DEAR MISS MANNERS: Who should be responsible for the cost of the wedding? Should the bride and groom help with the wedding expense or ?should all of the cost fall to the parents? If so, what percentage should ?the parents pay and what percentage should fall on the bride and groom to ?be?

Our daughter is planning her wedding. The bride and groom are 28 years old ?and this is the first marriage for both. They have college degrees and good-paying jobs. In fact, they make approximately twice what the mother and father of the bride do. Both the bride and groom have their own homes. Neither of them have been dependent on either of their parents for five years.

My daughter feels that traditionally parents should pay for the ?entire wedding and want to do so. I realize that I married 32 years ago and ?things are not the same price as they once were but 15k to 20k is a little ?hard to handle.

I will also mention: Mom and dad will be borrowing most of the money ?for this wedding. I need some help on this matter. I do want to do the ?right thing.

GENTLE READER: No doubt your daughter does, too. A young lady with so much respect for tradition will doubtless be grateful to Miss Manners for explaining the circumstances of the tradition she is so eager to follow.

The parents of the bride did, indeed, pay the wedding costs for a bride living under their protection as their dependent. They also planned the wedding so that it met their taste standard, in addition to costing what they could reasonably and comfortably afford.

As circumstances changed, and brides tended to be older and more independent, these arrangements shifted. Parents conceded more -- often totally -- to the taste of the bridal couple, who are, by definition, at a self-absorbed stage of life and less experienced at entertaining. Weddings became ever more extravagant and expensive. The bridegroom's parents took over responsibility for the night-before dinner, and will sometimes volunteer to contribute more. The couple often pays some or all of the costs in order to get the wedding they want but that their parents cannot afford.

Etiquette never interfered with these arrangements as long as they were voluntary and within the families involved. But at no time did it condone people dunning one another, whether it is the children dunning the parents, the bride's family dunning the bridegroom's family or, the latest vulgarity, the bridal couple dunning the wedding guests.

Miss Manners strongly advises you not to take financial counseling from people who have demonstrated that they are indifferent to the plight of their own parents going into debt.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Occasionally someone at work will bring in a box of candy and set it in the office for all to enjoy. We've been debating as to whether or not one should take the paper candy holder when they take a piece of candy. Some say that to leave it leaves a mess. And others say that, although it is a bit messy, it should be left in the box as a place holder so the candies correspond to the map of candies if there is one.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners does not recognize the existence of paper place-marks that allow workers to spend too much time hanging over the desks of their generous colleagues. The policy here should be throw as you go.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I like to play bridge on an irregular basis and have the opportunity to play with a variety of people. But I really dislike the "Why didn't you do this/do that?", "If you did this/or that, then I could have, it would have ..." -- the inevitable obit by one member re how they could have made some fabulous play if someone else had done something else.

I come to have fun, not "up" someone, or question why anyone did what they did.

I find this inquisition (whether directed at me or anyone else) really rude. Do you have any thoughts on this irritant to me? I have mentioned, attempting to be humorous, that I really don't like the obituaries -- they seem more critical in nature than information/learning opportunities.

GENTLE READER: Then you are in the wrong game. Miss Manners does not mean to suggest that you ought to be playing, oh, say, polo, or Simon Says, instead of bridge. Only that you need to get into another bridge game.

It is not that you want to play for fun and these people don't. It is that their idea of fun is letting you know that except for your bungling, they would have won. Like people who boo at baseball games or the opera, they consider it part of the sport.

Although this seems to be true of the entire variety of people with whom you play, there are others who will be only too glad to escape their partners (in bridge, but sometimes often in life) by forming another table.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My friend and I met our friends' boyfriends and they were all referred to by their first name. After the wedding, they all refer to them as "my husband" all the time. I would like to know if we are friendly with these men, should they be referred to as husbands since we know them and their names?

GENTLE READER: Your newly married friends are getting a thrill from saying "my husband." Unless you would be thrilled to refer to them as "your husband," Miss Manners permits you to continue to call them by their names.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I don't understand why you advise people not to mention price except in matters of business. I'd hate to think that I may purchase a new auto and later realize that a friend had purchased the same car for a much lower price. Would you consider reconsidering?

GENTLE READER: This will not be necessary after you reconsider your notion of etiquette.

Like many people, you assume that its rules are so crudely fashioned as to be inflexible, regardless of circumstances. (But then again, Miss Manners prefers that attitude to that of people who believe that etiquette is so flexible that it never stops them from doing whatever they want.)

We need that rule. Aren't you sick of being asked by strangers what you paid for your shoes?

All the same, etiquette, like its harsher cousin the law, recognizes extenuating circumstances. It would be rude to ask your neighbor what he paid for his car if your motivation were to gage his worth or to announce that he is a sucker because he could have gotten it more cheaply. But you could get away with saying, "I'm thinking of buying a car like that. Do you mind my asking how much you paid for it?"

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: At a recent party, I ran into a friend I hadn't seen for a while. I knew his business was going well, so I congratulated him and asked about the future of his enterprise.

To my great surprise, I found I had walked into a buzzsaw. He berated ?me for asking what he called a stupid question and said in ?increasingly loud tones that I was capable of much more incisive ?queries.

And on it went. Too stunned to do much more than stand there, I kept ?my cool, pointing out calmly between salvos that I was merely asking a civil question that deserved a civil reply.

Given the unpleasantness, would I have been justified in saying ?"Excuse me" in the middle of his rant and walking away? I didn't do ?it, but it seems like an effective way -- perhaps the only way -- to ?let this person know he was committing a major faux pas.

One more thing: He apologized, but via voice mail. Was this ?sufficient, or should I move on?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners can answer your original question, if you are still curious: Business is not going well.

That is not to say that your question was as civil as you suppose. Quizzing friends about their business plans is impertinent.

Still, that vehement reaction was not only rude and wrong (less incisive questions were what he wanted, not more) but also sadly revealing of what he was trying to avoid discussing. He could have brushed the question aside by treating it as a merely conventional inquiry, and responding, "Everything's fine thanks. How are things with you?"

Miss Manners would allow you to skip sticking around for this tongue lashing, but only if you first said, "I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to pry."

: