But there’s another aspect. Wittgenstein said that Freud really provided “a notation,” that is, a re-describing of things (with language that carried various sorts of emotional-intellectual attractiveness, more than logic).

A “notation” can let us attend to things we’d otherwise ignore. I’ve lived long enough to have memories of a more-sexually-repressed era (born in 1940), and I have empathetic hints of what preceded my own times. But can any of us really FEEL what sexuality was like when Freud formed his first “Freudian” ideas? I can tell you that in 19th century literature, read closely, you can see that the meerest HINT of something sexual was electric! And yes, you find such hints–”adults only” understanding involved, and probably not all adults. (For an instructive parallel: the 1930s film “Reefer Madness” has for decades been laughed-at for its depictions of pot-smokers. But when you look at the Production Code, forced on the movie industry by the Legion of Decency and other religious groups, you see that the drug alarmism was a thin veil allowing just-over-the-strictest-line depictions of human sexuality in that “independent” movie, never shown in a “first run” theatre, in a time when MARRIED couples were never to be shown in the same bed! Yeah, “Reefer Madness” was a titilating, sexy film–for its era, in America.)

So maybe it isn’t so crazy to think that the very unusual, “unallowed” way Princess Alexandra walked might have carried/displayed sexual charge. And the emergence of the repressed. (A generation later, Alice Roosevelt–Teddy Roosevelt’s daughter–took great care not to let her hair-do fall down in any circumstance involving a young man, because of the incandescent reaction from her elders to such a sign of wanton behaviour.)

Maybe it’s time cut Freud, & Freudians, some carefully delineated slack.