Re: schemes - Kenton and Nigel (and Eddie); also boarding school

* Al Menzies wrote, On 01/09/2010 10:15:
On 01/09/2010 09:52, Jo Lonergan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:56:15 +0100, the
Omrud<usenet.omrud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 30/08/2010 14:54, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message<UjOeo.38796$_s6.37319@hurricane>, the Omrud
<usenet.omrud@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Is it only me who was disturbed by the tone of this discussion?
was clearly in charge of the decision and Lizzie didn't question

Hmm. I got the impression they'd "put down" the frillies' names when
they were born, and that Lizzie _had_ been in agreement then, though
perhaps not given it a lot of thought (but that wasn't Nigel's

Yes, I'm sure that's the case. She changed her opinion.

It didn't seem to be a discussion between equals, but more like the
minority shareholder asking the chairman for a favour which he
or might not, agree to. I can't imagine being in a marriage like

I think they have a very good one; look how he's given in.

But she seemed to take it for granted that it was his decision to
If he hadn't accepted her suggestion, she'd have had to lump it.

I thought that the idea of Niggle as a Victorian paterfamilias was a
bizarre, too. Since when was Lizzie so deferential?

Even more bizarrely, she was the one who had to give Nigel permission
to go ahead with the allotment scheme. So he takes decisions about the
family, and she takes decisions about the business.

Or, to word it slightly differently, neither of them will take major decisions unilaterally, whether about the business or the family. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Cheers, Serena

Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. (Lewis Carroll)