MAYFAIR SENSATION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 240, 7 September 1928, Page 2

MAYFAIR SENSATION.

LADY ELLESMERE’S REBUKES,

PROTESTS MADE.

LONDON, July 24

It is evident that the last has not been heard of the Bridgewater House ball. In fact, it is likely to become famous in history. Lady Ellesmere, in rebuking her uninvited guests who arrived at tho dance and also some who, she thought, offended in bringing them, seems to have made several mistakes.

Lady Catherine Willoughby, daughter of the Countess iof Ancaster, and Lady Denman, wife of the former Gov-ernor-General of Australia, have written letters of protest to the offended hostess, and these letters, like many others, have appeared in the press. Lady Ellesmere has described the conduct of Lady Catherine in bringing two uninvited guests, Hon. Judith Denman and Miss Potter, as unpardonable. Lady Catlieriuo has written : Dear Lauy Ellesmere, —I was very surprised to see the statement, apparently emanating from you, that Miss Potter and Miss Denman had been dining with mo, that I brought them with me to your dance, and you consider my action quto unpardonable. Before making a statement of this sort I feel it would only have been fair if you had asked me for an explanation. Although it is true that Miss Denman and Miss Potter dined mo, they did not come to your dance at my suggestion or invitation, nor did I bring them with mo. They both went quite independently. I met Miss Potter in tho cloakroom, and she informed mo that she was going up the stairs with me as she had no invitation. I did not like her doing this, and, on reaching the top of the stairs, I told Jane (Lady Jane Egerton, daughter of Lady Ellesmere) that Miss Patter had come but she had no invitation. Miss Denman was not with me. I feel that in view of this explanation you will hardly expect me to apologise, and perhaps you will be land enough to give the same publicity to it as you have to tho statement that you consider my action quite unpardonable, which naturally I very much resent. Yours sincerely, Catherine Willoughby. WHY MISS DENMAN WAS THERE. Lady Denman writes to tho Daily Express and explains her position: My daughter accepted an invitation from Lady Ancaster to dine that night, and after dinner the guests, numbering somo 14 to 18, were apparently all going on to the dance. My daughter said she had received no invitation to tho dance, and understood Lady Catherine Willoughby (who was acting as hostess in her mother’s absence) to say that that was all right. My daughter therefore took it for granted, that the

dinner was being given for Lady Ellesmere’s dance, and that it was only through an oversight that an invitation card had not been forwarded to her. She went oh .from Eresby House in her own car, and arrived at Bridewater House a minute or two aftor Lady Catherine Willoughby, and was announced in tno usual way; she shook h antis with Lady Ellesmere, and remained under the impression that she was an invited guest until Lady Ellesmere announced in the press that she had come uninvited. “OFFENSIVELY RUDE.” A correspondent signing himself “V. C—B” initials which are an easy clue to the distinguished family to which ho belongs, says: I was astonished to note in a statement ‘made to your representative by a prominont hostess, who recently took exception to the presence at her ball of guests whose faces were unintelligible to her, that she was writing for an apology to a gentleman who came duly invited, but with his wife, whose name had been omitted from tho invitation. If I did not know that high standard of your printing I should have thought that an error must have occurred, and that the hostess in question was writing an apology to the gentleman for having asked him without bis wife, as I am under tho impression that it is discourteous. in fact, offensively rude, to invito a married man without bis wife where other ladies are bidden. As the hostess was unaware that he was married she was accidentally, instead of purposely, impolite, and should surely express regret for this apparent discourtesy. Whilst I am surprised at tho gentleman attending the ball in thee ircumstances, yet be may have thought that his wife’s name was omitted from the invitation by error. Nevertheless, if I were in his position, not even tho threat of the “fullest publicity,” which the peeress in question wishes to give to the names of those whom she considers culprits, would extract any .apology from me.