DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have formed the opinion (from multiple sources in literature, no doubt) that a manservant, particularly a butler or a chauffeur, is properly addressed by his surname, i.e. "Jeeves," "Hudson," "Cadmon," etc. etc., with no "Mr." preceding, and certainly no first name, by those he is serving, and "Mr. Jeeves/Hudson/Cadmon" by his colleagues.

However, I recently watched a BBC program on the restoration and reopening of a grand London Hotel, which offers "Butler Service" to selected guests, and their butlers refer to each other and are referred to by their first names only. I suppose one could ask the butler/valet/chauffeur how he wishes to be addressed, but I would so like to get off on the right foot and would not like to appear overly familiar. Please advise me of the correct mode of address, as I would one day like to visit England and do not wish to offend.

GENTLE READER: In no country is it a good idea to model your manners on television programs or novels.

At best, you have to take into account what the behavior is intended to say about class and character, and at worst -- well, let us say that a knowledge of etiquette, historic or contemporary, is not necessarily brought to the writing of these works. Miss Manners has yet to see a period drama, British or American, in which supposedly well-bred people did not commit the social atrocity of eating and drinking with their gloves on.

But in this case, the mistake was yours, in thinking that time had stood still between the writing of those books and the recent television program. Therefore Miss Manners' rant was irrelevant, but she thanks you for letting her vent.

A butler was, as you have read, addressed by his surname alone, as was the chauffeur, although the lower servants were expected to preface this with Mr. The housekeeper and the cook had the title of Mrs. with their surnames, even if they had never been married. Footmen were addressed by their given names alone, but, with uncharacteristic choice, ladies' maids and parlor maids could be called by either their given or surnames alone. The nanny was called Nanny with either her surname or, in even older households, the surname of her employers.

However, as the years went by, the male upper servants began to be accorded a "Mr." with their surnames. As the decades went by, informality has pretty much swept away honorifics and surnames, except in the most traditional households.

If you do not want to inquire at the hotel desk, or of a private host, go with what you learned in those books. It is better to be thought quaint than cheeky.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When eating a salad, is it improper to "stab" at the salad?

GENTLE READER: It is improper to stab any food, once it is no longer in the wild but on your plate. But of all the foods to attack, salad strikes Miss Manners as being the most helpless. Why would you pick on something like lettuce, which is too flaccid to strike back?

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I love doing most everything with my wife, but there are times I want to do things by myself. I can't even go fishing with my dad because she has to be always there. It gets so bad that I am unable to do anything without her there, which leads to not being able to do things with family members, hence my dad, friends, etc.

I know she loves doing the same things that I do, and that's great, but come on! How do I confront her to say enough is enough: I'm going to do this without you?

GENTLE READER: The essential thing that Miss Manners cannot do for you is to convince your wife that you love her and value her company even though you do not always want to act in tandem. "Enough is enough" is definitely not the proper approach.

The early stages of love, where the couple cannot bear to be apart for a minute, are so exciting that there is a temptation to extend this beyond its natural course. In the mid-20th century, this was known as "togetherness," a concept that led to a lot of marital strife. Shutting out the world and expecting to derive all satisfactions from one other person is not, in the long run, as charming as it sounds. Long-established couples who hang onto each other when out socially, complaining when they are separated even at the dinner table, appear more distrustful than doting.

Miss Manners is reminded of the foreshadowing of marital disaster in the version of "Ondine" by Jean Giraudoux: The besotted water-sprite Ondine rhapsodizes about inseparability, while Hans, the equally besotted but all-too-human knight-errant, pleads that sometimes he would just like to visit his horse. (True, he also admits that the horse is the most important -- and the most sensitive -- party of the knight-errant.)

It should be relatively easy for you to begin by pleading that your father occasionally wants one-on-one time with you. You would be well-advised to avoid making these be expeditions that are of particular appeal to your wife. You should also be encouraging her to see her family and friends on her own, while you, now and then, do the same.

Meanwhile, Miss Manners trusts that you will be showing your wife that she has your love and your loyalty, even if sometimes you do want to visit your horse.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Does one have to acknowledge apology gifts if one has no plans to accept the apology?

An ex-employee who burnt some bridges on the way out sent me a gift to apologize for his actions. His peace offering was not due to any newfound contrition, but because he wants to use me as a reference.

GENTLE READER: You cannot have it both ways -- accepting the peace offering and not thanking him -- not going further, in fact, and making peace.

If you do not wish to do this, Miss Manners insists that you send back the present with a stiff note saying that you cannot accept it. He is not likely to ask you for a reference after that.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We had my husband's brother to our home for a meal, and when his brother finished his salad, he quickly lifted the bowl up to his mouth to drink the remaining salad dressing.

I was grossed out. I told my husband after that I was not at all pleased. He said just about everyone does it, but usually when no one else is around.

How do you tell someone that this action was distasteful to you? I hope he never does it in a restaurant.

GENTLE READER: What was in the salad dressing?

Never mind. What should have contained more vinegar was your response to your husband. You might suggest to him a few other activities that just about everyone does when no one else is around (although Miss Manners seriously doubts that drinking salad dressing is one of them).

Are these actions acceptable -- or some of them even legal -- when done in front of others? And were there not others present at the incident in question?

It may be easier to triumph over your husband than to reform a guest. If your brother-in-law attempts it again, you could say, "Wait, I'll get you a teacup for that."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: New technology brings new challenges. Does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy while communicating online with a family member?

A young relative and I video chatted when I was recovering from a cold. Had it not been my beloved niece calling, I would not have answered a video call in that condition.

At some point during the conversation, I realized that my niece was snapping pictures of me using her computer's camera and was posting them on Facebook. I asked her not to do that, partly because I felt ill and it showed.

She seemed genuinely perplexed as to why I would object, so I tried to explain that she took the pictures without my knowledge during a private conversation and that the "gotcha" pictures she posted on her page were potentially viewable by my own friends and colleagues.

It was not a family or social event where I would expect to be in pictures; it was a personal conversation. Besides, I take special care to monitor my online presence, since it is a vital tool in today's business and social worlds.

In my opinion, notification and permission are required. Just as one should inform a caller that she is on speakerphone and others are in the room -- or that the conversation is being recorded -- one should know when a conversation might include an unwanted photo session. I realize that by mutual agreement, this may not be necessary amongst her young friends.

My example involves a casual call with a dear family member, and I certainly don't wish to dampen her familial enthusiasm. However, there must be a way to use technology respectfully and responsibly.

On the other hand, perhaps I need to get with it and be prepared for my close-up at all times?

GENTLE READER: It is not just technology that changes, Miss Manners observes. We now have a generation to whom the concept of privacy is bewildering. So, to a great extent, is the distinction between presenting oneself in public, as opposed to just slopping around.

You will have to explain these concepts to your young relative, not only for your protection, but for hers. One by one, this generation is making the painful discovery that not everyone, in the wide world to which they expose themselves, finds them endearing.

: