pumpkinstrokemarrow

We have a large collection of suitcases in the roof, nearly if not all the produce of car-boot sales. They have done very well for quite a few years now, but after a family conference one morning, we decided that we ought to retire one, in the interests of reducing clutter. Then proceeded to flatpacking it, which proved more interesting than expected. First operation, take stanley knife to the top and bottom of the thing, which is made of some sort of not-trying-very-hard imitation brown leather. Stanley knife went through the stuff like butter, so clearly not things to allow on the baggage handling floor at Heathrow (supposing, that is, that they are not forbidden for other reasons). But the four sides were made of stronger stuff. There was a light-weight steel cable stitched into the top and bottom edges, not the sort of stuff that the sort of pliers that I own was going to get through. Fibre board corner peices worked into each of the eight corners. Peice of plywood, maybe twelve inches by five worked into where the two hinges were for support of same. Aluminium strip - bit like the sort of stuff used to finish off fitted carpets in doorways - running around the whole with one end fixed into each end of the peice of plywood. So the four sides went into the wheelie bin entire. Interest exhausted having worked out how the thing was built. Reminded me rather of the highly composite construction of a modern shoe. Tricky but effective.

Unlike the last Globetrotter attache case (not that I was an attache, but that was what they called the brief case sized suitcase. Not that I was a barrister with a brief either but never mind). That was made with a nice, simple, old fashioned construction. One sheet of fibreboard moulded into one side of the case, another moulded into the other. Metal reinforcing strip on both exposed edges. Metal reinforcement things rivetted onto each corner. Wooden bead reinforcing the inside of the fat side. Lined with what looked like linen. Nice looking thing. The first one I bought lasted a very long time, despite having tried to wrap it around a parking meter while under the influence. Settled down to a business-like dull gray. Served to carry my bread, cheese and other materials around for many years. Also got to the point where I could carry two days important business travel clothes in it. But finally decided to retire it and get a new one. £120 smackers from Selfridges (the only place that still seemed to stock what had been a very famous brand. Used by the great and good for many years. Appears on Poirot and other reputable programmes of that kind) so not a cheap item at all. Superficially the same, but the board wasn't up to it at all. It turned out to be painted rather than colour integral and the paint fell off. Thing looked like a right mess after a year or so. Got a replacement from the supplier and the same thing happened. So clearly I should have moved with the times and gone for the tricky composite. Alternatively, at about the same time, you could get an aluminium brief case sized thing from the likes of Travis Perkins for about a tenner. Might have been the best value.

Getting deeper into Churchill on Churchill, aka the first Duke of Marlborough. Two points of interest. Firstly, it seems that Churchill attracted a lot of flak by deserting James II at the crucial moment, together with some of the soldiers under his command, thus ensuring that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was more or less bloodless. And in any case it was a good thing. Resulted in good old England turning into the world beating Protestant democracy that it once was, instead of a Catholic province of Greater France. The catch was that Churchill 1 had been very close to James II for a very long time and this desertion was a gross breach of trust. At a time when a gentleman's word was supposed to be his bond, a time when loyalty to state did not have priority over loyalty to persons. But as Churchill 2 points out, at such a time what was one supposed to do when one's lord was embarked on madness? If you disagreed with him, you might get your head chopped off, or worse. Apart from going down with your lord (the Anglo Saxon answer, at least in theory), the only other option was conspiracy and deceit.

Secondly, Churchill 2 has the hates for Louis XIV of France, whom he believes to be, along with Napoleon, responsible for a huge amount of unecessary slaughter and misery - although I suppose the French think that the enlargement of France engineered by the former was worth the cost. I imagine both are premier league heroes in the sort of history taught in French schools. And then there is that dreadful monument to Napoleon's glory in Paris, the Pantheon or something.