Westie

Tim, my numbers aren't misleading for the point I was making. I don't care whether the dead were allies or american, or who spent what. The point I was making is that with SO MANY deaths and SO MUCH money being spent, this war becomes very real very quickly without necessarily needing to involve one of our particular characters. And yes, I know Iraq was in 2003 - but you was responding to Jeremy's comments which WERE about Iraq, even if we know Afghanistan comes first.

Of course they will know SOMEONE who will go to the war. What you actually keep harping on about is a HAYES going to war, or one of the core characters, which we are saying is not necessarily a given. Moreover, I think you have a tendency to focus on numbers and mathematics, and forget that emotions are involved. You did this when you said that Matt's loss was less because he still had his adopted father. You say that men will go to war because they have in the past and because of some statistics, without accounting for the particular characters' thoughts, feelings and ideals and those that influence them. Statistics are useful for a balanced sample - but since when was this particular character set a balanced sample? You have a group of people who are largely liberal, tolerant, openly (or semi openly) homosexual men. Show me solid, reliable statistics proving that there was a huge increase in enlistments among liberal, tolerant, openly homosexual men and I will not only shut the hell up, but I will wire you my next month's salary.

The Iraq war had more than 24,000 dead and 117,000+ wounded on the allied side. According to estimates by the Watson Institute, the total cost to the US Economy was $1.3tn - with direct costs at $845bn to the US (with allies paying more on top). You have a family that have a direct interest in the war on terror, and a highly pacifist professor emeritus as a key figure in the story. On that basis, I would imagine that this war can bubble along in the background without a "good man going to war"... Don't forget that Brad and Stef essentially own a defence contractor... I would think the tension on one hand of those two profiting from the war, and JP being against it and with a social conscience (and renewed commitment to Claremont) would bring enough drama as it stands..

How much time do you think Brad actually thinks in those terms "I'm going to lead this family, because until Gathan is older, they are leaderless"? I think Brad is just planning on doing right by the family of his dead partner. By doing that, they might look to him for aspects of leadership (which I think is Mark's point), but I don't think Brad thinking in terms of the power play right now?

It's worth it. There will be more days like this. But they lead up to something spectacular. It did for us. it will for you too. And when you're both over here.... give us a call and we will cook you dinner.

I find it really interesting that you feel it so easy to "quantify" loss that way. "losing relative A is not quite so bad because they still have relative B" completely ignores the emotional baggage that a bereavement causes. One MIGHT argue for example, that if grief were to be measured in "lost moments" - those times your father will never see and all the things you wish you had done together - Matt would have an even greater loss than the others, because he and Robbie lost so much time together before they found each other.

That's the thing about pedestals though. when you put someone on them, they have that much further to fall. Nobody is perfect. We have seen that many times with JP. When Wade's failings become clear - which of course they must, because nobody is perfect - expect his fall to be all the harder.

Dude, Mark missed the original post in the drafts group, but then you pointed out the mistake again publicly here in the forums. I'd say on the snark scale, you're just about even.

Well, actually the flag officers share would be allocated to the person signing the orders, unless those orders came from the admiralty. Granger was NOT working under admiralty orders, he was under direct orders from the Privy council. That eighth would properly have been awarded to the King (actually, to the privy purse - there are examples of this being the case for ships transporting foreign heads of state, but I need to look up the reference) and so I would imagine it being spun that this £50,000 was a personal gift from the King in recognition of heroic deeds, no? West

Things already ARE right with Calvert. Equal shares of the captain's portion. He has since been awarded the share normally apportioned upwards, and in the context of the times I'm not sure the Son of an Earl and a current Viscount would see anything wrong in that social order. The reason Calvert winced was, that he wouldn't dream of upsetting that social order by asking for the upper share too.

**interesting side note Perfume was not really a whaling side product, but a side product of whale VOMIT. Ambergris is hardened, way whale vomit that floats on water. it has a putrid smell, but as it ages and breaks down the smell becomes sweet. It is still used in perfumes today, and if you find some on a beach, you can sell it for life changing amounts of money. We're talking £20,000 for 300 grams from some Swiss perfumeries. So if you are ever on a beach and the dog wont leave a particular stone alone..... pick it up.... it might be worth something

We are confusing some timelines here. The time in the story is currently 1798, and to be quite frank, America was still a weak nation. Growing stronger by the day, naturally, but let's not pretend that it was anything near a superpower. Trade with Britain was still one sided. Britain's exports to the united states dwarfed her imports and while the Americans profited hugely in selling timber, food and other resources to BOTH the French and English, this was by no means critical to either side. Both Britain and France had large an sprawling colonial holdings, with diverse trade networks. Fast forward to 1808, and it's a different story. American military strength had grown (but, crucially not enough to intervene meaningfully in Europe). The main benefit of the US joining the war on the side of the British was to cut off the last uninterrupted supply line to Napoleon. The question of a meaningful US military involvement was never considered as viable. Note that in 1798, trade was still quite free, and so whaling was largely not interrupted. Also note that the "press" was not a licence to strip a boat. Impressment at sea could only take place if the navy replaced the men they took (and so they would often take experienced seamen and replace them with inferior landsmen). As long as the boats followed certain rules, there was limited risk to whalers from the press gangs themselves. While Captains would often take steps to protect their most experienced men from the press, overall numbers were not, in fact, a risk. However, whale oil was already being replaced as a means to light and heat. Wax candles had always been popular, but new processes made them longer lasting. Gas lighting was already lighting foundries in London's Soho district, and was fast being introduced (in a limited way) in the capital.By 1799, the Gas Lighting and Coke Company were providing services to the industrialists of London. So, as whale produce slowly declined from 1800-1812, gas was replacing it. While some whale product was necessary, it should be noted that Britain's trade links with the orient (far east) and with Norway (until 1812) allowed a diverse sourcing of raw materials. One of the reasons Britain became the source of the industrial revolution was, in no small part, due to the diverse trade links afforded by a large empire. This allowed multiple sources and the first modern price agreements that allowed Britain a competitive edge to "punch" above it's weight internationally. That is also why a relatively unimportant country like the UK today, can still hold its own among superpowers, despite no longer being a member of that club. West

Diplomatic discussions were "arranged" via third parties. However, as the war went on, this became increasingly difficult because there were very few nations that remained neutral.

Paris is 281 miles by modern roads, including the channel tunnel - the travel at this time in history was considerably longer (no tunnel) and relied on getting a ship. Considering France was under blockade, this would have been very difficult unless a pre-arranged meeting under a flag of truce took place. Onto more interesting subjects - I have a large essay somewhere on the history of the British Post Office. Needless to say I wont bore you with it, however at this time in history the system was run under the "Postmaster general" and fees were paid upon receipt based on the costs incurred in its delivery. the so called "penny post" would not be introduced until 1840 (and was briefly preceded by the four-penny post). Some things to note - military mail was compartmentalised. That is to say that it was transported separately, from point to point, with the Royal Mail handling only the "logistics" (i.e. - they owned the coach). Personal mail would then be sorted by the army or navy and forwarded on by the Royal Mail. It was often also read by the forerunners of the intelligence services, and so someone like George would have his letters delivered by private messenger, where it would be delivered entirely privately and separately. Most of the aristocracy employed what would previously have been called heralds, but by this time were "messengers" who would run their errands and deliver personal letters. To answer the question on a letter from George reaching Caroline - this would OF COURSE have been possible. But it would have taken months. France was under blockade, and so it would have to travel via merchant to a country/ship friendly with both sides and be transferred there, and then that merchant ship deliver either to a messenger or a mail coach in London. I suspect that any letter George may write will arrive well after the navy has notified the Earl.

Today is my Paya's birthday... His 30th Birthday.... So I'm wishing him an awesome birthday. I hope (and know) that he will be COMPLETELY spoiled. At the weekend I whisked him away to Paris (where we had an impromptu GA meet with Bleu) and I already got him a top of the range laptop. So, to say it again..... HAPPY 30th BIRTHDAY DARLING!!!!

Hi, Sorry for delayed response, I have been travelling extensively in Eastern Europe with work..... It is important to note that a rating was a measure of capability and capacity. It included cannon, but not corronades. So while a ship might be "rated" as a 32 or 74 etc. - that did not necessarily indicate the reality of how many guns were on board the ship. This was tailored to allow for the eccentricities of a particular ship - such as handling and how she lies in the water. I hope this clarifies a little more? West

PS - I am "belgrade bound" tomorrow, and so I might not be responsive in the forums. Many hotels in Serbia block gay themed websites so its hit and miss whether I actually get online or not. One thing I wanted to mention was that the last chapter started on 12th September. 7 days before that, a law was enacted that effectively invented the modern concept of conscription. It can be said that this act, more than any other, had the greatest and farthest reaching consequences of any other aspect of the Napoleonic wars.

I have no idea to whom you might be referring.... I think this is more of a misunderstanding of the relative ranks and responsibility. A colonel in the military was commanding around 900 men, and had a significant budget to manage. On average it took 22-24 years as an officer to reach this rank. A more accurate rank/equivalent would probably be an Army Capitan or Major. It should though be noted that the roles were completely different, and so a direct comparison is not possible. West Edit to add 2 things: (1) Captains in the Navy had the additional possibility of prize money. The Army did not. (2) It's really important that everyone should feel comfortable asking questions in this forum. Sometimes it is difficult to sense tone in written form - we may have some "banter" on here, but its all in good nature and part of a long conversation giving different viewpoints

The argument here is that the lines drawn apparently allowed Prussian supremacy to unite Germany under one Throne.... Its a convenient argument that ignores the responsibility of the Prussians, the Serbians, the Hungarians and the Austrians. I find it disingenuous to blame a man for putting together a formula that allowed something to happen, rather than blame the perpetrators of such crimes.

Nobody buys ties themselves. They are bought for you as gifts generally... If bought by Stefan, it would obviously be a charvet who are without comparison. If bought by others (or indeed Brad himself) Turnbull & Asser or Kiton would be good options. Kiton are slightly more cutting edge, but T&A have more class. Edit to add.... someone might ask why I didn't recommend Hermes ties. The fact is that while these have a lot of "snob value"... they are highly over rated, with poor styling and quality.

For Brad, there's only one option. Suits are from Savile row. Silk shirts are Versace or custom made in Paris or Rome. Leather shoes would be by Ralph Lauren or at a push Edward Green. A Savile row suit is something unique. Made to measure and exceptional quality, a suit starts at £5000. Sure, couture suits were made by big fashion houses, but understated class, with high quality tailoring designed uniquely for you there aren't many big names. Something tells me this would suit Brad to the ground. Regardless, the making of a suit is in its accessories. The cufflinks, the watch, the tie pin and lapel pin. West

I never needed to get into fashion.... The clothes don't make me look good, rather I make the clothes look awesome.... Put me in a bin liner and I own it

This is the time of the Directory.... So there are a large number of the emigré who are returning to France under petition. In a little under 3 years, there would be almost a complete amnesty for the emigré population outside of France, many of whom would not only return, but also reclaim much of their wealth (if they hadn't already; there were huge amounts of aristocratic gold stored in English banks at the time). Some of these returning aristocrats would hold positions in government. At a time of ever-increasing tolerance towards the aristocrats, the ones who made it back were spectacles in their own right. All the most fashionable parlours in Paris would have wanted them to dinner. Granger is not in any danger in Paris. It was understood that certain boundaries would make later peace so much harder (or, make occupation more resisted). Killing a hero of the people, an aristocrat, outside of battle and while a prisoner of war would in the context of the time be reprehensible. West

Really? Remember that Granger is an officer in the Navy, and that the Navy focus was mostly on Europe. Sure, there was an oceanic aspect to the War of 1812, but the skilled officers were fighting what was considered to be the greater threat - The Napoleonic Wars. The battle of Lyngør was the decisive battle of the Gunboat war for example. 1812 was also the start of the War of the 6th Coalition, culminating in the first abdication of Napoleon. Moreover, we still have the majority of the Napoleonic wars to get through first. Nelson will die in 1805 at the Battle of Trafalgar. There's a huge amount to get through before the Americans start to get antsy. West

I would doubt it. Am I the only person who this didn't occur to? Matt and Brad resolved things in Millennium, and the additional "guilt" aspect is likely to make this too awkward. Moreover, its not just Brad who need to replace Robbie. Matt needs to replace him too... and the respect he holds for Brad might just be the catalyst to latch onto Brad not romantically, but paternally.