THE MAYFAIR SENSATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20501, 31 August 1928, Page 12

THE MAYFAIR SENSATION.

LADY ELLESMERE’S REBUKES. NEW PROTESTS. A MARRIED MAN’S VIEWS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) I LONDON, July 24. I It is evident that the last has not been heard of the Bridgewater House ball. In fact, it is likely to, become i famous in history. Lady Ellesmere, in rebuking her uninvited guests who ar- ; rived at the dance and also some who ■ she thought offended in bringing them, i seems to have made several mistakes. Lady Catherine Willoughby, daughter ;of the Countess of Ancaster, and Lady Denman, wife of • the former Govemorj General of Australia, have written letters of protest to the offended hostess, j 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, the Hon. Judith Denman and Miss Potter, as unpardonable. Lady Catherine has written: Dear Lady Ellesmere, —I was very : surprised to see a statement, apparently emanating from you, that Miss Potter j and Miss Denman had been dining with I me, that I brought them with me to ( your dance, and you consider my action j quite unpardonable. Before making a statement of this sort I feel it would only have been fair I if you had asked me for an explanation. 1 Although it is true that Miss Denman ; and Miss Potter dined with me they j did not come to your dance at my suggestion or invitation, nor did I bring them with me. They both went quite ( independently. I met Miss Potter in 1 the cloakroom, and she informed me j that she was coming up the stairs with I 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 Eger ton, daughter of Lady Ellesmere) that Miss Potter 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 kind enough to give the same publicity to it as you have to the statement that you consider my action quite unpardonable, which : naturally I very much resent. Yours sincerely, Catherine Willoughby. WHY MSS DENMAN WAS THERE. Lady Denman writes to the Daily Express and explains her position: My daughter accepted an invitation from Lady Ancaster to dine that night, and after dinner the guests, numbering some 14 to 18, were apparently all going on to the dance. My daughter said she had received no invitation to the 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 on from Eresby House in her own car, and arrived at Bridewater House a minute or two after Lady. Catherine Willoughby, and was announced in the usual way; she shook hands 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 which he belongs, says; I was astonished to note in a statement made- to your representative by a-prominent 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 the invitation. . If I did not know the high standard of your printing I should have thought that an error must have occurred, and that the hostess ip question was writing an apology to the gentleman for having asked him without his wife, as I am under the impression that it is discourteous, in fact, offensively rude, to invite a married man without his wife where other ladies are bidden. As the hostess was unaware that be was married she was accidentally, instead of purposely, impolite, and should surely express regret for this apparent discourtesy. Whilst lam surprised at the gentleman attending the ball in the circumstances, yet he may have thought that his wife’s name was omitted from the invitation by error. Nevertheless, if I were in his position, not, even the threat of the ‘ fullest publicity ,’ which the peeress in question wishes to give to the names of those whom she considers ■culprits, would c.v l tract any apology from me.