pumpkinstrokemarrow

Decided against popping down to the A&E for a wash and brush up just in case. Would have been a bit of a problem getting there and would probably have been a bit of a problem being seen. I dare say, almost up to Saturday night closing time standards. Then one would have had to put up with been told what a prat one had been by all and sundry. Alternatively, some locum from Zindankovska explaining that cold weather was a jolly good thing as it generated lots of extra work at double time for the likes of him. Instead of that, FIl and BH gathered up 11 preparations for use in cases of bruising and presented them to me in a plastic tub. If I get tired of reading all the boxes, they do have some more salted away. I am also becoming better acquainted with a substantial bent wood walking stick which we acquired from some car boot sale on the off chance. Got to pondering about what it was made of. Light and fast growing which brings ash, beech, chestnut and hazel to mind. Not ash as the knots are not arranged in anything like opposite pairs. Grain not right and weight not right for beech. No idea what chestnut looks like in this state so I plump for hazel. Try asking Mr G. and all he can suggest is cane and hickory, both aliens so doubtful in this case.

But have learned a little humility. That while it might not have happened on a good day, it might easily have been a lot worse. That it does not take much from being a free-standing person to a high-dependency person. So no more taking chances on ice and maybe a bit more understanding of those with mobility problems.

So not in the best position to throw stones today, but was amused nonetheless to learn that Ms Harman, that doughty publisher of rules for all and sundry, is said by the DT to have been using her mobile phone while trying to extract her car from its parking slot. The charge on that front dropped as part of a plea bargain.

Interesting puzzle yesterday, while dozing. I had the snippet of a dream in which there was a senior moment. That is to say I put the butter in the oven instead of the refrigerator or some such. The puzzle being, was the dream just replaying some senior moment which actually happened in the past, or was it a dream state senior moment. That in the dream I was holding the butter, confronted by oven and refrigerator and the dream made the wrong choice and with the dream knowing shortly afterwards that this was a mistake. How can I discriminate between the two options?

And then, while reading the opening pages of 'Boule de Suif', came across the word flannel which the footnote tells me means red tabs, the sort of thing a colonel might wear. Turn to Littre which tells me that flannel is a species of woollen cloth but also that the word is used in a derogatory sense, just as we do in English. As least we used to in the civil service. This or that was a load of old flannel. Turn to OED which starts to suggest that the word was of Welsh origin as they have been making the stuff there for hundreds of years but then backs off. Quite right too as a Welsh origin does not fit to well with the French having the same word. But no mention of old flannel or red tabs. I suspect that this word for red tabs is slang and derogatory, and so related to our usage old flannel.

Getting bored with that, open up Powicke on Henry III and the Lord Edward again, where I read that in the middle of the 13th century, Henry and his cronies thought it was much more fun to bang around the south west corner of what is now France, fighting battles, besieging castles, spending huge amounts of treasure while in no way stopping the tide of the King of France reaching the Pyrenees, at a time when for a fraction of that treasure he could have conquered Ireland properly, in which case it would have become a proper part of the British Isles, like Wales, rather than a running sore. I suppose fighting in the bogs was all a bit naff. Much more fun to do it with all your friends and relatives, who know how to fight according to the rules, down in the Gascon sun. No sense of his strategic interest at all.

Also that marrying for love was a bit unusual for the aristos. of the day. Everything had to be subordinated to property interests, an important part of which was the castles aforementioned. And it was quite OK for reluctant brides to be seriously encouraged (to consent) by the two families concerned. But in the Ireland of the day they went one better. It was OK to use force. Presumably their faith in the sacrament of marriage was such that once you said the words the deed was done, rather like saying the words of a spell. Consent was irrelevant. Alternatively, consummation might have been the thing. Consent of parents, contract of marriage signed, marriage consummated and the job was done. Contract fully binding in the king's courts, with the priests not getting a look in. Plus, if you took out the insurance option, the king undertook to supply up to 67 knights for up to 67 days each, including horses, fodder, servants, armagnac at discretion and other rations, to enforce the contract, should any of the parties sustain complaint of breach. Copy of the contract held in escrow by the Knights Templar, just in case.

All this having previously read of a rather more benign example of forcing the hand, a proceeding which meant that the father could honourably avoid paying a marriage portion. If your chosen son-in-law kidnapped your daughter: it both showed that he was a man and absolved you from paying him to take her away. A nifty way of avoiding crippling marriage portion contests; but one which presumably only works very well when the daughter in question is desirable.