Westie

I wouldn't believe the hype. I know a large number of "Amazonians" professionally and their experience varies wildly from the experience reported in the NY Times. I would also postulate that the NY Times fell short of their usual journalistic standards in terms of balance, bias review and allowing an appropriate response. One guy from Amazon wrote a rebuttal that you can find linked here. This is not a senior manager there by any means, but I find his response compelling. You are always going to have disgruntled employees of any business.

OK, so now I have more time on this... for my own input I would in fact have preferred it if George was a Tory, rather than having Whig sympathies as this is more in line with my own personal views. I am a card carrying member of the UK conservative Party who are the political successors of the Tories. However, the situation Granger describes pretty much aligns him with Pitt the Younger. A Tory by birth and social inclination, Pitt often described himself as an "independent whig". His leadership of the Tory party sowed the seeds of "progressive" conservatism, which lead to today's Conservative Party actually being one of the more progressive Parties in UK politics in some areas. It was the first party to elect a Jew as leader (Benjamin Disreali), a woman leader (Thatcher), and was the party that decriminalised sodomy and allowed Gay Marriage in the UK. Note that there is no inkling from George that the Pitt Ministry is soon to fall, but the hint that "Catholic Emancipation" lacked the support of the King shows the difficulties that would lead to a government collapse are already being sown. By the way, if this were to happen today - that Her Majesty the Queen would publicly oppose a government policy, it is likely that the government would also fall and that there would be a constitutional crisis. In all likelihood, election s would follow that would effectively be seen as a referendum on whether to give the government a mandate to push forward.

To speculate thus would give me far, far more credit than I deserve. For my own part, my summer reading has actually concentrated on the war of the roses and the Plantagenet succession for a project I have in mind.... my head at the moment is in another era

Wait wait.... you're usually right, or I'm usually sexy?

it was nothing so beautiful as a scandal, I'm afraid. Pitt resigned on a matter of Policy and principle, due to fundamental differences with the King on Catholic Emancipation in Ireland, related to the recently passed Act of Union. His brother, Lord Chatham (who we should remember as Spencer's predecessor as First Lord) remained in the cabinet as part of the Addington Ministry, alongside the new First Lord (who will be yet another familiar face...) It is not unusual for Mark to pick up some aristocrat to add to the crew who may serve only a minor purpose... why might it not be the same with such a Prince? As to where I think the story is heading from a historical perpective... well... spoilers ;-)

The Presidency Armies (the Armies of the East India Company) numbered at their peak 271,000 - in a modern setting that would make it the largest military of any country on earth. We should note though that other countries military numbers include Navy forces and other military organisations. It is also more active personnel than the US Army had in 1940. So, suffice to say it was huge. The armies were also standing armies, so they only disbanded in the late 1800's when they were absorbed either into the British Army or the Indian Army. The coinage was separate and distinct from that of Great Britain. There were 12 Pie to an Anna, and 16 Annas to a Rupee. Approximately 15 Rupees made a Mohur. Though at various times, the British in India used gold sovereigns, Guineas, and Pounds. I dare say there are many of these coins that are collectors items, but also many that are fairly common. You can pick some up for around £3 on ebay... Another interesting question, to which the answer is yes, and no. The "Secret Service" was actually a fund, or budget, used to fund the "sensitive" operations of the foreign office, admiralty, and war office, as well as on behalf of the crown. So while the secret service did not exist as a formal organisation, it certainly existed as a concept at this time Historically, Spencer was a good man. While he is soon to lose his role as First Lord when the Pitt Ministry falls, he returns to Government as Home Secretary in 1807. Not to mention of course that his 5-times Great Grand-daughter would marry a Prince, and become Diana, Princess of Wales in 1981.

This is a very interesting question – there are two answers: the long and the short. The short answer is “No”, the organisation called the guild is entirely the creation of our esteemed author. However, as in all good fiction, the fantasy has a nice basis in fact, that we can explore a little now. We can start with the name “the guild”. While I suspect that Mark chose the name because it is a relatively simple name that is at the same time both innocuous but slightly menacing; I would like to think that it had a basis in the reality of the City of London and the Merchant Class. “Guilds” were and are a key part of the City of London – the Livery Companies (Such as the Worshipful Company of Mercers as an example) form a major part of the City of London Corporation and by extension its government. Moreover, the trade relationship that existed between Europe and India right back to 1050 AD was facilitated by – you guessed it – guilds. The Anjuvannam guild is an example of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim merchants working together in a trade partnership, showing that relations between these three faiths were much better in medieval times than would be suggested by the current relationships in the Middle East today. So if a Guild is the (generic) representation of a 1000 year old status quo in India, it stands to reason that the rise of the Honourable East India Company would be a threat to that. You see, people like to imagine that the East India Company (from now on, EIC) pioneered trade between East and West, yet nothing could be further from the truth – from the “Silk Road” in the time of Marco Polo to the Opium trade via Afghanistan, the principal impetus of contact with these nations has been exotic trade. The first thing to understand is that the Honourable East India Company was neither Honourable, nor a company in the traditional sense. Yes, it had shareholders, but its operation was entirely dependent on a relationship with the British Crown, and certain rights and privileges that would be unthinkable today. When I talk about rights such as the right to administer territory, to mint coin, to raise an army, to dispense justice, to build infrastructure, and to confiscate assets – you would think I was talking about a sovereign nation, rather than a company. In reality, a Governor of the EIC had more power than the Monarch within his domain. While the British crown was limited by certain basic laws such as Magna Carta, those laws did not apply within dominions except to British Citizens themselves – and then only loosely. So while the rights of Crown, Parliament, and Judiciary are distinct and irrevocable in the British Isles, those rights were exercised almost exclusively by the Governors. The EIC operated under a royal charter, which gave the company certain rights and prerogatives, in exchange for which it provided duties – taxes – to the crown and compensation to the treasury. At the same time, the monarch (personally), the Crown (i.e. State), and members of the House of Peers (Lords) held shares in the company. They had a vested interest that today would not be tolerated… especially in an age when the smallest conflict has to be declared as part of financial disclosure. So intrinsically was the state linked to the EIC, that the Company absorbed the assets of the Portuguese “Estado de India” as part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza when she married Charles II. There are not many companies that can enforce their monopoly with a private army (unless you believe New World Order conspiracy theories of course…). It is not surprising that existing or competing interests in indo-oriental trade would plot to destabilise the company or dislodge them from their royal patronage. So, while the answer to your question is “no” the guild is not a historically existing entity, the ideals and attitudes behind it certainly existed amongst some members of the Merchant Class who saw the aristocracy trying to grind them under heel via “John Company”. West PS - On a different topic, there are two exhibitions going on in London this summer if anyone is lucky enough to be visiting the capital of my beloved country. First of all, the Maritime Museum at Greenwich is hosting “Nelson, Navy, Nation” which is an exceptionally well curated look at the man and the era. Secondly, the British Museum is holding “Britain and Bonaparte”, showing some of the patriot propaganda of the Napoleonic era. Well worth a visit.

29 January 1820. We have a little time...

Of all the nations in Europe, and most certainly in Western Europe, it has been the most conservative and resistant to social change. Yeah.... only if you forget about the whole of eastern Europe...

You were gone? Ah... that's where all that free time I had came from...

*The Right Honourable The Countess of Bridgemont... I'm sure you're right and She's wetting herself over that title ;-)

You have some serious issues. Mainly lack of manners, but I would suggest that your logic and reasoning is also fatally flawed. We know that Mary Ellen is a scheming bitch. We know that her mother is a scheming bitch. This is consistent with the story, the characters and the general timbre of the CAP saga. If you think otherwise then you haven't been paying attention. I must admit that I thought JJ to be rather more open, calm and rational than I would have expected, but at the same time this story, much like the two before, are journeys of development and change for those characters. One of the over-riding themes within CAP is "strength through adversity" - it is completely in line with Mark's previous trail to have JJ come through a crucible stronger and more resilient than before - no longer a slave to his "issues". It is also consistent with Mark's writing that the character will get an opportunity to prove that new found resilience to others and to themselves. Your later posts claim that this is not meant to be a personal attack. yet to call a writer a hypocrite, to question whether or not he is any good, and to suggest the story is making you physically sick IS a personal attack. You should be ashamed. This has more to do with your personal feelings about a storyline, and not some higher fidelity to the story. It's not illegitimate to dislike the direction a story heads in - but say it like it is, and not dressed up in some false morality. You're wrong. The last time someone was this wrong, he got off a plane from Munich and said "Peace for our time". This child is the firstborn of the second heir apparent to a dukedom. You are suggesting that Alex tells her to "fuck off" in the full knowledge that his first born will officially be a "bastard", be barred from his right to inherit a title and be a social outcast within his own class? Moreover, you are suggesting that he puts the Bridgemont estate into the uncertainty of legal process by having an "heir" who is not the titular heir to the estate? To inherit a dukedom, you must be born legitimate, which in English law still means that your parents have to be married. Alex is putting the honour of his unborn child and the reputation of his family first. Far from being unprincipled then. Yes, he is going to get a financial sweetener - there is a long tradition of it within the British aristocracy. The Duke of Marlborough saved Blenheim Palace with a loveless marriage to an American woman who's mother was a scheming bitch wanting her daughter to have a title and position. Sound familiar?

Cia has just posted a blog 100 Million Words on GA I just wanted to point out that Mark's total word count is (currently) 5,488,759 words. Which means that Mark's CAP and Bridgemont series - plus some anthology stuff - is responsible for 5.4% of the cumulative output of this site. That's some achievement.

Constructive Criticism: When you reference a previous blog, some of us might have missed it. It would be great if you could provide a link back so we don't have to search! :-)

What if "being a dick" Is your default setting? I think you are being dick-ist; -)

Many people make the mistake, of trying to "understand" suicide. They think it's about "smart" Vs. "Stupid". They think that its a conscious "rational" process that someone goes through that ends with them making a firm commitment "today I will end my life". That's why you hear people say that suicide is "selfish". They think that there was some kind of rationalisation, a well thought out argument delineating the pro's and cons. It's almost never the case. Suicide is almost always chemical. There is something wrong there. It may be depression, or some other form of mental illness. It may just be pure desperation and loneliness driving one to a state of panic. In any case, if you are looking for some form of rationality - the answer to the question "why?" you are almost always going to be disappointed. Suicide rarely is the result of one thing. People left behind often think "If only I'd... <insert guilt trip here>". It is never so simple - that state of mind doesn't USUALLY have a single trigger, but a series of blows over a sustained timeframe. Nobody slips into a state of mind over the course of an hour. Of course, you will read stories about people who commit suicide becuase "X" happened, and often "x" is a pretty big trigger, but much of the time its only the cumulation. If it wasn't that, eventually it would be something else. Try not to beat yourself up. This isn't something you could have prevented. You may have stopped "this one" but you wouldn't be there to stop the next. I know you are going to be feeling the whole weight of horror and guilt over the coming weeks. Try not to let it consume you. You are strong - stay that way. West

I just wanted to step in here to mention the unfortunate death today of The 18th Duchess of Alba, Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart. I mention this becuase, this charismatic and fascinating figure should be quite familiar to us. She is related to many of the major characters (real and fictional) within the Bridgemont series. She is a descendant of James I, Charles I and James II through the male line. She is related to Don Jacobo Stuart. Through a bastard line, she would be related to the Earls Bridgemont (now Duke's Suffolk). She is related to the Dukes of Lennox, the Spencers, the Cavendish family and has patrilineal lines of decent from EVERY royal house in Europe. A woman with more recognised titles than any other (over 40), what is to me much more interesting is that she had more DISCLAIMED titles (German titles fallen from use, Austrian Titles, British titles that she was entitled to but never took up etc). So, not really too relevant to our story, except that if you beleive in any kind of afterlife, you will know that the real life version of almost all the aristocrats in this book will be welcoming back one of their own today. And that, my friends, is one of the reasons I am so fascinated by history - it's almost constant link to our present day.

This. Smuggling is an operation that transcends rule and politics. It continues under both left and right, in democracy and autocracy, whether under the British, French, Spaniards or others. Sometimes the men at the top are toppled (as I think may end up being the case here), but as long as there is demand - a void to be filled - someone will take up the slack.

you ask a fair question, but isn't it also true to say that Ebola mutates in humans at a prodigious rate, and one of the reasons that it died out so fast in previous outbreaks is that it became genetically unstable? It's not particularly hard to imagine a mutation that is more resilient than normal (the latest outbreak is), and that doesn't mutate in the same way. If someone were trying to weoponise Ebola, they would concentrate on finding ways to make it spread through cough, sneezes and the moisture from breathing. I think the biggest thing here was the slow response to an outbreak that hit a city (as opposed to the relatively smaller settlements that usually get hit). Poor response, coupled with poor readiness and education, has made this outbreak massively more severe than it needs to be. The WHO is saying that to contain the virus, they need 5000 healthy people and 4000 beds, along with the medicines and money to keep it all running. They don't even have a quarter of what they need, and the countries involved are making problems worse with their lack of coordination with each other, and their porous border controls.

Sorry Ricky, but "3 meals a day" is a relatively modern aberration. As a matter of fact, it's only relatively recently (1930s) that a classless definition of mealtimes has developed. My grandmother would tell you that there are 5 meals a day; breakfast, luncheon, tea, dinner and supper. But she was from a class and time that doesn't really exist anymore. As a sailor, you would have a breakfast - usually bread etc - but otherwise you would have only one meal a day. But it would be one damn good meal. Likelihood is that they would only light the stove once a day - to do more would be a waste.

Interestingly, the pursers instructions detailed the set daily menu for a sailor, which references the "pound" you mention here. Note though that butter and cheese are measured in ounces, so no margin Sunday - 1 pound of pork, ½ pint pease (usually served as either pease pudding or a pottage) Monday - 1 pint of oatmeal, 2 ounces of butter (which to me seems like almost nothing at all) Tuesday - 2 pounds of beef (a veritable luxury, as a typical peasant would eat beef maybe only twice per year) Wednesday - ½ a pint of pease, 1 pint of oatmeal, 2 ounces of butter, and 4 ounces of cheese Thursday - duplicates Sunday Friday - duplicates Monday Saturday - duplicates Tuesday The pork and the beef would be salted (well, actually brined). Beef in this way is still eaten today in the form of corned beef (not the type you get in a tin), but salt pork is no longer popular in Britain. Mutton could replace salt beef when in port or where live animals were available. Of course, if you could catch wild fish while sailing, you could eat it. Often there would be official fishing parties, but just as often men would fish on their off hours. The purser would often give them credit for their catch, and fish stew would be a popular source of protein on a long voyage. In the west indies, oatmeal could be substituted for chocolate - again, not the type we know today, but more of the beans - mixed with sugar or molasses. The men also got bread daily, but of course raising the dough on board a ship would be next to impossible. This is why Granger buying FRESH bread is such a luxury. Salt kills yeast, and so any bread found on a ship was usually unleavened. Today an atrisan store might sell them as flatbreads when mixed with herbs, olives or tomatoes - but make no mistake that these breads were hard, dry and tasteless. Often, the substitute was biscuit. No sign here of a Fig Newton or a Garibaldi, or even a custard creme. These are more akin to oat-cakes. Finally, I should mention that we often hear Granger give the order to light the galley stove. This gives a quaint little picture that might not live up to your expectations. On granger's smaller commands it would be a wood fired thing build of heavy stones or brick (easier to reconstruct after damage in a battle). But on a larger ship, such as the Valiant, it would be a cast iron stove fired by coal. On HMS victory, there was also a rudimentary pipe and pump which could provide heated water from this stove to the Captain's quarters and to the sick bay. I think Granger would be keen to experiment in this way too.

Wow, that is a really great - and complicated - question. Principally, the purser is a warrant officer, and as such is just a part of the crew as any other, yet he receives no Salary. He manages to Navy Budget for the ship, which is to say that he is responsible for issuing stores. However, he is also responsible for the purchase of those stores. Like any business, his "margin" is the difference between the supply in price, and the price the Navy will repay him at. He is required to provide certain items at set prices, and often is required to buy these items from a Navy supplier, but he also has considerable latitude - especially when replenishing in a foreign port, to make purchases himself to sell in. Where the Navy set the purchase price (from stores) and the sale price (back to the Navy when issued as rations), the purser is left with 5%. But if the purser has purchased beef himself, it might be that he got a deal that allows him to sell with a 6% margin. The same is true for all other stores. Yet, he is also responsible for all losses, and so if a cask of beef is bad, then he has to stand the loss himself. Where the Purser can make his biggest profits are in the sale of luxuries. The purser will often bring on significant personal stores - even livestock - which crew members can supplement their rations with for a price. Note that the Navy sees only private trade and does not regulate price at all. Tobacco, cloth, sugar, spirits, wine, beer, fresh meat (livestock), extra bread, and other sundries are all available from the Purser. Moreover, the purser will operate on credit against wages yet to be earned, on which he will charge a fee (not interest, which would have been usury and therefore illegal). The purser would finally manage the private stores of the Captain and other officers. These officers would often bring aboard huge stores of their own, and these would not just be for their own use. They would engage in private trade via the purser, for whose services they pay a fee. Someone like Granger would have brought aboard gallons of wine and fine spirits, with which the purser would trade with the pursers of other ships. For example, when Granger joined Jervis' fleet, Jervis and his captains would have had the opportunity to replenish their own luxuries - for a price. Much of this trade would be done on credit notes and vouchers - redeemable in London - and so the purser needed to have a significant float of cash, as well as a very large surety that they had to pay to the admiralty upon taking up their position. A talented purer could become a very rich man. A good one could make a living. Most either broke even, or lost money. Of course, there were opportunities for corruption. Substituting expensive meat for cheaper cuts was common. "bulking" foods with flour, starch and other "invisible" expanders worked too. One purser had the idea to mix barley and oats into pease in order to bulk it out, and found the crew actually preferred it as it made them fuller. This of course is a very - VERY - quick summary from the top of my head. I can go into more detail sometime, but alas my time is pretty full at the moment - much like our esteemed author I suspect.

I often agree with you Zombie, but I really did "LOL" (actually, more like spit out my drink all over the laptop) when I saw you say Gordon Brown is "Credible" and "effective". :-) I think Tony Blair should have been involved in the campaign - with a big tee-shirt saying "I'm sorry" on it. Also, just on the subject that HM the Queen "involved" herself in politics. She issued a very carefully worded piece of advice that applies equally to both camps (and in fact to as-yet-undecided voters). Strictly speaking, she acted completely constitutionally in the definition given by Walter Bagshot that she has the right to "Advise, encourage and warn". She acted exactly as she is legally bound to do - issue advice without being partisan. Even if the newspapers were supposedly reporting her private views all week.

I actually wonder the other way around, how big GA has become because of fans being drawn here by Mark's stories. For instance, I was a member of Mark's yahoo group, which lead me to GA. Paya was the same. If that straw poll of the people who happen to live in my house is accurate, then it would indicate that there are a few members here who were drawn in by Mr Arbour - even if they are these days participating fully in other aspects of the site.

This latest chapter was really well written. This really is one of my favourite parts of British history, and Mark's interpretation is very enjoyable.