ArcaMax

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I've seen young men with their mothers picking out a ring that the young woman of his choice is supposed to love and wear forever.

What if they picked something she really didn't like?

I would like to propose a new tradition: The proposal is made and accepted, but instead of a ring, the proposer offers a jewel box that contains a diamond, or a stone that the newly minted bride-to-be likes, and an appointment time at a jeweler to select the setting that suits the wearer and the proposer's budget.

The proposer should have already found out what type of stone is desired and the shape of the stone. The proposer can then choose the stone that fits the budget and will please its wearer. Often jewelers allow the stone to be replaced with a larger one and the price is discounted by the cost of the original stone.

GENTLE READER: Point taken. But rather than send those gentlemen around evaluating stones they know nothing about, Miss Manners would like to propose the revival of an older tradition.

Before a ring became a prop in performance art proposals, it was not considered necessary to present one at the time -- or at all. The offer of marriage was thought to be exciting enough.

Besides, what was the gentleman supposed to do with an expensive purchase if he were not accepted?

Presuming success, he might offer her a family ring, if he were fortunate enough to have one. (Admittedly, that would be hard to decline, but the lady could always say later that it was so precious to her that she would not risk losing it, therefore wearing it only on special occasions.)

Absent a family ring, however, the accepted suitor would make a private visit to a jeweler beforehand and set aside a selection of rings in his price range. Presuming success, there would then be a delightful excursion when he brought her to make her choice.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We have an older live-in nanny for our two young children. During the week, she stays in our basement, where she has a bedroom, bathroom and living area, and she goes home on the weekends.

She has expressed to us that she feels uncomfortable when we have guests stay in her quarters over the weekend.

It seems odd to me that the basement should be permanently "hers" even when she is not there. Are we in the wrong?

GENTLE READER: By your own description, yes. She is a live-in employee, not a transient guest among other possible guests. Those are her living quarters, regardless of where she spends her time off.

Presumably, she keeps her clothes and other personal possessions there. Leaving them out for your guests to see must be disconcerting, and packing them away would be a nuisance.

Miss Manners suggests you think of this arrangement the way you would a rental property: Yes, it is still yours, but you do not have the use of it for the term when you have installed someone there.

========

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

Copyright 2025 Judith Martin

COPYRIGHT 2025 JUDITH MARTIN