From: G@M.COM   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:4otJe.101$dk5.78@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...   
   > Max wrote:   
   > > Martha Bridegam wrote:   
   > >   
   > >>Martha Bridegam wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>>Robbie wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>>I hereby say that I was wrong and Ms Bridegam was right in our   
   > >>>>disagreement.   
   > >>>>Or that Ms Bridegam was more right than I was. According to DJ Taylor   
   he   
   > >>>>fancied sending Richard to Eton but DJ Taylor thinks his name was   
   > >>>>actually   
   > >>>>put down for Wellington.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>Cheers!   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>Nick   
   > >>>>--   
   > >>>>Wasn't Canonbury Secondary Modern though was it?...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>Thx. Yes, I had it in my head that it was Wellington but that didn't   
   > >>>seem to make sense because GO didn't like it there very much himself.   
   > >>>   
   > >>>/M   
   > >>   
   > >>Parbety, who some here will recall is a strong critic of Mr. Taylor's,   
   > >>supplies the correct school. It was Westminster. I've double-checked in   
   > >>the CW and there it is: letter to Frederic Warburg (who was a graduate   
   > >>of same), 4 August, 1949, CW Vol. XX, Item 3672:   
   > >>   
   > >>"Cranham Lodge,   
   > >>Cranham,   
   > >>Gloucester.   
   > >>   
   > >>Dear Fred,   
   > >>Thanks so much for your letter. I'm glad you had a good holiday. I am   
   > >>so-so -- I have been rather poorly with a touch of pleurisy the last few   
   > >>days, but better on the whole. Richard is going back to Jura on the   
   > >>15th, as the village school to which he is going next term will be   
   > >>re-opening about the end of the month. I have put him down for   
   > >>Westminster, but as he wouldn't in any case go there till 1957 it is a   
   > >>very tentative arrangement. I hope Michael caught some fish even if   
   > >>there weren't any trout.   
   > >>   
   > >>Love to all   
   > >>George"   
   > >>   
   > >>Davison discusses Orwell's decision about Richard in endnotes to Item   
   > >>3645, including, understandably, that "...Orwell did not want him to go   
   > >>to a boarding school until he was ten."   
   > >>   
   > >>In Item 3647, a June 1949 letter to Julian Symons, he writes, "...I have   
   > >>been thinking about Westminster for him when he is older. They have   
   > >>abandoned their top hats, I learn. It is a day school, which I prefer, &   
   > >>I think has other good points. Any way I'm going to make enquiries & put   
   > >>his name down if it seems suitable. Of course god knows what will have   
   > >>happened by then, say 1956, but one has to plan as though nothing would   
   > >>change drastically..."   
   > >>   
   > >>Hope this helps,   
   > >>   
   > >>/M   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Perhaps Taylor is unfamilar with the CW.   
   > >   
   > > Max   
   > >   
   >   
   > To be fair, Mr. Taylor didn't say anything incorrect: he just said that   
   > "In Orwell, on the other hand, the prospect of parenthood awakened an   
   > odd, formal side. According to Lettice Cooper, the two things he wanted   
   > for his son were a cream perambulator with a gold line round the side of   
   > the kind pushed by Edwardian nannies, and to have his name put down for   
   > Eton...."   
   >   
   > Looks to me like if Mr. Taylor made an error it was in failing to   
   > suggest that Mr. Orwell might have had a more developed sense of irony   
   > than did Ms. Cooper. Isn't it hard to imagine Orwell of all people   
   > saying the above with a straight face unless it was a deadpan?   
   >   
   > /M   
      
   I think the po-mo, irony-is-all crowd have to be careful here: Orwell dug   
   Edwardiana and Victoriana, as did most of his contempories.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)