DEAR MISS MANNERS: All three of my sons have birthdays within a week of each other. They range in age from 24 to 29. I have a limited income, which the kids are aware of. To celebrate their birthdays I invited each of the boys to a local restaurant and comedy show as my treat. Their wives and girlfriends were invited to go Dutch.

The youngest son's wife said I should pay for everyone, and my son, agreed. Everyone else went except these two. However, there was a noticeable feeling of irritation towards the missing ones. Everyone assured me I shouldn't feel bad or guilty for not paying for everyone.

To add insult to injury, about a week later, my son's wife left a message saying they would like to go out to a local family restaurant. I would have been expected to pay for all three of us.

I was so angry I didn't do anything for his birthday. I was taught when a gift is offered you don't say "No, I'd rather have something different." What do you think? Please don't use my name. Just sign me "A Mom Who Taught Him Better!"

GENTLE READER: Yes, but look what you taught them. You taught them that the way to use limited resources is to have your own fun regardless of other people's feelings.

It strikes Miss Manners that if you had taken everyone to dinner and skipped the show, it probably would have cost you less. Or you could have taken them to a less expensive restaurant. It is not the cost of the hospitality that should count, but its graciousness. But you killed that by issuing real invitations to your sons and second-class ones, if they can even be called invitations, to the ladies in their lives.

Miss Manners agrees with you that invitations, like presents, should be accepted or declined. But she agrees with your son and daughter-in-law that such an invitation should be declined.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I have numerous business and social contacts, but when we received a wedding invitation from someone several states removed from us, we were unable to determine any knowledge of the bride, groom, or of their families, try as we might.

I declined the invitation with regrets but still wonder if that was the proper way to respond. Should I have called the parents of the bride and tried to determine a connection? If so, what should I say? Should we send a wedding gift?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners hopes you use an answering machine on your telephone. She would hate to think of the social obligations you might take on from people who dial you because they have the wrong number.

If you do have some connection with these people, it must be so tenuous as to make it silly for you to be invited to, much less attend, their wedding. Declining politely was all you needed to do, unless you could be absolutely positive that you were addressed by mistake. Perhaps your name and address will alert them that they mis-addressed the invitation.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: As an American corresponding with my husband's cousin, must I address the envelope "Lord Geoffrey and Lady Margaret"?

I am sure they prefer it, but it annoys me to call her "Lady." I don't mind addressing him "Lord," as he has earned the title bestowed upon him.

I know British protocol calls for the title, but do I have to do so?

GENTLE READER: Had you not caught Miss Manners in the middle of writing a book about the history and philosophy of American manners, she might have given you a quick yes and no answer. (No, not yes or no; yes and no. See below.) But it struck her that here is the heart of it, packed into the assumptions behind one little question.

It is not just that you, as a proper American, have an antipathy toward aristocratic titles. (Miss Manners knows that a great many Americans simply adore titles, and would curtsey to a kingfish if they had a chance, but this is not a proper American attitude.) It is your assumption that a title is better if the person who bears it has earned it.

Bless your heart, that is not the way the class system works, and it goes a long way toward explaining why America chose not to have one. The further away the title holder is from earning his distinction, the more distinguished he is considered. It may be all very well to be given a peerage for merit, presumably these days a life peerage, but it is far grander to be the inheritor of a title given to a remote ancestor for pulling a hapless king out of a ditch or some metaphorical mess.

Now let us get to the yes and no. Yes, you should address people as they wish to be addressed. Using someone's title is not a show of obeisance, the way bending the knee to a foreign sovereign would be. It is a violation even of good old American etiquette to annoy people on purpose.

But no, you don't have to address the envelope to Lord Geoffrey and Lady Margaret, because this would be incorrect. The full title is used on the envelope: "The Duke and Duchess (or The Marquess and Marchioness, or The Earl and Countess) of Middlehamptsonshirington;" or "The Viscount and Viscountess Twinkledee." Only the lowest-ranking peers, barons, receive mail styled Lord and Lady, and then not with their given names -- "The Lord and Lady Hemhaw."

In speech, Lord or Lady before a given name means that the bearer has inherited the title (and it is only a courtesy title, because under primogeniture, only the eldest son is ennobled, and his siblings are commoners) as the child of a duke, a marquess or the daughter of an earl (earls' younger sons being styled Honourable, as are the children of viscounts and barons).

So, unless Cousin Margaret is one of those, marrying up would not make her Lady Margaret, only "Margaret, Duchess of Whoopdeedoo." And Cousin Geoffrey wouldn't be Lord Geoffrey if he earned his peerage, unless it was by putting up with his irascible father.

Yes, yes, Miss Manners admits that she knows more about this sort of thing than a proper American should. There is even more: grace notes that are added to the title when it is business correspondence, the importance of "The" when giving the title, ways to address knights and baronets, and on and on.

Fortunately, you are not addressing the entire peerage, only two cousins, and they ought to be able to tell you how they came to be called whatever it is they are called.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Our daughter went to help her friend who manages a motel, and when one of the customers was leaving, his 6-year-old son pointed to her and said, "That's a neat job."

The dad said, "This job is for people that never went to school and don't know anything, so you'd better stay in school."

My daughter just smiled at the boy. She is in nursing, as am I, but she lives in the mountains where there is no place for her to work and her husband has a great job. But she says, "If it will keep the boy in school, it doesn't matter what the dad thinks."

I would have taken the man aside and told him, "I am a nurse and a physical therapist, and I am just helping my friend."

Maybe I have lost my manners. What would you have done?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is in thorough agreement with your daughter that it doesn't matter what the father thinks, and it does matter what the son thinks.

But she fails to see how it will keep the boy in school to find that he doesn't need it for a job he admires. Worse, she doesn't want him to receive the appalling lesson that it is acceptable to insult honest working people to their faces.

As your daughter understands, pointing out that she is qualified for other jobs does not address either of these problems. It even suggests that the father wasn't rude, but only mistaken -- that it might have been all right to say this if she did not have a nursing degree.

She also had the right instinct about addressing the boy, although Miss Manners wishes it had been with more than a smile. She might have said, "I hope you do stay in school, because it will give you the choice of doing whatever job you want to do. I like doing this one. You're right, it's a neat job."

She could have added, "I'm lucky that I do have an education, so I've also been able to help people in other ways." Although your daughter certainly did not need to defend herself, Miss Manners supposes that would have pleased you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At a number of children's athletic events as well as at the dedication of a building with the president in attendance, I was confused over what to do during the playing of the National Anthem.

I was always taught to stand up straight and keep your arms at your side, but many people place their hand over their heart, like we do for the Pledge of Allegiance. What is the correct procedure?

GENTLE READER: What you are supposed to do during the National Anthem, besides standing up straight, is to sing. But that presumes that (1) you are an American, (2) you know the words and (3) Jessie Norman is not singing, because if she is, you should shut up and listen.

What you are not supposed to do is to applaud afterward, although nobody but Miss Manners seems to know that. As the National Anthem is not mere entertainment played for people's amusement, applauding is actually disrespectful.

But the hand position -- over the heart or at the sides -- is optional for civilians. (Military people in uniform should salute.) The exception is gentlemen with hats, who must remove them and hold them in the hand-over-heart position. And yes, baseball caps count.

: