A Scandal in Bohemia – Again

[Brontodon]

In "A Scandal in Bohemia," why is it so important that Irene Adler and Godfrey Norton be married in such a hurry – specifically, by 12 noon?  Why wouldn't the marriage "be legal" if it weren't performed by noon?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I used to know that -- near as I recall, there was actually some sort of law.  Hang on, will have a look.

OK, according to William Baring-Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes, Volume I, page 360:

By English law, a marriage once had to be solemnized before noon.  But in May, 1886 -- almost two years before Watson's date for the "Scandal" -- the legal period had been extended from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.  Surely Godfrey Norton, as a lawyer, should have known this.

The story begins with the King's visit to Holmes on the 20th of March, 1887 -- actually a bit less than *one* year after May of 1886, but after, nonetheless.  But even though the fictional lawyer "should have known," the commentary does not take into account the rather lax habits of Sir Arthur "Continuity" Doyle, who reportedly staked his reputation on his historical novels, and thought of his Holmes stories as merely a source of income.  If the change in laws hadn't affected him personally, he could well have remained completely unaware of it, thus writing the story under the assumption that the prior law was still in effect.

Or if you prefer a more "in universe" explanation, you could assume that Watson -- who had clearly waited till after the death of Irene Adler before publishing the story (he refers to her, at the beginning and again at the end, as "the late") -- had in the interim simply misremembered what year the events had occurred.

 

[Brontodon]

Actually, the King's visit is on March 20th, 1888.  And it seems that the timeline is a bit of a mess, since March 20th was on a Tuesday in that year.  "Next Monday," the day on which Irene Adler has threatened to send the incriminating photograph, would be six days in the future, but Holmes says "Oh, then we have three days yet."  Now I know that Holmes had "one or two matters of importance to look into" at that point, but it seems he had five days in which to act.  In the Granada TV series, Holmes said the matter must be concluded by Friday, because he wanted to see the Tchaikovsky concert on Friday, but that is not mentioned in the original story.  (Incidentally, Tchaikovsky did conduct at St. James's Hall in London in March of 1888, so I appreciate the liberty Granada took with the story.  It serves to ground Holmes in his time.)

And now, since you bring up "the late" Irene Adler, one wonders why she is "of dubious and questionable memory."

[Carol the Dabbler]

19 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

The story begins with the King's visit to Holmes on the 20th of March, 1887

4 hours ago, Brontodon said:

Actually, the King's visit is on March 20th, 1888

That's odd -- let me check my book again.  Hmm, you're quite correct.  Wonder how I managed to misread that?

4 hours ago, Brontodon said:

the timeline is a bit of a mess

OK, now I can refer you back to my comment on Arthur "Continuity" Doyle!

4 hours ago, Brontodon said:

... since you bring up "the late" Irene Adler, one wonders why she is "of dubious and questionable memory."

Watson doesn't elaborate, though he does make that statement twice.  I have three guesses:  1) Watson is a typical Victorian in that he considers anyone in show business to be "questionable," and/or 2) he suspects (thus "dubious and questionable" rather than anything more specific) that Irene's relationship with the king may have been of a carnal nature (note: it's been a while since I read the whole store, but I'm pretty sure that was never specified),  and/or 3) he knows something that he ain't telling.

ADDED:  If you don't mind a real-world guess, maybe Doyle's publisher insisted on that phrase -- presumably for "morality" reasons analogous to why one Brett episode ended with the rather gratuitous accidental drowning of the thief, whereas in the original story she had merely disappeared.

[Brontodon]

I'm thinking that Irene Adler wasn't as famous as the King made her out to be.  He initially stated that he had "made the acquaintance of the well-known adventuress, Irene Adler. The name is no doubt familiar to you."  Neither Holmes nor Watson recognizes the name, and Holmes has Watson "look her up in my index."  So the King's adventuress was not as well-known as he thought she was, which could explain the "dubious and questionable" part of her memory.

BTW, is "adventuress" a real occupation?  How does one become one?  Do they teach it at college or something?  😊 

[Carol the Dabbler]

The Oxford dictionary says "adventuress" is a dated term for "a woman who seeks social or financial advancement by dishonest or unscrupulouos methods."  So the king assumes (perhaps correctly) that Irene's attentions to him were prompted by a hope of financial or social gain, which may or may not have been her actual motive.  Funny thing, though -- he's worried sick that if anyone finds out about their prior relationship (whatever it may have been), it'll ruin his chances of marrying a proper lady -- which to me sounds an awful lot like HE is the one looking to gain social prestige (or at least avoid losing it).

I'm pretty sure that  Watson's "dubious and questionable" designation of Irene is meant as a gently worded synonym for "disreputable," and may well have been based largely on the king's (rather self-serving) attitude.  Odd, though, that her name wasn't familiar to Holmes, who seems to stay informed on the cultural scene -- doesn't the story say that she is (or was) a well-known opera singer?

 

 

 

[Brontodon]

Now that's interesting.  I had not known about the "gold digger" aspect of the definition -- I thought it referred to the adventure-seeking definition, which makes more sense in-story.  Why would the King seek out an "adventuress" who was after his prestige and money?  But I can understand his attraction to a woman who likes, and excels at, masculine-oriented pursuits such as marksmanship and horsemanship (as shown in the Granada version.)  "What a queen she would have made!" he exclaims.

Also, it would not be a good thing for a person to be "well-known" as a gold digger -- but to be famous for adventuring,is another thing entirely.  it would be akin to being compared to Amelia Earhart or any of a number of male adventurre-seekers.

[Carol the Dabbler]

12 hours ago, Brontodon said:

Why would the King seek out an "adventuress" who was after his prestige and money? 

Please bear in mind that calling her an "adventuress" was the king's idea, and I don't offhand recall any supporting information in the story.  Once he got over his infatuation with her and became engaged to a fellow royal, he realized that Irene had a photo with which she *could* blackmail him, though I don't recall him offering any evidence that she intended to do so.  She told Holmes that she had no intention of blackmailing the king, she was merely using the photo as leverage to keep him from interfering with her life.  The king strikes me as something of a paranoid control freak, so I'm more inclined to believe her than him.

Each of them had presumably been attracted to the other at an earlier date -- presumably with her being impressed that he was royal, and him having seen her on stage and been impressed by her talent and her beauty.  I rather imagine that he was something of a "stage-door Johnny"!

 

[Brontodon]

The King states that he was "mad – insane!" in his attraction to Miss Adler because "she was beautiful... bewitching... clever... daring.  I was only Crown Prince then.  I was young!  I am but thirty now." 

The original story glosses over why Miss Adler wants to blackmail the King.  In the Granada show, the King mentions that "there was once some talk of marriage" as the reason for the blackmail but Miss Adler "would not see that it was impossible."  The tryst with Miss Adler took place 10 years before the Holmes story, so apparently she kept the photograph as a weapon to use against the King in the event he were to ever marry another woman, which is about to happen in the story.  She threatens to send the photograph on the day the betrothal is publicly announced – I don't know how she knows about it ahead of time.

She never denies planning to send the photograph as she had threatened, but in the note she leaves for Holmes she states that since she is now married to "a better man" than the King, she will keep the photograph "only to safeguard myself, and to preserve a weapon which will always secure me from any steps which [the King] might take in the future."

[Carol the Dabbler]

Aw, shucks -- looks like I need to re-read the story!  Will get back to you.

 

[Brontodon]

You should also watch the Granada version - it's very close to the story in many ways and it visualizes the story better than most  It's one of my favorite episodes.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

20 hours ago, Brontodon said:

You should also watch the Granada version - it's very close to the story in many ways and it visualizes the story better than most 

No argument there!      But the best way to interpret the original story is to read it.  Just need to free up half an hour or so.

 

[Brontodon]

Happy to oblige:

https://sherlock-holm.es/stories/pdf/a4/1-sided/scan.pdf