DEAR MISS MANNERS: A husband comes home after a few months away on business. His two small children run up to him and he hugs them. He sees his dog waiting for the sign to come and get a hug from him. Husband pats his chest and the dog comes to him, gets a hug. Then the husband sees that his wife is annoyed because he has greeted the kids and dog first.

I think the wife should be OK to wait for the hug hello, after the kids and dog, because she is the only adult present in this scenario.

Question: Is there a husband-returns-home hug hierarchy? What if his mother was also present -- should she take precedence before the wife?

GENTLE READER: A young gentleman of Miss Manners' acquaintance once told her that his friend's father (whom she knew to be a debonair specimen of a culture she will not name) had instructed the two boys in the priorities in life. "First the mother," he said, "then the son, then the car, then the dog, then the gun, then the daughter, then the mistress...." and finally he got to the wife.

Miss Manners does not believe that this is such a case. But she does believe that the wife here thinks so.

That would be petty and petulant. In the absence of other evidence, such as the above-mentioned declaration or associated behavior, it should be presumed that hugs are distributed as the recipients present themselves, and not in any hierarchal order.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My best friend's grandmother died recently. I had only met her once but wanted to be there for my friend and his mother, whom I had known for years.

I didn't think I would be able to show my respects at the funeral home, because it was during the daytime when my wife works and I am alone with the kids, and I didn't want to expose them to death at the ages of 3 and 6 years. Unexpectedly, one of my neighbors came home from work early, and, not wanting to impose any more than necessary, I asked her to watch the children while I went to the funeral home. My neighbor agreed to, but asked if I could be back as soon as I could.

I went to the funeral home in my shorts and a collared short sleeved shirt and was able to attend for about a half hour during visiting hours.

To this day, my best friend likes to point out that I showed up in shorts instead of a tie. I think that I had limited time and it was best for me to just be there, no matter my dress, for as long as I could.

Could you possibly let me know if being there was more important than being there dressed up? Even though I know in 20/20 hindsight that it really would not have taken long to change my attire.

GENTLE READER: You are trying to set Miss Manners up so that you can take the lofty position that what is in the heart is more important than what was on the hanger.

But that is not a proper choice. Clothes are a symbolic way of demonstrating on the outside what is in the inside, and somber clothes are traditionally worn in connection with bereavement as a sign of respect. Although many people violate this nowadays, your friend's reaction shows that it still carries emotional weight.

Your best chance of placating your friend is to drop the inside-outside argument and make the best of your time constraint when you apologize.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My wife and I attended the wedding of a close friend's son and dutifully selected a gift from their registration list. While wrapping it, I suggested that we include a note saying "We know you like the gift, so there is no need to write us a thank you note. Please enjoy."

This sentiment appealed to me because I hate writing thank you notes. We knew they would like the gift -- they picked it out. Why not save them a little time as a sort of second gift? My wife was not, however, at all supportive of this plan and it ended there. Later, the bride wrote us a very gracious thank you note.

Although I admit the idea doesn't feel quite right, if one applies the Golden Rule, it works. I would've appreciated receiving similar notes with our wedding gifts. And, as more and more couples virtually select their own wedding gifts, maybe this is an idea who's time has come?

I'm wrong, I suppose, but technically, why?

GENTLE READER: Because you are hoping to subvert an important and time-honored ritual, even though Miss Manners admits that it has already been nearly drained of meaning.

That presents have come to be thought of as payment for hospitality is a repulsive notion that means that we are selling one another our social company.

But if couples frankly started offering tickets for sale to watch them being married, Miss Manners doubts that they would have many takers. Once the sentiment is removed, people would realize that better entertainment, and probably better meals, are available elsewhere.

The sentiment comes from the thoughtfulness and generosity of the giver. As you have noted, gift registries kill the thoughtfulness part. You propose to kill the acknowledgement that there is still generosity involved.

Miss Manners cannot really blame you for thinking that there isn't much left to kill. But while even a part of it is still alive, she hopes that people will want to restore the meaning to this ancient ritual instead of just doing one another's shopping. Either that or dispose of present-giving entirely. When that happens, you will be thankful to hear that you will no longer have to express thankfulness.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Do you think it is rude and disrespectful to start a response with "I don't mean any disrespect..."?

My friend wrote that to me before she wrote about how her husband being on deployment was not comparable to my husband being away for business. I was offended just because she wrote that. Am I wrong to feel she intended to put me down?

GENTLE READER: Ordinarily, Miss Manners would agree that "I don't mean any disrespect" -- like "Let me be honest with you" and "I have to say how I feel" -- heralds an insult. But there does have to be a way that friends can call attention to an unintentional hurt.

This seems to be such a case. When you compared the absences of your respective husbands, you were presumably referring to the loneliness and inconvenience that you and your friend are both likely to feel. What you overlooked is the difference that is bound to be uppermost in her mind -- that her husband is in danger and might not return. You do owe her an apology for that omission.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Am I being rude if I refuse to stop to talk to environmentalists collecting money on the street?

Over the summer, it seems like they're on every corner of campus. They're always friendly and cheerful, and want to know "Do you care about the environment?"

Why yes, I do. But I like to decide which charities to give to, after doing some research and making sure the charity I choose is cost-effective, and that I agree with all of its goals. Since I already know that I'm not going to give them money, I don't want to waste my time (or theirs) in a nonproductive conversation.

But on the other hand, it seems rude not to stop. I do think that if someone wants to talk to you, it's not polite to ignore them.

GENTLE READER: While commending your attitude, Miss Manners is left wondering how you manage to get to class or down any city block. Accosting strangers is a technique shared by the charitable, the impoverished and the lonely, and their numbers add up.

You are not obliged to hold conversations with any of these people, but it is courteous to acknowledge their existence, or at least that of such strangers who are not suggesting that you date them. A quick "sorry" as you pass is enough to do that.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am receiving invitations to baby showers from my own friends to showers for their daughters or daughters-in-law who live in another state or whom I hardly know.

During a planned visit by the daughter or daughter-in-law, the soon-to-be grandmother either plans a shower herself or leans on a close friend to throw a shower. While the birth of a grandchild is a joyous occasion, the expectation of some grandmothers is approaching inappropriate. It was even suggested by one grandmother that her own friends would be more financially able to furnish the nursery than her daughter's friends.

In my day, baby-shower invitations were sent to friends of the expectant parents, not friends of the grandparents, and expectant parents did not travel the country for baby showers. Expectant parents also understood that the responsibility of furnishing a nursery was their own.

The custom of sending out birth announcements to extended family and friends was a far more genteel means of providing mailing information for those who wanted to mail a gift after the baby's birth. Has the etiquette for baby showers changed in the 25 years since I had my last child?

GENTLE READER: It is not the etiquette that has changed, Miss Manners assures you; it is the willingness of people to abide by it.

Parties such as showers and birthday parties are now commonly planned solely for the gratification of the honorees (who are commonly the hosts or the hosts' relatives), without consideration being given to the enjoyment of the guests, whose contributions are blatantly solicited.

Fortunately, attendance at parties is optional. You owe your friends your congratulations and good wishes; you do not owe them any form of child support.

: