Already a subscriber? Log in
A. Monogrammed shirts are not quite so bad as personalised number plates. Monogrammed slippers are acceptable if worn at home because they are slightly jokey. Equally, boxes of matches with coronets are fine inside the home. The Earls of Sandwich kept, for many years, a caravan on the Isle of Wight with their coat of arms emblazoned on the door — also as a joke — but the general rule is that drawing attention to one’s rank or riches in public is never acceptable. So the peer in question has committed a faux pas.
Q. We have a very nice au pair staying with us. As great foodies we like to buy ourselves treats — passion fruits, expensive chocolates, roasted macadamia nuts and artisan cheeses. These cost a fortune. In the past our au pairs much preferred supermarket cheddar, thought passion fruit looked disgusting and bought their own snacks, so we were safe. But this girl rather enjoys availing herself of our treats. How can I tell her not to polish off our Neal’s Yard Stichelton and gobble through the passion fruits without sounding like stingy tightwads? Please help.
T.D., London SE5
A. There is no full solution to this problem. Two-tier eating systems are always invidious and au pairs, in any case, are supposed to be treated as guests. Certain treats (nuts, chocolates) can be tacitly rendered off-limits by placing them in an earthenware jar with lid next to your computer. A computer desk is, of its very nature, generally perceived as an off-limits exclusion zone. But it would be unrestful — and undignified — for you to hide the luxury cheeses et cetera and then eat them furtively. Au pairs originally stayed as one of the family and helped out, just as a guest would help out, with loading dishwashers and occasional babysitting but did not receive any payment. Then they started being given small amounts of pocket money. Soon they were being given wages. Since there is no full solution to this annoying dilemma you should consider whether it might be cheaper to have someone in for three hours a day at ten pounds an hour, rather than giving board and lodgings and low wages to someone else who will easily wolf their way through £100 worth of luxury food per week.
Q. Your excellent comments regarding the integrity of London’s black taxi drivers (8 March) were marred by your misuse of the expression ‘the exception that proves the rule’. The black taxi rapist of recent weeks is the exception that proves the rule. This expression originally meant ‘it tests the rule and finds it wanting’ (‘proves’ being used in the archaic sense of ‘test’ as in proof of the pudding is in the eating).
S.T., Chirton, Wilts
A. To counter your pedantry may I refer you to Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable which upholds my use of this expression.
If you have a problem write to Dear Mary, c/o The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9HP.
Also in Society
Also by Mary Killen
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in