Evening star., 1937-04-17

With Ones
Relatives
Think Twice Before
Canceling Your
Engagements.
BY EMILY POST.

DEAR Mrs. Post: accepted an in
vitation from a near relative for
Sunday dinner. On the Friday before,
my husband had still not returned
from a several weeks business trip,
as he had expected to, and telegraphed
that he would not get in before late
Saturday. felt that as he had been
away so long he might be tired and
might enjoy staying home on Sunday.
Accordingly, I called the relative and
explained that we could not come
after all, and why. I certainly ex-
pected she would understand. Her
last remark before saying goodbye
was that such rudeness was the penalty
OF being only relative and that had
she been somebody else would have
considered that by Sunday evening
my husband would be able to fulfill
an obligation had made for him in
his absence. I haven't heard any,
thing from her since, and have made
no further attempt to talk to her.
Under the circumstances, do you think
too that it was inexcusable for me to
decline her invitation?
Answer: 1t is perfectly true that
the freedom to be frank between men,
bers Of family is very different from
the ordinary relationships with those
outside. AS rule, we prefer that
members Of our family do what they
really want to do. And yet, on the
face Of it, it would certainly seem
that "a hours ought to have been
enough rest for your husband unless
he had been i'll or unless the trip he
took was unusually fatiguing or unless
there were other mitigating circum-
stances, which you have not explained.
nEAR Mrs. Post: have a man and
wife boarding and living at my
house because otherwise I would have
to live alone. They would like to
invite two out-of-town friends to
dinner and told them to ask them
by all means. Will it be proper for
me to sit at the table with them as
We always do or should I let them
entertain alone, simply having the
maid look after them? And If I am
present, who sits where, since I am
head of the house although these are
not my friends who are coming to
dinner?
Answer: Taking it for granted that
your relationship and theirs Is exactly
like that Of single family, your place
Is certainly at the head of your own
table. OF course, if you happen to
have an engagement for that evening,
you would say so and be free to 70
out. On the other hand, If you 70
out or stay away purposely, it seems
to me that you might be setting
precedent for future times, which
would oblige you to 60 out whether
you want to or not. If they really
want to give dinner without you,
they could, Of course, take their friends
to q restaurant.
\
DEAR MRS. POST: have re-
Gently moved here and only Just
begun going to church where all the
people call the clergyman REV.
Goode." It seems very strange to us
to say REV So and So because
where we came from the clergyman
was called "Mr" unless, of course,
he had the degree Of doctor. MY
husband and I, after talking this over,
wondered whether it is always best
to do as the Romans do, even in
cases where we believe our way is
better form. We don't, of course,
want to make ourselves conspicuously
different and we wouldn't like others
to think that We were perhaps dis
respectful in not calling him what
they may consider to be his proper
ecclesiastical title.
Answer-I really don't know what
to advise you, since REV. Goode" Is
not only provincial but illiterate.
However, on the other hand, If you
call him "Mr. Goode," as you sug-
gest, other people may consider you
lacking in respect, and yet if he is
not doctor you can't call him "Dr.
Goode." REV Mr.. Goode" would
also sound strange. Perhaps the best
answer Is that you do as others do,
assuming to yourselves that REV.
Goode" is simply his individual name,
and one that you would never apply
to any other clergyman.