> 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/