By Rupert Wesson
Diplomacy has been in our thoughts a great deal of late due as much for it’s absence as for it’s presence.
British Prime Minister Edward Heath once described a diplomat as “a man who thinks twice before saying nothing” which is of course to misunderstand diplomacy entirely. Diplomacy is about achieving results and is perhaps more accurately characterised by the phrase “diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way” and that of course is never achieved by mute passivity. It is also worth adding that American “humourist” Will Rogers was quoted as saying that diplomacy is often described as the art of saying “nice doggy” while quietly looking for a stick. This neatly highlights our differing approaches to diplomacy and dogs.
The British would not claim to be the best diplomats in the world but our approach to this vital art has not been without influence. We would acknowledge that this is probably a result of our history and our national character. Our Empire building era meant that English is the lingua Franca of diplomacy which puts us in a position of advantage. It is almost certainly the direct cause of our poor track when it comes to learning a second language. We also have some innate traits, tropes and characteristics which serve the cause of diplomacy rather well. If nothing else we are a nation that has mastered the strategic use of formality, understatement, polite phrasing and self deprecating humour. Finally, we may not be a nation famed for the finesse of our hospitality but we do at least understand the importance of a well-timed cup of tea.
The UK is no longer the military super power it once was but at least it can still punch above it’s weight when it comes to soft power. Whether it is monarchs or marching bands; pubs or Paddington we know how to leverage our cultural phenomena to serve the cause of positive global influence.
The British trait of politeness is admired around the globe and is an essential tool for all diplomats. We are always ready with an apology be it to people, pets or indeed even the furniture. In addition our language is by default carefully considered, measured and no more direct than it needs to be. When it comes to delicate negotiations direct language is only used once agreement is reached. Indirect language is essential in order to guide everyone towards that point. It is worth noting that the British might be best described as “mid table” in the linguistic league of directness. That is to say we are much less direct than most of the Anglophone countries but much more so than most of Asia. This position affords us a certain global reach.
Then there is pragmatism. Effective diplomacy recognises that perfection is rare and compromise is inevitable. Striking a deal that works “well enough” for all parties is often far more valuable than holding out for an ideal that may never materialise. Foreign diplomats who observe the uncompromising perfection of our marching bands are delighted to discover a more pragmatic approach to negotiations.
As of today we may not be the leading power of the globe but our history and character have shaped the wider nature of global diplomacy and we would argue, for the good.
| What we say | What we want to say | What is understood |
| That is an interesting idea | You are stark staring mad | They think it is an interesting idea |
| With all due respect | I think you are out of line | They respect us |
| I’ll bear that in mind | I have already forgotten what you have just said | They will think about what we have said |
| Could I perhaps suggest…. | You do not have a choice | They are giving us a choice |
| I’m sorry! It is possible I did not express myself very well | You’re being stupid | They have not been clear and they are trying again |
| Could I suggest some minor amendments | Let’s start again, this is going to take forever | We are making progress, we are nearly there |
| It is a well intentioned suggestion | It is naïve and dangerously stupid | It was a positive contribution |
| Could I interject for a moment ? | Stop talking I have heard enough | They want to ask questions on what I have said before letting me continue |
| Recollections vary | We all know that was not what was said | I am not being directly challenged on what I have said |
Our history and deep knowledge of protocol and etiquette mean Debrett’s are uniquely placed to provide coaching and training for diplomats, diplomatic missions and indeed anyone conducting business with British and overseas governments.
The Debrett's Coaching team provide entirely bespoke training programmes, crafted to your goals. The Diplomacy programme covers topics such as:
If you would like to enquire about our bespoke coaching courses, follow the link below to our contact form. Alternatively, email [email protected] with your enquiry.
For those who wish to go further.
Debrett's membership opens the door to our complete library of etiquette guidance - from the nuances of the British social season and correct forms of address, to expert business coaching and social conduct for every occasion. Free membership is available to all, with immediate access to the full breadth of our content.
Paid members also enjoy access to the Debrett's Peerage database - the most comprehensive record of the British aristocracy available. The subscription is priced at £9.99 a month or £99.99 a year.
By Hugo Strachwitz
From the Congress system that followed the defeat of Napoleon to the multilateral complexities of the 21st century, British diplomacy has often been shaped by men (and more recently women) whose titles enhanced their authority and supported their diplomatic skill. The aristocratic diplomat, whether born to a peerage or elevated to one during service, has occupied a distinctive place within the machinery of the British state: at once representative of Crown and country while also being a custodian of continuity in an ever-changing international order.
We take a look at a small selection of noble envoys who, while holding or acquiring hereditary or life peerages, exercised considerable influence on global affairs.
The modern diplomatic tradition may be said to begin in earnest with the settlement following the Napoleonic Wars.
Among its foremost architects was Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh. At the Congress of Vienna, he was instrumental in constructing the balance of power that preserved relative European stability for nearly a century.
Later in the century, Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Granville exemplified the Victorian aristocratic diplomat. Serving twice as Foreign Secretary, Lord Granville navigated Britain through delicate continental rivalries, favouring restraint and arbitration over confrontation, an approach that defined late 19th-century British diplomacy.
The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the British Empire at its height and diplomacy was often conducted by peers whose social standing eased access to royal courts.
Edward Grey, Viscount Grey of Fallodon, (though created a viscount only in 1916 during his tenure) was one of the pivotal figures leading Britain into the First World War. His stewardship of foreign policy during the July Crisis remains the subject of enduring scholarly debate, particularly regarding Britain’s commitments to France and Belgium.
Another notable figure was James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce. Elevated to the peerage during his diplomatic career, Bryce’s tenure in Washington (1907–1913) helped cement Anglo-American relations at a critical juncture, laying foundations for the “special relationship” that would prove decisive in the 20th century.
The upheavals of two world wars required diplomats of both rank and exceptional capacity.
Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax stands as one of the most consequential aristocratic diplomats of the era. Already a viscount and later elevated to an earldom during his service, Halifax served as Foreign Secretary in the late 1930s and subsequently as Ambassador to Washington during the Second World War (succeeding another diplomatic peer, the Marquess of Lothian). Their role in maintaining American support for Britain under Franklin D. Roosevelt was indispensable.
In recent decades, the distinction between hereditary aristocracy and life peerage has blurred, yet titled diplomats remain influential.
Mark Malloch-Brown, Baron Malloch-Brown, elevated to the peerage during his service, exemplifies the globalised diplomat. Serving as Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations and later as a UK minister, he has operated at the intersection of national and international governance.
Crucially, the modern era has also witnessed the rise of distinguished female diplomatic peers. Foremost among them is Daphne Park, Baroness Park of Monmouth, whose career combined diplomacy with intelligence service of the highest order. Serving in postings including Moscow and the Congo during periods of acute Cold War tension, Baroness Park’s influence was often exercised behind the scenes, exemplifying discretion, resilience and strategic acuity. Ennobled following her service, she became a respected voice on intelligence and foreign affairs in the House of Lords.
Another notable figure is Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, who, as Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, undertook sensitive diplomatic missions on human rights and conflict prevention, reflecting the expanding scope of diplomacy in the modern era.
To these must be added Patricia Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, whose career embodies the global reach of contemporary British diplomacy. Serving as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations, Baroness Scotland has played a prominent role in advancing international cooperation across a diverse association of states, addressing issues ranging from governance and the rule of law to climate resilience in small island nations. Elevated to the peerage prior to her tenure in this international office, she represents a modern fusion of legal, political and diplomatic expertise operating on a truly global stage.
From Castlereagh’s orchestration of post-Napoleonic Europe to the multilateral negotiations of the present day, aristocratic diplomats have left an indelible mark on global affairs. Their influence has rested not merely upon titles, but upon a combination of education, access and a tradition of public service that transcended generations.
By including figures such as Baroness Park and Baroness Scotland, one observes not only continuity but evolution: the broadening of diplomatic service beyond its traditionally narrow social base, while retaining the distinction and sense of duty long associated with the peerage.
While the hereditary principle has receded in modern governance, the presence of peers (particularly life peers) within the diplomatic sphere endures. In this continuity, we observe a distinctly British synthesis: the adaptation of ancient institutions to contemporary purpose, ensuring that the voice of the United Kingdom remains both authoritative and, in the finest sense, distinguished.
Debrett’s is the recognised authority on the British peerage. For over 250 years we have chronicled the nation’s titled families. Subscribe now for £9.99 a month or £99 annually to access our renowned Peerage database - the definitive record of the aristocracy.
By Rupert Wesson
Formality has had a difficult time at work over the last few decades. Take the trajectory from small offices to open plan offices and working from home. Or look at the move from office wear to 'dress down Friday's' to athleisure all day every day. Does it really matter that we are in a race to the (track suit) bottom? What do we miss when we follow the tech bro's rejection of suits and syntax in favour of sweatpants and slang.
At Debrett's, we take the view that formality has the power to achieve a great deal. It conveys sincerity, respect, humility and even a sense of occasion. Not to mention, it costs nothing. Reclaiming formality and using it as your superpower, when done well, can set you apart from the crowd for all the right reasons.
Why, then, has formality seemingly vanished?
People, like all animals, are driven more by fear than favour. Much of people's fear of formality comes from being thought of as aloof, diffident and distant. Maybe it harks back to school days where the cool and rebellious kids ruled the roost and the rest tried their hardest to not standout.
It is undoubtedly true that formality will help you stand out, but it also must be balanced. When balanced with warmth, the effect is beguiling. If you smile, make eye contact and shake hands with your clients and colleagues in a relaxed and natural way people will notice. They may not even remember what you said, or what you did but they will remember how you made them feel. That can only be a good thing.
Let's start with first impressions. Why not use a formal greeting, a full name (never presuming to shorten it) and maybe even a title along with a handshake when meeting someone for the first time - it is elegant, courteous and respectful.
Think of this approach just as you would dressing more formally for meetings. Doing so conveys thought, effort and respect for the occasion and for everyone who is there. In the same way that you can remove a jacket to dress down, you can always move to less formal ways later if appropriate. Starting at a higher level of formality is always safer, any subsequent move to greater informality can then be a pleasant shared journey. It is certainly preferable to the lonely and unseemly scramble in the opposite direction if you misjudge things.
Not only can we use formality to convey respect to others but we can subtly use it to build our own authority. Formal language and behaviour are perceived as more deliberate, which in turn conveys competence and builds trust. Take the following two examples which are sentences you might use in an email to a client:
"have a look at the attached and tell me what you think"
Vs
"Please take a look at our initial thoughts in our report (attached). I would welcome hearing your thoughts in the next few days."
The second version is certainly a little longer, but is more deliberate and instructive. It is also polite, warm and (crucially) authoritative. It says 'I have taken time over this because our work for you is important' and 'I am really keen to work with you.' Such an approach will always get a better response.
At Debrett's we have seen there is a gap in the market for some well-judged formality, and we can provide coaching for you and your team on implementing formality to build your business with power and authority.
The Debrett's Coaching team provide entirely bespoke training programmes, crafted to your goals. Our business executive training focuses on empowering and energising and cover topics such as:
If you would like to enquire about our bespoke business coaching courses, follow the link below to our contact form. Alternatively, email [email protected] with your enquiry
When you receive an email that begins “I hope this email finds you well” you will probably react in one of two ways. You may barely register it’s presence and look to get to the point of the email or, you will shudder inwardly at the appearance of this ill advised and rather gauche salutation. What you will not do is think I am so glad that the correspondent has enquired about my well being in such a caring and imaginative way.
It’s banal filler, the email equivalent of elevator music. When clients open an email, they want to know why you’re writing and whether it matters to them. Starting with a vague enquiry about their well being wastes their time and subtly signals that you might want something from them (typically their time or their money) and are embarrassed or ashamed to ask. It is the equivalent of a gentle stage cough in a quiet room from someone seeking attention from people who are busy doing other things.
Most of us have dozens of emails each day and rather than read them in detail we scan them and this is especially true of those from people with whom we have a commercial relationship. If you are the one doing the emailing you should think of the opening line as your one and only chance to gain the reader’s attention. Wasting it with a stock phrase that adds no information will not help your chances of success.
It is a phrase that can sound oddly impersonal. Ironically, this sentence which is meant to sound warm often does the opposite. That is because it’s so overused and it reads as automated even when the email isn’t. Clients may not consciously judge you for it, but if they do they will likely conclude that you are not thoughtful, specific, or confident.
There’s also a subtle power issue. “I hope this email finds you well” can feel timid, especially when followed by a request, a deadline, or a problem that needs solving. Clear, direct openings project competence. Wobbly pleasantries do not.
So what should you do instead? Lead with purpose. Reference the context and get to the point kindly but efficiently. For example: “when we spoke last week I mentioned we would be releasing the dates for this year’s client events and you asked that I share them with you…” Still polite but useful and showing that you listen to the client and that you place great value on their time and attention.
In short, your clients don’t need to see your email cluttered with this or indeed any other similar blandishment. They need it to convince them you are informed, concise, and confident in your purpose.
If you would like Debrett’s to help your business to get things right, our business coaching team can provide you with the answers. The Debrett's Coaching team provide entirely bespoke training programmes, crafted to your goals. Our business executive training focuses on empowering and energising and cover topics such as:
If you would like to enquire about our bespoke business coaching courses, follow the link below to our contact form. Alternatively, email [email protected] with your enquiry.
Peter Mandelson has resigned his seat in the House of Lords, yet retains his title. Debrett's Peerage expert Hugo Strachwitz explains why the removal of a title is not quite as simple as just retiring from the House of Lords and runs through the options that are open to the Government.
Why does retirement, resignation or suspension from the House of Lords not deprive someone of their peerage or title?
It is a question that has resurfaced repeatedly in recent years, usually prompted by controversy, proposed reforms, or a general sense that the rules governing titles and honours are more flexible than they really are.
In short, retirement, resignation or suspension from the House of Lords does not deprive someone of their peerage title.
In the case of Life Peerages—those conferred for an individual’s lifetime rather than inherited from a family member—the peerage grants the right to be summoned to the House of Lords, but it is not extinguished if that right ceases.
There are several ways in which a peer may be prevented from attending the House of Lords. A peer may take a formal Leave of Absence, may be temporarily suspended (usually for breaches of parliamentary standards), or may be disqualified for persistent non-attendance.
Peers may also retire or resign from the House altogether, a relatively recent innovation dating from the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. In all these circumstances, the individual ceases to be a member of the House of Lords but retains their title, along with the associated privilege of being styled The Right Honourable and addressed as Lord or Lady X. This distinction between membership of the House and possession of a title can be surprising, but it is fundamental.
Depriving a peer of their peerage—and therefore of their title—is a far more complex constitutional problem.
When peerages were purely hereditary, removal was an extreme sanction. Peers were not merely royal favourites or honoured politicians, but powerful regional magnates whose allegiance could shift with each reign. As Parliament emerged as the dominant legislative authority in England, and later Great Britain, the Monarch’s ability to create and remove peerages at will came to be seen as something requiring restraint.
One route was the Bill of Attainder. Parliament could pass legislation declaring a (usually treasonous) peer guilty, depriving them not only of their title but also of their property and civil rights, and often their life. While swift, this mechanism was inherently vulnerable to political abuse. The last such Bill was proposed—though not enacted—in 1820.
A more limited alternative was the use of a specific Act of Parliament to deprive named individuals of their peerages. This approach was adopted at the end of the Great War, most notably through the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, to remove the peerages of those serving in the armed forces of Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary. Even then, it affected only four individuals, all holders of hereditary peerages.
At present, there is no mechanism by which a life peer may disclaim, surrender or return their peerage title. Nor does the Monarch possess a general power to remove a life peerage once conferred, in the way other honours may be withdrawn. Parliament is currently considering proposals that would change this position, either by allowing voluntary disclaimer or by empowering the Monarch to deprive a life peerage in defined circumstances. Until such reforms are enacted, however, a life peer who leaves the House of Lords remains, in law and in style, a peer.
Image Credit: World Economic Forum on Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Debrett’s is the recognised authority on the British peerage. For over 250 years we have chronicled the nation’s titled families. Subscribe now for £9.99 a month or £99 annually to access our renowned Peerage database - the definitive record of the aristocracy.
Written by Liz Wyse
Weddings are changing, reflecting the ways in which society is becoming less convention-bound, and much more relaxed and culturally eclectic. For generations, we have adhered to the strict notion that – as with so many other social rituals – there is a right way and a wrong way to get married. These certainties have filtered down from the upper echelons of society, often transmitted through the medium of royal weddings. These stately ceremonies, with their feverish build-up and huge television audiences, are minutely dissected and discussed, with microscopic scrutiny of every detail – from the dress and flowers to the cake and going-away outfit. They have become cultural phenomena, which have influenced generations of couples, who seek to emulate the royal precedent and do everything ‘properly’.
Much of this tendency started with the wedding of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in 1840. She followed tradition by seeking a relatively private wedding in St James’s Palace, but crowds were fascinated by a genuine royal romance and her white wedding dress set the standard for Victorian, and subsequent, brides – up to that point, white was not a conventional colour for weddings. From the myrtle in the wedding bouquet, to the details of the wedding breakfast and the 300-lb cake, the general public were fascinated, and the ‘Victorian’ wedding was born.
Subsequent royal weddings were cultural milestones: Princess Elizabeth provided a glamorous antidote to wartime austerity; Princess Margaret was the first member of the royal family to enjoy a televised wedding, which drew a worldwide audience; Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer delighted waiting crowds with another first, a kiss on the royal balcony; the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in 2011 unleashed a wave of patriotic celebration and attracted an estimated global television audience of two billion, making it one of the most watched events in history.
It is scarcely surprising therefore that the traditional British wedding, with its royal credentials and precedents, seemed to present an entrenched cultural norm. But increasingly, since the turn of the 21st century, the ritual has been adapted and transformed. It is now no longer simply a fossilised relic of a bygone era but a celebration that truly reflects an increasingly secular and multi-ethnic society, changing relationships and complex family dynamics.
It is no longer expected that a wedding will follow pre-ordained traditions: of course, that option is still open for couples who seek a more conventional approach. However, it is more and more an option for couples to pick and choose which traditions, if any, they want to retain. Legal changes have reinforced this tendency, with the advent of same-sex marriages and the introduction of opposite-sex, as well as same-sex civil partnerships, which give couples the opportunity to eschew all the trappings of marriage, yet still celebrate and consolidate their union.
The liberalisation of laws relating to approved venues has also had a huge impact on weddings, freeing couples from the restricted offering of religious buildings and civil ceremonies in registry offices and opening up a plethora of possibilities – from hotels, beaches, vineyards and gardens to theatres, stately homes, museums and even football clubs.
Many of the couples who come to Debrett’s for advice and inspiration are seeking information and reassurance about very contemporary conundrums and we aim to offer solutions to these common social dilemmas. How much say should parents have over the guest list and what happens if the couple are paying for themselves? Is it acceptable not to invite children? What is the best approach to the vexed question of plus-ones? How can divorced parents or first wives or husbands be accommodated? With well-informed preparation and forethought, the comfort of guests, good relations between family friends, and the happiness and peace of mind of the marrying couple can remain priorities on the big day.
The advent of the digital age has also had a major impact on weddings, and we examine the ways in which the online world can facilitate the wedding planning process. From bridal blogs, wedding hashtags and Pinterest boards to wedding websites, photo-upload sites and guest list apps, weddings have been transformed by digital technology. We explore the ways in which these benefits can be maximised, but we also discuss the perils of over-posting, social media overkill and poor mobile phone etiquette on the big day – nobody wants their wedding ceremony to be eclipsed by a horde of compulsive, phone-wielding photographers or side-lined by distracted phone-users who are intent on posting about their experience.
When it comes to weddings, there is a world of choice, and it can all seem overwhelming. Our aim in the latest updated and revised version of the Wedding Guide, first published in 2007, is to assist marrying couples plan their big day, while reflecting the many options that are now available.
We set out, as clearly as possible, the long-established rites and customs that characterise a traditional British wedding – a church service, followed by a sit-down reception. At each stage, we look at all the possible permutations and deviations from this customary ritual and explain how certain traditions – from dress codes and wedding vows to venues and seating plans – can be discarded or adapted. The conventional roles of best man, chief bridesmaid, bridesmaids and ushers are now all interchangeable and can apply to either gender. There is no longer a ‘correct’ approach. Indeed, many of the most memorable and successful celebrations will deviate from the traditional formula discussed in the pages of the Guide in imaginative and thoughtful ways.
Whatever the style of wedding that is being contemplated, Debrett’s Wedding Guide will prompt consideration of the finer details of the day. Above all, the priority is to always ensure tht the choices made on the wedding day – from dress, flowers, music and readings to the venue, menu and after-party – are all personal and meaningful to the couple who are taking centre stage.
For many people, their wedding is the biggest event that they will plan in their lifetime, and it can feel like a daunting prospect. We aim to provide inspiration, reassurance, and pragmatic guidance on this most significant of days.
Debrett’s Wedding Guide • Debretts
Are you anxious about shaking hands? Do you approach the people you meet with a slight feeling of trepidation and hesitation, wondering whether your outstretched hand will be rejected in favour of an awkward hug, a handshake/hug hybrid, or kisses on the cheek?
Increasing informality, exposure to different cultures and traditions and post-Covid hygiene anxieties have all contributed to a growing greetings muddle in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that, in most formal or business situations, the handshake still prevails as the greeting of choice, especially for men, but there are lots of contexts where the situation is much less clear.
Handshaking is a natural human behaviour with a long pedigree. Studies of chimpanzees and bonobos show them shaking hands in the aftermath of a conflict (rather like two exhausted tennis players, shaking hands over the net at Wimbledon), in a slightly sheepish attempt to smoothe over hostilities and restore harmony. Uncontacted tribes who were discovered, and studied, by anthropologists in the Amazon and Southeast Asia, were completely unfazed by proffered handshakes, and reciprocated. In recorded history, they are first depicted in Mesopotamia, as a way of sealing alliances and agreements. In Ancient Greece and Rome, they were seen as gestures of respect and equality. They evolved in the Middle Ages as a way of establishing that neither party was armed.
In 18th-century Britain, greetings were a courtly dance of bows, bobs, nods, curtsies and hat-doffing. This deferential behaviour was gradually replaced in the 19th century by the much more egalitarian handshake, where the clasped hands signified that the two individuals were meeting on open and equal terms. Handshakes between men and women, however, continued to be a sign of intimacy, to be reserved for close relationships, rather than strangers.
At around this time the handshake took on a new role, as a physical symbol of a pledge or trustworthy agreement. Thus, in commercial relationships, a handshake was used to seal a deal, or to signify a ‘gentleman’s agreement’. It was tantamount to a pledge of commitment, and reneging on a deal that had been sealed by a handshake was seen as particularly heinous.
The handshake gradually became the most common greeting in the world, and has become widely accepted in most countries, although it is still not a universal way of greeting. In some countries, for instance, in India, the usual way of greeting is through joining palms in “Namaste”. Similarly, in Arab countries, it is common to place the right hand on the heart as a greeting gesture. Finely calibrated bowing is still the norm in Japan, and handshakes between men and women are frowned upon in Muslim countries.
Despite its nearly universal recognition, the traditional firm handshake is being increasingly undermined and eroded. The fear of physical contact during the Covid epidemic meant handshakes were perceived as potentially toxic, leading people to experiment with other, short-lived, forms of greeting such as the elbow or fist bump. Once the fear had passed, the handshake was left looking somewhat unrecognisable.
In some circles, especially where creativity and informality prevails, the stiff formality of the gesture has been mitigated by combining it with a pull-in and one-armed half-embrace, the so-called ‘bro hug’. This probably originated in America, has been adopted in the UK, but has been somewhat mangled in the process – all too often it turns into a strange gesture, which combines a hug, a handshake and a kiss on the check. Many men now approach a handshake with some trepidation, wondering if they’re going to be hauled into a half-embrace (sometimes accompanied by amiable back-slapping or arm-grabbing) and not at all sure of the protocol. Women have an easier decision as they can always default to a light hug and a single or double kiss.
Hugs and kisses on the cheek are becoming much more universal amongst younger generations, who extend this form of greeting to older people, sometimes ill advisedly. It’s all a matter of sensitivity and observation, but some older people will recoil from a greeting that they find over intimate and awkward and would much prefer a handshake. In these transitional times, it really is difficult to know which greeting to choose, and judgement will need to be exercised. Whatever option you choose, step into the greeting with a smile on your face and act decisively – dithering indecisively will make for some awkward encounters. Advancing with your right hand extended is a gesture that will be universally interpreted as an invitation to shake hands.
•The Presidential
Everyone will recognise the politicians’ special handshake – the hand of your opposite number is grasped and held in your right hand and you extend your left hand and place it over the clasped hands in a ‘warm’, protective embrace. Much used by world leaders, senior politicians and anyone whose job is to look sincere and reassuring, it can also be regarded with distrust, as a sign of sleaziness and insincerity.
•The Long-Life Handshake
This is the handshake that goes on for an unconscionable length of time, which probably makes the person whose hand is being shaken feel trapped and uncomfortable. Again, it is much used by politicians, probably because they are intent on prolonging photo opportunities and maximising coverage of their genial gesture.
•The Wet Fish
In the West we respect a firm handshake, fearing that a limp handshake looks tentative or unengaged; in Asia a limp handshake is considered much more desirable. But above all, we aim for a dry handshake; sweaty palms or hands that have been inadequately dried after a visit to the bathroom are unpleasant to grasp and carry disturbing messages of nervousness or tension.
•The Bonecrusher
The desire to boast a firm handshake can lead to a machismo-demonstrating iron grip that can leave the victim in actual pain and discomfort. This is particularly true of women wearing rings or anyone suffering from arthritis.
•The Traditional
This is the optimal handshake, which combines a dry palm, a firm grip, a short pumping action and eye contact. It conveys confidence, reliability and trustworthiness.
•Make eye contact and maintain it throughout.
•Extend your right hand, even if you are left-handed.
•Grip the palm, not the fingers.
•Pump up and down a couple of times, no more, then release the hand.
Good manners are paramount in all walks of life, and are especially important in difficult circumstances, where they can be used to acknowledge and assuage feelings of anxiety, impatience and frustration. An obvious aspect of this is the interactions, whether they are in a GP’s surgery or a hospital, between doctors and patients. The ability of a good doctor to soothe, reassure and placate an anxious patient is referred to as his/her ‘bedside manner’.
Good bedside manners are not explicitly taught in our medical educational system, but it is to be hoped that they are effectively modelled by senior doctors. Our health service is under increasing pressure, however, and it would not be surprising if the strains of operating within it, coping with an ever-increasing workload and navigating a creaking bureaucracy all conspire to erode day-to-day social niceties. When harassed doctors are wrangling life and death issues, they might feel that good manners are the least of their concerns.
But we would argue that a keen sense of empathy, an ability to recognise the anxieties and concerns of the patient, and a respect for each patient as a unique individual – the cornerstone of good manners – are all attributes of excellent and effective doctors. There are several ways in which good manners and good healthcare can intersect for the benefit of both patients and doctors:
When patients are feeling ill at ease, consultations can be normalised by small talk. It goes without saying that patients should always be greeted politely with a ‘Good morning’, ‘Good afternoon’ and, if necessary, an introduction. They should be politely offered a seat. These minimal formalities should never by rushed or overlooked.
Engaging with a patient for a few minutes on general topics demonstrates an interest in the individual and helps them relax. It makes the whole experience feel less transactional and will build feelings of trust and confidence. Mutual observations are a good place to start and the most obvious topic, especially in Britain, is the weather. It might seem like a clichéd subject, but most people will enjoy chatting about torrential downpours, droughts, cold snaps and heat waves. Alternatively, comments about the general surroundings (eg “What do you think of the new hospital building?”), or asking someone how they travelled to their appointment, are other ways of relating to people, as well as finding out more about them.
Every encounter with a doctor is of vital importance to the patient and they will be sifting a battery of first impressions, seeking reassurance. Negative body language – putting hands in pockets, fiddling with hair or beard, lolling, yawning, eye-rubbing, face-stroking – can be extremely off-putting. They radiate feelings of exhaustion, boredom, preoccupation, non-engagement. Above all they project a lack of focus, which every patient craves.
Doctors should make a conscious effort to project positive body language: sitting up straight, maintaining good eye contact (but not staring), leaning in towards the patient rather than lolling backwards, nodding affirmatively to demonstrate interest. Above all, in this digital age, doctors should resist the compulsion to stare, transfixed, at their screen, rather than looking at the patient.
‘Talking down’ to other people from a position of perceived authority or presuming to ‘explain’ when no explanation is needed or sought, can make patients and their carers feel that they are not worthy of respect.
Telltale signs of being patronising include: feeling an irresistible urge to correct people perceived to be wrong, whatever the circumstances; being an inveterate interrupter, who interjects with their opinions and tends to take over the conversation; a tendency to bombard people with obscure facts and nuggets of information in order to appear knowledgeable and well-informed; a tendency to make the assumption that most people are less intelligent than oneself.
Any behaviour that focuses on highlighting other people’s perceived inferiority is the antithesis of good manners. Instead, doctors should focus on nurturing and encouraging the people who are seeking treatment and making them feel good about themselves, rather than demeaned. A good starting point is to really listen to what people are saying and curb any tendency to make belittling assumptions about people’s experience, capacity and expertise. It is always rude to assume that people are fundamentally ignorant, and it is recommended that doctors make it a rule to ask, “Do you know about X?” before launching into an unnecessary explanation.
Inevitably, there will be times during the process of hospitalisation or medical care that patients experience oversights or mistakes, such as lost notes, misdiagnoses and failed procedures. Given that this is inevitable, it is essential that the medical profession learns the art of a genuine apology.
When a mistake or oversight that affects the patient has been made, it is the duty of the doctor to honestly admit the error and apologise, even if the offence is not the personal responsibility of that doctor. The important thing is to acknowledge the inconvenience (or worse) that the patient has suffered; even if the offence cannot be mitigated, the patient will always feel better if it is recognised.
When it comes to saying sorry, the most common mistake is to apologise ‘if’ the patient has suffered offence or upset; the use of the word ‘if’ clearly implies that the person who is making the apology does not recognise the legitimacy of the offence and assumes that the patient who feels wronged is insisting on feeling mistreated or disregarded. This attitude can compound, rather than alleviate, negative feelings towards the medical profession.
A genuine apology fully recognises the nature of the offence, acknowledges the pain or discomfort that has been caused and seeks forgiveness from the person who feels wronged: (“I am so sorry we had to cancel this procedure at such short notice. I do realise this must have been very difficult for you, and we will do everything we can to move your treatment forward promptly”).
The NHS Ten-Year Plan emphasises the key importance of digital healthcare in the coming years, encompassing AI technology, robotics and enhancing the NHS app.
While the benefits of these new ways of communicating may seem obvious, some people still regard new technology with fear and suspicion and when they are breezily advised to “just pop in your details online” or told “it’s really easy to sign up online”, their feelings of anxiety and disenfranchisement will be increased. While most of the population now owns a smartphone, a significant proportion of people aged over 65 (27 per cent) do not have a smartphone or internet access in their homes. So it is inconsiderate, on the part of the medical profession, to make assumptions about people’s access or comfort with online resources, or their willingness to engage online or through their phones.
In a digital world, it is always important to remember that there are still many people who live their lives in an analogue way. They may have problems receiving or reading texts from the doctors’ surgery on the phone (eyesight problems or difficulty mastering the technology) and may certainly find invitations to “go online for a telephone appointment” daunting. It is always advisable not to make assumptions about their digital literacy, and to make polite and tentative enquiries about their technical competence at the outset (“Are you comfortable receiving texts?” or “Are you happy using the internet?”). The important thing is to make them feel that you are recognising their preference, not patronising them or making them feel inadequate.
The image of the august consultant, who patrols the wards with an entourage of eager and sycophantic acolytes, discusses his patient’s symptoms with arrogant disdain and never deigning to interact with them as individuals, is a comedy cliché. But it has emerged from the widely held perception that many doctors lack basic communication skills, which makes them incapable of interacting effectively with their patients or alleviating their anxiety.
Every encounter between a doctor and a patient involves myriad nuances of behaviour. Patients who are already anxious and concerned about their health may well have experienced frustrating delays and difficulties in gaining access to a doctor and will therefore be more than usually sensitive to language, gestures, facial expressions and demeanour. They may well fear that they are going to be patronised or condescended to by medical professionals and will require reassurance.
Good bedside manners are an effective way of alleviating all these concerns. If a doctor is polite and courteous, able to make relaxing and distracting small talk, capable of listening attentively to what they are being told and wary of making assumptions about their patients, the whole experience is likely to be much more positive.
Above all, doctors must be encouraged to see their patients as individuals, with their own experience, eccentricities, characters and life stories. All too often, patients complain of being objectified, or being seen as a collection of symptoms rather than a human being. In a digitalised world, where patient consultations are moving online and face-to-face encounters are diminishing, the vital social skills that doctors need to demonstrate their humanity, are being eroded or sidelined. It is to be hoped that a renewed emphasis will be place on training medical professionals in the social skills and common courtesies that should enhance every consultation.
The way in which we write online has spawned many grammatical travesties, from abbreviated text speak to stream of consciousness sentences that completely lack punctuation. But none is more controversial than the intermittent use of capitalised words in texts, posts and emails.
Apologists might plead that capitalising a word gives it added emphasis, but most of us recoil from this typographic phenomenon because we know full well that it is a capital offence: it looks like shouting, and we associate raising our voices with anger and threatening behaviour.
We all know that shouting, in most circumstances, is considered rude. It generally signals a breakdown in communication, a desire to browbeat and harangue, an inability to curb feelings of rage and aggression. Why should we react any differently to it when it is conveyed through typography?
All-caps text dates back to the Romans, who inscribed their military achievements and trumpeted their supremacy in monumental stone letters. Lower-case letters were used for more mundane communications. While the Romans were certainly not conveying rage on their monumental arches and columns, they were certainly asserting authority.
Over time, as printing technology developed, capitals were consigned to their present-day status – used as the initial letters of proper names, to mark the beginning of a sentence, or for titles. Emphasis was added through more subtle means, for example italics, or simply by a discerning choice of words by the writer.
But with the advent of typewriters, complete with their alluring ‘Caps Lock’ key, we all became our own typographers. The strict adherence to rules that distinguished professional printers was discarded in favour of our own creative ‘typesetting’.
The computer keyboard and the smartphone, along with the internet, has placed typography at everyone’s fingertips. We spend much of our lives looking at screens and tapping at keyboards, and have become hooked on the instantaneous communication they provide.
In the process, our writing has undergone some profound changes. Speed is of the essence. We discard punctuation that we regard as extraneous, we abbreviate words, we use emojis as a visual shorthand, or sometimes to signal an emotion, such as puzzlement, irritation, boredom, frustration, which we can’t be bothered to articulate verbally.
Capital letters are physically larger than lower case and they occupy more space. They jostle meeker lower-case words out of the way and demand attention. As a reader, you feel that you have been sharply prodded or grabbed by the scruff of your neck and shaken. They are without nuance or irony.
Because using capital letters in this way is a blunt instrument, and liable to be taken amiss or resented by the recipient, it is advisable to curb this tendency, especially when you are writing in a professional context. Your colleagues and clients will not want to feel that their heads are being banged against the wall; it is much better to use words to convey emphasis, even it if takes a little longer. Consider for example the difference between the following phrases:
“As you know, TIME IS RUNNING OUT. Next month’s report MUST be on my desk IMMEDIATELY.”
“As you know, we are up against a deadline, so I must emphasise that I need to have next month’s report as soon as possible.”
Phrase like “I must emphasise”, “I should stress”, “it is very important that”, “we really should prioritise” and so on, are useful ways of conveying urgency or pressure politely. Recipients will not feel bullied or browbeaten and will be more likely to cooperate.
Socially, you should be aware that the use of capital letters can cause offence, though it’s all about context. You might feel tempted to use capital letters to convey a positive message, eg “thanks for dinner last night, it was DELICIOUS!”. But this has the effect of making you look deranged and over-excited, when using an additional word, such as “absolutely delicious” conveys your meaning much more subtly.
In general, using capital letters about an incontrovertible fact rather than a feeling is more acceptable. Consider the following:
“I’m sorry I’m running late. The train is delayed AGAIN – it’s so frustrating!”
“I’m sorry I’m running late. The train is delayed again – it’s SO FRUSTRATING!”
The first phrase conveys that the train is disappointingly unreliable, but sounds calm and rational; the second phrase communicates alarmingly strong emotions and the likelihood that bad temper will be the order of the day.
Of course, there will be times when you want to convey anger or emphasis, or when you want to shout at the recipient or rage about frustration and disappointment, and there is no reason why you should not use capital letters. But first, consider using words alone to convey your feelings, and do not make a habit of relapsing into capital letters whenever strong emotions are afoot.
Always bear in mind that the recipient of a text that uses capitals will understand that you are expressing a strong emotion, usually a negative one, and may find your message threatening or alarming. Capital letters are a blunt instrument, they do not convey subtlety and, even if you are using them ironically, sarcastically or humorously, you cannot guarantee that your message will be interpreted correctly. Why not meet the challenge of conveying these more nuanced emotions with a few well-chosen words?
It’s holiday season and we’re beset by a barrage of tourist horror stories, all of which show a depressing lack of respect: defacing the Colosseum with graffiti; crashing into and damaging a 300-year-old painting in the Uffizi in search of a meme; sitting on an invaluable chair displayed in a museum and destroying it; driving down the Spanish Step in Rome and getting stuck; harassing geishas in Kyoto – the dismal list goes on and on…
All over the world authorities are enacting policies to mitigate this behaviour, from hefty fines and vigilant policing to clever advertising campaigns and tourist ‘ambassadors’. But we still need to understand why tourists are behaving so badly.
Advertising campaigns for summer holidays create an alluring picture of fun-packed days (sun, sea, water-sports) and sizzling summer nights (drinking, clubbing, partying). These hermetic visions of a tourist heaven omit one obvious factor – the local population, who are consigned to the background as they go about their usual business, working, shopping, cooking, cleaning, taking their kids to school, and so on. Even if your preferred holiday is a tourist ‘ghetto’ – an all-inclusive pleasure resort that supplies all your holiday needs – it is still being serviced by local workers, who live outside the hallowed precincts.
Many tourists embark on holidays feeling that they deserve a break. The holiday is a reward for all their hard work, an antidote to the mundane concerns of daily life. They are going to let their hair down, pursue pleasure with disinhibition, revel in being somewhere where nobody knows them and will disapprove of their behaviour.
Seduced by the promise of pleasure, they never stop to think about the fact that they are visiting a real place inhabited by ordinary people. This is often a failure of the imagination. If you live somewhere relentlessly grim, grey and urban it is hard to imagine that mundane lives are lived in paradisiacal places, which seem to be created for pleasure. But it is important to remind yourself that your pleasure palace is somebody else’s home, and they are entitled to some respect and consideration. Just remind yourself, how would you feel if tourists treated your own home in a disrespectful way?
A lack of respect for cultural heritage is one of the most shocking symptoms of bad tourist syndrome. Would the offenders behave with such contemptuous disregard in the museums and historic buildings in their native land? While undoubtedly there are vandals in every society, it does appear that cultural disrespect is much more likely to be displayed by visitors.
Again, this seems to be a failure of the imagination, or in some instances a contempt for otherness. Once the hedonistic mindset has been engaged, there is a temptation to see an entire tourist destination as a playground, where cultural norms are no longer applicable.
This tendency becomes particularly troubling when it extends to a contempt for sacred or revered places. These may well be culturally alien to visitors, who refuse to engage with their hosts’ beliefs, expectations or prohibitions, or even accept that these beliefs should be honoured, and choose to behave disrespectfully.
Undoubtedly bad tourist syndrome has been greatly exacerbated by social media. The urge to chronicle holiday exploits on social media platforms sets a ball in motion. Followers want to visit the same places and do the same things and post about them in turn. This is a way of consolidating ties within a social group, but it can also be a way of perpetuating undesirable behaviour.
The urge to ‘create memories’, to document the tourist experience and to disseminate it to other people can mean that tourists are putting considerably more effort into creating content than they are expending on looking at the world around them, understanding local customs, or interacting with the local inhabitants. Their preoccupation blinds them to the local environment, and an obsessive quest for a killer image can mean that they act inconsiderately – from trespassing to invading home-owners' privacy.
Inevitably, the quest for the perfect social media image, which is endlessly replicated, leads to a ‘bucket list’ mentality. Certain sights and locations are swamped by hordes of image-seekers, which can have a severe impact on residents.
•Find out More
Whenever you travel, accept that you are not visiting a theme park, but a place where people live and work. Try and do a little research about your destination before you set off and try and understand economic conditions, cultural norms and prohibitions from the outset. No matter how you feel about different cultures, you should at least respect what they value and hold dear and the everyday pressures they must confront.
•Ditch the Phone
Putting the phone to one side may be too big an ask for most of us, but at least make an effort to moderate phone-related activities. Accept that actually experiencing a place, and not mediating that experience through your phone, is a much more intense, unforgettable and vivid experience. Once you look up from the screen and really take in the world around you, you will find that you feel more engaged with the local inhabitants, which will add a whole new depth to your experience.
•Model Good Behaviour
If you find the urge to post irresistible, then use social media as a way to disseminate positive messages about travelling. Instead of following the herd, break free. Explore little-known byways, obscure monuments and quirky sights. Make friends with locals and post pictures of them (with their consent). Dig out great shops, market stalls and fantastic local restaurants. Demonstrate that the best tourists have an open and enquiring mind, and a respectful demeanour. It will reap unforgettable rewards.
