Dear All 

Good idea, but isn't "Rudyardites" a bit of a tongue-twister -- unless we mean to pronounce it, with the upper lip stiff, as simply "Ruddites" -- to chime with Luddites?  

Alternatively, how about "Ruddies," after Rudyard's family diminutive?  The adjective isn't quite polite but the jolly, sanguine noun may well work. 

Of course, we can, after all is said and done, stick to the cakes/ the bags.

All best.
     

Harish Trivedi
 
 

On 15 January 2018 at 14:38, John Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear All,

I suggested that 'Kiplingites' would see the combined significance of January 18th and the Middlesex Hospital Chapel (now called the Fitzrovia Chapel). Looking at that again, I am conscious of a smug, somewhat arch style... I am sorry!

It seems that Kipling's ashes lay 'in state', in an urn,  in the chapel of the hospital in which he died on January 18th 1936.


It has occurred to me that, though Roger Lancelyn Green called us 'Kiplingites' (see the November Newsletter) we perhaps should follow Kipling's lead regarding Jane Austen enthusiasts (see 'The Janeites') , and call ourselves 'Rudyardites'. This might well preclude misunderstandings about enthusiasm for cakes.

All good wishes,

John