Q. As a chap who hasn't sent a Christmas card
for some years, I decided that this year would be the one in which I would try to start getting back in touch with people. Consequently I sent out about 100 cards, signing them simply since it seemed a bit formal to add my surname and also a bit corporate to add my address. The problem is that over Christmas I met two of the recipients of my card, who at first denied all knowledge of having received one, then said, 'Oh yes, we did get a card from someone called "Bill", but we didn't realise it was you.' I am now worried that most of my time and effort in sending out these expensive cards will have been to no avail if people have not realised that I am the 'Bill' in question. Next year, how do you suggest I tackle this anonymity issue? I notice that a number of my friends have sent photos of their children instead of the traditional snow or nativity scenes. As a bachelor with no children, am I right in assuming it would be unacceptable to simply send out photographs of myself next year?
B.F., London W11 A. On principle, I disapprove of Christmas toasteards' — unless issued by a member of the royal family — but approve the use of family photographs stuck inside a card showing a traditional nativity scene. Since I happen to be personally acquainted with you, I can assure you that a photograph of yourself would make a more than acceptable Christmas card (stuck inside, of course). The fact that you are a heterosexual, 48-year-old bachelor, with a large private income and a professional qualification as a vet, would be a certain way of bringing Christmas cheer into many homes where the plight of the modern spinster is uppermost in many minds during the festive season. It is vital that your full address and contact details also be enclosed in discreet print.
Previous page
