Brontodon

This isn't a specific joke, but it occurred to me when I watched the BBC "Sherlock" series, in which impolite language may be used. I'm imagining Holmes and Watson inspecting a crime scene and for some reason related to the particular case, they are expecting some sort of excrement to be found. When it is not, Holmes asks Watson, "What do make of this, Watson?" To which Watson replies, "No shit, Sherlock."

One that I read not long ago is "The Seven Percent Solution," by Nicholas Meyer. I did not care for it! It made Holmes into a paranoid drug addict who imagined the threat of Moriarty, building an innocent man up in his [Holmes'] mind to be a master criminal and a supervillain. (I did kind of like Holmes meeting, and being treated by, Sigmund Freud!)

Another point -- which kind of answers my original question -- is that the King himself put a time limit on how long the secrecy regarding the affair had to be maintained: >> "I must begin,” said he, “by binding you both to absolute secrecy for two years; at the end of that time the matter will be of no importance." << So I'll assume that Watson waited the requisite two years before "laying the case before the public."

Since this is the first Holmes short story, and only the third Holmes work, that Arthur Conan Doyle had not really worked out many of the conventions that would later characterize the series, and he was just telling the audience a story without realizing its in-universe implications.

But I'm thinking that in-universe, von Ormstein WAS the King of Bohemia, and in-universe, Watson ratted him out!

In "A Scandal in Bohemia," the King is concerned that his earlier dalliances with Irene Adler remain secret. Why, then, is it OK for Watson to publish all the details, including names and addresses, and "lay them before the public," as he likes to say?