DEAR MISS MANNERS: My wife and I have a long-term houseguest whom we love dearly. The problem is his princely attitude.

He never does a lick of work, and believes that our every waking moment should be devoted to his comfort and entertainment. He is constantly asking us for snacks, using our laps as lounging pillows, or insisting that we dangle strings or other bric-a-brac around him for his amusement. He also grooms constantly in front of us and leaves his hair everywhere. In all fairness, his toilet habits are excellent.

We’ve repeatedly pleaded with him to allow us some small measure of private time, but he apparently does not understand a lick of English. What universal etiquette rules or maxims can we cite when trying to reason with this guest?

GENTLE READER: As spoken admonitions are unlikely to be effective, Miss Manners recommends putting a treat in his bowl, placing it in the spare room and closing the door. This, of course, assumes your guest is your cat and not your grandson.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband has three siblings, and we tend to buy group gifts for their parents. This works out well, as it means we can purchase large items that my in-laws would not be able to afford on their own.

My issue is with my sister-in-law. She often suggests that rather than buy a gift, we all chip in and buy a gift card for a partial amount of what the intended gift costs. For example, they could use a new grill, but rather than spending $500 on one, she wants us each to chip in and give them one $200 gift card to put towards a grill.

I feel that this isn’t giving them a present, but practically giving them an invoice instead. The issue isn’t that she can’t afford it -- she has almost no expenses herself. The problem is that she is cheap.

In the past, she has contributed less than her fair share and left us to pick up the remaining balance. The most obvious answer would be to exclude her from the group, but that causes a whole new set of problems. How should this be handled? It comes up at every gift-giving occasion throughout the year.

GENTLE READER: One of the reasons Miss Manners objects to cash in lieu of an actual gift is that it shows a lack of interest, on the part of the giver, in what the recipient might like. By specifying the gift, but providing insufficient funds to purchase it, your sister-in-law has both answered the specific objection and increased the rudeness -- an impressive combination.

As excluding only your sister-in-law would no doubt cause ill will, the solution is to revert to everyone’s purchasing individual gifts. While this may preclude the new grill, your in-laws will be grateful for the resulting decrease in family disharmony.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I realize we live in an electronic world, where it now seems EVERYTHING is on display. Some young friends of ours have announced their engagement, which is happy news indeed. However, when we next saw them, they insisted on showing us the video of the potential groom asking his intended to be his wife. Allegedly, the woman knew nothing about being filmed until various onlookers popped out of the woodwork to congratulate them. In the video, the poor woman looks slightly terrified.

Am I the only person in the world who finds this tacky? What ever happened to two people sharing private, intimate moments that belong only to them? Must the world witness everything?

GENTLE READER: You are not the only person. There are two of us, but probably not many more.

Nowadays, Plato would have to revise his quotation from Socrates that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” It is now the unpublicized life that is thought to be not worth living. Miss Manners would be wary of continuing to watch the posts of people who believe that the world wants to share their most intimate moments.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have managed a small personnel firm for almost 20 years. Employers from accounting firms to waste-management companies contract my firm to post job vacancies, screen applicants, conduct telephone interviews and present them with a short list of candidates, from which personal interviews are set with the employer. It is a very rewarding profession.

In the last two years, a disturbing trend has emerged: A growing number of candidates have not been showing up for scheduled interviews. There is no call to cancel or reschedule, or to apologize for or explain their absence. Candidates simply fail to appear. One must conclude they have had a change of heart or a more attractive offer has been received.

The candidate has wasted the time of the employer and my team. They have also eliminated themselves from any future opportunities, having proved themselves unreliable.

May I suggest to any job-hunter approaching an interview that if for any reason you decide NOT to proceed, please say so. A simple “I’d like to withdraw my application” is sufficient. Not showing up is not only rude, but could be career-limiting.

GENTLE READER: In return for these people having made it easier for you to eliminate unsuitable candidates, Miss Manners believes you might want to inform them that you are noting in their files that evidently they are not interested in finding jobs.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What would be the proper way to change your wedding plans after a “save the date” has been sent out?

We want to have a small, private ceremony with just immediate family. Our “save the date” went out to 140 people. How should we let them know of our change of plans?

GENTLE READER: There is no proper form to say, “We don’t want you at our wedding after all. Sorry if you took time off and bought plane tickets.”

Therefore, Miss Manners urges you to follow your private ceremony with a reception for all whom you have asked to expect to be invited.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My son received a gift from a girl for Valentine’s Day (chocolate-covered strawberries and a stuffed bear). He likes her, but had no idea she was planning on getting him a gift.

Should he now buy her a Valentine gift, even if it is after Valentine’s Day? Or just say “thank you very much” and move on? My son is 15 years old and a freshman in high school.

GENTLE READER: And indeed, he may well move on. Or may she.

But a catch-up present is not flattering. Miss Manners would counsel him to wait and see if the mutual liking lasts until Easter, at which time he could surprise her with a chocolate bunny.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Over the years, I have become concerned and annoyed with the behavior of charities. I want to support organizations doing public good, both in the United States and around the world, but their activities in three areas are starting to make me reconsider my commitment.

First, almost all of them now send you “free” stuff you do not need or want, and then harass you into paying for it. For instance, I received 22 calendars last year and was inundated with greeting cards and wrapping paper. I try to redistribute this stuff to other folks, but most of it ended up in the recycle bin. I have adopted a new strategy of blacking out my address and marking the package “return to sender.”

Second, the requests for donations have become constant. There is no pause in the “emergency” requests for funds. Even thank-you acknowledgments contain additional requests for funds. Similarly, everything is now phrased in hyperbolic language, indicating that some form of disaster is imminent if my donation is not sent immediately. These multiple appeals have also been personalized, apparently to make you feel guilty if you do not donate.

Finally, there is a proliferation of “charitable” organizations. It seems that everyone wants their own charity. Rather than working to strengthen a current group, they form another niche charity with the accompanying administrators and fundraisers. As a consequence, we have a rapidly increasing number of organizations chasing the same pool of donors. I am afraid this overall pattern of activities threatens the viability of the entire system.

Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that there are many well-run charities that do not engage in these practices, three of which I support.

GENTLE READER: Why charities believe that badgering people is effective, Miss Manners has never understood. Maybe because it sometimes is. Annoyance and embarrassment apparently prompt some people to buy their way out.

But she would have thought that those who run charities would be the very people to abhor making things unpleasant for others.

Instead, they commonly harbor the belief that the virtue of working to help those in need cancels the virtue of showing consideration to those who could also help. “But it’s for a good cause,” they argue, when taxed with rudeness.

By no means does Miss Manners wish to discourage charitable contributions. But she dearly hopes that others, like you, choose organizations that do not waste time and money annoying potential contributors.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)