DEAR MISS MANNERS: I had a boy call my daughter. They are both in kindergarten. I feel that is too young to have boys calling my daughter. I gently told the boy that she could not come to the phone.

He called right back, so I told him the same thing again, very nicely, and then asked to speak to his mom. I told her that I had met her son at school and thought he was a handsome and sweet boy, but I didn't want to start a pattern of my 5-year-old daughter receiving phone calls yet. I explained it was nothing personal, just a personal family decision. I also said that I would love to arrange a play date, but I would prefer to have the moms set that up, rather than the kids.

I have told a few of my friends about the conversation and they all acted shocked about my decision. They said they agreed that kindergarten was too young, but they wouldn't have said anything. They said that I was very "bold."

By the looks on their faces and the tone of their voice, I felt like that was a bad thing.

How should I have handled it differently? What is the age that kids should start calling the opposite sex? I was hoping for junior high.

GENTLE READER: Do you believe that the young gentleman from kindergarten was planning to ask your daughter to join him for cocktails and dancing? Might he have declared that she had stolen his heart and asked her to console him?

Miss Manners sees nothing wrong with your withholding telephone privileges from your very young daughter. What shocks her, and perhaps startled your friends, is the fear of overtures from the opposite sex. You are either ahead of the times, in assuming that the ever-decreasing age of romantic interest has sunk to kindergarten, or behind the times in not recognizing that simple friendships also exist between the genders at all ages.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We will write out my daughter's wedding invitations on ecru paper, in formal style -- Mr. and Mrs. Happy Parents request the honour of your presence, etc.

Should we use the same kind of card stock used for engraved invitations?

If using folder style (instead of panel), do we write on the outside or the inside? Are inside envelopes necessary in order to indicate exactly who is invited if all members of the household are not included in the invitation?

My daughter and I dislike reply cards so we are taking a chance and not using them. We anticipate needing to make a number of follow-up phone calls, but since only close family members and intimate friends are on the invitation list, it will be nice to chat.

GENTLE READER: You have chosen the prettiest and most gracious way of issuing a wedding invitation. The most expensive engraved invitations are merely a concession to the fact that few people have the time or the handwriting to write by hand.

The style is therefore the same, with the writing on the outside of the folded sheet, preferably of that heavy stock. Two envelopes are used, not to indicate who is invited -- both outside and inside envelope should contain those names -- but to protect the invitation from the ravages of the postal system.

:

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.

: