Magazine article The Spectator

The Specatator's Notes

Magazine article The Spectator

The Specatator's Notes

Article excerpt

If, when you read this, Boris Johnson is the Mayor of London, it will, I have just discovered, be thanks to me. When the idea of Boris's candidacy was first suggested, I spoke on the telephone to Mary Wakefield, who is now the deputy editor of The Spectator. What did I think of Boris for Mayor, she asked. I snorted. 'Mayor of Henley more like!' I said, satirically. I cannot now remember why I took this line, but Mary Wakefield relayed it to Boris, who mentioned it, ruefully, to me. Now I read in the newspapers that my words stung him so much that he made up his mind to prove me wrong. So my cheap shot had the effect on Boris that the bells of London had on poor, young Dick Whittington as he hesitated, about to turn back from the walls of the City.

Whether Boris has succeeded or not, I feel proud about this. Like Whittington, and unlike all other current politicians, Boris would be a marvellous subject for a pantomime. I claim a small part in the production which, I hope, will be playing hundreds of years hence.

Vera Baird, the Solicitor-General, who thinks she is closer than the royal family to the human race (see last week's Notes) has been rebuked by her senior, the AttorneyGeneral. She will not, for the present, be in charge of deciding the succession to the British throne. Mrs Baird, I discover, has great zeal in another well-known aspect of the legal profession -- its fees. In 1998, she claimed £20,000 from public funds for her junior part in an appeal in the House of Lords.

This was reduced on 'taxation' (the system of questioning fees) to £6,000, an almost unheard-of drop. The Law Lords reported on the case. They said that it could be 'unprofessional conduct' to claim an excessive fee. 'A number of the fees claimed in the present case would appear to be excessive, ' they said, which, by the standards of lawyers judging lawyers, is fierce indeed. Nowadays the poor thing has to get by on the salary paid to a minister of the Crown, which may partly explain her anti-monarchical resentment.

In the latest Sunday Times, John Carey reviews Ferdinand Mount's memoirs (Cold Cream, Bloomsbury), and calls them 'a wilderness of name-dropping'. This raises a question: what is the writer of memoirs to do if he has known famous people? The Diary of a Nobody begins with Mr Pooter saying, '. . . I fail to see -- because I do not happen to be a "Somebody" -- why my diary should not be interesting.' Quite right, but Carey goes one further, seeming to believe that anyone who is a 'Somebody', or who knew lots of 'Somebodies', should shut up about it. If this rule were followed, the loss to literature would be incalculable. Professor Carey's logic would ban Boswell's Life of Johnson and Aubrey's Brief Lives, for a start, and possibly St John's Gospel as well. The apparent answer to Carey is that mentioning the famous is only 'namedropping' when the anecdotes about them have no intrinsic merit once their fame is subtracted. But even this is not true: it is much more interesting to learn that, say, Tolstoy liked Marmite for breakfast or that Queen Victoria always relaxed with a Havana cigar than to be told the same about people one has never heard of. Ferdinand Mount's powers of observation are too well known to readers of The Spectator to need defending here, so let me merely 'drop' some of the names he mentions in his book to indicate what pleasures, in his hands, they promise -- John le Carré, Keith Joseph, Harold Acton, Isaiah Berlin, Alfred Sherman, John Betjeman, Margaret Thatcher, Donald Maclean, Siegfried Sassoon and Oswald Mosley. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.