[lace-chat] kings versus republic. Which ones are really oppressed (lae-chat)
>Personally, I think their time has come to quit altogether. There will > always be an oppressive class sytem in Britain while the royals still exist Who says you need to have a monarch at the head to have an oppressive class system??? The French pride themselves on their republicanism, and yet there are more magazines in France devoted to the comings and goings and doings of the "noble" class that there are in England!!! And look at the US people who are always falling over themselves and pay mega-dollars to be part of the entourage of any royal from any other country who happens to visit the US? I think hereditary "nobility" will draw other people for a very long time to come, because it fulfills a deep need in every man (and woman too, I guess, but maybe less) which has been around since prehistoric times: the need for things to "belong", and the need for "order" to exist (prefereably with oneself at the top!) . Of course, the ones we call "nobles" are just the ones who were better able than others to bash up everybody else, and to keep them "bashed", but if you destroy one class of "nobility", as they did during the French Revolution, you just get another one raising its head (the Napoleonic nobility, and if you get rid of your King or Emperor, you just get another kind of "nobility" again, like in the States. Why do you think people call themselves John Smith I and John Smith II, and John Smith Junior...if not to give the illusion of hereditary class! No, don't believe it. If you get rid of the Royal family in Britain, you'll just have someone else take over, and it will be oppression by money rather than oppression (are the British really oppressed compared to other nations? I'm not sure!) by old "rights". And I am ready to bet a lot of money that if there was the slightest chance that an American president could make himself into a king, he would do so at once! So would any French president!! Yours, cynical as always, Helene, the froggy from Melbourne, who moved to Australia so she could have a lifelong head of goverment who can partly support herself, instead of a series of cretins who cost the country heaps of money every time they're elected!! Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace-chat] Royals, marriage and superficial judgements
Sorry for the PS, I nearly forgot... Some years ago (14? 13? 12?) I was teaching ESL to a small froup of Japanese girls at a local "Junior College". Of the 5, only one wasn't all that bright; the other 4 simply couldn't express themselves properly in English. Once most of that barrier was demolished, they all ended up on the top of the heap, academically speaking (so, OK, their competition was pitiful, even if they *were* all native speakers ). About midway through our first year, the heir to the Japanese throne decided to get married, and the pwersonal details made quite a splash even in the US papers (we were subscribing to the Washington Post at the time). "Excellent" I thought; "that ought to be interesting enough to motivate them to read English beyond the textbook", and assigned the article as the next class discussion subject. They all made a beeline for the Washington and Lee U library (which subscribes to a Japanese newspaper, as well as some in other languages), but all (with that one exception ) were smart enough to compare the native coverage with the American one - they knew their facts form the native source, but beefed it up with the language from the article I xeroxed for them. The facts - as I remember them - were that the prince managed to squeak through high school (or home-schooling equivalent), and dropped out of college. His fiancee, OTOH, had college degrees (all the way up to and including a PHD) up her kazoo - Oxford, Harvard, you name it... She also had a very nice job, which she'd have to give up; it ain't fitty for the queen bee to be doing anything other than being ornamental and multiplying for the good of the country... Which is why it took the prince 3 yrs to woo her :) I asked my girls who - in their opinion - was the "winner" in this marriage... To me, there was no question, but the girl was stepping down, and sacrificing herself on the altar of the "country's good". So, I was totally flabbergasted, when *all 5* declared that *she* was the lucky one, in the best fairy-tale fashion, particularly since he was better looking than she was. Excuse me??? And, in the Charlie/Camilla case even *that* doesn't apply - she may not be Miss World, but he's just plug ugly :) -- Tamara P Duvallhttp://t-n-lace.net/ Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace-chat] Re: British Royals and marriages
On Feb 13, 2005, at 17:55, Carol Adkinson wrote:
I'm Amazed.
Since when have we all been judged, by our female peers, by our faces?
There's my girl... :)
For 31+ yrs DH would comment on a male (student, politician, whatever):
"intelligent, honest, hardworking" (etc, etc). For 31+ years, he'd
comment on a female: "not very good looking, but intelligent, honest,
hardworking" (etc, etc). For 31+ yrs it has rubbed me the wrong way...
I tried asking him about the looks of the males ("didn't notice; does
it matter?" NO, dummy; but neither does it matter for a female; why
catalogue it?)... I tried to ask him why looks are supposed to count
for women but not for men ("don't know; that's how things are." My
foot!)... We went through the same routine the other day (31+ yrs and
my blood pressure still doubles ); the owner of Hewlett Packard
(female) has been eased out, and her photo was on the front page. My
*DH's* first reaction was: "good looking, though no spring chicken".
*My* first reaction was: "too late for all the people who've lost their
jobs due to her mismanagement"... First things first, and looks are a
*lng way* from being first...
am glad that our messages don't have video pictures
Mine do, if I'd been lucky enough to meet the person and remembered to
capture the image, or scrounged it off the web somewhere :) Mac has
this *yummy* feature, which lets me see the person at the same time I
see their header; it makes my correspondence much more personal, and I
love it (never mind that everyone at lace gatherings thinks I'm nuts,
because I go around with my digital, and ask people if they're
Arachneans. "For my 'puter", I explain, which is not much of an
explanation to PC users )
We come to expect that sort of judgement from some of the males of our
acquaintance, but it saddens me a lot that we can be as uncharitable
to our less-well-endowed sisters.
I think where it comes from - not always, but a lot of times - is from
women accepting the male point of view, without questioning its
superiority (or even validity) much, possibly even without being aware
of doing it. Not entirely surprising, when you think about it; men have
ruled the world for hundreds of years, so - the subconscious whispers
seductively - they *must* know the "secret"... It's a bit like kids
mouthing off the beliefs of their parents; parents (ie adults) rule so,
however much we fight them and think they're wrong, we suspect they
must, indeed, know something we don't know...
For all her alleged plainness,
I don't see it myself; could wish *I* wore as well at her age... Though
*not*, if it got me the attention of Charlie-in-the-waiting He was
my Mother's choice of mate for me - only a royal was good enough for
her home-grown "princess", and he was the right age - but I
couldn't thole him even at 15... :) If "dame of camelia" managed to put
up with his face next to hers in the morning for all those many years,
good luck to them both.
--
Tamara P Duvallhttp://t-n-lace.net/
Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace-chat] Re: art
On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:20, Lynn Carpenter wrote: No, both the one in Milan and the one in Grand Rapids are 24 feet. Now that *is* huge... walking under the horse with my mother, we looked up and -- oh, yes! -- the horse is male . . . So is Jan III Sobieski's one :) I've never been close enough to the Poniatowski statue (was on the same website, but closer to the top), as it's not easily approachable, but I'd bet *that* horse is male also... Come to think about it... I can't remember any of the famous battle horses being female (yes, there *was* Rosinante, but she was a "battlehorse" only in Don Quixote's dreams ). Yet, some of them *had* to be, by the laws of nature and statistics. Is it another instance of females being "unsung" and discriminated against? -- Tamara P Duvallhttp://t-n-lace.net/ Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland) To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace-chat] British Royals and marriages
I'm Amazed. Since when have we all been judged, by our female peers, by our faces?I am glad that our messages don't have video pictures - I am sure I would be judged lacking as I am fat and plain. We come to expect that sort of judgement from some of the males of our acquaintance, but it saddens me a lot that we can be as uncharitable to our less-well-endowed sisters. For all her alleged plainness, Camilla Parker-Bowles is the only one in the saga who has carried herself with discretion, and never given the media any enbarrassing interviews - but we can obviously feel free to damage her by criticising her looks. We cannot all be judged by our beauty or lack thereof - and she may well be the proof that beauty is only skin-deep, and what matters is what is inside! Carol - wondering what has got into everyone to be so uncharitable. Subject: Re: [lace-chat] British Royals and marriages At least she COULD change her hair, but there's not much she could do about her face. > ttfn Jacqui > > Jacqui Southworth, Fleetwood, Lancs, England > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > NEW ***Spangled Birth Month Bobbins*** > Larkholme Lace - Bobbin Lace Supplies, painted bobbins and tools,books > www.larkholmelace.co.uk > > To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: > unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace-chat] British Royals
Yes her main title will be Duchess of Cornwall, but she'll also have all the other titles Diana had as well. She automatically becomes Princess of Wales, but won't use it out of sensitivity to the previous owner of the title. She'll also be Duchess of Rothesay. In addition Charles is Earl of Carrick, Earl of Chester, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland plus a few others. So presumably she'll also take the female equivalent of those, but not use them. He only uses them in appropriate local situations. If, and it's a big if, there are any children from the marriage, they'll be excluded from the line of succession. Jean in Poole - Original Message - From: "Brenda Paternoster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jean Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Chat" Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [lace-chat] British Royals > I though I heard that her main title will be Duchess of Cornwall. > > BTW, anyone know anything about her ex; Andrew Parker-Bowles? > It's Bowles I'm interested in, not Parker. > > On 13 Feb 2005, at 09:18, Jean Nathan wrote: > > > If she'd lived, she still be Lady Diana, Princess of Wales (as a > > surname), > > while Camilla would be Camilla, Princess of Wales (as a title). > > > Brenda > http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/paternoster/ > To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace-chat] Re: art
"Tamara P. Duvall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Feb 12, 2005, at 20:33, Lynn Carpenter wrote: > >> If you like big realistic art, how about Nina Akamu's interpretation of >> Leonardo da Vinci's horse? >> >> http://www.leonardoshorse.org >> >> I've seen the one at the Frederik Meijer gardens, and what can one say? >> It's enormous! > >Well, the one on the website is supposed to be only 8 feet; that's no >more than most monuments of equestrian figures I've seen elsewhere. No, both the one in Milan and the one in Grand Rapids are 24 feet. From the Fact Sheet http://www.leonardoshorse.org/factsheet.asp section: Master Model * Eight-foot clay model sculpted by Nina Akamu * Based on Leonardo da Vinci's drawings * Input from Council of Scholars and Sculptor's Advisory Committee * Enlarged to 24 feet in clay by Tallix Art Foundry, Beacon, NY * Final sculpting by Nina Akamu and team of seven assistants Final Horse * Height: 24 feet; weight with armature: 15 tons * Engineered to withstand wind shear and earthquakes * Cast at Tallix Art Foundry * Silicon bronze, Alloy #872 * Armature of stainless steel, Type 304 * Flown to Italy courtesy of Alitalia * Mounted on a pedestal of Carrara marble * Installation: Milan, Italy at the cultural park in the San Siro Hippodrome * Unveiled: September 10, 1999 * A gift to the Italian people from the American people American Horse * Second casting of the 24-foot model * Unveiled October 7, 1999 * Located at the Frederik Meijer Gardens, Grand Rapids, Michigan * Displayed at ground level which allows easy visitor interaction Which reminds me, when a friend of mine visited with her husband, she took a photo of him under the horse's slightly-raised back foot, on his back as if the horse was about to squash him. And if that humor wasn't low enough, walking under the horse with my mother, we looked up and -- oh, yes! -- the horse is male . . . Lynn Carpenter in SW Michigan, USA alwen at i2k dot com To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [lace-chat] British Royals
I though I heard that her main title will be Duchess of Cornwall. BTW, anyone know anything about her ex; Andrew Parker-Bowles? It's Bowles I'm interested in, not Parker. On 13 Feb 2005, at 09:18, Jean Nathan wrote: If she'd lived, she still be Lady Diana, Princess of Wales (as a surname), while Camilla would be Camilla, Princess of Wales (as a title). Brenda http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/paternoster/ To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[lace-chat] British Royals
I've just been reading who's called what. Talk about complicated! It appears that Diana was never Princess Diana - Princess as a title is only applied to girls of royal birth, not marriage. When a woman marries a prince, she takes the name of their husband, eg Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent. Although Diana was called Princess of Wales, being the wife of the Prince of Wales, plus Duchess of Cornwall and a few others. When they divorced she became Lady Diana (Lady as the daughter of an Earl, which she was before marriage), Princess of Wales as a surname and not a title. She lost all her other titles. Because she no longer had Princess of Wales as her title, she also lost 'Her Royal Highness' because she wasn't 'royal' any more. If she'd lived, she still be Lady Diana, Princess of Wales (as a surname), while Camilla would be Camilla, Princess of Wales (as a title). Fergie is no longer Duchess of York (no longer being married to the Duke of York) - just plain Sarah Ferguson. 'Debrettes Peerage' (the authority on titles and etiquette) keeps getting its knickers in a twist because the media still refer to Princess Di and to Sarah Ferguson as the Duchess of York. No-one else knows or cares. Jean in Poole To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
