Posted by carly.ward on Jul 30, 2000; 7:44pm
URL: https://www.shado-forum.com/RE-CC-AOK-tp1489003p1489118.html

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/