COOL CHEEK.

Thames Star, Volume LX, Issue 16958, 3 December 1926, Page 6

COOL CHEEK.

THE UNINVITED GUEST.

“INVASION” OF ENGLAND

CRASHING THE SOCIAL GATES

England is suffering from an epidemic of the social infliction known cryptically as Mr. and Mrs. U Guest. Mr. and Mrs. IT. Guest are, one hastens to explain, those indelicate persons who “crash the gate” at large private entertainments to which they have not been invited.

They may be roughly divided into two categories. Those who take the risk of being unceremoniously shown out, just for the fun of the party; and those who go to it for a definite and sinister purpose, as scouts for skilful bands of thieves. Mr. Uninvited Guest is far more common than is Miss; but Miss does appear. She is more useful as a scout, for instance. .Meif’s cloak-rooms in most big-houses, are on the ground floor, the women’s are often upper bedroms, pressed into service for the occasion—which means that the upper floors ai’e open for inspection to the perfectly gowned female intruder. She is always perfectly gowned, just as he is immaculately togged out. The manners and conversation of both are charming. Their fellow-guests are delighted with them. Their hostess is perfectly certain that they are people she really ought to know, and reproaches herself for her lapse of memory, until other of her guests claim her attention At least that is the way it used to go for the U. Guest family. But lately the path has been less smooth for them. The London hostess is getting tired of their company and is taking precautions.

Mrs. Baldwin, wife of the Prime Minister, and naturally, therefore, one of the most victimised of hostesses (for who is there who does not nourish a secret ambition to visit famous No. 10, Downing Street?) has led the way. Recently a new rule was enforced at No. 10. Only those persons who had actually replied to the invitations were to be admitted to any of her receptions.

A secretary with an alphabetical list of these people is now in attendance beside the footmen who open the front door, and those presenting themselves for admittance (except, of course, at the more intimate gatherings) are checked up. Other hostesses are making obligatory the presentation, at the door, of the invitation itself.

Even these measures are not too successful. Invitations are things that are frequently left lying around. Neither footman nor secretary can af ford to be firm to the point of rude ness if a would-be guest is insistent; for often the most important people reafly do forget to bring along their cards.

The U'. Guests, once they get the hand of these affairs and' have the aplomb, born of much practice, become very bold indeed. Hence the hostesses of Mayfair, Westminster and Belgravia have banded themselves more closely together, and are taking determined steps to end the social careers of the interlopers. They have, in fact, organised a sort of social secret service—including themselves, theia secretaries and their butlers—for the detection of the unwelcome visitor. -

People, then, like Lady Astor and Lady Londonderry, great (political hostesses who entertain an immense number of persons whom they may hardly know by sight, but who know them oi- aye associated with them in 'some way, were the first victims oi the sensation hunter who wanted to mingle with the great, though he knew dihem not. .Long accounts of all their receptions are regularly published in the newspapers with the names of t ose present. It was tempting, inflaming to the imagination Perhaps a few people, uninvited, were taken at first by friends who really were invited (though practice 11 j unknown) and who were afraid of having no one to speak to in a great crush of strangers. They found out how easy it was to get admitted. Even at Lady Astor’s, where, on particularly, big "crush” nights, it is sometimes customary for every guest to wear a little card with his .or her name and pursuit on it, for the information of fellowguests, no real investigation was made. The secretary with the cards just wrote down what she was told, and pifined it on the visitor. Later, if the visitor got scared, he simply “lost” his card. Charity “at homes.” much affected by the English, provided another great opportunity, as people lending theii houses on these occasions never expect to know more than a fraction of those present, mostly recruited among supporters of the particular charity concerned. Getting admitted to large functions, in fact, used to be ia; very simple matter indeed. It was made easier by the fact that hostesses after the war made a pracof asking girl guests to “bring a man” to dances. Inevitably, then, there were guests present whom the hostess knew she did not and could not know. How could she attempt to check up on which of these strangers had come with invited guests, and wrhioh were interlopers pure and simple? She has recently reverted, quite suddenly, to the more dignified why of inviting her own men instead of having the commodity imported for her/ and this, in itself, will do much toward reducing the number of unknown visitors.

POLITICAL HOSTESSES AS VICTIMS.

It has been discovered, though it is not being talked about, that one or two of the U. Guests actually created a social life for themselves out of a Few ventures to parties to which they had not been invited. These consolidated their position cleverly by going up to and claiming acquaintance with their first unknown ing hostess as 3oon as they met her again at someone else’s house, reminding her of some quite imaginary happening in some constituency or at a public affair.

They had carefully chosen political hostesses, since no one in politics can possibly remember every one he has met, while faulty memory might often prove damaging—particularly if the stranger says be bails from “the constituency. Constituents are very

sensitive to affront, hence the political hostess could usually be relied upon to reply with cordiality, and the social imposter got his credentials properly O.K’d.

England, however, is far too small —English Society, with the big “S” too limited in point of numbers—for this kind of imposition to go on indefinitely. Soon the absence of confirming friends would be felt, .and the intruder dropped, even were it not actually discovered what he was.

Undoubtedly the careers, however brief, of the uninvited guests successful enough to “break in” have done more towards making hostesses take die matter seriously than spectacular burglaries themselves, based upon spying done by scouts masquerading as guests could ever have done. To an Englishman the social danger is much worse than the criminal danger. Well-appointed gangs of thieves, mustering smart members .able to hold their own invariably, had sense enough to date the burglary' at some length of time from the party at which plans and observations were made. If the burglars were caught afterwards the fact would only be brought home to one family, the “burgled” one; but in the case of the social adventurer who had moved on from spurious to genuine guestdom it was forcibly brought home to every family that had entetained an dintroduced the outsider.

In any case, London’s hostesses are now determined. Uninvited presence at famous houses will soon be impossible. In a spasm of anxiety society is even now busy checking up its “dark horses,” individuals whose introductions and antecedents are not well known. If some of them are found not to coine “up to scratch” they will be discarded immediately. Meanwhile the more or less simple and uninteresting members of the U. Guest clan who were satisfied to be just U. Guests all their lives, not aspiring to more than unauthorised glimpses of 'the great with a good stand-up supper thrown in, are lamenting the fact that London is to be deprived of one more “harmless pleasure.”