Because it is vulgar to adorn oneself with too many valuables, there has long been a rule cautioning ladies to protect themselves against the danger of looking flashy. Miss Manners learned it from her dear mother:

"When you believe you are perfectly dressed, and are quite satisfied with your appearance, before you go out, remove one piece of jewelry."

So that she would never forget, Miss Manners copied this rule onto the back of a photograph of Queen Alexandra, who is demurely pictured wearing five different diamond necklaces stacked as chokers, diamond drop earrings, two snake bracelets, nine brooches, five jeweled orders and a crown. At least that is all that is visible in this particular pose, which is only a three quarter view, and shows her turned slightly to the side. Presumably the jewels nestling on one shoulder are matched on the other, and there seems to be something glittery peeking out from under the arm in which she is carrying a jeweled fan.

Miss Manners has always wondered what it was that the dear lady removed.

The rule is just as good today as it was then, and probably just as faithfully followed. When today's ladies are dressed to face the world, they should check their appearance and remove one valuable object.

But what will it be?

The security identification on a chain around the neck? The telephone hitched onto the belt? The personal organizer sticking out of the jacket pocket?

Something's got to go, and the one earring that was taken off in order to answer the telephone doesn't count.

Miss Manners is not so much worried about ladies looking flashy as she is about their being overburdened. It seems that the more convenient and miniaturized a lady's necessaries become, the more things she has to pin or chain to her clothes.

In addition to the likelihood of resembling an electronic bulletin board, there is the danger of pitching forward from the weight. If shoulder bags and backpacks weren't required for everything a lady must haul but can't actually hang or pin on herself, they would still be needed for ballast.

Ladies didn't used to need security tags. But, of course, that was in days long past, as far back as six months ago. However, they had even more utilitarian objects to hang on themselves or their clothing:

Before the invention of the wristwatch, watches were worn on the lapel, hanging from little matching brooches, or as rings for the fingers. Eyeglasses might be attached to an elastic band to hang on their own brooch, or worn on a chain around the neck.

Also to be worn on the fingers were rings with tiny chains attached to clasps, to hold handkerchiefs, or to larger mesh circlets to hold gloves, or to tussy-mussies for holding nosegays.

Coin purses and key rings were made with short chains and hooks to fit on the belt. So were skirt lifters (for lifting the long skirt slightly above the ground when the street was messy; what did you think?).

Then there was the chatelaine, the wide brooch from which all sorts of miniaturized-but-useful things might dangle on chains: scissors, pencils, notebooks, stamp holders, needle cases, thimbles, pin holders, button hooks, pen knives, spoons, pill boxes, mirrors, perfume bottles, vinagrettes, nutmeg graters and boxes to hold beauty marks.

Presumably, a fastidious lady did not wear them all at the same time. Before she went out, she might have removed the stamp holder.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have never adjusted to the everyday assumed intimacy by acquaintances and strangers. When I am asked my first name, I find that answering "Mrs." is very helpful -- the other person will then ask for my last name and nothing more is said. This usually solves my problem and often brings a smile.

GENTLE READER: Is it possible that you and Miss Manners are related? She has never countenanced instant intimacy, either, preferring the voluntary kind; she also imparts this information gently to people who assume otherwise -- and she has the good fortune to bear the given name of Miss.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What are my obligations to people knocking on my door? Most are solicitors or religious proselytizers, neither of whom I wish to speak to.

The only way to see who is there is by looking out the door's window. If the person sees me, do I then have to answer the door? I don't like opening the door to strangers. I can see the street, so I know if a police car or fire truck is out there.

If I do open the door, can I cut off their scripted speeches and say I'm not interested? Some are quite aggressive, even hostile. How polite must I be? Cutting someone off seems rude, but then, so does their imposition on me.

Neighbors sometimes knock also, and I don't always answer. How does one tell neighbors not to stop by unannounced without offending them, especially when they are stopping by with a small gift?

I may have let the neighbor situation go on too long to correct it now. Am I obligated to tell anyone that sometimes I don't answer the door? Must I always answer the door if I want to remain a member of (somewhat) polite society?

GENTLE READER: If Miss Manners says yes, it would mean that you would be rude in refusing to open the door when you saw a masked gunman. If she says no, it would mean that you would be polite in peering clearly at your neighbors and then walking away, leaving them standing on your doorstep holding flowers from their gardens or pies from their ovens.

Couldn't she get out of this by making you install side curtains and a peephole?

You don't have to answer the door at all if the caller does not see you and can therefore assume that you are either not home or occupied with something that prevents you from responding. You still don't have to answer the door for strangers, whether they are holding guns or Bibles or lottery winnings, and if they catch you looking or opening, you can cut them off by shaking your head and saying thank you.

But you do have to answer the door to callers you know who see you recognizing them. The saving grace is that you do not have to let them in. You can go into a flurry of gratitude and regret that you are frightfully busy just now and would love to see them at another time.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I share an apartment with one other woman who is good friends with a married couple whom I've also known socially for a long time, but am not as close to. We've entertained them informally once or twice, yet all their social invitations extended to her are extended only to her and do not include me.

Yes, they have a right to socialize on their own, and no, it's not analogous to what the situation would be if my housemate and I were related to one another instead of mere housemates. Still, it is hurtful, though I don't think they're aware of it. My housemate does not know I feel this way.

GENTLE READER: Do her friends?

Miss Manners agrees that these people might be remiss in not including you, but as there is too much sulking going on in the world, she would like you to consider another possibility. Maybe they don't know you are being a hostess, too. Maybe they think you're there when your friend invites them because of the location, rather than the company.

The way to indicate that you do want to be friends is to say how much you like them, rather than how left out you feel. It has a lot more charm.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At a high school reunion that was also a 50th birthday party for everyone who graduated in my class, I enjoyed socializing, and one man was flirting with me quite a bit at the Sunday brunch. He later called and eventually asked me if I would like to have dinner with him.

After I said that I would, he explained that he was going out of town for the weekend, but he would call to make arrangements as soon as he returned. He has never called.

I do not consider myself to have behaved shamelessly in any way that I am aware of, but I feel embarrassed that I said I would like to go and he never called to set it up. I am worried about seeing him somewhere and feeling awkward.

Is there something I should do or say? This has happened to me before, and that is why I am concerned it is something I am doing. I do not like to chase men, but I am now feeling like I am running into or attracting cads.

GENTLE READER: In spite of all the chatter at reunion weekend, and all the class notes you've been sending in, Miss Manners now knows more about what you have been doing in the last 35 or so years than your classmates do.

You've been collecting evidence about what cads men are.

Well, some of them are. Some of them are not. Some of them are some of the time, and some of them improve. What you should have learned by now is that people are different, and if you generalize about them and assume the worst, you will make your life, and perhaps yourself, unhappy, not to mention unattractive.

Miss Manners begs you to drop that high school angst about whether it is you. All you know here is that your classmate was interested in having dinner with you when he met you and still interested a few days later. Then he failed to call. He may be one of those Cads Who Never Call, or he may be a nice man who fell down an out-of-town well.

You are grown-up now. Call him and ask pleasantly if he is now free to schedule dinner. If he chokes up an embarrassed no, then you are free to assume that he met someone better the next day. But you must promise Miss Manners not to hold this against the next prospect you meet.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I always write a note of thanks to the hosts of a dinner party that typically includes a modest number of guests. Is it equally appropriate to write a thank you note for a large-scale party, where dinner is not served in a seated fashion? I usually do not, but I wonder if I am being remiss.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners is hard pressed to think when it would not be appropriate to write a letter of thanks to one's host. Possibly a guest should refrain from expressing gratitude after having left with the host's forks or spouse. However, you are correct that such letters are mandated for dinner parties, but not for large, less formal gatherings.

: