DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have noticed a questionable trend in regard to returning telephone calls. Whenever I make a call, often work-related, and am directed to leave a voicemail message, I do so. My messages are usually detailed but concise and courteous, with my contact information included.

It seems that recipients of calls can now no longer be troubled to even listen to their messages; rather, they simply redial my number, often not even knowing who has called. Many of these calls begin with "You called me? Who is this?"

I then must recap the message I have just left. Am I wrong to feel that this is a discourteous practice? Some of my younger friends seem to find it acceptable.

GENTLE READER: That the telephone is passing out of common use leaves Miss Manners with mixed feelings. For much of its existence, it was accustomed to announcing itself shrilly, without regard to what it was interrupting.

Then along came answering machines, followed by voicemail and caller ID, all of which gave the recipients back control over the timing of accepting calls. But when cellular telephones became ubiquitous, there was a peculiar reversion to considering them an immediate summons, despite their ability to identify and take messages.

So perhaps it is just as well that the movement seems to be returning to the written word. Your young friends probably pay more attention to texting than to telephone messages. They should change those misleading recordings that invite you to leave messages there.

But while those are in place, Miss Manners agrees that it is inconsiderate to treat messages as you describe. You needn't run through your explanation again. Just say, "I left it all on your voicemail, so I won't keep you now by repeating it."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Yesterday, four of us ROMEOs (Retired Old Men Eating Out) had lunch out. While not wealthy, we are all comfortable.

When the check was brought to our table, the total was $60 and change, not including tip. We agreed a tip of $3 each was reasonable, and three of us, not having smaller bills, just upped it to $5 and laid our $20 bills on the table.

The fourth fellow, seeing the bill was covered, then laid down $9 instead of his share of $18. Thus, he effectively took $6 of the tip the other three had chosen to give the waitress. Instead of the $18 or $20 she would have gotten, or the $15 we three had already placed on the table, she got $9 -- less than the $15 the three of us gave. He effectively got an $18 lunch for $9.

I was shocked but didn't know how to approach him and said nothing. What could I have done?

GENTLE READER: Did you think of saying, "No, you owe $18"? And, if he balked, slapping down the extra money yourselves and then not telling him when the next gathering will be?

Miss Manners would have thought you gentlemen old enough not to be shy about handling the business angle in a businesslike way. The lunch itself was indeed social, but the explicit rules of a regular group may be upheld frankly without embarrassment.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: It is with considerable sadness that I have observed a distressing proliferation of representations of purported ladies drinking champagne while wearing gloves.

This activity, for example, occurs throughout the first act of a recent production of an Oscar Wilde play and is depicted in a telecast series about a prominent political dynasty.

I would be vastly grateful if you could address this issue, perhaps doing something to rescue the reputation of the historical ladies depicted.

Assuring viewers that this is merely a lapse perpetrated by contemporary designers and not a subtle indication that the women are parvenues would be comforting to those of us to whom these things still matter. I believe that only an authority of your stature stands a chance of halting this distressing trend.

GENTLE READER: Ah, so it is not just Miss Manners who notices these gaffs.

It seems that every historical drama, whether in the theater, the opera, on film or on television, features:

-- Ladies eating and drinking while wearing gloves.

-- Gentlemen keeping on their hats indoors and in the presence of ladies.

-- Both ladies and gentlemen neatly folding their handkerchiefs after use.

These and other gaucheries have long been forbidden -- as was once known, not just in what passed as "society," but at all economic levels. Unlike today, everyone actually had gloves, hats and handkerchiefs.

Surely those who dramatize the past could do a bit of research. The toniest productions obviously research the costumes, but not how people wore them, and the settings, but not how people behaved in them.

In a previous existence as a drama and film critic, Miss Manners was plagued by false cues -- such as slouching posture, male-first introductions, failure to rise for others, an immediate use of first names -- that indicated poor character or disrespect when such was not the intention of the drama.

But, as you have found, she was not able to enlighten those who -- perhaps believing that human behavior is "natural," and therefore was never different from the most casual modern behavior -- continue to undermine their efforts to re-create the past.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When at a restaurant, should it be proper etiquette to excuse yourself from the table when your young child is throwing a temper tantrum or just sit there and hope that the child will stop?

GENTLE READER: Really? You are in doubt about this?

Miss Manners hopes that you are a disgruntled restaurant patron seeking support for your annoyance at having your dinner spoiled, and not a parent who believes that it would be rude to interrupt the child's tantrum by showing some consideration for everyone else.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The question has arisen in our home as to what constitutes a "maiden name." My husband was filling out a form that asked for my maiden name.

I was born with one name, which was changed legally to another. Then I married for the first time, which ended in divorce. Married a second time, also ending in divorce. Married a third time, which eventually made me a widow. Now I am married for the fourth (and last, I hope) time.

GENTLE READER: Your confusion as to when you were a maiden is, under the circumstances, understandable. Preferring not to probe further, Miss Manners would consider it the surname you used before your first marriage.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was just rude to a child. The fact that he was the 50th person today to ask me to buy something and the 40th person who did not accept a polite "No, thank you" (in his language) with a smile may explain, but does not, in my mind, excuse my brusqueness. (I wasn't horrible, but after he didn't take "no thank you" twice I said "I don't want anything" and I raised my voice a little.)

How should one deal with "subsistence-level tourist farmers?"

I remind myself that these people have so little that they make me look like Donald Trump.

But I find that the purveyors of small items that swarm tourists are severely affecting my ability to enjoy traveling. I end up avoiding places I want to go just to avoid the purveyors.

In one country, I acted drunk all the time I was outside (which worked, actually), but was exhausting. Sometimes they take a "no thank you," but more often, they won't leave me alone until I am brusque, bordering on rude.

Is there any good option? (And, for the record, I do give to charity. This trip, I'm giving a week's worth of living expenses for my three-week trip to a charity focused on educating poor girls in this country. I am happy to give; I want to give wisely.)

GENTLE READER: One of the most pitiful things about this situation is that the children have probably been trained to wear people down by being pests. That is not an excuse to be rude to them, but it does require being firm -- and then moving out of their way.

Miss Manners admires your approach to travel. Well, maybe not your staging a drunk scene, but your unwillingness to be rude, your support of local charity and your learning at least one polite phrase of the language.

You need to learn more of the language. You need to learn to say, "I'm sorry, but it will do you no good to keep after me; it will just annoy me."

It is tricky to ask tour guides or others you may encounter who are in the travel business, who have an interest in protecting you but perhaps not as much in protecting the feelings of those who harass their clients. They are more likely to teach you phrases you would never say anywhere.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have been dating a widower for two years. We have both said we are happier with each other than we've ever been with anyone else and at some point will marry.

When we are in public or with friends, he refers to his late wife as his wife. It makes me uncomfortable and the people he's talking to always look at me in shock. My boyfriend doesn't notice this.

Is this appropriate? Should he refer to her as his late wife or am I being thin-skinned?

GENTLE READER: He should break what is, after all, a long-standing habit, but you would be of more help in sympathizing and explaining than in being hurt.

"My dear," Miss Manners suggests saying, "it seems disrespectful to your late wife when you give people the impression that she is still alive, and yet you are running around with me. Not to mention that I'm getting a racy reputation as a home-wrecker."

: