Bedknob and Broomstick question

D

Danny McG

"Anything can happen in the next half hour!"
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
7,973
Location
Cumbria UK
I'm reading through the original story (from 1943) by Mary Norton.
I find myself puzzled by this phrase about Valiants:-

Carey watched Miss Price insert a silvery plant in the hole, and Charles rolled over sleepily to observe a formation of Valiants against the peaceful sky.
“I thought edelweiss only grew above the snow line,” Carey remarked wonderingly.
 
Last edited:
My first thought was the Vickers Valiant, but that wasn't around until 1952. Apparently, though, there was a US plane of WWII vintage with the same name, so perhaps it's that. (No idea if they had them over here then, though.)
 
The Judge said:
Apparently, though, there was a US plane of WWII vintage with the same name, so perhaps it's that. (No idea if they had them over here then, though.)
Click to expand...
That turns out to be a small trainer aircraft, so it seems unlikely.

Google turns up nothing except the 50s bomber mentioned by TJ. My guess is that the author made up the name, or misremembered something like Defiant.
 
According to Wiki, there was a Vickers Valiant bi-plane in the 1920s. As there was only 1 ever built, it would seem an odd choice to mention in the book.
 
The Vickers Valiant, which was a British four-jet bomber used by the RAF during the 1950s and 1960s. It was one of the "V-bombers", a group of aircraft that also included the Avro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor, and was designed to carry and deliver nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

The Vickers Valiant first flew in 1951 and entered RAF service in 1955. It had a swept wing design and was powered by four jet engines. It had a crew of four and was capable of carrying a variety of bomb loads, including conventional and nuclear weapons. The Valiant was used for various roles, including strategic bombing, reconnaissance, and aerial refueling, but it was eventually retired from RAF service in 1965 due to structural concerns.

However, that time line doesn't quite jibe with your story being written in 1943 ???:unsure:

But I did find this with the help of ChatGPT: The Vickers Wellington, which was a British twin-engine medium bomber used by the RAF during World War II, was sometimes informally referred to as the "Wimpy" or the "Wimpy Wellington," in reference to a character called "J. Wellington Wimpy" from the Popeye comic strip who was known for his love of hamburgers. However, there were also instances where the Vickers Wellington was nicknamed "Valiant," particularly by some of its crews. This nickname was not an official designation, but it was occasionally used in reference to the aircraft's durability, reliability, and ability to withstand damage and keep flying, which was seen as a valiant quality.
 
Last edited:
More on the Vultee BT-13

The Vultee BT-13 Valiant was an American-designed basic trainer aircraft used by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II for training pilots. It was not used by the Royal Air Force (RAF) in Britain during World War II, as it was primarily an aircraft used by the USAAF for pilot training within the United States.
The RAF used a variety of aircraft for training purposes during World War II, including the de Havilland Tiger Moth, Miles Magister, and Airspeed Oxford for basic and advanced training. The Vultee BT-13 Valiant was not part of the RAF's inventory during that time period, as it was primarily used by the USAAF for pilot training in the United States.
It's worth noting that some American aircraft, including the Vultee BT-13 Valiant, were provided to other Allied countries under the Lend-Lease program during World War II, which involved the transfer of military equipment to allied nations for their use during the war. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the RAF operated the Vultee BT-13 Valiant or any other aircraft with the "Valiant" designation during World War II.


Bet this might all be more than you really wanted to know, eh, Danny?? (Can't stop an ol' coon dog once they've got the scent. ) :p
 
Vince W said:
I’m going to put this out there, but could she be referring to HMS Valiant? Valiant was commissioned in 1916 so Norton could certainly have been familiar with it. The formation of Valiants could be clouds in the shape of battleships.
Click to expand...
That's quite the possibility and makes sense too.
 
THX1138 said:
That's quite the possibility and makes sense too.
Click to expand...


It's an interesting idea, but I think that it's more likely to be an actual aeroplane rather than the resemblance of a specific battleship.

This a child noticing the Valiants in a book written for children, so I would definitely take the description as more literal.

It may be worth checking the year of publishing for this edition of the book, as there have been a number over the years. A WWII aeroplane well known by children in the late 1940s/early 50s may not be so well known in the 1950s/60s and beyond.

It wouldn't surprise me if this book was an edition from the mid 1950s or 60s when the Valiant was the first of the new 'V force' of jet powered bombers, which every child would be aware of. The plane featured in the original book was probably a Spitfire, Hurricane or Lancaster.
 
With respect, I think there's some fantastic examples of overthinking going on here.

paranoid marvin said:
A WWII aeroplane well known by children in the late 1940s/early 50s may not be so well known in the 1950s/60s and beyond.
Click to expand...
I grew up in the 70s. We knew what Spitfires and Hurricanes were by the age of about three. Plus I doubt a publisher would change such a small detail, I'm not sure why V-bombers would ever fly in formation, and a load of jet bombers hardly fits with the "peaceful sky" description.

I'm pretty sure it was just a throwaway mention the author didn't bother to get right. Is there any evidence Mary Norton ever had the slightest interest in military hardware?
 
HareBrain said:
With respect, I think there's some fantastic examples of overthinking going on here.


I grew up in the 70s. We knew what Spitfires and Hurricanes were by the age of about three. Plus I doubt a publisher would change such a small detail, I'm not sure why V-bombers would ever fly in formation, and a load of jet bombers hardly fits with the "peaceful sky" description.

I'm pretty sure it was just a throwaway mention the author didn't bother to get right. Is there any evidence Mary Norton ever had the slightest interest in military hardware?
Click to expand...
.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure why she would create a fictional aeroplane when she could have easily chosen a contemporary one which her readers would be familiar. At the time of writing and publishing (in the middle of WWII) for obvious reasons, most people would have known about, and been able to identify, military aircraft flying overhead.

It also seems oddly coincidental that she would come up with a name which would become very famous 10 years later.

Yes I agree that Spitfires and Hurricanes likely would be still widely known a decade later, but - when re-releasing - it wouldn't surprise if tweaks were made here and there to make the story more up to date and relevant to a younger reader.
 
paranoid marvin said:
I'm not sure why she would create a fictional aeroplane when she could have easily chosen a contemporary one which her readers would be familiar. At the time of writing and publishing (in the middle of WWII) for obvious reasons, most people would have known about, and been able to identify, military aircraft flying overhead.
Click to expand...
It is a bit odd, yes. It's possible she just took no interest in aircraft and stuck it in as a placeholder that was never changed, or liked the idea of there being an aircraft called a valiant and decided to indulge that.

The alternatives we've established, going on real aircraft, are these:

1. A biplane of which only one was made.
2. A US trainer aircraft which would not have been used in the UK because the US trained their pilots on home soil.
3. A plane made later. I think this is unlikely too, but it might be easy to discount. @Danny McG , which edition is the one you're reading?
 
HareBrain said:
It is a bit odd, yes. It's possible she just took no interest in aircraft and stuck it in as a placeholder that was never changed, or liked the idea of there being an aircraft called a valiant and decided to indulge that.

The alternatives we've established, going on real aircraft, are these:

1. A biplane of which only one was made.
2. A US trainer aircraft which would not have been used in the UK because the US trained their pilots on home soil.
3. A plane made later. I think this is unlikely too, but it might be easy to discount. @Danny McG , which edition is the one you're reading?
Click to expand...


True, it is a fantasy novel after all. And I suppose most commercial authors will try to avoid 'dating' their work if they can possibly help it. 'Valiant' is a good a name as any for an aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Granny's Broomstick Terry Pratchett 10

Similar threads


Back
Top