Newspapers / Shelby Daily Star (Shelby, … / April 27, 1931, edition 1 / Page 3
Part of Shelby Daily Star (Shelby, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Interesting Complications Behind Her Majesty's Taboo of Captain Courtney’s Popular Wife, and What ■p Society Did Hft About It ALL-UNSUSPECTING **>pt. and Mr*. Christopher Courtney, Ju»t After Their Wedding at tha >avoy Chapel, London. Her Expression Plainly Indicates That She Was Then Unaware Queen Mary Would Snub Her for Being a Divorcee. ™ By a Staff Correspondent. LONDON'. NO more complex social situation has ever arisen in England than that caused by the official cold shouldering of a beautiful and popular divorcee by Queen Mary. For the first time in twenty-seven years the rigid code of presentation at the Court of St- James's was found to have been violated. In consequence, Mrs. Christopher Courtney, wife of a distinguished aviation officer, and former wife of one Alexander Rayson, found herself beyond the official pale or recognition by Their Majesties. Probably all the ethical and legal intricacies behind the act of the Lord Great Chamberlain will never be re vealed; for procedures of this sort are hedged about with impenetrable barri ers. Certain very interesting facts, not •tressed by the daily press, may be •tated, however. To comprehend these facts, it is neces sary that the reader realize the peculiarly variegated and paradoxical quality of the British society scene to day. Since the war, there has been a mstrked tendency toward a freer and easier regime. Mayfair is apt to smile tolerantly upon persons and practises that would have been taboo during the Victorian era. This spirit of liberalism ex tends even to Buckingham A • »** b<nUZSSen‘ /.. fa. Lord Chamberlain’s Office, SI. James’ Palace. S.W.< Palace. But in one respect, at least, the weight of tradition is still felt with unremitting force. Divorce, legally, is permissible, Regarded from the regal viewpoint, it is “impossible.” The ban, it must be understood, is no mere personal whim of the monarch?; it is a solemn heritage that they can in no wise abrogate or evade, A curious twist is added in the pro nouncement that no divorced poison, irrespective of whether the or he Was awarded the decree, may be presented. The question of individual innocence or culpability is not present. Mrs. Courtney’s “case” was in sev eral respects singular. In the first place, she came to court under the auspices of a lady of great prestige. Her sponsor was none less than the Honorable Lady Salmond, formerly Miss Monica Grenfell, daughter of Lord Desborough, and the wife of Marshal Sir John Salmond, Chief of the Air Force. In addition. Lady Salmond’s mother is Lady of the Bedchamber to the Queen—which adds a note of almost humorous involvement to the Situation. Did Lady Salmond, when she pro posed the name of Mrs. Courtney. June 6, 1930. Notice Is hereby given that the presentation of Mrs. Christopher Courtney at their Majesties' Court on May 14 last ha* been cancelled. THEN THE BLOW FELL At Top: Front-Page Clipping from The London Daily Exprass, Divulging the Cancellation of Mr*. Courtney's Court Presentation, with a Smiling Photo of the “Culprit.” Below: The Actual Cancellation Order Issued by the Lord Great Chamberlain. know that her protegee had been di vorced ? The genera] opinion is that she could not possibly have been ignorant of it. But journalism in this country has reached a high peak of accuracy and efficiency. So reporters sought out Sir John at his country estate, Lake End, Huntiscooinbe, Maidenhead, and asked him to shed light on the tangle. Said Sir John: “I have no statement to make. Lady Salmond is upset at tiii' inquiries. It is impossible for any o', to see her.’’ Later his wife told r./.'. “I really do not know the reason for Ihe action taken.” fhat Mrs. Courtney felt the cancella tion keenly was evinced in her depar ture from the country with her hus band, “for a holiday.” What happened How Baby Teelh Form and Make Their Appearance By HERBERT L. HERSCHENSOHN (Physician anti Surgeon) Misunderstanding on the part of the mother often causes her much unnecessary anxiety and worry about the development of the baby’s teeth. Every child gets two sets of teeth. The baby teeth are temporary and are only twenty in number. At about the sixth year the permanent teeth begin < to appear, the final number being ^ thirty-two. \ The baby teeth probably begin de veloping as early as six months before birth. However, they do not start breaking through the gums until about six months after birth. Baby teeth . appear in groups. The first group I erupts between the sixth and eighth i months. It consists of only two teeth, ' the two middle lower incisors. About * two or three months later, between the eighth and tenth months, all four Supper incisors appear. The next in 1 terval is longer. Several months elapse f before the third group break through the gums. This consists of the other two lower incisors as well as the first four molars. In other words, the infant i A. 6-8 aonth* 1. 6-10 months' I I c. 12-14 months D. i 18-20 months' E. >20*30 oonths The Above Sketch** Show the Infant'* Age in Months During Which the “Baby Teeth” Make Their Appearance. should have twelve teeth when it is a little over a year old. When the infant stage merges into that of childhood, that is, at the eight eenth month, the fourth group of teeth become visible. This contains the four canines only. They are placed between the incisors and the molars. There is now no space between any of the teeth. Although the final group does not as a rule crop out until about a year later, it may make its appearance any time after the twentieth month. In this group are the second molars, four in number, one for each corner of the mouth upper and lower. When these are all out the full set of temporary teeth is completed. Exceptions, of course, occur. Some infants are born with one or two teeth already visible. Although they are pointed to with considerable pride it does not in any way signify that the infant has unusual healthy physical de velopment. As a matter of fact it may even mean in a few cases that some in herited disease is present. Of greater concern is the absence of teeth at the end of ten months or a year. Rickets is an outstanding cause in the delay, and when the teeth fWlly do appear the structure is of poor quality and they decay early. / Many infants, who are apparently normal, are sometimes several months late in cutting teeth. In some in stances there seems to be a familiar tendency in this direction to which no significance need be attached. ! COULDN’T UNDERSTAND The Hon. Lady Salmond, Daughter of Lord Dciborough, Who Sponsored Mr*. Courtney’* Pretentation at Court, and Who Later Remarked) “I really do not know the reaton for the cancellation.” on her return will be stated later. The turning of the queenly . cold shoulder toward her nat urally aroused interest In her personal history, hhe married me Captain in 1926 at the Savoy Chapel followed by a civil ceremony at the i’rincea Row Register office. Entry was made of the bride’s name as "Con stance May Rayson, formerly Green sill, spinster, the divorced wife of Alexander Rayson.’’ Her father, George Edward Greensill, was a witness at both ceremonies. Little is known locally concerning Rayson. He is one of those shadowy but significant figures that haunt the background of every society mystery. According to a statement issued by a press bureau last Summer, his marriage to Miss Greensill "had been dissolved on the husband s peti tion.” Scrutiny of Captain Courtney’s per* sonality and achievements was a gratifying task. He entered the navy in 1905, and his military career in the Royal Naval Air Force was brilliant. He is now Deputy Director of Opera tions and Intelligence in the Air Ministry. His father was W. L. Courtney, emi nent editor of The Fort nightly Review, Socially he is regarded as most acceptable. Basil Foster, the famous crick eter, remarked to me: “He is one of the most delight ful of men. Mrs. Courtney is charming. I cannot imagine what motivated the cancellation.’’ The action in the instance of Mrs. Courtney is a far away echo from 1903, when a Mrs. Gordon, American born, came under the dis pleasure of the House of Windsor. Mrs. Gordon had been presented at court in 1891. Her first husband had been Frederick Close, who was killed. Next she married C. F. Gordon. Divorce by mutual agree ment followed, and she married her husband’* cousin, Lord Granville Gordon. In 1903 she unwisely drew atten tion to herself by suing for the custody of her four-year-old daughter. Cicely, by her second marriage. Lady Gordon evidently sensed during the early stages of the legal action that her cause was foredoomed. Anticipating failure, she got possession of the child and crossed the Channel, perilously, in a small tug boat. Immediately a committal order was issued against her by the Law Courts. Her gesture, at that time, was sen national. It lost nothing of its flavor when she wrote to Lord Gordon as fol lows: “My darling Oran: Please forgive me tor running away. I went straight off and, am with friends. It was the only thing to do. We could not give up the child to . . . Vou know I have spoken the truth. I will let you know late where I am. Don’t be anxious don't blame me. your* alwu„ Margaret.” Corotift!. l*3t. IWnulaul tarrts*. Um.. Qiml Briuja S-iiU Imn**. LOOK OF REBUKE Characteristic Photo of Queen Mary, Showing Her Rathar Sevara Mode of Dress. Tha Accompanying Articla Analyze* tha Reuom Behind tha Invariable Royal Disapproval of Divorced Women. “YOU ENTER THUS" Mit« Ball* Harding Instructing Two Young Woman in the Intricaciaa •< Approaching Royalty, When Presented in the Throne Room. They Are Alee Taught the Correct Way to Wear Court Orate and the Technique of the Curtsey. Even coming twelve years after her court presentation, all these actions of hers were a little too much for the strait-laced standards of the period. King Edward VII was on the throne then. Himself no puritanical person— indeed quite the contrary—he was nevetheless forced to bow to tradition. He sanctioned the cancellation. Persons unacquainted with this tradi tion indulged in somS quiet amusement at the monarph’s expense. It seemed to them curious that he should take so uncompromising a stand, when storiee about' beautiful actresses pouring cham pagne down his collar were in free circulation. These persons forgot that monarchical custom could not be swerved from its course merely because the administrator was a jolly, uncon ventional man. There have been two other examples * court presentation cancellations in .o past forty years. In 1898 a Mrs. Grossley underwent that humiliation. Also in the Victorian epoch Lady Twiss, i wife of the last Sir Travef-s Twigs, was officially snubbed. “Assertions,” in the stiff, precise language of that day, “were made against her conduct." Times have always changed, and they are changing rapidly now. Returned from her “holiday” recently, Mrs. Courtney found London society glad to greet her. Her position, once the regal rebuke had been administered, was again secure. It had been felt neces sary to impose the stigma. But stig mas are not indelible, or even always unofficially recognizable. One of the privileges of a court pres entation is that it entitles women to enter the royal inclosure at Ascot. “This season,” said a peer's young son to me, with a yawn, “they seem to be letting down the bats there. I wouldn’t scratch the surface of respectability in too many cases at Ascot.” Perhaps not. But in any event Mrs. Courtney finds Mayfair’s shoulder gratifyingly warm, after the slight chill she caught from Buckingham Palace..,,
Shelby Daily Star (Shelby, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 27, 1931, edition 1
3
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75