DEAR MISS MANNERS: My son called me from the airport and told me that when he was boarding the plane, he noticed two men with wires coming out of their ears scrutinizing each passenger. While settling into his seat he heard the people behind him say, "Yes, it's him, all right, but he looks older."

Later, he was surprised to see Jimmy Carter coming down the aisle shaking hands with all the passengers. When he reached him, my son stood up and said, "It's an honor, Mr. President," as they shook hands.

He then wondered what one calls an ex-president. Surely not, "Mr. Ex-President."

Since it had never occurred to me to teach him the proper way to address an ex-president (I didn't know myself), I promptly went to my two (perhaps outdated) etiquette books, and both of them agreed that an ex-president is addressed as "Mr." as in "Mr. Carter." One said that very close friends or former staff sometimes use "Mr. President." Now, I am told that when he was recently interviewed on television, he was called "President Carter."

I have been told, also, that our ex-president likes to travel and pops up here and there, surprising people. Please let me know what Miss Manners thinks is the correct way to address a former president.

GENTLE READER: What do you mean, "what Miss Manners thinks"?

Who should be president is a matter on which the citizens are supposed to exercise their opinions. Etiquette is not.

What Miss Manners can give you is the correct information. But it comes with a warning that most people not only don't know or believe it, but turn indignant with the notion that it is disrespectful.

This is because we suffer from title inflation. Our Founding Fathers, including the ones to whom this question applied, established American protocol to be simple and unpretentious -- and thus antithetical to the modern taste.

Nevertheless, the rule is that titles pertaining to an office that only one person occupies at a time are not used after retirement. A former president can use a previously-held, non-unique title, as the first one did by reverting to Gen. Washington in retirement, or the plain citizen's title of "Mr." The third president preferred to be known as Mr. Jefferson rather than Gov. Jefferson. Thus, the gentleman your son met would be addressed as Gov. Carter or Mr. Carter.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My mother's 80th birthday is next weekend. We, her two sons and their spouses and a daughter, are taking her out to a very nice restaurant. We will be paying for and supplying the drinks, cakes, present, a commemorative 80th-birthday engraved gift and Mom's dinner, and, of course, our dinners. We invited some of my mother's friends and relatives to the restaurant for her party. My mother is upset that we expect her friends to pay for their own dinners. We are not rich, and with Christmas just around the corner we are really feeling the bite. Who pays for what?

GENTLE READER: Hosts pay for guests. Miss Manners is afraid that you are not breaking her heart with your filial devotion and Christmas obligations. Nice children think it more important to do what their mother feels is right than to embarrass her with an outing that they cannot afford.

:

Skeptical about those instant remedial etiquette classes being offered for children at fancy venues, Miss Manners now finds that she has something along similar lines to recommend.

It is not a class, so you can't drop off your children and expect to get them back that afternoon professionally civilized. Unfortunately, nothing can relieve parents of the 20-year, around-the-clock task of teaching their own children how to behave toward others. That burden is called child-rearing, and there are no quick fixes.

However, she sympathizes with the occasional yearning parents have to inject an unnatural modicum of sophistication into the unsuspecting young. And there is a seasonal opportunity that might appeal to them.

Miss Manners is not referring to the punitive Santa Claus threat. It takes children half a minute to recognize that bluff. And anyone old enough to have lived through one New Year's Eve sees the flaw in the bribe of being allowed to stay up to watch the adults make fools of themselves: People who are making fools of themselves are not vigilant.

The instrument in question is the nutcracker. Or rather, "The Nutcracker." With the proper preparation, it can turn your perfectly healthy modern child into the sort of fetchingly-dressed combination of excited enthusiasm and charming nervousness who inspires adults inadvertently thrown in their company to comment, "Awwww" instead of "Ewwww."

The wrong way to go about this is to tell the child who is going to a performance for the first time that he or she has nothing to worry about, it's just like going to the movies only better, it's fine to dress comfortably, just relax and you'll have a great time. The adult equivalent of this misbegotten attempt to entice is the overuse of the word "casual" in invitations. It only advertises that the occasion will be nothing special.

Rather, this is the time to reverse all those lectures against succumbing to peer pressure about appearances and announce that all the other children will be dressed up and yours would be embarrassed not to be. Strangely enough, it is true. "The Nutcracker" is for children what the Academy Awards is for actresses -- the wrong time to go in for understatement.

Teaching children audience manners -- to sit still and not talk, what to look for and when to clap -- is accomplished by another childish argument, namely that there will be other children who won't know how to behave. Superiority of social knowledge is not a nice incentive, but, as adults know from their own experience, it is a powerful one.

So is the urge to be in show business. By using child dancers -- in the first act party scene and, in some productions, throughout -- "The Nutcracker" exerts a powerful hold on its young audience. The thought "I could be up there, with everyone applauding me" is an American article of faith that recognizes no boundaries of talent or willingness to work.

Should that lead to pleas for ballet lessons, the parents' job will indeed be made easier. There is nothing like an old-fashioned ballet class run like a Siberian labor camp to give the lie to the notion that children are immune to disciplined formality -- and to make even the most exacting parents seem lenient.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I have two children and my brother-in-law has only one child. When birthdays and holidays come up we exchange gifts with the children. I would like to know if I am supposed to spend twice as much on his child because he has only one and I have two children that he gives to?

I have asked this question of some of my friends, and they all say I should not spent twice as much on his child because my children will only be getting a $25 gift when his son will be getting a $50 gift. What should I do?

GENTLE READER: Have you thought of buying your nephew a present that you think will please him, and which you can afford?

If that violates the spirit of your holidays, Miss Manners suggests you consult an accountant about how to factor in the children's ages (and therefore who has been collecting longer than whom) and an appraiser to assess the value of what your child receives.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was taught that ladies do not wear jewelry made with precious stones, particularly those that sparkle, until after five o'clock in the evening. The background for this is that precious stones (except for one's engagement and wedding rings) are for formal dress, which was a nightly event in homes where the financial status made the ownership of such jewelry possible.

Did the advent of well-paying jobs for women, along with credit cards, make it possible for women of any age to purchase such jewelry themselves, as well as being the recipients of such jewelry from persons who may not have had the advantage of being taught the old rules?

What has prompted my question is that I often see diamond earrings, bracelets and pendants being worn around the clock and would appreciate knowing if this is an acceptable practice in correct society. Has correct society gone the way of the chaperone?

What is your feeling about the wearing of rings on every finger, even the thumbs, of both hands, again, around the clock or at any time?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners' feeling is that she would rather not shake hands with such a person. This has less to do with her disapproval of flashiness than with her fear of being crushed by all those minerals.

However, she does disapprove of the incongruity of fancy jewelry with daytime clothes, and the rule remains in place. How many people flout it to flaunt it is as irrelevant as who pays for it. And the magic hour is six, not five, unless you are counting transportation or going to a Wagner opera.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I attended a social engagement put on by my wife's boss -- a To-Be-Seen Party where several executives and government officials were in attendance. As the party progressed, and more guests arrived, I found myself quickly tongue-tied and looking for a deep well to jump into.

It was a new experience, my being unable to converse with anyone, and not enjoyable in the least. I'm quite sure I came off as aloof or standoffish. I do not wish for this to impact my wife's career and am asking for help. How may I re-establish my small-talk abilities without dominating circles and becoming a boor?

GENTLE READER: By remembering that small talk is supposed to be small. Miss Manners has observed that is when people feel they have to come up with big talk -- something wise, original and stunningly witty -- that they become tongue-tied or boorish. Or do something foolish such as jumping in a well.

Charm does not consist of impressing other people, but of allowing others to impress you. You needn't quiz others about themselves. The smallest opening -- introducing yourself as your wife's husband, observing how much she enjoys working there, admitting that you know few people at the party -- will do to present someone else with the opportunity to talk big. Or to surprise you by being just as charming, in which case you may actually come to think of this as a party rather than an ordeal.

: