DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a moderately successful novelist. Things are a bit dicey for me financially, mostly because I am appallingly incompetent when it comes to money management.

Some friends with whom I discussed this problem were kind enough not to offer unwanted loans, but instead recommended that I put a "Donate" button on the inevitable Web site everyone in my field seems obligated to have.

I wasn't initially comfortable with the idea of asking my fans to support me beyond buying my books -- it seems that ought to be plenty; but I eventually agreed, and it did help. Now, a couple of years later (and in the same financial position, alas), I find that I'm still uncomfortable with asking for help in this way. The discussions with my friends over the subject have become passionate. I would very much appreciate your perspective.

GENTLE READER: As a novelist, you undoubtedly have a high respect for the correct use of words to reveal truth. And yet Miss Manners fears that you have adopted a euphemism to disguise from yourself the truth of what you have been doing.

"Donations" are given to institutions or charities that do good works. Individuals may earn money, as you do in selling books; they may receive it through grants to do work; they may inherit it; they may be given it in lieu of presents; they may find it on the street.

But the act of asking others to give you money simply because you are needy is called begging. It requires a sacrifice of pride, and therefore self-respecting people resort to it only if they are totally destitute.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I are determined to treat our child respectfully in order to help teach him how to treat others the same way. For this reason, I believe it's important to give my full attention to the person I am talking to, including my son.

When my son interrupts an adult to get my attention, I say, "Mrs. Jones and I are talking now. Please wait until we are finished."

However, many adults seem to have no problem interrupting my son when he is talking to me. Obviously, I can't very well say, "My son is speaking to me now. Please wait until we are finished." Is there a polite way to ask an adult to refrain from interrupting a child?

GENTLE READER: Not if you want to teach your son respect for others. And this even includes a galling restriction against correcting anyone except your own children or minor charges. So the most you can say is, "I'm sorry, I think Sammy is almost finished with what he is saying."

However, you certainly do not want to teach your son that adults have an etiquette free pass. So you can extend his lesson by saying in private, "I noticed that Mrs. Ermison talked right over you, which is rude. It always makes me feel so foolish when someone does that to me. That's why I'm always after you not to interrupt."

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Occasionally, the rules of etiquette conflict with my religious and moral convictions. When this happens, is there a way I can signal this to new acquaintances?

What I'm looking for is something along the lines of: "I recognize that my behavior in this instance isn't polite, and may even be rude, but I'm committed to it for moral reasons. I apologize for any offense, but I'm not going to change this behavior. Should this be unacceptable to you, please feel free to sever our acquaintance now," though preferably in condensed and less awkward form.

If some examples would be helpful, by far the most common is that I am committed to honesty and plain speaking, so I refuse to engage in the social dance of offering help expecting to be denied. Others include the social precedence of women qua women, and some of the titles and conventions used in addressing people (e.g. I'm not Mister Sandler, simply Oliver Sandler).

GENTLE READER: Etiquette does indeed make allowances for religious prohibitions and moral restrictions that conflict with the conventions. When faced with a conflicting expectation, people who do not, for example, drink or shake hands or eat certain foods or dance, need only say, "No, thank you," or "I'm afraid I can't" with as little explanation as possible.

But you are not talking about religion or morals, both of which -- far from excusing you from offering help -- expect such an offer to be genuine. Etiquette would require you to offer only sympathy if you had no intention of helping.

Nor is etiquette opposed to changing the conventional ladies-first system of precedence to a precedence system of deference based, for example, on age. This hasn't taken effect yet; however, many people have abandoned the gender precedence without replacing it, resulting in a Me First approach that etiquette does not approve.

Similarly, many have simply dropped using honorifics, to the point where Miss Manners, who is not as enamored as you of the no-frills life, fears that the very idea of using a title of respect will be forgotten.

So your behavior will likely be taken less as rudeness than as a commonly increasing lapse of manners. To attempt to paint yourself as acting out of principle, announcing that others can like it or lump it, would only confirm that you are skipping the ordinary courtesies on purpose.

What worries Miss Manners more is that part about plain speaking. Everyone claims to prefer it -- who would want to be subjected to lies and euphemisms? But unfortunately, the term "plain speaking" itself usually turns out to be a euphemism for insulting others. Miss Manners hopes that is not what you intend.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Settle an ongoing argument. Wife insists on using placemats when using a tablecloth. I say the table cloth is the table covering and place mats are used when the wood of the table is exposed. Sometimes the man is right!

GENTLE READER: Indeed he is -- and you are. Miss Manners hopes you do not discover that being right does not always settle a marital argument.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I discovered a Bible that belonged to my great-great-grandmother, and, as I have an avid interest in our family genealogy, I was thrilled! I am curious, however, about the form of her name that was engraved on the cover of the bible, "Mrs. Catharine Bowers."

My understanding of traditional methods of address would lead me to believe that she was divorced by using her given name and her husband's last name. A friend suggests that she may have been widowed when she received the Bible. Then I would have expected to see "Firstname Maidenname Marriedname."

Is there a different protocol or style for engraving on the cover of family Bibles? I am fairly certain that she and my great-great-grandfather did not divorce. They lived during the early 1800s.

GENTLE READER: People tend to forget that tradition is a moving target. You are accurate about today's tradition, from which, Miss Manners notes, the no-frills crowd is now fleeing, abandoning the use of honorifics altogether.

But your great-great-grandmother would never have heard of the tradition of a divorcee's combining her maiden and married surnames, which was invented in the mid-20th century. Before that, a divorce was always considered to be the husband's fault (even if a blameless husband gallantly assumed the blame), and the lady continued to be styled Mrs. Orville Witherspoon.

This served a double purpose: Proclaiming the lady's innocence and annoying the second Mrs. Orville Witherspoon.

For your ancestress to be traditional, she would have had to look back to the 18th century, when "Mrs." was simply an abbreviation for "Mistress," a then-respectable term that was used for the married and unmarried alike, with the lady's full name. Other abbreviations for "Mistress" were "Miss" and "Ms." (the latter not having been invented during 20th century femininism, as many now think, but merely revived).

There is no telling when the lady's husband died, because there has never been a special form for widows, nor is there now. Miss Manners hopes you enjoy your heirloom without being troubled by the thought that your great-great-grandparents' marriage was unhappy.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Frequently, people prefer to be known by a middle name. I happened to find that someone I will be meeting prefers to be known by his middle name. The problem is that he has been knighted. As a further complication, I know that he is a retired army officer. Thus, he is (I will substitute names) Colonel Sir John Philip Smith.

Would it be better to call him "Sir John" or "Sir Philip"? He will probably introduce himself to me as "Philip Smith," but I feel that I should know the appropriate form of address.

GENTLE READER: Chances are, Miss Manners is guessing, that the gentleman did not interrupt the ceremony to say to the queen, "Oh, call me Phil; all my friends do."

Thus, when you address him formally, you call him Sir John. It is then up to him, if he wishes, to say "Oh, call me Phil..."

: