In a recent essay entitled “Passed Balls and Wild Pitches,” I recorded three incidents that were really gaffs that have marked my life in recent years. In this essay I will continue the baseball metaphors by using the title of “Foul Tips.”
Passed balls and wild pitches ordinarily have an impact on the outcome of a baseball game. When a wild pitch occurs or when a passed ball takes place, the runners on base can advance and some may score a run. So passed balls and wild pitches are a thing of substance. On the other hand, foul tips, in 95% of the cases, result only in a delay of the game. All things considered, foul tips are not of great consequence and basically serve to delay the game.
When I set out to dictate this essay, it was my fleeting intention to label it “Two Eccentric Englishmen.” However, when I began to think of the inconsequential nature of these eccentric Englishmen’s acts, I concluded that the foul tip title would probably be more accurate. So, with that introduction, let us consider the actions of these two eccentric Englishmen.
The first gentleman I would like you to meet is John Major, a former Prime Minister of England. I am aware that his title would be more likely Prime Minister of Great Britain but with the change in circumstance that has resulted in the loss of the British Empire, I believe it is much more appropriate to call him the prime minister of England. John Major succeeded the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, whose major contribution to the English language was to tell Ronald Reagan not to go “wobbly” on her during the Falklands War.
I have been writing these essays for nearly ten years now and it has always been my desire to investigate the dressing habits of John Major, Prime Minister of England. I do not intend to give away any sartorial secrets of the male sex but after years of dressing, as I have and others have, I am baffled by John Major’s attitude toward his underwear. I have not commissioned a poll on this matter, but I suspect that in this country or in England, most men wear an undershirt which is tucked into their boxer shorts or their jockey briefs. On top of their underwear, they wear a dress shirt which is tucked in to their trousers. The dress shirt rests outside their boxer shorts or their jockey briefs. I have been dressing this way for more than 80 years and it seems to suit me and millions of others reasonably well. But not John Major. This eccentric Englishman not only tucks his undershirt into his boxer shorts but when he puts on his dress shirt, former Prime Minister Major tucks his dress shirt into his boxer shorts or jockey briefs as well. I am almost certain that he does not wear jockey briefs for reasons that I am now able to disclose to the world.
As far as I am able to determine, jockey briefs appear in white color only. Boxer shorts on the other hand appear in various colors, with blue seeming to lead among boxer shorts wearers. When Prime Minister Major tucks his dress shirt into his boxer shorts, it is inevitable that the top of the elastic band on his boxer shorts will peek out from under the limits of his trouser tops. Thus we have the Prime Minister of England wandering about showing the tops of his boxer shorts to the whole world while those shorts are suffering from terribly overcrowded conditions.
Because of the size of my neck and the length of my arms, shirt makers ordinarily provide me with garments that are long in the tail. If I were to attempt to tuck my long-tailed dress shirt into my boxer shorts or jockey briefs, a vicious argument would occur because of the overcrowding. There simply is not enough room. The dress shirt belongs outside the boxer shorts, not in them. But if John Major elects to wear his shirt inside his boxer shorts, that may be the essence of democracy.
Mr. Major wears his dress shirt inside his boxer shorts and I wear my shirt in a more conventional manner. But no matter how you cut it, I believe that it qualifies John Major as sort of an eccentric Englishman.
Now we proceed to the second of the eccentric Englishmen, who is a member of the royal establishment called the Windsor clan. Until 1917, the Windsor family name was Wettig, a Saxon name. When the First World War took place, the monarch of the time changed the name to Windsor, which was a much acceptable British name. The current carrier of the title of Prince of Wales is actually Charlie Windsor. Charlie is known primarily for his goofy statements. The royal family and the British political system have tried to quell the Prince of Wales’s desire to make unfortunate statements, but they have not been very successful. For example, when a stenographer in one of the Prince of Wales’s work units asked for a raise and/or her chances for promotion, Charlie issued a combative response which told her that not everybody could be news readers on British television so she should be content with her subservient status and basically should shut up.
When Charlie married his paramour of 35 years, Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles, it appeared to objective observers such as myself, that Charlie had tended to devote his attentions to his new wife instead of making outrageous statements. For about 20 months, this situation prevailed. Charlie kept his mouth shut and the royal family and the ruling political party in England were not on their guard for goofy statements. But that was broken recently when Charlie, the Prince of Wales, went on a tour in the United Arab Emirates and, without warning, the Prince of Wales launched a diatribe against the McDonald hamburger chain. I suspect that what brought on the diatribe was the propensity for young children to become obese, which Charlie blamed entirely or largely upon the McDonald’s chain.
Charlie Windsor’s attack on McDonald’s was ill considered. In my experience, the absolute nadir of cuisine is found in English pubs where people sing the praises of “pub grub.” If there is worse food in the entire world than pub grub, it must be found only in the prisons of backward countries like Bangladesh and Uzbekistan. The only rival for the bottom of the barrel cuisine title would be found in Irish pub grub establishments. It strikes me that McDonald’s, when compared to the ordinary pub grub in England, is more like a Buick or a Chrysler as compared to a broken-down English motorcycle. Of course, McDonald’s contributes to obesity but at least it has interesting menus. And if its patrons eat enough to become obese, it is sort of a testimonial to its offerings. In the final analysis, for the Prince of Wales to criticize McDonald’s when he is the patron saint of English cuisine and English pub grub, is an exercise of misguided logic. But I suppose that this will have to be marked off as the return of Charlie Windsor to his more familiar daffy role as an eccentric Englishman. It may be that his mother, Queen Elizabeth, who at 80 years is in her dotage, seems to hang on to the throne of England rather than surrender it to her first-born son, Charlie Windsor. If Charlie became King of England and offered his usual goofy statements, the results might be catastrophic. So the Queen remains on her throne and Charlie is the Prince of Wales and all is right with the world until she becomes an angel.
Well, there you have my report on two eccentric Englishmen. Their actions really have no important effect upon the course of men’s lives in England and may be ignored. This is exactly the case with baseball players who hit foul tips. The runners don’t advance, no runs are scored, and the official scorer yawns until the next pitch occurs. My hope is that the Prince of Wales begins to tuck his royal robes into his underpants, à la John Major, and that both of them will come to this country, where they will be able to witness first-hand the futility of foul tips. I will explain to them in my imperfect English that foul tips occur because the ball is round and the bat is round and managers tell every batter that the ball must be hit squarely on the nose. When the round ball is not struck squarely by the round bat, a foul tip occurs. But I am pleased to tell you that foul tips ordinarily have no consequence and neither does Mr. Major’s tendency to wear his shirt in his underpants nor do the goofy statements of Charles Windsor have any consequences either. About all that can be said about Mr. Major’s sartorial habits and Charlie Windsor’s goofy statements and foul tips is that democracy is a wonderful system of government. I must leave now as I hear the strains of “There will always be an England” playing in the background which disturbs my dictation because I must now stand at full attention.
E. E. CARR
March 5, 2007
Essay 238
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: What a supremely odd practice. Clearly this is not done for comfort, and clearly it is not done for style. What reasons remain? Maybe that arrangement of dress helps one make important decisions. I also — and I’m not sure why — would not expect Pop to defend McDonald’s as something that features “interesting” menus but then again, I’ve never really had the pub food that it is being compared to. And now I’m not exactly in a hurry to try.