of isolation and loneliness.
It’s party season and now is the time to brush up your social skills. The ability to make smooth and courteous introductions will help ensure that parties go with a swing. If you are a host, introducing your guests to each other is a good way of launching them into the social maelstrom. If you are already in a conversational group and are joined by a friend or acquaintance, introducing them to everyone else will ensure that they feel fully embraced and are not left to loiter, unacknowledged, on the periphery. Finally, if you’re working the room and boldly approaching strangers, then you will certainly need to introduce yourself, which is a perfect icebreaker.
In days gone by, when people moved in smaller social circles, it was considered almost rude to make introductions (although at formal occasions names would be announced), as it could imply a person was an outsider if they did not already know the other guests. This is no longer the case, and it is now more polite to over-introduce than to assume people know one another.
As the person making the introduction you should make sure you have the attention of both parties, but avoid steering them physically, for example with a hand on the shoulder. Wait for an appropriate moment and do not interrupt the conversation or force the person you wish to introduce on to the person you would like them to meet.
It was traditional to signal precedence and respect by the name that was said first (the person addressed in the introduction) and courtesy gave honour to those who were female, older or more distinguished.
Thus, men should be introduced to women: “Charlotte, may I introduce John Cavendish? John, this is Charlotte Berkeley”. In the same way, younger people are introduced to their elders or junior employees to more senior people, such as directors (“Mr Goodman, may I introduce our new research team member, Tommy Dorsey?”). Husbands and wives should be introduced separately by name (“Richard and Kate Mortimer”), not as “the Mortimers”.
If you suspect that people are likely to have met before, you may want to say: “Charlotte, I am sure you know John Cavendish?”.
You may wish then to add a short explanation or provide some information: “John is a wine expert”, or “Charles has just moved back to London from Dubai”. You might even be able to find a little nugget of common ground – “I know you are both tennis fans” – which might act as a launchpad for a conversation.
Traditionally, it was considered helpful to give both first name and last name, as it provides more information, which is the object of the exercise. In more informal situations, you might decide to dispense with surnames, and it is quite acceptable to do so.
Bear in mind that introductions should help people to decide what mode of address to use. If you know someone very well, and use a nickname, it is more helpful to introduce your friend by the name the other person may be expected to use.
If you’re in a group and are approached by an individual you know, you should introduce them to the group first, and then the group to the individual. For example: “Clare, this is James, Daniel and Anna. Everyone, this is Clare. You can gesture, or nod, towards the relevant person to add clarity. Unless the occasion is formal there’s no need to mention surnames, and with long lists of names it can become too cumbersome (and forgettable).
In a more formal context, you may also use titles such as “Lord” or “Professor” or you might be making introductions to an older person, who is not accustomed to the less formal manners we all use today and prefers you to use “Mr” or “Mrs”. You will have to utilise your social antennae when these occasions rise, but it is probably best to err on the side of formality – they can always, after a formal introduction, say “Please call me Jane/James”.
The person you are introducing should not have to guess that the other is, for example, a doctor or a lord, or even someone who would rather be called “Mr” or “Mrs”. It is considerate for the person making the introduction to provide information that may avert future embarrassment.
Introducing yourself when you do not know anyone is perfectly acceptable and is often the most practical solution in a purely social setting, especially when other people are remiss about making introductions. If you do need to introduce yourself step forward with a smile and say: “May I introduce myself? I am Emily Duckworth.” The person addressed should respond by stating their name “Oliver Liddell” Or “Hello” followed by the name. Speaking clearly is polite, as it is maddening for people to have to ask you to repeat yourself.
According to formal tradition, introductions are usually followed by a handshake and the words: “How do you do?” to which the response is: “How do you do?” Never assume that “How do you do?” means “How are you?”. It is merely a greeting, not a question.
In more informal settings, and amongst younger people, it is more usual to say “Hello” or “Hi”. Handshakes may be dispensed with altogether, or a kiss (or double kiss) may be proffered. If this is the case, don’t look taken aback. Usually, your right cheek is offered first and you should briefly touch cheeks. You will need to read the body language of the person who is greeting you to establish if you are being offered a double kiss. Greeting customs are very fluid, so remain poised to comply.
If you find yourself in a social pickle, tied up in knots about precedence and seniority, don’t bow out of the introduction ritual altogether. It is better to make an introduction than not, even if you’ve transgressed one of the traditional rules of social etiquette. At least you’ll be attaching names to faces and most people will appreciate that and rise graciously above a mangled introduction.
Christmas adverts have become a cultural phenomenon. Launched in November, they herald the beginning of the festive season and are watched intently for the messages they send, ranging from an assertion of the ‘traditional’ seasonal values to much more iconoclastic offerings, which boldly affirm that Christmas is a time to throw out the rule book and make new traditions, as long as they reflect family values, empathy and kindness.
It seems that, every year, we are increasingly tying ourselves in knots over a single day in the calendar. Advertisers are predicted to spend a record £9.5 billion this year and we are bombarded in the weeks running up to the big day with propaganda about the perfect Christmas.
Perhaps now, before the madness has been fully unleashed, is the time to ponder the ingredients that make Christmas work for you and your family. There is certainly no one template for an ideal Christmas, and every family has evolved their own set of customs and traditions. They may have their own day when they deem it is correct to put up the Christmas tree (or eschew it altogether), and many families will disinter an eclectic range of decorations which are rooted their own history (old fashioned baubles handed down by their parents, kids’ school projects etc).
The big day itself is a gigantic free-for-all. Everybody has their own opinion about when is the right time to open presents, whether the day should include a walk, what time the big meal should be served, what food should be eaten. There is no right or wrong way of conducting the Christmas festivities and, in general, what has worked in the past is enshrined into the ritual and becomes an immoveable aspect of the big day.
These traditions are precious and should be robustly defended; do what works best for you and your family and never let the cacophony of Christmas chatter make you feel that your own celebrations are in some way inadequate.
Bear in mind, however, that every family Christmas is unique and if you are having guests over the festive period, they may well find some of your choices eccentric or puzzling. This is no reason to abandon tried and tested traditions, but it is always a good idea to concede that other people might do things differently. Explain to your guests why you have evolved certain customs (eg “we always open presents before breakfast – the children were too impatient to wait when they were really young and so it just became part of the day”). Guests are much more likely to feel comfortable in. your home if they understand why you do things a certain way, and may feel aggrieved if you just dig in and announce “this is how we celebrate Christmas”, which may well make them feel alienated.
If it’s your tradition to deviate radically from Christmas clichés (tree, presents, turkey etc), it’s a good idea to warn guests and thereby avoid any potential dismay or disappointment. Just mention your own peculiar traditions when you’re proffering the invitation (“we don’t give presents and we just spend the day playing cards, sipping champagne and eating smoked salmon”). It’s much better if people know exactly what to expect.
As we’re repeatedly told, Christmas is all about family, and our traditions reflect this. But it is also a time to open your doors and be hospitable, to welcome guests into your home and to ensure that nobody feels ignored or overlooked.
Mobile etiquette has come a long way and it's time to take a look at the new rules.
A century ago, lucky householders in possession of a phone gave it pride of place in the hall or study. Everyone leapt when they heard its imperious and insistent ringing. On picking up the phone, they clearly enunciated their own telephone number (to avoid mix-ups with the exchange) or crisply uttered their own name with military precision. Not answering the phone was seen as deeply eccentric and everybody learn to jump to its strident summons.
How much the world has changed. We carry phones around in our pockets, which are capable of feats of super-computing and double as sophisticated cameras, but we’ve become increasingly wary of what was once considered to be their primary function. Answering the phone is now entirely a matter of choice and much of the time is considered beyond the pale. Communication occurs through messaging, social media, emails, voice notes. In general, people seem to be much happier using less direct methods. But we are still faced with a social conundrum: if everyone carries the means of communication in their pocket, why are they so elusive and unreachable?
•It is increasingly the norm to text before you call and ask the recipient if they’re free to answer your call imminently or arrange a time to speak. This preamble might seem cumbersome to traditional phone addicts who love nothing more than spontaneously picking up the phone, but it is considered a much less stressful way of initiating contact, since it minimises intrusion and enables people to manage their own time.
•Don’t expect unannounced social calls to mobiles to be answered, unless you are calling someone from an older generation who still possesses vestiges of the old obedience to the phone’s clarion call. Many people make calls (inevitably unanswered) as a simple and convenient way of ensuring that there is a “missed call” notification on the recipient’s screen. This might elicit a response, but a text is a politer and more informative option. Business calls are a different matter and are likely to be answered with much more willingness and alacrity.
•Don’t repeatedly redial an unanswered phone, leaving a string of missed call notifications. This is liable to raise your recipient’s blood pressure and, unless there is a real emergency – in which case it would be sensible to send a text – it is an unjustified intrusion, likely to alienate the recipient.
•If you do make a call that is unanswered, send a brief, explanatory text. Many phone-users find voice mails and voice notes onerous (though of course this is a matter of taste). But, in general, the insistence these days is on pithy, economical communications and rambling voice messages, which are often only semi-audible and frequently incoherent, can cause a great deal of frustration.
•Always bear in mind that some people may find your call alarming. Because calls are becoming less common, people are more likely to react to them with panic or dread. If, for example, you see a call flashing up on your phone from your child’s school you instantly leap to the conclusion that there has been an accident. For this reason, callers (from schools, doctors, workplaces etc) have learnt that they may need to utter reassuring words before their greeting (“there’s nothing to worry about”). Alternatively, they can always text ahead.
•People may not be happy to receive your call. If you’re an old-fashioned phone-user who doesn’t think twice about calling out of the blue, accept that you might be met by a response that is flustered, irritated or exasperated. People who don’t like being called will make it perfectly clear to you, saying “I can’t talk right now” or “This is a really bad time to talk”. It’s best at this point to admit defeat and withdraw.
•Be tolerant of older people’s phone habits. As mentioned, they are more likely to make un-announced calls, and if they fail to reach you, they may well leave a voicemail, simply because they find texting (which involves reading glasses and deft fingers) hard work. Think for just a moment about how much technology has changed in their lifetimes and cut them some slack.
•Beware multitasking and concentrate on the call. On the occasions when you decide to talk on the phone (presumably at a time that has been arranged and agreed by text), concentrate on the call. We carry our phones everywhere and think nothing of making calls when we’re on crowded transport, walking down noisy streets, doing the washing up, cooking the children’s tea. Not only are these calls often annoyingly inaudible, it is also perfectly obvious that you are making them while doing something else. This can be very alienating for the recipient, who feels marginalised and deprioritised. If you’re going to talk to somebody, find a non-distracting environment and concentrate on the call.
•Keep phone calls to yourself. If you’re making a video call in a public space (or if you’re just too lazy to hold the phone up to your ear) you must use headphones or earbuds. Nobody should be forced to listen to your phone conversation; it will be annoyingly distracting and might be intrusive or embarrassing. The person at the other end might object if they realise their conversation is audible to a train carriage full of unwilling eavesdroppers.
•Accept that, despite the growing tendency to favour text contact over phone conversations, there are some instances where the human voice must take priority. It is fine to send an effusive thank-you note by text, but a message of condolence will be much more appreciated if you pick up the phone and allow your voice to transmit sympathy. In general, texts are an admirably economical way of communicating, but they are not good when it comes to nuance, so if you want to convey subtle emotions or deal with a tricky situation where there is a risk of misinterpretation, it is much better to cut through the protective veil of text messaging and allow your own voice to do the talking.
The proposal has been accepted and it’s time to put a ring on the bride-to-be’s finger. The engagement rings is laden with symbolism. It announces a forthcoming marriage to the world, is a substantial love token and above all it symbolises commitment. It is a conventional feature of becoming engaged, but it is not ‘compulsory’, and some brides choose to eschew them altogether.
There is a tradition that the ring, which represents a substantial investment, should cost the equivalent of 2-3 months of the groom’s salary, but there is no obligation whatsoever to adhere to this expectation. The cost of the ring should of course be commensurate with the groom’s budget and ability to pay; it would be an extremely ominous sign to enter a marriage with substantial debts because of an over-extravagant engagement ring. No bride-to-be should assess her engagement ring on the basis of its bling factor or feel that a more modest purchase in some way signals that she is being undervalued. Buying an engagement ring is just the first in an accelerating list of purchases and expenses that accompany a marriage, and inevitably grooms will need to make their books balance. If cash is tight, some couples opt for a modest engagement ring, with the understanding that they may upgrade it later or add a subsequent purchase of a classy eternity ring at a later date.
The romantic cliché, much reinforced by movies, is that the future groom approaches his proposal well-prepared, with a ring box secreted in his pocket. Some men will choose to go down this route, but they should only do so if they are confident that they understand their partner’s taste and, preferably, know her ring size. They can, of course, enlist help and advice with both these questions – perhaps by confiding in her best friend, mother or sister – and this would undoubtedly make them more secure and confident in their choice.
It is increasingly common for couples to choose the ring together and, while this route lacks the romantic element of surprise, it is a safe option. It is very important before making the selection that the budget is openly discussed – the ring should be the very best that the bridegroom can afford, and the bride must accept his own estimate of his upper payment limit without questioning it.
Some grooms are lucky enough to have an heirloom ring, perhaps from a grandmother, aunt or mother. If this is the case, they should not assume that this treasured ring will be the ideal option (the choice of a ring is a very individual matter) and should always offer to have the ring adapted or re-set. By offering an heirloom ring the groom is welcoming his partner into his own family, and the ring (even if it is much altered) symbolises family continuity.
Use trusted and recommended jewellers where possible. A large diamond is not necessarily more valuable than a smaller, well cut, flawless stone, and a discreet ring may be more suited to everyday wear.
The bride should try on and experiment with different styles and shapes of stones and settings. It is best to try them alongside a wedding band to get a true feel for how the ring will eventually settle on the finger.
Diamonds are the traditional choice, but other stones, such as sapphires and rubies, may also be chosen or used as side-settings. Popular metals for engagement rings are white gold, gold and platinum, which is the most hardwearing. The metal of the wedding band should be the same as the engagement ring, both to ensure that they match and to avoid a harder metal rubbing away at a softer metal.
If the groom chooses the ring, there is always the danger that the bride will be disappointed. If your first reaction on seeing an engagement ring is disappointment or dismay, conceal those emotions. Give it time and see if the ring grows on you (many jewellers offer a 30-day return period). Your first reaction might have been because the actual ring falls far short of your fantasy ring, but a sense of reality and an acknowledgment that this ring has been painstakingly chosen for you, might reconcile you to it. Seeing it in different lights, and noticing when it catches the light and sparkles, might go some way towards persuading you.
If the doubts are still uppermost, don’t upload triumphant engagement pictures, featuring the offending ring, on social media. If you do decide to change the ring, you might find yourself having to explain the whole saga to your nearest and dearest, and it could well be humiliating for your partner to find that everybody knows about his mis-fired first choice.
Test the ring out on somebody whose judgement you trust and solicit an honest opinion. Do not canvas the opinion of your entire social circle; it will become a hurtful talking point and will make your partner feel bad.
If you’ve decided you really don’t like the ring, grasp the nettle as soon as possible. Start by finding positive things to say about the ring (stone, setting, metal) and reiterate how much you appreciate the care and attention that your partner has shown. Then gently explain that you don’t think the ring is right for you; it will be much easier if you can find reasons to do with yourself, eg your taste is more contemporary than his choice, or you tend to like understated clothes and jewellery and the ring is too big and bold. You can even explain that the ring doesn’t really suit the length of your fingers, or the shape of your hand. Never repudiate or challenge his taste.
Finish by acknowledging that the ring has been a big investment, which you will be wearing for a lifetime, and remind him that it is obviously extremely important for both of you to get it right.
If the marriage is not destined to last, bear in mind that the engagement ring is considered an outright present given to the woman on condition of marriage, and having met that condition, she is entitled to keep it even after the marriage’s dissolution. If the ring is a precious heirloom, handed down to the bridegroom, its return is entirely at the woman’s discretion.
The revelations that are being unearthed by the Covid enquiry are causing shock and consternation, and many people have been appalled by the sheer obscenity and outrageous rudeness of messages sent between colleagues. We all have notions about how the people who govern our country should behave and earn our respect. They are in positions of power and authority and as a result we feel that they should adhere to a high standard of behaviour, demonstrating their leadership in the way they conduct themselves and showing calm, civility and decorum in all their dealings with colleagues, advisers and members of the public. Above all, we have been disconcerted by their lack of professionalism.
The Collins dictionary defines professionalism as “a combination of skill and high standards.” The latter quality should govern how individuals conduct themselves in the workplace: they should be able to understand what is appropriate behaviour in the workplace and should strive to be courteous in all their professional dealings.
The general assumption is that workplace communications should be polite and temperate. Undoubtedly some workplaces may foster a robust and challenging environment, where ideas are freely discussed and interrogated, and employees in these environments may feel that their ability to withstand close scrutiny is a prerequisite. Even so, a knockabout atmosphere is generally verbal, and it would be an egregious error, in most workplaces, to translate that sort of discourse into written communications.
It is a mistake to be bamboozled by the ease and convenience of WhatsApp and email, and to slip into an extremely casual, and even grossly insulting, style of communication. Obscenity-laden messages are scarcely representative of the calm, unruffled demeanour that we seek in people who are tasked with challenging jobs, especially in times of crisis. Abbreviated text language, littered with slang and grammatical errors, carries very little authority. Most importantly of all, written communications are retrievable, and – as witnesses in the Covid enquiry can confirm – casual chats on, for example, WhatsApp can be disinterred and pored over in minute, and excruciatingly forensic, detail by judges, lawyers, chairmen of internal enquiries, human resources managers and so on.
Whatever happened to professionalism? This is the notion that we have an “off-duty” persona and a professional persona. At work, no matter how friendly, congenial and convivial the office may be, we are in professional mode. That means being circumspect and self-aware. You must ensure that you present a polished façade to the world and be very careful not to show any chinks in your armour. If you are beset by domestic problems, the expectation is that you will conceal your difficulties, and if that proves impossible, you should speak about them, in confidence, to your manager or the human resources department.
Be cautious about confiding in colleagues and don’t let your guard down and reveal your darkest secrets (a real risk at office parties, where drink can unleash some febrile emotions). This does not mean that you should be cool, or unfriendly, or resistant to social advances. You should be as friendly and accommodating as possible, but always be aware that you are operating in a professional sphere, and that your actions may have consequences. If you aspire to do a job as well as you possibly can, are eager to take responsibility for all your actions and learn from your mistakes, display a strong work ethic and are respectful to managers and colleagues, you are achieving a high level of professionalism.
Individual workplaces will have different levels of formality and rigidity about codes of conduct, and it is important that you do your best to acknowledge the prevailing culture and fit in with it as far as possible. But you should also adhere to your own notions of what is right and appropriate: if you work in an office where the atmosphere is rowdy and boisterous, there is a boozy drinking culture, and insulting and obscene language is the order of the day, think carefully before you throw caution to the winds and join in. Of course, you do not want to feel like a disapproving party pooper, but there is every chance that the Rabelaisian scenes that you witness daily are not going to last forever: generally once office culture goes down this path, the chaotic antics escalate, failures and faults multiply, relationships break down and eventually, the whole shambles is called to order (which frequently involves inquiries, redundancies, restructuring and so on).
If you find yourself at the receiving end of unprofessional behaviour, in particular offensive, belittling, or crude written communications (which are tangible and irrefutable evidence), don’t suffer in silence. Speak to a human resources manager; you may well find that have been subjected to bullying and harassment, which is unlawful under the Equality Act of 2010. A poisonous workplace culture will become absolutely entrenched unless individuals are prepared to call it out.
Take some pride in your professional demeanour: try to be calm and collected at all times, resist flying off the handle and displaying strong emotions, which make you look as if you’ve lost control, moderate your language, and think carefully about the content and tone of your written communications. If you undertake the job in hand, whatever it may be, with all these traits uppermost, you will earn the respect and admiration of your colleagues.
Tact is the skill of handling a delicate situation and emerging with everyone still smiling. It is the ability to steer the staunch socialist away from the right-wig reactionary without either of them even knowing the other one was there. Those of us who come back from every party wracked with guilt about what we said or did long to possess tact.
The ability to do or say the right thing, however delicate or challenging the situation, is rooted in a well-developed sense of empathy, the ability to understand how other people are feeling. This means that you are alert to every scenario, able to rapidly assess possible pitfalls or awkwardness and have the skill to smoothly steer away the conversation from the danger zone. If embarrassing or awkward questions must be confronted, you will be able to do so in the most tactful way possible, ensuring that you minimise upset or distress.
Tact, or the lack of it, is threaded through our every encounter. If you are interacting with friends or colleagues who you know well, then you should be aware of their circumstances, preoccupations and vulnerabilities, and therefore able to calibrate the possible impact of what you say or do. It could, for example, be a case of resisting the temptation to bang on about your promotion to your unemployed friend, remembering not to moan about the service in your luxurious holiday hotel to the colleague who hasn’t had a holiday all year, or steering the conversation away from anecdotes about much-loved pets because you’re aware that one of your friends’ dogs has just died.
A tactful person is adept at weighing up the benefits and downsides of blurting out the truth and may well decide that a discreet silence or swift change of subject is the better option. If somebody is telling you about how much they are looking forward to the holiday they’ve booked in a place you really didn’t like, the tactful option is to say nothing, or maybe to gently steer them to the better end of town, the least crowded beach, the acceptable restaurant. The booking has already been made and what is the possible benefit of clouding their sense of excitement and anticipation with you own gloomy prognostications?
Indeed, it is often the case that your opinion is sought when it is too late for it to have an impact – on home décor, clothes, food, holidays, and so on. In these instances, people are seeking endorsement, not the unvarnished truth, so the tactful option is to eschew a completely honest answer and instead find something positive to say.
Hosts and hostesses in particular benefit from a highly developed sense of tact. As they observe proceedings unfold, they need to be aware of social dynamics and alert to possible pressure points. They should be ready at any stage to intervene with a polite interjection, an elegant change of subject, an introduction, a plea for help (asking someone to assist you with serving or social duties is a tactful way of heading off rows or confrontations). The most tactful people can steer and manipulate conversations so subtly that nobody is aware of their machinations and manoeuvrings.
Ultimately, tact is about generosity of spirit, and comes from a genuine desire to build a positive and constructive environment in which relationships can develop and thrive. It is an invaluable skill professionally, as it helps to build a congenial atmosphere in which there is a willingness to listen to other people and work together to solve problems.
Inevitably, there is a hint of dishonesty in the whole notion of tact, but a little dash of duplicity is surely acceptable if it’s to spare someone else’s feelings. It is an unselfish art, where the tactful one removes himself or herself from the context to think only about others, and that can never be a bad thing.
By contrast, there is something selfish and thoughtless about being tactless: at best, a crass inability to avoid putting one’s foot in it – at a cost to other people’s feelings or sensibilities – or, at worst, a wilful ignorance about the effect your own words can have on others. This is often the case with iconoclasts and disruptors, who enjoy provocation and thrive on discord, frequently causing discomfort and distress to other people. “A tactless man is like an axe on an embroidery frame”, says an old Malay proverb – how much better to be the one who stiches a situation back together again.
We all agree that society is becoming much less deferential, and that acute social anxiety when it comes to protocol, precedence and titles is diminishing.
But people still have titles, whether they are inherited or bestowed, and it is still a mark of respect and consideration to go to the trouble of using them correctly. Making mistakes may not be an act of social suicide, as it once was, but it can look slapdash and over-casual. Using the correct title gets you off on the right foot and is an easy way to ensure that you are taken seriously, especially when you are writing to strangers.
British titles can appear confusing and contradictory, and it is hardly surprising that people frequently make the following common mistakes:
•All ranks below duke are called Lord or Lady TITLE in conversation. Do not address them as, for example, earl or baroness except on an envelope or a public list, such as list of patrons or directors, for example at a formal charity event.
•This means that, when you meet a titled person, you should say, for example “Good morning, Lord Debrett” not “Good morning earl.” Dukes are the exception, and you would address a duke as follows: “Good morning, duke”.
•The most common confusion is first and last names. Knights, baronets and dames are formally addressed as follows: title-first name-last name, for example Dame Maggie Smith. If you were to meet her in person, you would address her as follows: “Good morning, Dame Maggie”.
•Daughters and younger sons of dukes and marquesses and daughters of earls are addressed as follows: Lord/Lady-first name-last name, for example the fictional Lady Mary Crawley in Downton Abbey, the daughter of an earl, is informally and verbally addressed as Lady Mary.
•Sons of earls and sons and daughters of viscounts and barons are called the Honourable, shortened to the Hon, but always referred to (other than on envelopes and official lists) as Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms.
•All life peers are barons or baronesses, and some female life peers have chosen to use the title ‘Baroness’, rather than ‘Lady’. If they choose this style, then it should be respected even though it is technically incorrect. For example, Baroness Garden (title-surname), but some famous life peeresses are commonly, and erroneously, addressed as, for example, “Baroness Margaret Thatcher” (ie their forename is included).
•People often tend to think the wife of a baronet (for example Sir John Debrett), is called Lady Jane Debrett. She is only Lady Jane if she is the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl. To be correct, she is Lady Debrett. It is obviously tempting to call her Lady Jane because her husband is Sir John, but that would be incorrect.
•It works the other way round as well. If daughter of a duke, marquess or earl is married to a plain mister she is called, for example, Lady Charlotte Berkeley (or, informally, “Lady Charlotte”) and he stays Mr James Berkeley. It would be wrong to call her Lady Berkeley.
•Daughters and sons of a viscount or baron have the courtesy title of “The Hon” (though they are addressed verbally in conversation as “Miss”, “Mrs” or “Ms”). If someone with the courtesy title of “The Hon” is married to a plain Mr or Mrs, they take their spouse’s surname and add their courtesy prefix: “The Hon Roger and Mrs Jane Maddox or “Mr Roger and The Hon Jane Maddox”.
Some titles are frequently misused, and the erroneous use has become normalised, for example:
•A very a typical mistake is Diana, Lady Berkeley, the former wife of the 18th Baron Berkeley. As an environmental campaigner, she was frequently in the news and incorrectly named as Lady Dido Berkeley.
• When the composer and impresario Andrew Lloyd Webber was given a life peerage in 1997 his surname was hyphenated to distinguish him from appearing to be a son of a duke or marquess with Lloyd as a first name. Realistically this was never very likely to have happened. However, he is often incorrectly referred to in the media as Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber.
• Perhaps the most common mistakes people make is when referring to members of the Royal family. We frequently see examples of people calling The Duchess of Sussex “Duchess Meghan” or “Princess Meghan”, and The Princess of Wales, “Princess Kate”. Both of these are incorrect. Referring to them by their birth names is also erroneous, although as The Duchess of Sussex was well-known before her marriage, it is acceptable to still refer to her as Meghan Markle.
For those with a keen interest in the lineage, titles and traditions of the British aristocracy, we invite you to subscribe to our peerage database - a trusted resource for accurate, authoritative insight.
