T is for Two - Mail, Historic Mail . . .

These may be of casual interest, curiosity-wise, and they certainly deserve to be published for what they represent historically, also they may have some specific philatelic interest to stamp collectors, who may or may not visit here occasionally?

Start with the easy one which happens, also, to be the first, chronologically, I assume it is from my Grandfather or Grandmother on Mum's side, and is only of cursory interest for having the "Past by Naval censor" stamp, bottom left, however, the scribble which seems to accompany it, and which is not recognisable as either of my grandparent's hands, would appear, nevertheless, to be in the same ink, and from the same pen, as wrote the address?

 

The suspicion being that someone in grandad's office, like his own secretary or batman (did they have batmen in the Navy?), had the necessary clearance to sign-off mail, without opening it or checking it properly, or to do so, upon the order from him? . . . The sort of low-level corruption in high places [sorry Grandad!] which leads ultimately to the Sub-Postmaster's scandal, or 'Lord' I-ruined-modern-Britain Cameron, or Rishi's wife having a $multi-million financial interest (through Israeli contracts) in what is, or should actually be, Palestinian oil & gas!

It really is the case that there's one set of rules for the rest of us, and another set for those in power. Although you can slide into or out of the select group who get away with such things, Grandad was cheated of his knighthood, as an embarrassment to two nations, one - Albion - almost as old as Rome, the other - The Republic of India - only months new!

 

And that he (or I) would expect him to have had a knighthood in the normal course of events, only proving also, that the honours' system has always been the meaningless, corrupt, box-ticking exercise it still is - no matter how many minor awards they gave to school dinner-ladies, before they got rid of them all!

This is also of passing interest, for the over-stamps indicating things taking a turn for the worst in another war zone, twenty years later. There's also an apparent conflict between the two types of stamp, one suggesting there's insufficient postage paid to forward the letter, the other claiming a suspension of service?

 

But this, which accompanies the Christmas card (see below), it of far more interest, as A) it reveals a time when we, as a modern, advanced, civilised nation, ran a universal postal service which would fully reimburse you (with a written explanation), if they failed to deliver a letter on the other side of the world - can you imagine anything like that happening today, after 45-years of Thatcherite-Ragnomic ideology having hollowed out all our institutions, and/or reduced them to their lowest, cheapest, common-denominators?

And B) it mentions Laos? The inference being that the Browns', as embassy staff, had been transferred to Laos, for reasons lost in the mists of time, and that for equally unknown reasons, the mail system to Laos, not Vietnam (which while still a hot war, was quieter for Westerners in 1960, only five US servicemen killed, probably all MAAG), had actually heated up, which it had, with both American bombing and a Communist insurgency, edited: I was thinking of 1970, 1960 was the start of the Laotian civil-war!

And, therefore, that while the lack of sufficient postage may have been true, someone nevertheless tried to forward the card 'in theatre' rather than send it back, before giving-up and adding the two 'service suspended' stamps?

I thought the card was worth showing you; beautiful oriental, stylised brushwork of sparrows digging in the snow below highland bamboo, I imagine Mum bought the card somewhere like the British Museum shop, or SOAS . . . somewhere like that, but she may have brought it back from her own diplomatic stint in Singapore?