DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am trying to do what used to be called "snubbing," but the snubee is making it very difficult.

A woman who is a member of a well-known family in my city was arrested several years ago for, among other things, improper sexual activity with a minor. There were allegedly drugs involved and there were also accusations that her illegal activities may have taken place in the presence of her young children. All of this was covered in detail by the local papers, as was her eventual guilty pleads to lesser charges, which reduced her sentence to time served.

Here's where I come in to this mess:

This woman's young son is in my son's kindergarten class, and the boys have become good friends. Stevie has been over to play at our house and is always welcome. He is a sweet child and as his parents are separated in the wake of his mother's legal problems; he seems to have a chaotic home life and appears to enjoy the relative normalcy of our home. (He and his sister live with their mom.)

Stevie's mother has apparently decided that she and I should also be friends. She wants to sit with me at parents' events at the school, invites me to have lunch with her, calls to chat, etc. I have managed to be "busy" when she proposes one-on-one activities, and to "lose" her as quickly as possible in large groups, but she is very persistent.

Worst of all, she invites my son over to her house to play. In a normal situation, this would be expected, but I will absolutely not leave my child alone with this woman.

When I decline these invitations, she always asks why, and my responses have evolved from vague to fairly pointed. "I'm more comfortable with the boys at my house" is the latest. But still, she refuses to take the hint. Short of "because you're a child molester, that's why," how can I respond politely but unequivocally?

I do feel sorry for her and the mess she has made of her life, and I don't want to hurt her son, but I cannot be her friend or allow my son to play at her house. Any suggestions?

GENTLE READER: Yes: Keep stopping short of "because you're a child molester, that's why." You do not want to enter into a discussion with her, or with anyone else, about letting bygones be bygones after someone has paid her debt to society, as they say. You do not even want to argue the merits of the case and whether the charges of which she was legally proven guilty are enough to make her socially undesirable.

Miss Manners is sorry to be harsh when the society has become so generous about granting fresh starts. But if we do not judge people on their own deeds, upon what do we judge them?

And even among those of spotless reputation, you are free to choose your friends. People who fail to understand polite individual rebuffs about being busy should be given general ones: "You're kind to keep asking me, but I really hardly have time for my old friends," and "I appreciate your inviting my son, but I hope you will let Stevie continue to visit us instead, because I insist that they play here."

:

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.

: