There are a couple of things coming out of all this that worry me particularly:

1. Next season's programme: how did a man who quotes his thwarted wish for rapid modernisation as the reason for his resignation come to plan a season where half the performances are given over to Tchaikowsky classics? Was it Ross Stretton's own choice (in which case it rather undermines his protestations) or was it forced on him by the board, for financial or other reasons (in which case I hope they tell whoever next gets the job that he/she will be doing it with one hand tied behind their back)?

2. Is it right that Deborah MacMillan should be able to demand the sacking of the company's Artistic Director, and apparently be taken seriously by the board? She has no position in the RB organisation, and although I understand that her feelings were only one factor in the Board's decision, should she really have this much influence?

( and 3., rather less seriously, does anyone know why the Ashton centenary is said to be planned for the 2003/4 season? Ashton was born in Septemebr 1904 and I'd have thought 2004/5 would have been more appropriate.)

The worrying aspect is as you say and to which I would add that Ron Protas (in the Martha Graham case) obviously thought he was right and did what he believed was necessary too! There, of course, most people were appalled by his actions

The other view would be that thank goodness somebody turned up with the guts and wherewithal to help move things on soonest. The problem of course for those outside is not knowing all the facts and what may have happened to the company if this had gone on another year or more. Sometimes brave decisions are needed.

With regard to how any ballets are looked after its just like the governance of anything in life. One good person can achieve so much while a bunch of well meaning suits can stumble around and get not very far, or worse do great harm. And visa versa of course.

Ultimately she has influence because she has great wealth - measured in ballet terms. But Southgate also has great influence, by dint of position, and Villar by dint of disposable income etc

The main thing perhaps is that now its done and a square peg in a round hole is no more. Monica Mason is trusted by all and hopefully after we have all learned what we can from the episode (so we don't repeat it), life will settle and some normality return as the season gets going. I for one hope so anyway.

The press will be raising questions until people think they have it figured out -- was it clashes with the board personally, or Lady MacMillan, or vague allegations about personal conduct, or dissatisfaction with the day to day management and the way Stretton interacted with the dancers? Something happened to make the board act so suddenly, now, at the beginning of the season, instead of when the problems first surfaced.

The Lady MacMillan issue is both interesting and tricky, and I think both you and Bruce have addressed that issue very well. On the one hand, we should be thankful to have someone who'll fight for an artist's body of work; on the other, is it good to have that person be a sort of permanent veto and able to dictate the repertory?

As for the Ashton centennary, I think Jane raised a good point. Perhaps they didn't check that either The Balanchine centennary is planned for 2004 as well (he was born in January), and that will obviously be a conflict for media attention internationally. (And face it, one of the reasons companies do centennials is because it's an opportunity for the company to show its face to the world.) Also, since Ashton will have been essentialy out of repertory for two seasons, and there are so many dancers in the company unfamiliar with his work, it will take some time for them to get used to him again. Perhaps this isn't written in stone, and they'll hire someone who knows when Ashton was born (I know that's catty. Sorry, Bruce. Indulge me It's early in the morning here.).

This is an interesting point but we don't know all the ins and outs of what was said and what, if any, ultimatum was laid down. Perhaps it's no bad thing to have someone who is not directly connected with the organisation to look out for the interests of the ballet company as well as to protect the MacMillan repertoire. If only there were an equivalent individual to look after the Ashton legacy perhaps we would not be always complaining about the RB's neglect of his works.

The U.S. certainly has its share of comparable situations. The one I think of most immediately also has its differences in terms of the situational components. The Joffrey Ballet had an impasse soon after the death of Robert Joffrey. Joffrey willed the succession to Jerry Arpino, associate director and the Joffrey's principal choreographer.
Rupert Murdoch, one of the Joffrey's chief backers in Los Angeles, made an attempted change in administration, which was viewed by Arpino as an attempt to take over the helm of Joffrey and to oust him. He resigned, but in the process he also pulled the ballets he choreographed from the repertoire. There were problems with payroll taxes also, as I recall. As a result,a couple long-time production and artistic personnel either were fired or left.
This situation had brewed for a long time, according to my informant now deceased, and the result was that it effectively prevented the Joffrey from becoming permanently resident in Los Angeles. Arpino was able to negotiate with supporters in Chicago,and the company moved there where Arpino is still in control.
However different the circumstances, it's still an interesting commentary on what ownership of a group of ballets can mean in a company where they have long been performed and whose presence has helped to mold the look of a company.

I do not think for a moment it was an egotistic or selfish use of power.

I owe Rupert Murdoch and ballet readers an apology. It is a Murdoch, but not Rupert. Which one eludes me.