The Times - UK (2022-06-11)

30 Saturday June 11 2022 | the times

Comment

Write to Feedback by emailing

[email protected] or by post to

1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF

Name and shame

‘A

ny chance of asking your

writers to stop using titular

when they mean eponymous?”

writes Geoff Hill from Belfast. “I

know it’s a minor problem compared

to world peace, reality TV and why

the slower car’s always in front of

you, but it destroys the useful

distinction between titular, meaning

‘in name only’, as in the Queen is the

UK’s titular head of state, and

eponymous, meaning ‘giving its

name to’, as in Hamlet is the

eponymous protagonist of

Shakespeare’s play. There, I feel

better now, thanks for asking.”

I didn’t ask, but Mr Hill deserves

thanks for so neatly illustrating the

therapeutic value of Feedback. He

was right about “titular”, too. It might

trail world peace as a priority, but it’s

something we ought to get right.

Hot squat

C

raig Barrett found a reference

to a tuxedo in a story about

Sean Connery’s Picasso.

“This is a horrid Americanism,” he

says, “not worthy of The Times. Ian

Fleming would have, correctly, used

‘dinner jacket’. Why didn’t you?”

Or would he have said “black tie”, I

wonder? Anyway, Mr Barrett might

like to know that “tuxedo” was first

introduced to Times readers in 1931,

in a glossary of Americanisms kindly

translated by a US correspondent.

Other gems included “flatfoot” for

policeman; “typewriter” for machine-

gun; and “hot squat”, electric chair.

a picture of three bikini-clad women,

which is advertising a feature on

swimwear for ‘curvy’ women. All

three have washboard stomachs and

there’s hardly a curve to be seen.

This is unhelpful for those of us who

actually are curvy, and I cannot

imagine that the upcoming article is

going to be of any help.”

This is a shame because, when it

did appear, the feature — “The chic

swimwear guide for real women” by

Charlie Gowans-Eglinton — was

hugely appreciated by large numbers

of self-appointed curvies, who joined

an enthusiastic and good-natured

discussion in the comment section

online. The only dissenting note

among the many grateful comments

came from those I should perhaps

call the uncurvy.

“What is a ‘real’ body?” asked Mrs

Hill. “I’m a healthy size 6, five foot

tall, very active and eat well. At 50

years old I would also like a bikini

with good bum coverage but don’t

need the skinny-shaming headline. I

have a ‘real’ body too, just in a

different shape.”

Fashion editors are always being

unjustly accused of catering only for

the young and skinny, so Mrs Hill’s

reaction comes as a bit of a blow. To

an extent you can’t blame people for

the misconception since the

manufacturers, even of clothes made

for larger shapes, are so unwilling to

photograph them on larger models.

Things are changing, gradually,

though. Perhaps we should look on

being accused of “skinny-shaming”

as a sign of progress.

but she was not seen out on Friday

so there was no new picture with

which to lead Saturday’s paper. She

was, however, on the front of that

day’s Magazine.

We can, therefore, hardly be

accused of undercelebrating the

Queen, but did Prince Harry’s frown

and Meghan’s glassy smile throw a

negative spanner in the festive

works? Should they, as those behind

these emails suggest, be permanently

banished beyond the pale and

subject to a news blackout?

The Sussexes may no longer be

important as part of the royal circus

but they and their relationships with

their immediate family, particularly

Harry’s father and brother, are

undoubtedly of interest. Friday’s

arms-length appearance made it

clear that those relationships are far

from mended. It must have been a

nervous occasion for them both, and

the picture reflected that.

Real bodies

S

ome people are having an awful

lot of trouble these days trying to

define what a woman is, so much

so that the NHS, among others,

seems to want to chuck the word

altogether. Now we’ve opened a can

of worms by talking about “real”

women. What on earth are they?

Don’t worry, this is not going

where you think it is. Real women,

according to Times2, are the ones

with curves, as opposed, I think, to

those with corners. On Tuesday

Linda King wrote, “Under your

heading ‘Tomorrow in The Times’ is

B

ernard Kingston of

Biddenden, Kent, writes to

ask, “May I propose a ‘high

five’ for your royal

correspondent Valentine

Low for his superlative and

numerous contributions during the

Platinum Jubilee. He occupies the

delicate position between

sketchwriter and royal correspondent

with consummate ease, and his

observations are always perceptive,

diplomatic, and laced with good

humour.”

All very true and I’m sure many

will concur. I don’t know what the

opposite of a high-five is — a low

blow? A raspberry? — but quite a

Like it or not, the

Sussexes are still

part of the picture

few people wrote to say we deserved

one for our choice of photograph on

Saturday’s front page. Their

sentiments were more or less

unanimous, and Jim Hearnshaw’s

email was typical. “I was under the

impression that we were celebrating

the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee this

weekend and therefore fail to

understand why the front page

photograph on Saturday was of

Harry and Meghan, rather than of

the Queen. Why do you give this

couple publicity they do not deserve?

Why is their inappropriate behaviour

rewarded?”

It’s a slightly odd notion that the

Sussexes could have perceived that

rather grumpy-looking photo as a

reward. They kept a low profile for

most of their visit to this country and

Friday’s service at St Paul’s was their

only public appearance. The Queen’s

photograph had been on our front

pages on Monday, Thursday and

Friday of that week, as well as on

Wednesday’s souvenir supplement,

Ros e

Wild

Feedback

@timesfeedback