Batting frailties give Sri Lanka food for thought
Three crucial knockout matches today
World record 53 red cards shown in Brazilian youth game
Vadodara and Mumbai to host WPL 2027
Mendis and Udara steady ship with warm-up fifties
The Wijerama House, which houses the Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA), is a grand building. When I first wanted to launch The Ceylon Journal in July 2024, I drove past it along Wijerama Road in Colombo 7. I knew that such a prestigious association must have an auditorium, and to my good fortune, the SLMA did have a reasonably good auditorium facility.
Along the corridor that leads inward are nearly one hundred portrait photographs of the Association’s former Presidents, faces that once defined the direction of medicine in Sri Lanka. Of these, I recognised perhaps a dozen, men and women whose reputations extended well beyond their consulting rooms into public life. Standing before them, a simple question arose: had anyone ever attempted to tell their collective story?
After booking the auditorium for my launch, I noticed that at the far end of the ground floor was the Sri Lanka Medical Library. Sadly, there were more staff members in the library than readers, the sole reader at the time being Dr. Malik Fernando. He was engaged in research for a book on the Presidents of the SLMA.
Two years later, to see this work coming into fruition is remarkable. Dr. Malik, himself a past President of the SLMA (1992), has limited his period of research to the years 1887 to 1950, a time corresponding with the height of British rule in Sri Lanka as well as the years immediately after independence. Two other volumes, succeeding this monograph, are to be published, chronicling an important part of the medical history of Sri Lanka.
The early pages of this book trace the evolution of Sri Lanka’s medical services during the British period, highlighting the central role played by early leaders of the Ceylon Branch of the British Medical Association (re-named in 1951 as the Ceylon Medical Association and after 1972, the Sri Lanka Medical Association – SLMA).
Following British control of the entire Island in 1815, healthcare was initially dominated by military needs, with hospitals and medical services managed by the army. The establishment of the Civil Medical Department in 1858 marked a decisive shift to civilian administration and systematic expansion of hospitals across the island. Western medicine gradually replaced earlier systems, aided by vaccination campaigns, missionary activity, and voluntary organisations.
Between 1839 and 1870, Ceylonese with merit were sent to the Bengal Medical College in Calcutta to pursue medicine. Medical education evolved from informal training to structured institutions, notably the Mission Medical School at Manipay and the Colombo Medical School, founded in 1870, which later became the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ceylon. Prominent physician-administrators such as P. D. Anthonisz, W. R. Kynsey, Perry and James Loos shaped both medical policy and professional organisation.
The formation of the Ceylon Branch of the British Medical Association in 1887 provided a lasting forum for professional exchange, marking the consolidation of modern medicine in Sri Lanka. It is within this institutional and intellectual framework that the Presidents profiled in this volume must be understood.
In the period under review, from 1887 to 1950, no fewer than fifty men and one woman served the distinguished rank of President of the Ceylon Medical Association. Glancing through the pages of this volume, my initial query of sourcing the “Who’s Who” of these eminent individuals has been answered by Dr. Malik Fernando. Thus, he fills a gap in the annals of Sri Lanka’s medical history. Perusing archival material in any day and age is not easy, and this is all the more reason why I congratulate Dr. Malik for taking up this project in his retirement and producing a volume that will be referred to increasingly in the years to come.
Despite the formidable foundation set by Sir William Raymond Kynsey, it was with great excitement that I learnt that the “saviour of the Galle Fort,” Dr. P. D. Anthonisz, was the first President of the SLMA (1887–1890). Born in Sri Lanka to a Dutch Burgher family, he was one of the first locals to be sent to the Bengal Medical College. The famous Clock Tower in the Fort was erected in memory of him and his services to the people of southern Sri Lanka, when he served as Colonial Surgeon – Southern Province between 1858 and 1890.
The brilliant Dr. Kynsey succeeded him and served no fewer than three terms as President (1890/91, 1893–95, 1896–98). Dr. Kynsey was undoubtedly the most accomplished physician in Sri Lanka in the nineteenth century. Arriving in Sri Lanka as a military surgeon, he went on to become the Principal Civil Medical Officer and the Inspector-General of Hospitals in Ceylon. His primary research on the Parangi disease (yaws), supplemented with coloured illustrations by J. L. K. van Dort, laid the scientific foundation for finding solutions to that disease.
The third President was Dr. James Loos (1891/92), another Burgher physician who made a mark in Anuradhapura and the Northern Province, especially during the malaria outbreak in the 1860s. He was one of the chief agitators for commencing the Ceylon Medical College and, upon its inauguration, was made its first Principal in 1870.
Dr. William van Dort, who was J. L. K.’s brother and whose daughter married Dr. R. L. Spittel, was another remarkable physician who served as President during 1900–1903. A French and German scholar, he played a major role in isolating and treating patients during outbreaks of tuberculosis, as well as serving as the Burgher representative on the Legislative Council.
Dr. Thomas Forrest Garvin (1903–1904) played a major role at the Diyatalawa Boer War Prisoners’ Camp in the capacity of Chief Medical Officer. The first Tamil President was Dr. W. G. Rockwood (1904/05). For eight years he was the Tamil representative on the Legislative Council. He was succeeded by the first Sinhala President, Sir Marcus Fernando (1905/06, 1914/15), one of the most outstanding physicians of Sri Lanka. He was the first Sri Lankan to receive an MD from the UK (University of London) and a Fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians. Upon his return to Sri Lanka, he became the first Consultant Physician at the Colombo General Hospital. He later ventured into politics and business, serving as Chairman of the State Mortgage Bank and as one of the founders of the Bank of Ceylon.
Dr. Albert John Chalmers (1907/08), a Briton, was one of the key individuals who studied tropical diseases at the time. He co-authored a book with Dr. Aldo Castellani, Manual of Tropical Medicine , in 1910. Dr. Murugesar Sinnetamby (1908/09, 1916/17) was the first Ceylonese to receive a Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons (Edinburgh) in 1890. He transformed the De Soysa Lying-in-Home into a modern hospital and the premier training institute in midwifery. His opening address at the SLMA in 1916 was titled “The Child as a National Asset.”
Dr. Aldo Castellani (1910/11), an Italian medical luminary, was the most colourful of all the Presidents of this period. It is lesser known that he cured a young boy from diphtheria in Veyangoda — a boy who later became S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike. He was also an expert on sleeping sickness. After the outbreak of the First World War, he had to leave Ceylon and return to Italy.
In his memoirs, Castellani wrote: “So I left Ceylon in January of the year 1915, but a part of my soul remained there. The memory of the Enchanted Island stirs in my heart an emotion which can only be expressed as love. I was a lover of that wondrous country then, I still am, and I shall be to the end of my days.” During the Second World War, when Italy was part of the Axis, he was involved with Mussolini and played a role in tropical studies in Africa following Italy’s invasion of the continent.
Dr. S. C. Paul (1912/13) was the first Sri Lankan to receive a Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons (London). His MD thesis contained some of the earliest findings on diabetes. He was the first Surgeon at the Colombo General Hospital. Dr. E. V. Ratnam (1917/18) established the Ratnam Hospital, which is the oldest surviving private hospital in Sri Lanka. Dr. Lucian de Zilwa (1919/20) was a phenomenal figure who followed in the footsteps of his mentor, Dr. Marcus Fernando.
Apart from being the leading gynaecologist of his time, he was a skilled novelist, orator, and patron of the arts. Dr. Andreas Nell (1924/25) was an equally gifted polymath. He was the first Surgeon at the Victoria Memorial Eye Hospital and was a well-known Orientalist and antiquarian. Dr. Frank Arnold Gunasekera (later Sir) (1931/32) was a decorated military surgeon who later served as a politician, first in the Colombo Municipality and then in the Senate.
Prof. W. A. E. Karunaratne (1932/33) was one of the leading medical scientists of his day. He was the first Dean of Medicine when the University of Ceylon commenced in 1942. Dr. H. O. Gunewardene (1933/34) was instrumental in setting up Sri Lanka’s first Department of Radiology and X-ray facility. Dr. Nicholas Attygalle (later Sir) (1937/38) was responsible for making obstetrics and gynaecology popular in Sri Lanka. He went on to become President of the Senate as well as the second Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ceylon. Dr. J. H. F. Jayasuriya (1938/39) is well remembered for his services in preventing the spread of tuberculosis.
Dr. May Ratnayake (1943/44) was the first and only female President of the period under review. She was at one time in charge of the Lady Havelock and Lady Ridgeway Hospitals and authored many papers on gynaecology. She was also well known for her work in paediatric surgery. Dr. R. L. Spittel (1944/45) was one of the finest surgeons of his time. A nature and wildlife enthusiast, he travelled widely through the dense forests of Sri Lanka and conducted valuable studies on the Veddas. Dr. Spittel wrote a series of popular books on the Veddas and the wildlife of Sri Lanka.
Dr. E. M. Wijerama, (1947/48) was the first President of the Ceylon College of Physicians. In 1964 he gifted his abode Wijerama House to the SLMA and Ceylon Medical Library. The final President of this period was Prof. C. C. de Silva (1949/50), who was the first Professor of Paediatrics of the University of Ceylon and was instrumental in paediatric studies of Sri Lanka when he was based at the Lady Ridgeway Hospital.
The story of Sri Lanka’s medical history has largely been limited to the administrative reports of the colonial period, the chronicling of the country’s medical scene in the Ceylon Medical Journal , and the monumental work A History of Medicine in Sri Lanka from the Earliest Times to 1948 by the late Dr. C. G. Uragoda, along with a few other contemporary accounts and monographs. This latest book supplements Sri Lanka’s medical history in several important ways.
First, it stamps the importance of the SLMA and demonstrates how its leadership and members have served the cause of the health sector of Sri Lanka for over 135 years. Secondly, it sheds light on some lesser-known and lesser-remembered medical luminaries who contributed to advancing hospital services, the scientific study and prevention of disease, and who played demanding roles in both peace and wartime for the benefit of the general population. Thirdly, it sheds light on facets of these Presidents who were, by and large, not confined to the field of medicine alone, but went on to contribute to politics, the humanities, music, visual arts, drama, conservation, and literature.
Inevitably, a work of this scope must also confront the limits imposed by archival silences. This work is limited to just short descriptions of these 51 profiles. Some of the Presidents basic information has not been traced due to the lack of record keeping. This is the gap the next scholar would have to cover as well as substantially feature how these individuals singularly and collectively made the medical scene of Sri Lanka fairly advanced in that day and age.
More works on Sri Lanka’s medical history is needed. Much archival sources in Sri Lanka and in Europe remain untouched. Also, the publication of comprehensive, objective and scholarly biographies of at least the well-known medical luminaries of that period is something scholars tomorrow should look into. We have seen many doctors writing their memoirs, often making them sound modern day “Jeewaka” with no error committed. Hagiographies commissioned by them have also taken root. This uncritical approach in documenting one’s life serves no purpose to society.
All in all, Dr. Malik Fernando’s work must be taken into serious consideration, and it may be the genesis of a tradition of new medical history writing in Sri Lanka, especially when Medical Humanities are now having a special emphasis in academia. Only time will tell.
All News Advertisement Related Topics: Up Next Victor Melder turns 90: Railwayman and bibliophile extraordinary
Hambantota solar projects: Allegations of bribery and environmental destruction –– Sajeewa Chamikara speaks out
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
The Communist Party of Sri Lanka has warned that ‘Israel and other foreign powers are planning to establish “spaceports” on Sri Lanka’s East Coast’ and claimed ‘the NPP government is getting involved in US space domain activities’ ( The Island , October 29, 2026).
Whether these warnings warrant serious consideration or not, certain immutable facts relating to Sri Lanka’s policy of a neutral state cannot be ignored. One such fact that has guided this government is its foreign policy of neutrality requires ‘that neutral space comprises the national territory of the neutral state, its territorial waters and its national air space’, and as such its territory including its territorial waters and air space is NOT NEGOTIABLE. This policy has been adhered to during the ongoing Middle East conflict, where the US sought permission to land two aircraft and the government declined permission on grounds of neutrality.
In such a context, for any officers, military or civil, to participate in discussions that compromise principles of neutrality amounts to a violation of government’s policy of neutrality reiterated by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath. Therefore, any discussions relating to prospective ‘spaceports’ is taboo.
PRINCIPLES and DUTIES of a NEUTRAL STATE
Based on an ICRC Publication on Neutrality, June 2022.
The introduction of this publication states: ‘The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977.’
‘The territory of a neutral state is inviolable. It is prohibited to commit any act of hostility whatsoever on such territory. Neutrality describes the formal position taken by a state which is not participating in an armed conflict or which does not want to become involved. This status entails specific rights and duties. On the one hand, the neutral State has the right to stand apart from and not be adversely affected by the conflict. On the other hand, it has a duty of non-participation and impartiality.
Neutral space comprises the national territory of the neutral state, its territorial waters and its national air space. Neutral persons are nationals of neutral states. They lose their neutral status if they commit hostile acts against a belligerent. Individuals may join the armed forces of a belligerent party, but then they also lose their neutral status. They still have all the guarantees of protection that a member of those forces would enjoy, and therefore are entitled to POW status if they are subsequently captured. If, however, they can be defined as mercenaries, whom we covered in an earlier lesson, they do not have the right to be considered as combatants or POWs.
As long as their home state maintains normal diplomatic relations with the belligerent state they are living in or visiting, neutral persons are to be treated in the same way as they would be in peacetime. They remain under diplomatic protection. If there are no such diplomatic relations, neutral persons are entitled to be treated as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It makes no difference to their status if they are civilians or members of the armed forces of the neutral State to which they belong.’
3. THE DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES (Ibid)
‘Policy and instructions – the neutral State must also take measures to ensure and enforce the protection of its neutrality in the neutral space for which it is responsible in relation to the belligerent parties and, in particular, their armed forces. To obtain neutral status, the State does not have to make a formal declaration, nor do other States or parties formally have to recognise such status. A formal declaration will only have the effect of making neutral status better known.
The armed forces of the neutral state also require clear instructions on how they are to operate in relation to the defence of their territory and in dealing with incursions. For isolated and accidental violations of neutral space, the instructions might include the need to issue warnings or give a demonstration of force. For increasingly numerous and serious violations, a general warning might be called for and the use of force stepped up.
Particular obligations – the neutral State must ensure respect for its neutrality, if necessary, using force to repel any violation of its territory. Violations include failure to respect the prohibitions placed on belligerent parties with regard to certain activities in neutral territory, described above. The fact that a neutral State uses force to repel attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act. If the neutral state defends its neutrality, it must however respect the limits which international law imposes on the use of force. The neutral state must treat the opposing belligerent states impartially.
This obligation does not mean that a state is bound to treat the belligerents in exactly the same way. It entails a prohibition on discrimination.
It forbids only differential treatment of the belligerents which in view of the specific problem of armed conflict is not justified. Therefore, a neutral state is not obliged to eliminate differences in commercial relations between itself and each of the parties to the conflict at the time of the outbreak of the armed conflict. It is entitled to continue existing commercial relations. A change in these commercial relationships could, however, constitute taking sides inconsistent with the status of neutrality.
A neutral state must never assist a party to the armed conflict, in particular it must not supply warships, ammunition or other war materials directly or indirectly to a belligerent power, but otherwise its trade with the belligerent States remains unaffected.’
The material presented above embodies internationally recognised practices that should be adopted by a neutral state.
Stated above are the PRINCIPLES and DUTIES of a NEUTRAL STATE as recognised under International Law. Therefore, it is the duty of all states to recognise and respect the rights of States, such as Sri Lanka that have declared neutrality as its policy in its relations with other States.
If members of the current Sri Lankan government are engaged in discussions with foreign governments relating to issues that compromise its policy of neutrality, they should cease forthwith for reasons stated above. Furthermore, the government needs to formally make its members, particularly those in the military who engage with foreign government representatives to develop relationships and further their agendas, aware of the stakes involved.
Continue Reading Features America votes for change: What 2026 midterms mean for Trump and the world Published
by Colonel Nalin Herath (Retd), RSP
The 2026 United States midterm elections have delivered a significant political message. By taking control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Democrats have changed the political balance in Washington and introduced a new dimension to President Donald Trump’s second term. This is more than an electoral setback for the Republican Party. It is a reminder that even a president with considerable political influence is ultimately answerable to the electorate. The results reflect growing public dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Economic pressures, the cost of living, concerns over government accountability and the consequences of the conflict with Iran featured prominently in the political debate. Voters who supported Trump’s return to the White House in 2024 have now demonstrated that electoral support is neither permanent nor unconditional.
Midterm elections are traditionally viewed as a referendum on the sitting president. This election has reinforced that political reality. Pres Trump made himself central to the Republican campaign, effectively inviting voters to assess his leadership. The outcome suggests that a substantial section of the electorate wanted a different direction. The Democratic victory, however, should not be interpreted as an unconditional endorsement of every Democratic policy. It is equally a reflection of dissatisfaction with the incumbent administration. American voters have expressed their preference through the constitutional process, and the political establishment must respond accordingly.
A new balance of power in Washington
The Democratic takeover of both chambers of Congress will fundamentally change the legislative environment. The House can exercise greater oversight through investigations, hearings and control of legislative proceedings. The Senate can influence legislation, scrutinise presidential appointments and determine the progress of important national initiatives. Trump remains President, with his constitutional executive powers intact. However, the next two years are likely to require considerably more negotiation and political compromise. The possibility of legislative deadlock is also real. A divided government can strengthen institutional checks and balances, but it can also delay decisions on taxation, immigration, public spending and national security. The challenge will be to ensure that political competition does not become an obstacle to effective governance.
The consequences extend well beyond American domestic politics. The United States remains a central actor in international security, global trade, technology, finance and diplomatic affairs. Political changes in Washington therefore have consequences for countries far beyond its borders.
First, America’s relationships with traditional allies will remain under scrutiny. European countries and NATO members will be watching whether Washington maintains consistency in its security commitments and international partnerships. Second, strategic competition with China will continue to shape American foreign policy. Although there is considerable bipartisan support for maintaining America’s strategic position in the Indo-Pacific, differences may emerge over trade, military spending, technology restrictions and diplomatic engagement. Third, the Middle East will remain a major foreign policy challenge. The political consequences of the conflict with Iran, including its economic and security implications, will place additional pressure on the administration to explain its strategic objectives and the costs of its international engagements. For countries in the Indian Ocean, these developments deserve particular attention. America’s engagement with regional maritime security, freedom of navigation, strategic partnerships and regional connectivity will remain important considerations.
What does this mean for American democracy?
Perhaps the most important dimension of this election is institutional. American democracy is built around the separation of powers, electoral accountability and the ability of different political institutions to constrain one another. The midterm results demonstrate that congressional control can change even when the presidency remains in the hands of the opposing party. However, electoral accountability alone cannot resolve the deeper divisions within American society. Political polarisation, economic inequality, immigration debates, public confidence in institutions and the influence of technology on political discourse remain significant challenges. The question is whether political leaders can move beyond electoral confrontation and rebuild a degree of public trust.
The midterm outcome will inevitably accelerate political preparations for the 2028 presidential election. Both parties will begin reassessing their leadership, political strategies and electoral coalitions. For Trump, the remaining two years of his presidency will involve governing with a Congress controlled by the opposition. For Democrats, the responsibility will be to demonstrate that electoral success can translate into effective governance. Neither party can afford to treat the outcome as a permanent political settlement. American politics remains dynamic, and the next presidential election will be shaped by developments that have yet to unfold.
The 2026 midterms offer a wider lesson for democracies everywhere. Political authority is not simply secured through electoral victories; it must be sustained through public confidence, institutional credibility and the ability to respond to people’s concerns. For the international community, the central question is not whether America will remain powerful. Its economic, military, technological and diplomatic resources will continue to make it a major global power. The more important question is how consistently it will exercise that power.
A country that remains politically divided at home may find it increasingly difficult to provide predictable leadership abroad. Equally, a functioning system of checks and balances can strengthen institutional accountability and reinforce democratic legitimacy. The American electorate has delivered its message. The responsibility now rests with both political parties to demonstrate that democracy is not merely about winning elections, but about governing in the interests of the nation. Ultimately, America’s future will be determined not only by who occupies the White House, but also by how effectively its institutions work together.
(The writer is the Secretary General of the Ceylon Chamber of Shipping, former Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies (INSS), and former Spokesman of the Ministry of Defence. He is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the London Dialogue. His areas of expertise include international relations, geopolitics, maritime affairs, national security, economic policy, and strategic governance. He is a consultant at JITT Group and a member of World Pace Board).
Continue Reading Features The Prisoner of Zenda , where suspense grips reader Published
I have thus far in this series dealt with mystery stories. These inevitably involve suspense, though the converse does not hold true, and there are lots of stories full of suspense in which there is no mystery. Having for half a year now looked at mysteries, I thought of moving to the other sort, where there may be no mystery but where the suspense grips one.
by Anthony Hope in 1894 heralded a cult of what has been termed Ruritanian novels, set in what would in those days have seemed in England tempestuous remote regions of Europe. It was predominantly the Balkans that fitted this characterisation, an area in which, after the Turks retreated, Austria and Russia fought for influence, the former backed by a newly united Germany under Prussia, the latter moving into alliance with France and through that England.
The plot of The Prisoner of Zenda is compelling, and led to it being filmed several times over. The first time was in 1937, with then heart throb Ronald Colman as the hero Rudolf Rassendyl and Douglas Fairbanks also a heart throb as the dynamic villain Rupert of Hentzau.
Fifteen years later, Stewart Granger became the hero and James Mason Rupert. Deborah Kerr was the heroine, the role taken by Madeleine Carroll previously. And both films had wonderful actors in support, Raymond Massey and David Niven in 1937 and in 1957 Louis Calhern, who had played Julius Caesar in the celebrated film that starred James Mason and John Gielgud and Marlon Brando.
Hope was barely known by my contemporaries at Oxford, for he had passed out of fashion in the brave new world that emerged, not after the Second World War, but a decade later when a British Prime Minister could claim, in all seriousness, that his people had never had it so good. But I was lucky to find that the father of one of my friends, who was a philosophy don at Christ Church, was an aficionado of Hope, and we much enjoyed talking about him, and about much else, which I suspect the rest of his family thought very old fashioned.
But even from him I could not get a copy of the book, and now I cannot remember where, twenty years later, I finally found it. But where I first read it came back to me vividly as I read it for a second time, hugely enjoying it again. This was in the little room in the guesthouse at Sabaragamuwa University which had been left at my disposal. My driver Kithsiri had the staff room at the back, while I could house visitors in the other two rooms down below. This did not happen too often, after the first early years of showing off the place to friends.
The window of my bedroom looked out on the staff canteen, and year after year whoever ran it would bring me a cup of coffee at 6 o’clock, which I drank whilst lying in bed. Indeed, I spent most of my time in the house in that large double bed for, though I sometimes marked papers at the dining table upstairs, it was just as easy to do this in bed. And when I did not have such work, I would read there till long after the canteen lights went out.
It was there that, in a night or two, I finished The Prisoner of Zenda . For its plot was compelling, involving the dramatic adventures of the young Englishman Rudolf Rassendyl, who tells the story, having gone to Ruritania because of a family legend about a close connection between his family and the Ruritanian royal family. This was that a former king had, while in England before taking up his throne, had an affair with a Rassendyl lady.
The kingdom of Ruritania, the setting of The Prisoner of Zenda , is clearly in the Balkans, which had become a centre of intrigue in the struggles of European nations for dominance by 1894, when the novel appeared. Later Ruritanian novels, as tales of intrigue set in that region which followed were called, sometimes involved struggles for international influence there but Hope himself dwelt only on internal intrigues, the machinations of royalty and their hangers on for power and also for romance.
Royalty in Ruritania however also involved the English, for as a result of the affair of earlier years the heir to the Rassendyll Earldom was in fact an Elphberg, the family name of the royal family of Ruritania. But the characteristic red hair of the Elphbergs appeared only sporadically. Rudolph had it, which is what motivated him to explore travel to Ruritania, but once there he found that he was the spitting image of its new king, who was shortly to be crowned.
But the future King Rudolph’s half-brother Black Michael has other ideas, and drugs the king so that he cannot get to the coronation. And when his loyal companions discover this, they persuade Rassendyl, who has been drinking with the king the previous night, to take his place. That impersonation works well, and Rudolf receives the adulation of the citizens, but then what had been intended as a masquerade for a night has to be protracted, for the king is kidnapped by his brother and kept a prisoner in the Castle of Zenda.
The good guys then have to try to rescue the king while keeping the impersonation secret, most vitally from the king’s cousin Princess Flavia, who was meant to marry the king but has been averse to him though now she falls in love with Rassendyl and he with her.
The situation is compounded by a French lady. Antoinette de Mauban, who is in love with Black Michael, but warns Rassendyl about his stratagems, in part because she is comparatively decent, in part because Michael plans, if he eliminates both Rudolphs, to marry Flavia himself. And then to complicate matters further, one of Black Michael’s henchmen, Rudolph of Hentzau, is not so loyal as not to try to seduce Antoinette himself. He tries to involve Rassendyl in a plot to eliminate Michael, so they can share the spoils as he sees them, but of course Rassendyl turns him down. But then Rupert gets carried away, not perhaps by lust so much as by his love of devilry, and in the ensuing melee, Rassendyl having been able to bribe his way into the castle, the king is rescued.
Unlike the other henchmen, Rupert survives to take centre stage along with Rassendyl in the sequel. But otherwise all ends well, with everyone having a piece of the action, including the ill-treated king. Or rather, the king having recovered, there is also sadness for Rassendyl and Flavia, for they have to part so she can do her duty for the king and country.
Private sector salaries surge ahead of public sector pay structures as National Budget looms
Social media backlash over Lankan cricket legend’s Ryanair ‘racist’ remark
Searching for leadership: Can we bring back qualities of our golden years?
ITAK, DTNA mount joint protest against PTA
SAARC: The regional dream that South Asia never quite built
PSTB sharply deviates from expert committee’s report
Showers will occur at several places in the Western, Sabaragamuwa, Central, Uva and Southern provinces and in Kurunegala, Ampara and Batticaloa districts after 1.00 p.m.
Crypto firm Binance covers 90% of losses after $6.3bn hack
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…