Stonewall is just a creation myth

Martha's Quest for the Gold Lamé Fleece

 [NB: I use "gay" as the catchall because I really hate the word queer. Sew me]

The more I've looked at gay history the more that I've come to the conclusion that Stonewall the event was really pretty irrelevant. That goes counter to the popular narrative that it was an inflection point in gay history and that we really need to know about the exact history of the drag queens and transsexuals that spearheaded it, and who threw the first brick is super-duper important. It isn't. Stonewall was one of many uprisings that happened in the 60's across the country like Compton's Cafeteria in San Francisco and the Black Cat protests in LA. And let's not forget that whatever happened at Stonewall had very little relevance outside of America in the western world at the time. A short NY Times blurb about a riot in New York did not ignite an international movement in London, Paris, Amsterdam or Berlin. Yet.

A net.acquaintance by the name of Jack Carroll wrote a  fascinating diary of gay life in New York City  in the 60's through the 90's. He was actually in the West Village during one of the nights (first?) of the Stonewall riots but didn't witness it firsthand (he had a dinner reservation). It didn't even make much buzz at the time. He lived on the Upper West Side which had its own gay scene far removed from the Village. It's easy to forget in the age of the internet that information traveled really slowly even in a metropolis like NYC and a smallish community like gay people.

Stonewall itself as described by Jack was a complete shithole run by the mob with disgusting toilets, watered down booze and generally awful ambiance. It seemed to have a good jukebox which was something of the currency of the realm in those days. It wasn't some haven of drag queens, transsexuals, people of color and was instead mostly white bridge and tunnel gay men from like New Jersey and Long Island slumming and locals looking to score on them. Ironically Stonewall didn't even need to exist because of the Sip-In at Julius's lawsuit made it legal for gay people to gather and carouse. The lawsuit was brought by the Mattachine Society and was pivotal for NYC gay life. The thing that Jack points out is that gay life was getting much better under Mayor Lindsey so there wasn't some sort of then-and-now inflection point. It was just a progression of things getting better for gay people incrementally. But nobody really knows what happened at Stonewall those nights because it was... a riot and chaotic and over several days. Nobody's iPhone was slipped out to record it.

But it wasn't just in NYC and Stonewall. Change was happening in many cities with large gay populations like LA, San Francisco, Chicago and more. More important is that we were starting to organize behind the scenes. Harry Hay lived in Los Angeles and was part of the Mattachine. The Mattachine itself was very much a Good Cop organization in that if they asked nicely they thought they could get their rights. There was almost certainly internal division on the good cop bad cop tension and Stonewall may have been a symbol that some amount of bad cop was good too. Harry Hay went on to be one of the founders of the Radical Faeries so he was clearly open to evolving away from the Good Cop strategy eventually. A lot of these organizations had a shelf life anyway and the Mattachine's was due to expire.

The Mattachine Society had an annual protest in Philadelphia called the Annual Reminder where they all silently in their Sunday best marched up and down protesting the lack of gay rights. It was conformist to a fault with all kinds of rules of what gays and lesbians were allowed to wear and how to behave. They predictably didn't achieve much. But one thing happened after Stonewall that did change things pretty much forever: the Annual Reminder was transmogrified into a march commemorating the Stonewall riots in late June the next year. The march started as a smallish number of people marching down from Sheridan Square in the West Village but gathered steam as people joined in along the way to Central Park. Similar marches happened simultaneously in LA, San Francisco and Chicago of various sizes and coordination. Stonewall would have been a historical footnote too were it not for the Pride that followed.

Pride parades are what actually changed everything in several ways. The first and foremost was giving the middle finger to erasure. Coming out has always been by far our most potent weapon. When people are given a concrete that their son or their loved uncle or their granddaughter is gay, it's much, much more difficult to reject than from the abstract. Yes, of course that rejection happened in droves and drove generations of gay people to gay friendly neighborhoods, but it also put a fine point on it: I will not hide for your sake. It's not surprising that other cities and countries picked up on this. Pride was a potent expression of that openness to show that we are people too. The second is that Pride is extremely important for gay people for our own reasons. I like to say that Pride is actually for young gay people to show them how very much they are not alone. That their alienation has an exit. That a better life is possible. Maybe not easy, but yes the Emerald City exists. The third is that it gives frothers something to froth about. We seriously don't give a fuck about how hard you clutch your pearls. We're just having fun and you're scandalized. By what? Anything you'd see at any beach? Let them froth: it's keeps us in the news and makes them look silly.

But Pride parades were really part of a larger phenomenon of coming out in general. Pride just memorializes why we need to. They are the beautiful amalgam of us being out and having fun to celebrate that we aren't just freaks, but living and breathing beings that deserve to be happy just like anybody else does. Part of happiness is having sex with our loved ones -- just like everybody else. Fuck your heterosexual norms being forced on us -- especially the part about having to be heterosexual. We can figure things out for ourselves, thankyouverymuch including wanting those same heterosexual norms if we choose. Or not. And neither is wrong. But the openness of the 70's is what really changed and made the gay rights movement look much more like what we know today. By the time I came around in 1978 gay culture and the way we live and find each other was already fully formed. Pride was an annual -- and very visible -- marker of that progress. But was it Stonewall itself that affected our general openness and coming out? Color me dubious. I am very certain that it didn't color anything at all for me and I really don't recall when I first even heard about it. I doubt it colored many other young gay people either.

But back to Stonewall itself. It's just a totem. A MacGuffin used to move the plot along. And just like Hitchcock's famous use of his Maltese Falcon MacGuffin it doesn't actually matter what the dreams were made of, or that our actual MacGuffin is largely ethereal. And that's OK. We need our creation myths even if they are vague and probably inaccurate as passed down over the ages and glorify their actual importance. The scholarly accounts trying to tease out the angels on a pinhead are charmingly funny if not rather pointless (or self-serving as is supposed to be the case with Martin Duberman's account). Let's have Martha P Washington and her quest for the Gold Lamé Fleece as part of our lore. Let's have the gay Trojan Horse filled with condoms and gay glam twinks storming the West Village overrunning the NYPD. Let's have José Sarria's The Widow Norton calling on her inherited empire's gay militia to muster and put on their feather boa'd tricorns and repulsing the homophobe army. Let's have the Daughters of Bilitis as a lesbian Spartan Army of Lovers. We're fabulous and we are allowed to make up our own myths and fudged history and we shouldn't care about whether it's literally true. The proof is in the pudding: Stonewall itself didn't change much itself, but it gave an entire movement something to hang its hat on: a shared myth. Something that the rest of the world embraced as a convenient myth too. Pride and the general "not taking it" feeling that was in the air gave us the courage to come out and change our world in unimaginable ways that even in the 10 short years later when I came onto the scene, that things were very different. Myths serve purposes. The stuff of dreams, indeed. Symbolism matters but we should also keep in mind what our actual history is too and not get too worked up over the literal truth that we'll never really know.

RWRB: What the movie gets right and wrong

The pivotal scene that Henry accepts Alex's love

 

There is a perpetual debate about books vs movies. People who read the book first invariable are incensed that the movie doesn't have every last bit of the book in it which they never do and never can. This is especially true of the adaptation of Red White and Royal Blue as the director Matthew Lopez apparently had to fight to make the film as long as it is, let alone how long it actually needed to be. Ideally it would have been a series, but I think even 15 more minutes and certainly 30 minutes would have helped.

That said, book-first people usually miss that the movie gets some things right and are actually much better than the book. This can be for a variety of reasons, but the visual media has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Just to be clear I saw the movie first before reading the book for which I'm glad because it makes me more objective (if I do say so myself).

The Movie vs the Book 

The book and the movie are different. It's fair to criticize things that the movie got wrong, but it's unfair to criticize the cuts that needed to be made that is the studio's fault.

Movie Gets Right

1. Nicholas Galitzine is beautiful. That is all. Taylor's eyelashes slay
2. Matthew Lopez's use of Stephen Fry and Thomas Flynn as the homophobic King and Crown Prince is hilarious since they're both out in real life. I can only imagine the convo he and Stephen had about him taking the part. They were probably laughing their asses off
3. The use of The Blue Danube in the cake scene is inspired
   
4. The cake scene in the movie is really hard to beat. I mean, it begs to be seen not described. The cut to the White House with Bad Reputation is brilliant in my mind
5. Zarah is everything you wanted in Zarah and more 
6. For such a smallish part, Aneesh Sheth does a really good job as Amy. That she is trans in real life like Amy is very fucking cool
7. I kinda like that Henry drives rather than arrives in polo gear. The car plays on his father's being a Bond
8. Henry's cheeky use of sweetheart in handshake scene is a nice bit of foreshadowing (not that anybody doesn't know where this is heading)
9. The foreshadowing of being wrong in the interview scene to the love making scene is nice and really ties Alex's journey to the most intimate part of the movie
10. Sental 33 -- the company that makes it must be thanking their lucky stars. I don't think this is in the book
11. The line of Henry saying the palace insisting on parading him around I don't think was in the book, but really helps Alex start to understand Henry
12. The text flirting is just brilliant with its use of visuals and Henry being there virtually
13. Even though I wish it were longer, the scene of the two of them in Alex's bed talking turkey is a great use of the visual medium and shows that Alex is really warming to Henry even though he's clueless about the true nature of it
14. I believe the movie was the one where Henry called Alex a bellend which is really hilarious given Alex's contact name for Henry
15. At the NYE party Henry is very visually jealous which is pretty impossible to convey in the book since it's from Alex's POV 
16. The visual in the Get Low scene is great and is a good metaphor for Alex really seeing Henry and the tension between them (and boy does it get tenser in a few moments)
    
17. The dialog of the first kiss scene is better in my opinion. And of course the visuals trump the descriptions from the book. Alex's expression of amazement and shock is perfect. It really conveys that he just had a major life altering event
18. The movie captures Alex's doe eyes for Henry at the state dinner -- use again of visual
19. The movie played up Henry's boner perfectly in a hilarious way
20. I like how the movie has quotes from the book scattered around in different places. The gay as a maypole line was originally with Henry hissing at Phillip in the Queen scene
21. Moving the polo match back to England makes much more sense. It's the middle of winter and Connecticut is frozen solid by then. Update: ah, they meant Windsor Ct so we're back to it making no sense.
    
22. I love the visuals of Henry bouncing around on his horse because we know he's going to be bouncing around on something else soon enough
23. The "was a mouthful" scene was perfect with their continued flirtation
24. I've said on more than one occasion that the Paris making love scene was one of the best depictions of gay love making I've ever seen, but now I think it is the best depiction. It is so beautiful and romantic and captures perfectly as Alex enters Henry which I'm not sure I've ever seen before. Most gay sex scenes are outright awful -- you can't just shove it in -- but that they taught Nick how to play his facial expressions is perfect. It's also obvious that Alex is falling hard for Henry
    
25. The condoms and lube being visible is again great
    
26. Henry kissing Alex on his arm several times is a nice touch. It's not just about sex, it's about intimacy too
27. The morning after the DNC scene is way better than the book in my opinion. Again, they take advantage of the visuals and Zarah's meltdown is precious. Zarah reading Henry the riot act is better in the movie
    
28. Considering that Nick is a really good singer in real life, it must have been unbearable butchering Don't Stop Me Now
29. Alex's expression of being completely in love with Henry at the Texas karaoke conveys in an instant which took pages and pages in the book. You can see that he can't contain his love for Henry anymore
30. I agree with Matthew's decision to cut the prince and his amour scene. It's a beautiful one-off but it really doesn't make sense the way he was trying to incorporate the email source. In the book, Henry's just trying to tell Alex who he is and why he is the way he is. In the movie Alex is asking permission to love him. Henry's story was easily taken as "yes" by Alex even though it was ambiguous -- probably to Henry too. If Alex interpreted it that way -- which is clear he did given the next day -- he would have told him that night which would have caused the flow to not work. I can't imagine Alex after hearing his story wouldn't have been overwhelmed in emotion and would be unable to contain himself: "Henry, I am so in love with you."
    
31. The platform in the lake scene is both beautiful and heartbreaking. The visual metaphor for Henry drowning because of his closet is spot on. The overhead filming of them on the platform was really good too. The movie is much more succinct though it does leave you wondering what happened after before Henry leaves. In the book it was at night and he was gone in the morning, so it doesn't make much sense that he waited till the next morning in the movie?
    
32. The V&A scene is beautiful and amazing as it's the real V&A museum. The book is more drawn out about Henry's accepting Alex's love but this works for the movie. Although the book is more realistic in that Henry is the one that puts on Your Song, the movie is more poetic that Alex gives Henry his daft pubescent fantasy. The natural lighting pretty accidentally worked perfectly in this scene too
33. Alex giving Henry his key is better. In the book he puts it on his key chain but that would have clanged around. But Alex wearing the signet ring would have been hella sus though since Alex clearly doesn't start with H. Who is this H, hmm?
34. Alex's speech is better in the movie, in my opinion. It's both more compact, but gets to the matter at hand that Alex is in love with Henry and why in fuck is it a scandal just because Henry is a he?
    
35. The scene with the lead up to Alex and Henry finally being able to talk again after the email was made public was pretty much the same. It was on the plane in the book and in the White House in the movie, but the net effect was the same. However, the tenderness of Alex and Henry meeting on the stairs comforting each other was visually perfect
36. I prefer the movie not bringing in Catherine who we've never even met. It's really Henry's place to stick up for himself. I like that this snapped Catherine out of her funk in the book, but it's really not necessary. We never do find out if Catherine made good on her threat to the queen, so that's a little unsatisfying. But beyond throwing Henry in the Tower of London, what exactly could they do to prevent him telling the truth anyway? He has plenty of money from his dad, after all. The king does rollover too easily though
    

Tossup 

1. Nora and June being compressed into Nora. June really never moves the plot forward, but Nora does -- on several occasions in the book so she's the obvious choice
2. I think that Alex in the movie comes across as more of a douchy frat boy than in the book
3. The cut hookup scenes are fine -- we get the picture that they are horny and falling in love 
4. The hospital scene is obviously really condensed. A lot of people were butthurt that the Star Wars refs were omitted but I don't really miss them. If they were willing to put in the Han and Leia mural from the book it would have been worth it, but beyond that no big deal  
5. The great turkey calamity would have been nice to be, er, fleshed out more. I really miss the "buy the turkey a vacation home in Mallorca" gag
6. The Texas strategy memo part of the movie I'm a little meh about. The way it played out in the book is a lot different than in the movie. I get that it's a device to introduce their email back and forth, but it was a little hokey
7. Pez is a great character and he's sort of a straight version of Alex in that he knows how to talk to Henry. It's really too bad we don't see more of Auntie Pez
8. I don't think it really is explained in the book, but there is no way that people wouldn't know who Henry was especially at an event like NYE
9. The Nora confession scene pretty much is the book, just trimmed down. Both work
10. Both the book and the movie fail on whether Henry does indeed dick Alex down which is a bummer. It's hard to imagine that Alex wouldn't want to find out what it's all about since it clearly blows Henry's mind too
11. Once it's obvious they've fallen in love it's too bad that we don't see how fiercely protective Alex is of Henry (which I clock as around Paris for Alex). We get it in glimpses after the email hack, but it started much earlier than that
    
12. Ellen is much more chill in the movie about Henry being his boyfriend when he comes out, while she's much more "I'm president" in the book. Both work. But props for the shout out to safe sex and PrEP in the movie
13. The storming the castle scene is good in both. We miss where Henry hisses that he's been in love with Alex the whole time and "nothing gets by you, does it Alex", but we do see the raw emotion on Taylor and Nick's faces which is powerful
14. When the news broke about their email it was told from Henry's POV which is different than the book which is always (?) from Alex's POV. It's a weird difference because this is a classic October Surprise with American politics so you'd think that would be more pertinent 
    

Movie Gets Wrong

1. The height comparison thing is tedious. Taylor is clearly taller than Nick though in the book Alex was 3-4 inches shorter which I like. Alex is Henry's little snuggle toy and Alex melts in Henry's arms
   
2. Uma Thurmond's Texas drawl is a bit much. And Alex has neither a Texas drawl or a Mexican accent -- just sort of a standard American accent which I'm sure is not what you'd get when you combine the two of his parents' accents
   
3. Ok, we get it -- it's an international incident -- but no government is going change its course on policy based on a cake going overboard
4. The real life reporters on cakegate are so cringe. Stop pimping yourselves out, girls
5. Ok, Miguel is by far the biggest miss in the movie. I get that the whole Raf subplot had no chance of making it into the movie, but a reporter at a two bit magazine is not going to be able to hack Alex's account. They should have just reworked the republican campaign being the perps but slimmed it down to fit the time given
6. Soliloquy is such the wrong word 
7. The chick at the party is basically sexually assaulting Alex. I want to throttle her
   
8. I really don't like that Henry was so completely buttoned up in the bedroom scene in the movie. Alex was not passive in the book and I find it hard to imagine him being so considering how obsessed with Henry he is and now sexually. This wasn't just a bro gives another bro a blowjob, it was Alex's awakening that he is fully into Henry
9. Ok, it's a nit but Henry has a car so it's implausible that he doesn't "own" a key for it
10. I know this is totally unfair but the movie doesn't capture their love letters which are integral to the plot. The Texas campaign with Alex is to give them some vehicle to show them but given email's long format the movie is doomed to not be as good
11. The cut from the DNC back to the White House was really confusing at first. The movie suffers from this in several places including the cut from the polo match to Paris -- how did we get to Paris?
12. They need the scene with Alex watching with glee Henry eating with his fingers. I know not enough time budget, but it was a cute scene in the book and one of Alex's pranks on Henry
    
13. The scene with Alex and Oscar at the lake was better in the book. In the movie Alex basically comes out to his dad, where in the book Oscar figures it out and teases Alex. But the movie doesn't have the setup with talking about Raf so it might have been awkward without it
14. David clearly doesn't like Nick very much or at least isn't excited to see him
15. Again, Miguel Ramos is so cringe in the interview. This is just not good
16. Alex holding a press conference without straightening things out with Henry and the palace is out of order. It would be really disrespectful of Alex to do that without Henry's permission. This just seems like a goof to me
17. The Sheep May Safely Graze has been a godawful earworm for months now after Alex flies in to London. Groan
18. The cut to election night from the palace is way too abrupt. The entire last few chapters in the book are anticlimactic too, but the movie is worse. There really does need to be something to set up election night
19. Where the hell did they get those bikes? In the book it was Liam and his boyfriend's. Small, sure but did they get out the bolt cutters to steal them? "Hey Amy, I need some bolt cutters!"
    

Cut from the Book and Notable Changes

1. June is combined into Nora
2. Cash is combined into Amy
   
3. Oscar is not divorced and is not a senator from California
   
4. The Raf arc gets morphed into the Miguel arc
5. The White House Trio is not a thing 
6. Liam is gone
   
7. Alex's inner life of his goals is pretty much gone
8. The entire line of Henry's pic in a tabloid that Alex has been obsessing over for nearly a decade
9. Rio Olympics became Melbourne Climate Conference 
   
10. "I'd rather be waterboarded" -- Henry meeting Alex
    
11. The Cornettos scene was cut (though filmed)
12. Alex's arc of denial of his bisexuality and Henry in particular
13. The entire Star Wars arc is gone
    
14. "Can you get rid of him" at the Olympics vs "I need to get out of here"
    
15. The dialog about Henry's prank on Alex about the turkey needing a vacation home
16. The Xmas scene was cut along with June finding out that Alex has a friend (soon to be with hella benefits)
17. A small difference is that it was June who invited Henry to NYE. It shows that the two obviously have a back channel and are plotting in their own ways and that they adore each other
18. In the book Alex and Henry are both naked in bed and both get off rather than just Alex and neither are naked for their first sexual escapade
    
19. The polo match was in Connecticut vs England in the movie giving the ability for it to be a day trip for Alex
20. Henry and Alex fuck for the first time in Paris in the movie; there is no equivalent to "he is" about Alex's name in the book either
    
21. The NYC birthday scene is cut
    
22. Pez is mostly cut out
23. Alex gets a hickey in Berlin
24. The family names conversation is over the phone in the book along with Bea's backstory cut
25. The road trip with Auntie Peza is cut
    
26. The LA scene is completely cut -- karaoke is moved to the lake scene
27. Wimbledon scene is completely cut
28. Alex can cook! (at the lake)
    
29. The lake abandoned scene is at night vs in the day on the platform
30. The storm the castle scene deleted the makeup/breakup sex and the next morning how Henry finally decided to fight for them
31. All of chapter 11's email is deleted
32. The entire prequel of being caught in the elevator is deleted
33. Alex and Bea's dialog of loving Henry for all of him when the news breaks is cut
34. Catherine doesn't exist in the movie, the queen is a king
    
35. Chapter 14 doesn't exist except for Alex's speech
    
36. The courtship photos were cut
37. Alex's Big Plan getting tossed in favor of taking it slower is cut
     

The Book

I'm not comparing it to the movie, per se and I'm not saying that it should necessarily be in the movie. This is much less comprehensive than the movie section so I'm mostly picking out things that I thought were either wrong in the book, or a lot better in the book that probably wasn't in the movie.

Book Gets Right

1. The backstory of Alex's obsession with Henry and the centerfold pic of him almost 10 years ago is helpful in knowing that Alex has it bad for Henry. It's sort of the counterpoint of Henry loving Alex all along from when they first met
2. I'm totally on Team Alex with respect to Star Wars. Ewoks are a big fat NOPE
3. I like the Xmas Eve dinner call with Henry. It reinforces that Alex can talk to Henry and that Henry understands him in a way that nobody else does. Alex is finally opening himself up to somebody other than Nora and June. They are both very closed off but in very different ways. The book also has Zarah in a red turtleneck which is echoed in the movie when Alex confronts her about his binder
4. For NYE is June conspiring with Henry? We know later that they have their own side channel but after she finds out that Alex likes Henry (as, a "friend", lol), is she trying to egg that on?
5. I love after Henry kisses him that Alex is ridiculously jealous of Henry kissing somebody else. D00d, you have it bad
6. In the scene at Kensington after Wimbledon when Alex fucks Henry again, the description sounds suspiciously like Alex gave Henry a prostate orgasm. Well done, Alex!
7. I love how Zarah at the DNC probably got a look at some royal D
8. In the Hamilton series of email, Alex muses that Hamilton could be bi. I like that it is brought up, but I'm ultimately skeptical as I think that the manifestation of what was masculine and acceptable was pretty different back then. Lincoln gets brought up in the gay/bi context quite a lot too but barring more concrete evidence I don't think we'll ever know
9. I like the touch of how Oscar segues from Raf to Henry at the lake after telling Alex that he and Raf have a lot in common. Like, oh say, liking dick too?
10. "The face you made when you read the last one". Lol 
11. "Seria una mentira porque no seria el" "it would be a lie because it wouldn't be him"
    

Book Gets Wrong

1. Tech stuff really needed somebody to review it before publishing. It's really grating at times. You'd never say "write a code", for example. The email is dangerous trope is really just flat out wrong 
2. The book spends entirely too much time describing the same features of Henry over and over. Yes we get it, Alex thinks he's hot
3. The first time that Alex fucks Henry in LA they're both still pretty drunk. The Porter at Hell's Gate might like to have words about "nose-painting, sleep, and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes"
4. The scene with Waspy Hunter fighting with Alex about Texas is super cringe. It's so typical and basically Stockholm Syndrome that people from red states -- Casey is from Texas -- like to trot out to try to justify their state's shitty politics. No, it is not Democrats' fault for not paying attention to them, it's their people's fault for putting fear and resentment ahead of their economic interest. People don't just vote for their wallet's sake. Bigotry and tribalism are a thing too
5. Casey forgot about the War of 1812, so it would be the third English-American war 
6. Nora should be smart enough to know an NP problem when she sees one (ie, the calculate out the future comment)
7. I'm pretty sure that Alex's use of filibuster is either wrong, or archaic
8. It's not so much wrong, but how can both Ellen and Oscar be in congress together when they were still married? Was one of them a carpetbagger in another district?
9. All of the allusions to fighting and punching is a little much. Yes, we know you're from Texas and you stand your ground by blasting first, asking question later but seriously stop it
   
10. Small nit: in SoCal you'd never say "the 101". It's either the Ventura Fwy or the Hollywood Fwy
11. Are there white chalk cliffs in Wales? They're from the Appalachian Orogeny so it wouldn't be sea floor like Dover
12. In the book, the revelation that it was the Richard's campaign that outed Alex and Henry never really gets resolved. Given the lengths they went to to drive that sub plot, it's unsatisfying that the only thing you can tell is that Ellen won. You kind of want to know if it hurt him
13. One nit: if they are going to prosecute Richards and his campaign, I'm pretty sure that the fruit of a poisoned tree doctrine would apply to the stash of email that Raf nabbed
    
14. I don't think there is poison oak in the UK
    
15. I wish the bonus chapter would make clear whether Catherine deposed Mary or not. Apparently Catherine has a guest room at their place in Brooklyn, but that would be probably a logistical nightmare for security. Or would it be Phillip that takes Mary's place?  
16. In general once Alex and Henry are open, I'd really like to see Alex parading his boyfriend around a bit in the book like to Raf and Liam and even Ellen for that matter. Or when Alex gives the speech on election night dragging Henry back out onto stage to introduce to the crowd. Alex is immensely proud of Henry and not because he bagged a prince, but because of Henry the person that he wants people to know how he sees him, not Henry's stiff royal veneer