RE: CC;AOK
Locked
 
|
Yeah Anothny I know where you're coming from....and then, it seems
that she never told Ed anything about changing Johnny's last name to Rutland either! You see the expression on his face when he was checking on his son and asked for the condition of a John Straker only to find it it was now John Rutland????? The nerve of that....woman. I would've punched out Rutland too when Ed said "I'll handle it"(in reference to getting the miracle drug for John)and Rutland chimes in with"YOU? What can YOU do?" Mary and he deserve each other!!!!!! |
|
|
> Yeah Anothny I know where you're coming from....and then, it seems > that she never told Ed anything about changing Johnny's last name to > Rutland either! You see the expression on his face when he was > checking on his son and asked for the condition of a John Straker > only to find it it was now John Rutland????? The nerve of > that....woman. Jeeesh absolutely! I would've punched out Rutland too when Ed said "I'll > handle it"(in reference to getting the miracle drug for John)and > Rutland chimes in with"YOU? What can YOU do?" Mary and he deserve > each other!!!!!! Well what always struck me was the way Rutland was such a useless piece of meat when johnny was hit by the car. He just stood there! Note though that mary screams "Ed do something" at this point. She does not turn to Rutland for help! That makes the scene all the more poignant for me. Sheila Still UFO Crazy crazy crazy crrraaazzzzy! |
|
Banned User
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by jmain44
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
Amelia wrote:
> >> > I knew there was a reason I liked you, Jim (g) A question for you Brits, >would Johnny automatically get Rutland's name when Mary remarried, the way it >is in the States? <gasp> In the States kids get renamed to their stepfather's last name if the mother remarries? Now that sounds terribly weird... What if a woman marries half a dozen times? Those kids of Hollywood actors must get terribly confused, getting a new name every year or so... not to talk of the administrative difficulties of keeping track of kid's names. And what if a kid stays with the father rather than with the mother? I doubt any country in Europe has such a system. The U.K. definitely hasn't. Thank goodness! Can you imagine that Lady Di had remarried... her kids would then have carried the new father's name rather than be a Windsor... Here in Belgium a newborn won't even get the mother's husband's name automatically if the parents are married less than six months, in that case the parents have to fill out all kinds of forms since the baby was conceived prior to the wedding and the husband won't be considered the father unless he confirms he is. Sorry if this off-topic, but she asked! CU Lieve |
|
|
In reply to this post by BedsitterOne
In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes
>In a message dated 7/25/00 8:45:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [hidden email] >writes: > > A question for you Brits, >would Johnny automatically get Rutland's name when Mary remarried, the way it >is in the States? Simple answer....no. -- SuzannEd Sutherland |
|
|
Suzanne Sutherland wrote:
> In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes > >In a message dated 7/25/00 8:45:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [hidden email] > >writes: > > > A question for you Brits, > >would Johnny automatically get Rutland's name when Mary remarried, the way it > >is in the States? > > Simple answer....no. Well, a child doesn't *automatically* take his mom's new husband's name when they marry here either - doesn't he have to adopt the child in order for an official name change to occur? Maybe Rutland just *called* Johnny by his name rather than it being official ... -- Y -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Yuchtar zantai-Klaan | [hidden email] I am not a number! I am a FREE FAN! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "I'm warning you, Mulder, if this is monkey pee, you're on your own." -- Dana Scully =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= http://users.ipa.net/~yuchtar/ http://users2.50megs.com/nunzie |
|
|
In reply to this post by Suzanne Sutherland
In point of fact - the kids do not automatically change their last names when Mom
remarries, even in the US. Sometimes the kids choose to take their step-dad's name for school or socially, but unless the kids are actually adopted by their step-dad, this is not a legal name change - for insurance, dirver's license, etc. For the adoption proceedings, the natural father must sign away his parental rights. This also means the natural father is no longer obligated to provide child support and visitation is no longer a right. Straker obviously didn't do this. Suzanne Sutherland wrote: > In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes > >In a message dated 7/25/00 8:45:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [hidden email] > >writes: > > > > > A question for you Brits, > >would Johnny automatically get Rutland's name when Mary remarried, the way it > >is in the States? > > Simple answer....no. > > -- > SuzannEd Sutherland |
|
|
In message <[hidden email]>, Deborah A Rorabaugh
<[hidden email]> writes >In point of fact - the kids do not automatically change their last names when >Mom >remarries, even in the US. Sometimes the kids choose to take their step-dad's >name >for school or socially, but unless the kids are actually adopted by their >step-dad, this is not a legal name change - for insurance, dirver's license, >etc. >For the adoption proceedings, the natural father must sign away his parental >rights. This also means the natural father is no longer obligated to provide >child >support and visitation is no longer a right. >Straker obviously didn't do this. Well, then, it sounds like the States are pretty much in line with what happens over here. My two eldest children are not biologically my husband's children and he has never adopted them. I have solved the problem by giving *all* my children my surname as I have kept my name. I guess this is what one would call a Matriarchal line;-) And to stay on topic, they have been brought up in the ways of UFO!!! -- Suzanne Sutherland aka drdougjackson |
|
Banned User
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by jmain44
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Suzanne Sutherland
> > > A question for you Brits, > >would Johnny automatically get Rutland's name when Mary remarried, the way it > >is in the States? > > Simple answer....no. That's right, for example I can't officially change my kids name without their father's permission because they were the children of our marriage. It would have been different if we just lived together! However, they use the name Holton-Brown anyway! Sheila Still UFO Crazy crazy crazy crrraaazzzzy! |
|
|
In reply to this post by BedsitterOne
In most states in the US, Straker would no longer pay alimony - It's assumed her
husband was capable of supporting her (and why should her husband take advantage of her alimony income from a previous relationship) Child support continues unless there are good reasons for it not to - such as Dad being broke or Mom's new husband agreeing to pay because his income is more than enough. When my Dad married a woman with children from three previous marriages - each of the boys had their own father's last name. The fathers of the eldest two were foreign nationals and never paid any child support, the father of number three was on retirement pay and when my Dad came along with a good income, the court agreed that child support was no longer required from father of child three. Personally, I suspect Straker wouldn't have asked to be let out of child support. But the monthly check would have been a thorn in Rutland's side - proof that he wasn't an adequate earner to support his wife and her child. [hidden email] wrote: > In a message dated 7/27/00 2:17:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > [hidden email] writes: > > << For the adoption proceedings, the natural father must sign away his > parental > >rights. This also means the natural father is no longer obligated to > provide > >child > >support and visitation is no longer a right. > >Straker obviously didn't do this. >> > > So now my question is, after Mary remarried, would Straker still be paying > alimony and child support? What are the Brit laws on that? I'll bet my > paperweight collection he still would be sending money to Mary to support > Johnny, even after she married Mr. Stand There And Do Nothing Rutland. Not > because he was obligated to, just because that seems like something he'd do. > I doubt very much he'd leave the costs of raising, clothing, feeding and > educating Johnny to Rutland. Just seems un-Straker to me. > > Amelia |
|
|
In reply to this post by BedsitterOne
In message <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] writes
>So now my question is, after Mary remarried, would Straker still be paying >alimony and child support? What are the Brit laws on that? Not sure. I would think that if the child hasn't been legally adopted by the new father that the biological one would still have to pay the Child Support Agency. I don't know anything about alimony laws. When I divorced my Mr Bishop I didn't want to have anything to do with him anymore.;-) >I'll bet my >paperweight collection he still would be sending money to Mary to support >Johnny, even after she married Mr. Stand There And Do Nothing Rutland. Not >because he was obligated to, just because that seems like something he'd do. >I doubt very much he'd leave the costs of raising, clothing, feeding and >educating Johnny to Rutland. Just seems un-Straker to me. -- Suzanne Sutherland |
|
|
In reply to this post by jmain44
Amelia said (of Rutland)
<<I can't think of many occupations he could be in that would put him in a salary class higher than Ed's. All this is non-canon conjecture of course, but wouldn't Straker normally be first getting some sort of pay from the Air Force as a retired colonel, and be getting the salary of a film executive (so that anyone who looked into Straker's finances wouldn't find anything strange) plus possibly be getting some sort of money purely as his stipend as Commander of Shado? >> I didn't think (especially 30 years ago!) that military officers were *that* well paid. Accountants, lawyers, managing directors / ceo's of companies would have probably earned as much if not more. There was all the 'doing it for king and country' stuff (and the US equivalent) that didn't necessarily translate into monetary reward. Your President isn't on a phenomenal salary is he? Our Prime Minister earns considerably less than his successful QC wife does. Of course, Straker would have probably got an exceptional expense account - to offset all his non-military uniforms (aka Nehru suits and roll neck sweaters) against tax! Doesn't the internet carry details of military pay scales somewhere? They can't be *that* secret!!! Re salary of a film executive mentioned by Amelia above, I guess I never did figure out whether it was called Harlington-Straker because he invested in it. Was that ever made clear? Maybe it would be fixed so he'd just happen to draw as his salary from H-S the same amount that he would if he were actually a full Colonel in the USAF of how ever many years standing, plus a 'danger money' bonus! Or maybe the UN paid him. Damn, so many questions, so few answers!! I'm sure that Straker would have paid to support John. But that would have gone to Mary. Re John being admitted to hospital as Rutland, I would guess that (again, 30 years ago) a child's name might well be informally changed to that of his mother's (so Rutland, not Straker) for pure convenience. At school... and of course, as an emergency admittance to hospital - Mr and Mrs Rutland and therefore their son, John Rutland. It might not have been any more formal than that. Considering Straker's character, I do not believe that he would have allowed Rutland to adopt John - and what he wanted would have had relevance. Even 25-ish years ago, a woman's rights over her children were actually surprisingly limited in practice if not in theory. I remember when I was 14 needing a passport for a solo trip to France. My father was away so I got my mother to sign my passport application form. The passport office initially refused to accept it. Although the form required the signature of a parent, it was normal for it to be the father. The fact my mother had signed it caused serious official concern. I remember it so distinctly. Only some outrageous lying on my part - along the lines of father travelling in Peru for 6 months... and he'd only just left - persuaded the passport office to issue the document. <<I also think that Rutland was indifferent to Johnny, based on what he actually says "the boy" *not* Johnny. Very impersonal. Maybe because in Johnny he saw the boy's true father, Ed. >> That's entirely believable. And to give Rutland a break (oh shit, abuse coming my way!!!!) it is known to be a difficult situation for a step-parent. And Rutland looks pretty repressed so he probably did find it difficult to relate to "the boy". Carly :-D Wondering if she's about to be unsubbed! _______________________________________________________ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite UK Visit http://inbox.excite.co.uk/ |
|
|
Carly wrote:
>Doesn't the internet carry details of military pay scales somewhere? They >can't be *that* secret!!! But the part of the military Straker and the others belonged to was a secret organisation, surely they would get paid more since they need to make an effort to keep their cover. I wonder where the money came from to pay the people who worked for SHADO? Since it was (is? :-) an international group, it must have been internationally funded. Part of the NATO black budget, perhaps? Or some such? CU Lieve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lieve Peten, Vlaanderen, Belgium : Mailto:[hidden email] * Internet Sites link page: http://pinball.iwarp.com/mysites.html * The Pinball Site * Loch Ness + UFOs in Belgium * Vangelis * * Nikita * UFO TV-series * Animated Gifs * Andrea Bocelli * |
|
|
In reply to this post by carly.ward
Carly - I happen to agree with you 200%
I figure on being assigned to SHADO as CinC, Straker was taken off the USAF payroll (possibly put on the reserve rolls, but that would leave a paper trail that would give security the willies.) If I were setting up payroll for SHADO, I'd have a group of 'shadow' companies that the IAC money was allotted to. Straker, Freeman, and all those who do some work at the studio would be paid through the studio at the going rate for their job with good bonuses - not necessarily based on how well the studio was doing profit-wise. Deborah Carly Ward wrote: > Amelia said (of Rutland) > <<I can't think of many occupations he could be in that would put him in a > salary class higher than Ed's. All this is non-canon conjecture of course, > but wouldn't Straker normally be first getting some sort of pay from the Air > Force as a retired colonel, and be getting the salary of a film executive > (so that anyone who looked into Straker's finances wouldn't find anything > strange) plus possibly be getting some sort of money purely as his stipend > as Commander of Shado? >> > > I didn't think (especially 30 years ago!) that military officers were *that* > well paid. Accountants, lawyers, managing directors / ceo's of companies > would have probably earned as much if not more. There was all the 'doing it > for king and country' stuff (and the US equivalent) that didn't necessarily > translate into monetary reward. Your President isn't on a phenomenal salary > is he? Our Prime Minister earns considerably less than his successful QC > wife does. Of course, Straker would have probably got an exceptional expense > account - to offset all his non-military uniforms (aka Nehru suits and roll > neck sweaters) against tax! > > Doesn't the internet carry details of military pay scales somewhere? They > can't be *that* secret!!! > > Re salary of a film executive mentioned by Amelia above, I guess I never did > figure out whether it was called Harlington-Straker because he invested in > it. Was that ever made clear? Maybe it would be fixed so he'd just happen to > draw as his salary from H-S the same amount that he would if he were > actually a full Colonel in the USAF of how ever many years standing, plus a > 'danger money' bonus! > > Or maybe the UN paid him. Damn, so many questions, so few answers!! > > I'm sure that Straker would have paid to support John. But that would have > gone to Mary. > > Re John being admitted to hospital as Rutland, I would guess that (again, 30 > years ago) a child's name might well be informally changed to that of his > mother's (so Rutland, not Straker) for pure convenience. At school... and of > course, as an emergency admittance to hospital - Mr and Mrs Rutland and > therefore their son, John Rutland. It might not have been any more formal > than that. Considering Straker's character, I do not believe that he would > have allowed Rutland to adopt John - and what he wanted would have had > relevance. Even 25-ish years ago, a woman's rights over her children were > actually surprisingly limited in practice if not in theory. > > I remember when I was 14 needing a passport for a solo trip to France. My > father was away so I got my mother to sign my passport application form. The > passport office initially refused to accept it. Although the form required > the signature of a parent, it was normal for it to be the father. The fact > my mother had signed it caused serious official concern. I remember it so > distinctly. Only some outrageous lying on my part - along the lines of > father travelling in Peru for 6 months... and he'd only just left - > persuaded the passport office to issue the document. > > <<I also think that Rutland was indifferent to Johnny, based on what he > actually says "the boy" *not* Johnny. Very impersonal. Maybe because in > Johnny he saw the boy's true father, Ed. >> > > That's entirely believable. And to give Rutland a break (oh shit, abuse > coming my way!!!!) it is known to be a difficult situation for a > step-parent. And Rutland looks pretty repressed so he probably did find it > difficult to relate to "the boy". > > Carly > :-D > Wondering if she's about to be unsubbed! > > _______________________________________________________ > Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite UK > Visit http://inbox.excite.co.uk/ |
|
Banned User
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by jmain44
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
He would get his retirement pay, of course, but that wouldn't include any active
duty pay, or overseas pay. Chances are Freeman is taking retirement pay from his service as well. [hidden email] wrote: > In a message dated 7/31/00 7:52:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > [hidden email] writes: > > << I figure on being assigned to SHADO as CinC, Straker was taken off the USAF > payroll (possibly put on the reserve rolls, but that would leave a paper > trail > that would give security the willies.) >> > But wouldn't Straker get whatever a retired colonel would get? Some sort of > pension? Even a clandestine one? (Oh I don't think much would scare security, > they could figure something clever out) (g) > > Amelia |
«
Return to SHADO
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |