Case #000: Houseman vs Harrington

I am about to break out Honor of the Queen. But perhaps someone can assist me. When Admiral Courvosier was killed, I was under the impression that Houseman assumed his role and became the Chief of Missions.

There are two titles normally associated with such missions.

An ambassador plenipotentiary has full authority to represent their home country and can sign treaties and conventions. An ambassador extraordinary is an individual who is the highest-ranked diplomatic minister going on a special mission.

Am I incorrect that Houseman was second in command and assumed Courvosier's role? Or, as someone else seemed to infer, Sir Anthony Langtry assumed Courvosier's role?

penny wrote:I am about to break out Honor of the Queen. But perhaps someone can assist me. When Admiral Courvosier was killed, I was under the impression that Houseman assumed his role and became the Chief of Missions.

There are two titles normally associated with such missions.

An ambassador plenipotentiary has full authority to represent their home country and can sign treaties and conventions. An ambassador extraordinary is an individual who is the highest-ranked diplomatic minister going on a special mission.

Am I incorrect that Houseman was second in command and assumed Courvosier's role? Or, as someone else seemed to infer, Sir Anthony Langtry assumed Courvosier's role?

Although someone did state that Ambassador Langtry was a senior government official, Houseman was second in command of the mission to arrange a treaty with Grayson. Since Houseman was an economist and not a diplomat, he might be expected to listen to advice from Langtry once Admiral Courvosier was killed. Whether he had to accept that advice would depend on circumstances.

Note that Honor's ships accompanied the mission to show the flag and protect the freighters, however she and her command were not an official part of that mission.

penny wrote:I am about to break out Honor of the Queen. But perhaps someone can assist me. When Admiral Courvosier was killed, I was under the impression that Houseman assumed his role and became the Chief of Missions.

There are two titles normally associated with such missions.

An ambassador plenipotentiary has full authority to represent their home country and can sign treaties and conventions. An ambassador extraordinary is an individual who is the highest-ranked diplomatic minister going on a special mission.

Am I incorrect that Houseman was second in command and assumed Courvosier's role? Or, as someone else seemed to infer, Sir Anthony Langtry assumed Courvosier's role?

When things started out:
Admiral Courvosier was chief of the diplomatic mission to Grayson - he was Her Majesty’s direct representative. Houseman was his second in command. That mission was focused on:

Honor of the Queen wrote:securing our relationship with Grayson. The government hopes we’ll come home with a formal alliance, but they’ll settle for anything that brings the Yeltsin System more fully into our sphere of influence and decreases Haven’s access here.

We are not told the specific title Courvosier held for that mission -- but the only mentions of "ambassador" I could find were for Langtry, Haven's ambassador to Grayson (Leonard Masterman), or Haven's ambassador to Masada (the Honorable Jacob Lacy).
However we're told in the final chapter that had he lived Admiral Courvosier would have signed the draft treaty of alliance (in the Queen's name) -- instead "with Queen Elizabeth’s permission through Sir Anthony" Honor signed it.
I don't know if having signing authority on a draft treaty made Courvosier some kind of ambassador or not.

Honor's ships weren't part of that mission

Honor of the Queen wrote:Officially, she wasn’t here expressly to support Admiral Courvosier’s mission. Instead, she was senior officer of the escort assigned to a convoy whose ultimate goal was the Casca System, twenty-two light-years beyond Yeltsin’s Star.

. So she "merely" commanded the convoy escort (and some of those freighters were loaded with tech aid for Grayson which was one of the mission's bargaining chips and shows of good faith)

Ambassador Sir Anthony Langtry (former Marine colonel) has been the Manticoran Government's, well, ambassador to Grayson for over three local years. And as Langtry points out

Honor of the Queen wrote:Mr. Houseman may represent Her Majesty’s Government for purposes of Admiral Courvosier’s mission here, but I represent Her Majesty’s continuing interests.

Hence his desire to have Honor protect all of Grayson - as that best serves the Queen's long term interests. (Well it also best serves the mission's short term interest of getting an alliance; but Houseman didn't seem to care about the mission's interests any more -- just in saving his own skin)

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:The post was meant to be facetious. Though I didn't make that clear. Of course the US participated in dueling. That is how the west was won. Though, IMO, it was always more like gunfighting than dueling. It was never as formal and it often devolved into something less sophisticated. Even that famous duel in New Bern is rumored not to have gone down as history recorded it.

Usually when you attempt "humor" outside of the "attempted humor" thread, you throw in a few "LOL"s as a clue.

Gunfighting is NOT how the west was "won". The wild west period is estimated to have only lasted about 30 years after the Civil War. Law and order advanced despite the gunfights and not (with very few exceptions) because of them. The gunfight at OK Corral was as notable for its legal aftermath as it was for the actual event.

The antebellum South did not just emulate Great Britain, they believed they were better. They did have their code of honor, even if it was just a veneer over baser motives. Their duels were more formalized than the gunfights in the west.

True. And I owe you and everyone an apology. Usually I do accompany humor with an LOL and or the appropriate emoticon. But this was not my usual humor rather than simply being flippant. I thought it was obvious that I was being flippant and taking a shot at the British. After all, how can anyone disregard America's own history of dueling. Matter of fact, I was looking for someone from the UK to hit back and say that at least their duels were more "civilized."

However, what I was trying to say, probably inappropriately, was that one can find duels in any country's history, but you should expect to find it in Britain. I know I know!!! So, another apology to tlb and the forum.

It certainly read the wrong way.

Houseman vs Harrington reminds me of my childhood growing up in a military town. When I was a snotty-nosed kid, the miltary’s personnel would hang out downtown frequenting the bars and women of ill-repute. Where there is alcohol served there is civil disobedience and disorder. Because of that, it prompted me to ask my father on one occasion why the local police officers traveled along with an MP. A military police. They operated in pairs. One city police and one MP. My father told me that both were required because if a civilian acted up and needed discipline, an MP could not render that discipline to a civilian. It was out of his jurisdiction. If the problem was with military personnel, it required a military police to handle the problem. Again, jurisdiction.

I maintain that Honor could not go around busting up civilians. That is why she was reprimanded. But the reprimand seems to be one-sided, because ultimately the Queen was grateful for the alliance. Which is why Honor was rewarded. One could say that the Queen's justice was unfairly biased.

When I said that Houseman was in-charge when the Admiral died, I meant that he became responsible for, and was in-charge of, the diplomatic mission. His title became Chief of Missions or Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. I first thought that that made Houseman the head civilian in the system. But Sir Langtry would hold that title.

But to be honest and fair, my vote seems to be swaying on the side of the majority in the forum, as far as this case is concerned, because of a diplomat’s responsibilities, although I still have reservations and concerns…

1. I do not understand why Honor was chosen to sign the treaty since there was an official diplomatic entourage there. I assume Houseman would have signed the treaty had he not been dismissed. Ambassador Langtry could have signed the treaty. Although the Queen can authorize anyone to do so, Grayson probably trusted Honor more and so it made her a better choice to bring that treaty home.

Everyone is quick to point out that Honor was not part of the diplomatic mission. And she was not a diplomat herself. So acting upon a diplomat in any form should be a serious offense. It was not Honor’s place to get involved and make a diplomatic call against, not only a diplomat, the Chief of Missions.

Honor was not in Houseman's chain of command. But neither was Houseman in hers!


2. Tlb’s post stating the limits to challengers and challengees, if you will, is the stink under the bed. First, I have to admit that I was not aware of this limit, but I felt that it should exist, intuitively. My intuition tells me that certain limits simply have to exist. The Monarchy should definitely forbid members of the military from challenging each other, I'd think. How could the Monarchy allow her officers to kill each other.

At any rate, and I say it again. It seems to me that being Chief of Missions should shield Houseman from and physical abuse from any officer of the navy. It should also have shielded said officer’s honor from being called into question from anyone but the navy. Reason being, if that rule isn't the metric, then any officer's actions could result in his honor being called into question because of the handling of his squad, picket or fleet.

Randy Steilman should potentially have been challenged. Where does it end?


Could Young have been challenged when he cut and run with his ship? Could his honor be called into question, causing him to have to challenge?

Could Honor have challenged Young to a duel after he attempted to rape her? Could anyone in Honor's family have challenged Young because of his attempted rape of Honor? The family's honor would be threatened.

At any rate and at the end of the day, if it would have gone to court, Honor could be let off the hook because she acted in the best interest of the Star Kingdom and its national security, which would have superceded Houseman's particular rights concerning the matter.

When Houseman accepted the diplomatic mission, he may have studied his responsibilities. Those that may have affected his thinking are highlighted below.



Functions of a Diplomatic Mission

Basic functions of a diplomatic mission include:

Represent the home country in the host country.

Protect the interests of the home country and its citizens in the host country.

Negotiate with the government of the host country.

Monitor and report on conditions and developments in the commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific life of the host country.

Promote friendly relations between the host country and the home country.

Develop commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific relations between the host country and the home country.

Issue passports, travel documents, and visas.

penny wrote:Could Young have been challenged when he cut and run with his ship? Could his honor be called into question, causing him to have to challenge?

Could Honor have challenged Young to a duel after he attempted to rape her? Could anyone in Honor's family have challenged Young because of his attempted rape of Honor? The family's honor would be threatened.

I suspect that Young's professional failings and cowardness aren't grounds for a duel - and I wonder if one of the restrictions on dueling might be that you can't challenge someone for the performance of their professional duties.
(Though that gets messy because that doesn't prevent you from attempting to fabricate a different reason for dueling them. And there might be situations where most Manticorans would think it reasonable to challenge someone who'd been abusing their professional powers to bring harm -- so where would the line be).

As for Pavel's attempted rape. Yeah, that probably could be grounds for a duel. Though that would require Honor to make the assault public - and we happen to know that if she'd been willing to testify there were powers ready and eager to bring the full weight of the justice system down on Pavel's head. So if she'd been willing to go public she wouldn't have needed to duel him. (Though I guess if you feel there's been a miscarriage of justice you might be able to challenge your attacker after they were found not guilty, or after a case was dismissed)
Though we do know there's a bar against dueling in civil litigation -- there may well be a bar against dueling someone over an active criminal case or because you object to them being found not-guilty.

penny wrote:I maintain that Honor could not go around busting up civilians. That is why she was reprimanded. But the reprimand seems to be one-sided, because ultimately the Queen was grateful for the alliance. Which is why Honor was rewarded. One could say that the Queen's justice was unfairly biased.

That's possible.

But I find it simpler to say that you're judging two things here. One was the outcome of the mission to Grayson (and to Casca, in a lesser extent), in which the Foreign Office and RMN, working together, managed to expose and defeat a Haven-sponsored incursion, capture PN personnel, and through those actions get a far more beneficial treaty with Grayson. There's a side-benefit that Manticore wouldn't have known yet, but this also prompted the Mayhew Restoration and moved the power away from the Keys.

The other was the RMN and Foreign Office's officers relationship, in particular Honor and Houseman. In this case, it was not good.

But the latter does not prevent the former. It's not fruit of the poisonous tree.

Could Young have been challenged when he cut and run with his ship? Could his honor be called into question, causing him to have to challenge?

He was court-martialled for it. Once that judgement was delivered, no one should have cause to question it and challenge to a duel. If the war had already been declared, then the CO on the scene (Sarnow) could even deliver summary justice for cowardice on the face of the enemy. His first officer could have removed him from command for the same reason, but that requires their knowing the crew will back them in the action, which may not have been possible to know in the heat of the battle.

I believe one cannot be challenged to a duel for taking actions while executing their job, unless they've stepped outside of the remit of said job. For example, police are allowed to use lethal weapons in the course of their job to protect the innocent. But the job may in turn investigate and punish actions that did fall outside.

Could Honor have challenged Young to a duel after he attempted to rape her? Could anyone in Honor's family have challenged Young because of his attempted rape of Honor? The family's honor would be threatened.

And like above, this is a criminal offence. There's no duel: Young should be prosecuted, found guilty, and sent to jail. And because there's a trial, there could be no duel between the two parties for any other reason.

If instead he had just insulted her and openly disparaged her because she had refused to have sex with him, then yes, I think she could then have challenged him. So long as this doesn't fall into the Kingdom's laws against calumny, which would bring back into criminal or civil dispute, not a duel.

At any rate and at the end of the day, if it would have gone to court, Honor could be let off the hook because she acted in the best interest of the Star Kingdom and its national security, which would have superceded Houseman's particular rights concerning the matter.

She was let off the hook because it was physical abuse. The punishment can't be disproportionate to the offence. She could also have been demoted or faced some other type of administrative punishment (like being put on half-pay). But I don't think that would deserve a dishonourable discharge or something more serious.

There were extenuating circumstances, but I think those are Houseman's actions that prompted the abuse, not the success Honor had in the mission. The latter should not be taken into account, because the ends should not justify the means.

He could have prosecuted her in civil court, but as we discussed before, that would have revealed his actions that led to the altercation, which would potentially end his career and his usefulness to his allies. It was far better for him to not do so and instead lean on those allies to unofficially punish Honor.

Jonathan_S wrote: (Though I guess if you feel there's been a miscarriage of justice you might be able to challenge your attacker after they were found not guilty, or after a case was dismissed)
Though we do know there's a bar against dueling in civil litigation -- there may well be a bar against dueling someone over an active criminal case or because you object to them being found not-guilty.

I think that's the case. But even if there isn't a law against this, the challenged can probably refuse the challenge and still keep the moral high ground, because they have a verdict from the justice system saying they are not guilty. It's the same principle as double jeopardy.

penny wrote:I do not understand why Honor was chosen to sign the treaty since there was an official diplomatic entourage there. I assume Houseman would have signed the treaty had he not been dismissed. Ambassador Langtry could have signed the treaty. Although the Queen can authorize anyone to do so, Grayson probably trusted Honor more and so it made her a better choice to bring that treaty home.

Everyone is quick to point out that Honor was not part of the diplomatic mission. And she was not a diplomat herself. So acting upon a diplomat in any form should be a serious offense. It was not Honor’s place to get involved and make a diplomatic call against, not only a diplomat, the Chief of Missions.

She was not a diplomat, but her actions actually delivered the treaty. She signed in the Queen's name with the permission of Ambassador Langtry. From HotQ:

Chapter 35 wrote:“That completes what I needed to say to you, but I believe Protector Benjamin has something to say.” Alexander turned politely to Grayson’s ruler, and she followed suit.
“I do, indeed, Captain Harrington,” Mayhew said with a smile. “My planet can never adequately thank you for what you did for us, but we are keenly aware of our debt, not simply to you but to your crews and your Kingdom, and we desire to express our gratitude in some tangible fashion. Accordingly, with Queen Elizabeth’s permission through Sir Anthony, I ask you to sign our draft treaty of alliance in her name.”

-- skip --

“By the authority vested in me as Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Grayson and by Her express commission, acting for and in Her stead and as Knight Grand Cross of the Order of King Roger,” Langtry said in his deep voice, “I bestow upon you the rank, title, prerogatives, and duties of Knight Companion of the Order of King Roger.” The glittering steel touched her right shoulder lightly, then her left, then back to her right once more while she stared up at him. Then he smiled and lowered the blade once more.
“Rise, Dame Honor,” he said softly, “and may your future actions as faithfully uphold the honor of the Queen as your past.”

Although it is ambiguous, I expect the Queen knew about Honor signing the treaty as part of making her a Knight Companion.

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:Could Young have been challenged when he cut and run with his ship? Could his honor be called into question, causing him to have to challenge?

Could Honor have challenged Young to a duel after he attempted to rape her? Could anyone in Honor's family have challenged Young because of his attempted rape of Honor? The family's honor would be threatened.

I suspect that Young's professional failings and cowardness aren't grounds for a duel - and I wonder if one of the restrictions on dueling might be that you can't challenge someone for the performance of their professional duties.
(Though that gets messy because that doesn't prevent you from attempting to fabricate a different reason for dueling them. And there might be situations where most Manticorans would think it reasonable to challenge someone who'd been abusing their professional powers to bring harm -- so where would the line be).

As for Pavel's attempted rape. Yeah, that probably could be grounds for a duel. Though that would require Honor to make the assault public - and we happen to know that if she'd been willing to testify there were powers ready and eager to bring the full weight of the justice system down on Pavel's head. So if she'd been willing to go public she wouldn't have needed to duel him. (Though I guess if you feel there's been a miscarriage of justice you might be able to challenge your attacker after they were found not guilty, or after a case was dismissed)
Though we do know there's a bar against dueling in civil litigation -- there may well be a bar against dueling someone over an active criminal case or because you object to them being found not-guilty.

You are an officer and a gentleman!

Exactly! If that isn't the case, it is a loophole that should be closed and closed quickly. It is what I have been trying to say. If Houseman would have taken Honor to court, his own actions in the performance of his duties (especially as a civilian) should not have been grounds or cause to potentially expose him to a duel or question his honor. And like you just said, if Honor had come forth about the attempted rape, she should not have had to challenge Young to a duel to get justice. There was a government procedure in place to get that justice for her. It should have been the same for Houseman. The courts should have been there for Houseman had he pushed the issue and his honor should never have been in danger of being called into question.

Moreover, since Honor didn't come forth and admit the attempted rape, after a time, Young could have challenged Honor for beating his ass. Having his ass beat by a subordinate "base born bitch" made him the laughing stock in his social circles. After a time, it would have been difficult for Honor to walk back her intransigence. At that point, it would have made the accusation seem self-serving.

An aside: Young should have known what he was up against when taking on a heavy worlder. Obviously he didn't. But if he had, would it still have been illegal to hire a professional to take on Honor?