Notebook
For some reason when a girl is described as the daughter of a 'top gynaecologist', one immediately has a very clear impression of her. That impression very closely resembles the picture conveyed by the Popular press of pretty, pushy Katie Rabett, the new 'girl friend' of the restless Prince Andrew. We don't actually know Whether she is his 'girl friend' or not; she doesn't say she is, but then she doesn't say she isn't. But we do know, or at least the Press leads us to believe, that she has used the suspicion that she might be to attract a great deal of attention to herself, with the likely result that her career as a model and actress will benefit. She appears a sharp, smart, go-getting girl, and none the worse for that. This impression could, of course, be wrong, but it is a comfortingly un- complicated impression. With the daughters of 'top gynaecologists' we know Where we are. Or rather we thought we did before the arrival on the scene of that ap- Palling American busybody, Mr Harold Brooks-Baker. Mr Brooks-Baker is the 'Publishing director' of Burke's Peerage who makes it his business to prove that everybody is somebody. No persons, not even gynaecologist's daughters, are safe from his attentions. In January he caused a lot of trouble by informing the press that a faintllton rmer's wife in Wiltshire was the heir to £3
worth of Reuters shares: It subse-
quently turned out that she might not be, for Mr Brooks-Baker had overlooked the existence of her step-brother who appeared, °,,n the face of it, to have a stronger claim to the fortune. Now we learn from Lady Olga Maitland in the Sunday Express that this toe genealogist' has spent days researching e e ancestry of the 'top gynaecologist'. He from that Miss Rabett 'is descended Earls an impressive group of nobles, the aris of Winterton' and is therefore `cer trIly related to all the ancient French and English aristocracy'. Now it may well be that there is not a single ancient French or English aristocrat to whom Miss Rabett and ell the Other Rabetts are not related, and I expect most of us are in the same boat. But Forme at any rate, the most interesting, im- artant and relevant thing about Katie re- nt,t Ms the fact that she is the daughter of a aecologist'.
The decision to float Reuters as a public safeguards company has now been taken and the t for its independence and integn- ? 411, flounced. As an exercise in having s cake and eating it, the restructuring not the company is to be admired. The hewsPaPer proprietors who currently own neuters will be able to realise the value of most of their shares without losing voting "nntrol and without exposing the news
tthe risk of a takeover by any one
op gyn
interest group or faction. Or so it is hoped. Even with all the safeguards, which include the establishment of a legally binding Trust to prevent takeovers, it is possible, I sup- pose, that alliances could be formed bet- ween shareholders to exercise control. But let us assume that this will not happen and that the safeguards will work. The only risk then is that the pursuit of profit could lead the shareholdeis to give higher priority to the commercially successful activities of the company, in particular to its computerised financial information services, than to the news service it supplies to newspapers. These financial services account for 90 per cent of Reuters' profits, and it is doubtless in recognition of this that Reuters no longer describes itself as a news agency. The old Trust provision that Reuters should 'main- tain in every event its position as the leading world news agency' has been changed to 'maintain its leading position in the interna- tional news and information business'. If this description sounds a little ominous to journalists, who like to regard news repor- ting as Reuters' principal purpose, it does better reflect the true character of the com- pany as it is today. This is perhaps the moment to congratulate those among the directors and trustees of Reuters who have fought hardest to ensure that the greed of some of the shareholders would not destroy such an important institution. Apart from some provincial and some Australian newspaper proprietors, they include most notably Lord Hartwell, who is a trustee, and Sir Denis Hamilton, the company's chairman. At least that is what I am told. The safeguards, even if not totally satisfac- tory, are not mere whitewash and have in- volved sacrifices for the shareholders. The market value of the company, and hence the amount of money the shareholders can expect to gain, will almost certainly be substantially lower as a result. It is not a bad outcome.
The last time I wrote this column I drew attention to the Independent Broad- casting Authority's aversion to horoscopes, which led them to ban advertisements for a new astrological magazine called Romany. I have since learnt that astrology has come under attack in the Vatican. Writing in the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano on 19 January, the Franciscan commentator Gino Concetti denounced fortune-telling and horoscopes as 'in conflict with the religious principles revealed in the Bible and with the anthropology contained in the Church's teaching'. Astrology being big business in Italy, where horoscopes are solemnly read out on the radio every morning, there were instant efforts to discredit this statement. It was found that at least two popes, John XX and John XXI, had sanctioned astrology and that another pope, Leo X, had allowed a Chair of Astrology to be established at Rome University (though that was before astronomy as a science had been clearly separated from astrology as speculation). It was also pointed out that the mosaic floor of Otranto Cathedral, over which Pope John Paul walked recently without com- plaining, depicts the signs of the zodiac. Finally, a supposedly learned Jesuit called Father Virgilio Rotondi has been found to contradict Concetti and argue that belief in horoscopes is a perfectly innocent in- dulgence. It is nevertheless believed by Vatican watchers that Concetti's article en- joyed Papal approval. They are anticipating a more substantial Vatican document on the subject of astrology. The Pope may be about to get himself into deep waters.
T see from a report in the Times that 'Alexander was the fifth most popular name last year for German baby boys. It was also the fourth most popular name among British boys whose birth or adop- tion was announced in the Times. Perhaps because I know so few other people called Alexander, I was surprised to learn that my name is so widely admired. It is even more popular than Charles, the name of my suc- cessor as editor (see opposite page), which came sixth in the Times's list. The German equivalent, Karl, does not appear at all in the German top ten. The interesting thing about the most popular German names is how soppy they are. The favourite boy's name was Christian. Others on the list in- cluded Sebastian, Daniel and Benjamin. As the Times pointed out, there was no Wolfgang, Friedrich or Konrad among them. This is possibly rather comforting. It could indicate that the Germans are still fearful of appearing too virile or assertive.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
