Discussion:
' "The King's Speech" is a Gross Falsification'
(too old to reply)
The Chief
2011-02-01 06:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Another interesting piece for those so enamoured of the recent talkie.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/31/the-kings-speech-gross-falsification

Regards,
The Chief
Donald4564
2011-02-01 07:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Chief
Another interesting piece for those so enamoured of the recent talkie.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/31/the-kings-speech-gross-fal...
Regards,
  The Chief
I can't believe an article that says King Edward VIII traveled to
Germany and met Hitler. He didn't - The Duke of Windsor did in 1937.

Yes, Churchill did his utmost to persuade King Edward VIII to do his
duty and stay on the throne.

Yes, King George VI was grateful to Chamberlain in 1938 for averting
war as was most of the British population. Most could still remember
the Great War which ended only 20 years previous.

At the most it was most probably unwise of the Duke of Windsor to have
gone to Germany in 1937 as the visit wast used by the Nazis as a
propaganda exercise. I don't think though that the visit demonstrated
he had Nazi sympathies, he was not a political animal - politics bored
him and besides I don't think for one moment he would ever have
thought of any treasonable act towards Britain or the Empire. I am not
so sure about the woman he married who is rumoured to have been
friendly with von Ribbentrop.

Halifax's name did come forward as a replacement for Chamberlain - but
the King sent for Churchill.

As a footnote, speech therapists have come out and said the film "The
King's Speech" has been a very good influence in helping people come
to terms with stuttering.

Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
2011-02-01 07:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by The Chief
Another interesting piece for those so enamoured of the recent talkie.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/31/the-kings-speech-gross-fal...
Regards,
  The Chief
I can't believe an article that says King Edward VIII traveled to
Germany and met Hitler. He didn't - The Duke of Windsor did in 1937.
Yes, Churchill did his utmost to persuade King Edward VIII to do his
duty and stay on the throne.
Yes, King George VI was grateful to Chamberlain in 1938 for averting
war as was most of the British population. Most could still remember
the Great War which ended only 20 years previous.
At the most it was most probably unwise of the Duke of Windsor to have
gone to Germany in 1937 as the visit wast used by the Nazis as a
propaganda exercise. I don't think though that the visit demonstrated
he had Nazi sympathies, he was not a political animal - politics bored
him and besides I don't think for one moment he would ever have
thought of any treasonable act towards Britain or the Empire. I am not
so sure about the woman he married who is rumoured to have been
friendly with von Ribbentrop.
Halifax's name did come forward as a replacement for Chamberlain - but
the King sent for Churchill.
As a footnote, speech therapists have come out and said the film "The
King's Speech" has been a very good influence in helping people come
to terms with stuttering.
Regards
Donald Binks
The Chief
2011-02-01 08:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by The Chief
Another interesting piece for those so enamoured of the recent talkie.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/31/the-kings-speech-gross-fal...
Regards,
  The Chief
I can't believe an article that says King Edward VIII traveled to
Germany and met Hitler. He didn't - The Duke of Windsor did in 1937.
Yes, Churchill did his utmost to persuade King Edward VIII to do his
duty and stay on the throne.
Yes, King George VI was grateful to Chamberlain in 1938 for averting
war as was most of the British population. Most could still remember
the Great War which ended only 20 years previous.
At the most it was most probably unwise of the Duke of Windsor to have
gone to Germany in 1937 as the visit wast used by the Nazis as a
propaganda exercise. I don't think though that the visit demonstrated
he had Nazi sympathies, he was not a political animal - politics bored
him and besides I don't think for one moment he would ever have
thought of any treasonable act towards Britain or the Empire. I am not
so sure about the woman he married who is rumoured to have been
friendly with von Ribbentrop.
Halifax's name did come forward as a replacement for Chamberlain - but
the King sent for Churchill.
As a footnote, speech therapists have come out and said the film "The
King's Speech" has been a very good influence in helping people come
to terms with stuttering.
Regards
Donald Binks
Donald,
You are a very naughty boy! Your revisionist title was the
opposite of what is argued in the linked article, and is therefore
false. You should think long and hard before going down this road -
this little forum would rapidly become unusable if arbitrary changes
to thread titles became prevalent. Of course, the precedent was set by
two of resident loonies (CJB and LE), but as a fundamentally decent
and reasonable chap you don't really want to associate with their
sort, now do you?

Regards,
The Chief
CJ Buyers
2011-02-01 08:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Yes, King George VI was grateful to Chamberlain in 1938 for averting
war as was most of the British population. Most could still remember
the Great War which ended only 20 years previous.
Furthermore, we could not possibly have gone to war in 1938, even if
we wanted to. We had virtually no aircraft and stocks of ammunition
were still very low.

In 1936, for example, when Mussolini's ships were sailing through the
Suez Canal to attack Ethiopia, the RN only had enough available
ammunition for its guns to fire a single round!

Anyway, what does this Chicago chef care about WWII? His friends in
Eire sat on their hands.
Donald4564
2011-02-02 02:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
Post by Donald4564
Yes, King George VI was grateful to Chamberlain in 1938 for averting
war as was most of the British population. Most could still remember
the Great War which ended only 20 years previous.
Furthermore, we could not possibly have gone to war in 1938, even if
we wanted to. We had virtually no aircraft and stocks of ammunition
were still very low.
In 1936, for example, when Mussolini's ships were sailing through the
Suez Canal to attack Ethiopia, the RN only had enough available
ammunition for its guns to fire a single round!
Anyway, what does this Chicago chef care about WWII? His friends in
Eire sat on their hands.
rc
2011-02-02 06:59:44 UTC
Permalink
The name of the film is The King's Speach not Churchill's speach.

RC
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-02 15:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Fantastic! How stupid do the filmmakers think their audience is? Did
they imagine that this movie, with this theme, would be watched by
ignorant chavs who take everything at face value and want a good guys
(the Yorks, Churchill etc.) versus the bad guys (the Windsors and the
Nazis) movie?

Yes, people do often forget that Churchill was on Edward VII's side.
But the people who go to see a movie of this type are exactly the type
of people who will look it up in books or online when they get home if
they are surprised by the two "heroes" not being on the same side.

Just one more reason why they should have made a movie about the
Kaiser and his handicap instead.
Donald4564
2011-02-02 21:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Yes, people do often forget that Churchill was on Edward VII's side.
It was not a question of taking sides. It was a question of having
loyalty to one's King and trying to persuade him to do his duty. Once
this proved fruitless and King Edward VIII abdicated, Churchill
naturally owed his allegiance to the new King.

Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
2011-02-03 21:57:52 UTC
Permalink
For those who have seen the film - here is the actual speech given by
King George VI at the outbreak of war.



Colin Firth does an excellent job in re-creating it.

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-04 02:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
Yes, people do often forget that Churchill was on Edward VII's side.
It was not a question of taking sides. It was a question of having
loyalty to one's King and trying to persuade him to do his duty. Once
this proved fruitless and King Edward VIII abdicated, Churchill
naturally owed his allegiance to the new King.
Between the possibilities of romantic loyalty and political
opportunism, I came to think of two other issues that might have
played in:
- How was Churchill's relationship with and view of Mrs. Simpson?
- Being half-American himself (and on top of that with an American
mother whose morals Queen Mary probably didn't approve of), did he
perhaps take it as a personal insult and that's one reason why he
became the King's knight in shining armour?
Donald4564
2011-02-04 03:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
Yes, people do often forget that Churchill was on Edward VII's side.
It was not a question of taking sides. It was a question of having
loyalty to one's King and trying to persuade him to do his duty. Once
this proved fruitless and King Edward VIII abdicated, Churchill
naturally owed his allegiance to the new King.
Between the possibilities of romantic loyalty and political
opportunism, I came to think of two other issues that might have
- How was Churchill's relationship with and view of Mrs. Simpson?
- Being half-American himself (and on top of that with an American
mother whose morals Queen Mary probably didn't approve of), did he
perhaps take it as a personal insult and that's one reason why he
became the King's knight in shining armour?
Churchill came from an Aristocratic background and his mother was not
a thrice divorced American woman. I doubt that Churchill would have
thought very much of Mrs. Simpson - a lot of people didn't - but that
was not his concern. His concern was that the King could not marry
this woman and had to give her up in order to stay on the throne. He
was not the King's knight in shining armour per se, more a loyal
subject trying his utmost to allow the King to see reason.

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-04 03:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Churchill came from an Aristocratic background and his mother was not
a thrice divorced American woman.
But she was not exactly the apogge of virtue, according to the
rumours. Even though there were many native British ladies of the
Edwardian era who behaved just the same way, don't you think many
gossips nodded and said "American morals, you know" when they feasted
on the latest scandal involving Lady Randolph Churchill?
Post by Donald4564
His concern was that the King could not marry
this woman and had to give her up in order to stay on the throne.
That's interesting, I never knew that Churchill also thought the King
could not marry her.
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-04 03:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
But she was not exactly the apogge of virtue,
Correction: Apogee
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-04 04:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
That's interesting, I never knew that Churchill also thought the King
could not marry her.
P.S. I have once read a Churchill biography, so I might once have
known, but I've certainly forgotten it then.
Donald4564
2011-02-04 07:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
But she was not exactly the apogge of virtue, according to the
rumours. Even though there were many native British ladies of the
Edwardian era who behaved just the same way, don't you think many
gossips nodded and said "American morals, you know" when they feasted
on the latest scandal involving Lady Randolph Churchill?
Well, I don't think polite society engages in rumours of that sort!
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
His concern was that the King could not marry
this woman and had to give her up in order to stay on the throne.
That's interesting, I never knew that Churchill also thought the King
could not marry her.
I don't think Churchill was unaware of Mrs. Simpson's impediment
stopping her from marrying the King.

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-08 17:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Well, I don't think polite society engages in rumours of that sort!
I dare say you think too highly of polite society!
Donald4564
2011-02-08 22:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
Well, I don't think polite society engages in rumours of that sort!
I dare say you think too highly of polite society!
How can one think too highly of it? Proper standards and common
decency are to be maintained are they not?

Perhaps you have a differing connotation?

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-08 22:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
How can one think too highly of it?
Lol, you certainly practize Oscar Wilde's quip: "Do not speak ill of
society, Algie. Only people who can't get in do that."
Post by Donald4564
Proper standards and common
decency are to be maintained are they not?
People are just people, even in polite society. People talk a lot
about other people. When women do it, it's called gossip. When men do
it (and they do it just as much, studies have shown) it's just called
talking. Well-bred people don't take gossip too seriously and try to
make judgments only based on facts, but everybody loves the odd gossip
chat, if only for entertainment.
Post by Donald4564
Perhaps you have a differing connotation?
"Polite society" sounds rather middle-class to me, but then I'm not a
native English-speaker and it may be interference from my native
Norwegian with its "dannede kretser", equivalent of German "gebildete
Kreise". In the German-influenced culture that Scandinavia
traditionally has been part of, there has perhaps been more emphasis
on how cultured, considerate and polite manners are a characteristic
of the well-bred bourgeoisie and not necessarily of a decaying
aristocracy.

In Britain the overpowering cult of the gentleman, which fused
bourgeois and aristocratic values, has perhaps obfuscated this aspect.
Donald4564
2011-02-09 01:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Lol, you certainly practize Oscar Wilde's quip: "Do not speak ill of
society, Algie. Only people who can't get in do that."
Oh - absolutement!
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
Proper standards and common
decency are to be maintained are they not?
People are just people, even in polite society. People talk a lot
about other people. When women do it, it's called gossip. When men do
it (and they do it just as much, studies have shown) it's just called
talking. Well-bred people don't take gossip too seriously and try to
make judgments only based on facts, but everybody loves the odd gossip
chat, if only for entertainment.
Well egalitarianism dictates that people are just people however as
you and I know actual society does not reflect this principle.

I don't have much truck with womens' conversations per se as my
experience has shown that most women only interrupt themselves
speaking to actually say something, so obviously whilst I have been
tuned out of a "broadcast", I have obviously missed the gossip part.

Men do discuss things, true - but it should never be done in a
malicious way.

What you say that which is gossip and hearsay unfortunately now
permeates the fourth estate where fact has been substituted by rumour.
A dreadful lapse of manners, good taste, etiquette and in some cases,
observance of the law.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
Perhaps you have a differing connotation?
"Polite society" sounds rather middle-class to me, but then I'm not a
native English-speaker and it may be interference from my native
Norwegian with its "dannede kretser", equivalent of German "gebildete
Kreise". In the German-influenced culture that Scandinavia
traditionally has been part of, there has perhaps been more emphasis
on how cultured, considerate and polite manners are a characteristic
of the well-bred bourgeoisie and not necessarily of a decaying
aristocracy.
I have often wondered how people define themselves as middle-class -
especially as they now choose to have a higher rank in that section of
society by defining themselves as "upper middle-class" - whatever that
means?

I have never bothered with society much myself or trying to rank
myself within its confines. I do try though and uphold the teachings
of my youth as far as manners and etiquette etc., are concerned but I
suppose I am now considered terribly old-fashioned? I leave it to
others top determine my rank or lack of it.

A decaying aristocracy? I thought they were all still there rumbling
about - but not officially recognised in some countries?
Post by Zwartendÿk
In Britain the overpowering cult of the gentleman, which fused
bourgeois and aristocratic values, has perhaps obfuscated this aspect.
It is a pity that the "cult of the gentleman" didn't overpower a few
more in my humble opinion.
One should always strive to be civilsed, don't you know.

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-09 02:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Mr Binks, I think you bring up some fascinating points.
Post by Donald4564
Well egalitarianism dictates that people are just people however as
you and I know actual society does not reflect this principle.
True, but I have a hard time figuring out whether those who have
worked their way to the top are better people than the rest or
scheming, evil, backstabbing, white-collar criminals?
Perhaps there are both sorts, i.e. people are just people? :-)

But I agree you are more sure with some peer or indeed even monarch
who has inherited his immense wealth and poltical standing. You don't
have to question how it all came about, it just happened and the
important thing is how he handles it.

But if a peer says, as I am pretty sure some peers said, that the
working classes are a gang of dirty criminals who all should be shot
if they hadn't been so useful, how does that explain polite society's
lack of prejudice?

The crucial question is perhaps: Would a true Edwardian lady, taking
tea with her friends, say: "Now, don't tell anyone it was I who told
you, but have you heard that Lady Randolph Churchill has a lover. A
foreigner!"

Or would a true Edwardian gentleman, smoking with the chaps in his
club, say: "I dare say we will soon have a political crisis if the
opposition finds out that the cabinet has had very intimate dealings
with the Austrian ambassador. Cherchez la femme, if you get my
drift.... "

(I know that it was against the gentlemanly code to speak ill of a
lady, but I'm convinced Edwardian gentlemen also talked about their
female peers, and not just about the girls in the musical halls. But I
think they, like men do today, disguised their gossip as talk about
subjects like politics, whereas women, then as now, were more likely
to speak directly about people.)

BTW have you watched the recent grand British costume drama "Downton
Abbey"? It has a lot of such moral themes and has allegedly sparked
quite a bit of morals-then-and-now discussion in the UK. I'm still
wondering about the question of whether Lady Mary Crawley was raped by
the Turkish envoy or not. Her reputation was at least seriously
endangered (perhaps even ruined, Norwegian TV has only shown season 1)
by her very genteel enemies in polite society, who spread the vicious
gossip of her not being a virgin due to the nocturnal romp with the
handsome Turk.
Post by Donald4564
I don't have much truck with womens' conversations per se as my
experience has shown that most women only interrupt themselves
speaking to actually say something, so obviously whilst I have been
tuned out of a "broadcast", I have obviously missed the gossip part.
Men do discuss things, true - but it should never be done in a
malicious way.
What you say that which is gossip and hearsay unfortunately now
permeates the fourth estate where fact has been substituted by rumour.
A dreadful lapse of manners, good taste, etiquette and in some cases,
observance of the law.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
Perhaps you have a differing connotation?
"Polite society" sounds rather middle-class to me, but then I'm not a
native English-speaker and it may be interference from my native
Norwegian with its "dannede kretser", equivalent of German "gebildete
Kreise". In the German-influenced culture that Scandinavia
traditionally has been part of, there has perhaps been more emphasis
on how cultured, considerate and polite manners are a characteristic
of the well-bred bourgeoisie and not necessarily of a decaying
aristocracy.
I have often wondered how people define themselves as middle-class -
especially as they now choose to have a higher rank in that section of
society by defining themselves as "upper middle-class" - whatever that
means?
I have never bothered with society much myself or trying to rank
myself within its confines. I do try though and uphold the teachings
of my youth as far as manners and etiquette etc., are concerned but I
suppose I am now considered terribly old-fashioned? I leave it to
others top determine my rank or lack of it.
A decaying aristocracy? I thought they were all still there rumbling
about - but not officially recognised in some countries?
Post by Zwartendÿk
In Britain the overpowering cult of the gentleman, which fused
bourgeois and aristocratic values, has perhaps obfuscated this aspect.
It is a pity that the "cult of the gentleman" didn't overpower a few
more in my humble opinion.
One should always strive to be civilsed, don't you know.
Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
2011-02-09 03:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Mr Binks, I think you bring up some fascinating points.
Please Mr. Zwartendyk (I trust I address you correctly) you may call
me Donald, I shall not entrust you to such formality.

I am glad that I still have some use in that you seem fascinated by my
points, as it were.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
you and I know actual society does not reflect this principle.
True, but I have a hard time figuring out whether those who have
worked their way to the top are better people than the rest or
scheming, evil, backstabbing, white-collar criminals?
Perhaps there are both sorts, i.e. people are just people? :-)
Do you have a saying in Norway "old money and new money"? It is yet
another distinction for the moneyed classes who in their own opinion
have replaced the aristocracy. It is supposed to mean that the longer
your family has been rich the 'more noble' you are. People who have
only recently acquired wealth are seen to be quite vulgar. Personally
I find both types quite vulgar especially some of the children who are
little more than spoiled brats - but then I generalise too much.

I was always taught that it was totally vulgar to discuss money as you
could be sitting to dinner next to someone who didn't have any who
would therefore find him/herself out of place. Now it seems people
wish to talk about nothing else.
Post by Zwartendÿk
rest or
scheming, evil, backstabbing, white-collar criminals?
These people are a class unto themselves - they are politicians and
lawyers generally.
Post by Zwartendÿk
But I agree you are more sure with some peer or indeed even monarch
who has inherited his immense wealth and poltical standing. You don't
have to question how it all came about, it just happened and the
important thing is how he handles it.
Quite so! One should not seek to attach publicity to oneself because
of one's assumed position in the perceived hierarchy. There is a lot
to be said for the 'quiet achiever' who does a lot of good by
volunteerism, sponsorship and philanthropy behind the scenes. One can
still guide and advise without drawing attention to what you are
doing.

I think that the masses have too much time on their hands to be in a
position to start questioning things. (grin). There is always some
fool who wishes to change something that is working perfectly well but
the this fool never quite knows what to replace it with.
Post by Zwartendÿk
But if a peer says, as I am pretty sure some peers said, that the
working classes are a gang of dirty criminals who all should be shot
if they hadn't been so useful, how does that explain polite society's
lack of prejudice?
One is drawn to a remark attributed to Catherine the Great of the
Russias who was told the peasants were revolting. She drew up the
curtain in her carriage looked out at the masses and said
"They certainly are!"

Far too many people retain unrealistic values of each level of
society. You cannot dismiss the peasantry - one should be encouraging
them as more and more people leave farms to pursue something or other
in the cities. Each and every one of us is a small cog in the great
wheel of society - each and every position is necessary, everyone
depends on the other. Snobbery is an illusion gifted to stupid people.
Post by Zwartendÿk
The crucial question is perhaps: Would a true Edwardian lady, taking
tea with her friends, say: "Now, don't tell anyone it was I who told
you, but have you heard that Lady Randolph Churchill has a lover. A
foreigner!"
That is women's talk so being a mere male, I cannot comment. I believe
they go on with such nonsense when they all get together.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Or would a true Edwardian gentleman, smoking with the chaps in his
club, say: "I dare say we will soon have a political crisis if the
opposition finds out that the cabinet has had very intimate dealings
with the Austrian ambassador. Cherchez la femme, if you get my
drift.... "
Yes it would be couched in very delicate terms - if it were to be
discussed at all - and any such discussion would only come about if
such indiscretion was liable to do serious damage to the affairs of
State.
Post by Zwartendÿk
(I know that it was against the gentlemanly code to speak ill of a
lady, but I'm convinced Edwardian gentlemen also talked about their
female peers, and not just about the girls in the musical halls. But I
think they, like men do today, disguised their gossip as talk about
subjects like politics, whereas women, then as now, were more likely
to speak directly about people.)
A woman's place was in the home in those days - women did not have the
positions they now hold in society - with of course the odd exception
here - which was generally though of as a freak of nature rather than
anything else.
Post by Zwartendÿk
BTW have you watched the recent grand British costume drama "Downton
Abbey"? It has a lot of such moral themes and has allegedly sparked
quite a bit of morals-then-and-now discussion in the UK. I'm still
wondering about the question of whether Lady Mary Crawley was raped by
the Turkish envoy or not. Her reputation was at least seriously
endangered (perhaps even ruined, Norwegian TV has only shown season 1)
by her very genteel enemies in polite society, who spread the vicious
gossip of her not being a virgin due to the nocturnal romp with the
handsome Turk.
We don't seem to have this as yet in Oz.

Foreigners are despicable people at the best of times you know and the
Turks - well they are absolutely beastly brutes at the best of times.
(Not my opinion in the 21st Century - but more that of Edwardian
society!)

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-10 02:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Do you have a saying in Norway "old money and new money"? It is yet
another distinction for the moneyed classes who in their own opinion
have replaced the aristocracy. It is supposed to mean that the longer
your family has been rich the 'more noble' you are. People who have
only recently acquired wealth are seen to be quite vulgar.
Yes, we do know the distinction in Norway too. I do agree great
captains of industry, who for generations have been responsible for a
business and its employees, as patricians come close to nobility, but
in my opinion true nobility is landed. Land gives quite another
perspective than industry and business, whose perspectives of profit
always are more short-sighted than land.
Post by Donald4564
but then I generalise too much.
I do too, but I've always thought of it as a way to be polite. As you
point out, one does not want to embarrass individuals. It's more
polite to be witty by making fun of a whole group than the person next
to you.
Post by Donald4564
I was always taught that it was totally vulgar to discuss money as you
could be sitting to dinner next to someone who didn't have any who
would therefore find him/herself out of place.
I was taught so to, but for the reason that people are more passionate/
touchy about their money (or lack thereof) than the usual "touchy
topics" religion and politics. In fact many people are only touchy
about politics because it's connected to their money.
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
Or would a true Edwardian gentleman, smoking with the chaps in his
club, say: "I dare say we will soon have a political crisis if the
opposition finds out that the cabinet has had very intimate dealings
with the Austrian ambassador. Cherchez la femme, if you get my
drift.... "
Yes it would be couched in very delicate terms - if it were to be
discussed at all - and any such discussion would only come about if
such indiscretion was liable to do serious damage to the affairs of
State.
And of course gentlemen must discuss the affairs of State and all that
threatens them vigorously and in detail every day! :-)
Post by Donald4564
A woman's place was in the home in those days - women did not have the
positions they now hold in society - with of course the odd exception
here - which was generally though of as a freak of nature rather than
anything else.
I would venture to say that many Edwardian aristocratic hostesses
worked as a kind of PR agents or lobbyists.
Post by Donald4564
 We don't seem to have this as yet in Oz.
You must look out for "Downton Abbey" or buy it on DVD. You'll love
it!
Post by Donald4564
Foreigners are despicable people at the best of times you know and the
Turks - well they are absolutely beastly brutes at the best of times.
(Not my opinion in the 21st Century - but more that of Edwardian
society!)
As Sarah, Duchess of York recently showed with regard to their
orphanages, they still can be beastly in this day and age.I just loved
her stunt, it was simply so politically incorrect!
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-10 05:04:38 UTC
Permalink
It's also interesting to remember that in former times, in illiterate
societies with no news services, gossip equalled news, because there
was no division between the rumours about the queen having a lover
(which could mean a plot against the king, civil war etc.) and two of
your neighbours frocliking outside marriage in the hay field
(something which also was a source of concern, as it could threaten
the social stability of the village.) I've seen gossip in such
societies described sociologically as a "folk art"!
Donald4564
2011-02-11 02:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
It's also interesting to remember that in former times, in illiterate
societies with no news services, gossip equalled news, because there
was no division between the rumours about the queen having a lover
(which could mean a plot against the king, civil war etc.) and two of
your neighbours frocliking outside marriage in the hay field
(something which also was a source of concern, as it could threaten
the social stability of the village.) I've seen gossip in such
societies described sociologically as a "folk art"!
I think your reference to illiterates answers your own argument as to
where gossip belongs

Regards
Donald Binks
Donald4564
2011-02-11 02:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Yes, we do know the distinction in Norway too. I do agree great
captains of industry, who for generations have been responsible for a
business and its employees, as patricians come close to nobility, but
in my opinion true nobility is landed. Land gives quite another
perspective than industry and business, whose perspectives of profit
always are more short-sighted than land.
There are many wealthy people who own vast tracts of land and are not
ennobled.
For me ennobling is in the breeding and how you are brought up. Put it
this way, one might not have a sou to one's name but one can me more
of a gentleman than a millionaire not possessing a single grace.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
but then I generalise too much.
I do too, but I've always thought of it as a way to be polite. As you
point out, one does not want to embarrass individuals. It's more
polite to be witty by making fun of a whole group than the person next
to you.
Isn't wit the lowest form of sarcasm?

I don't know about this excuse for generalising idea though. If one
has had a bit of tiff with a person of the Jewish persuasion there is
no excuse for example of generalising to the extent that all Jews are
bad.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I was always taught that it was totally vulgar to discuss money as you
could be sitting to dinner next to someone who didn't have any who
would therefore find him/herself out of place.
I was taught so to, but for the reason that people are more passionate/
touchy about their money (or lack thereof) than the usual "touchy
topics" religion and politics. In fact many people are only touchy
about politics because it's connected to their money.
I would have though that the "touchy" topics of religion and politics
were a taboo basically in Anglo societies? When I am on the continent
in Europe we seem to have open slather at the dinner table - mind you
one never gets to the stage of a heated argument - it all seems to me
to be quite rationally handled. Perhaps that is the role of the host -
to moderate conversation?
Post by Zwartendÿk
And of course gentlemen must discuss the affairs of State and all that
threatens them vigorously and in detail every day! :-)
Quite right old thing!
Post by Zwartendÿk
I would venture to say that many Edwardian aristocratic hostesses
worked as a kind of PR agents or lobbyists.
That is, if they could be taken seriously - but that was mens' fault
and not the intelligent womens'
Post by Zwartendÿk
You must look out for "Downton Abbey" or buy it on DVD. You'll love
it!
I thank you indeed for the alert.
Post by Zwartendÿk
As Sarah, Duchess of York recently showed with regard to their
orphanages, they still can be beastly in this day and age.I just loved
her stunt, it was simply so politically incorrect!
I have never known a women to open her mouth so much only to put her
foot in it.

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-11 02:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
There are many wealthy people who own vast tracts of land and are not
ennobled.
Quite right. In the "If YOU Were Monarch, How Would You Organize Your
Dynasty, Court and Nobility?" thread I am trying to argue that they
should be ennobled.
Post by Donald4564
For me ennobling is in the breeding and how you are brought up. Put it
this way, one might not have a sou to one's name but one can me more
of a gentleman than a millionaire not possessing a single grace.
I agree with you for all practical purposes, but not technically.
Perhaps you know that in German and the Scandinavian languages, there
is no word for "gentleman"!? (Granted, there is no contemporary word
for the concept in French either, but Louis XIV showed he knew the
difference when he said: "The King can make him a nobleman, but not a
gentleman.")
Post by Donald4564
I don't know about this excuse for generalising idea though. If one
has had a bit of tiff with a person of the Jewish persuasion there is
no excuse for example of generalising to the extent that all Jews are
bad.
Of course not, but the whole notion is so illogical that it's
meaningless, because nobody can know all the Jews there are. People
are just people, also Jews.
Post by Donald4564
I would have though that the "touchy" topics of religion and politics
were a taboo basically in Anglo societies? When I am on the continent
in Europe we seem to have open slather at the dinner table - mind you
one never gets to the stage of a heated argument - it all seems to me
to be quite rationally handled.
Probably we here in Norway are somewhat between that Anglo-Saxon
tradition and the French one, in which you can discuss everything
except money. I would certainly find it very odd and uncomfortable
bordering on rude if my dinner partner asked me how much money I made
or had, but I would be just thrilled if they asked me what my
religious or political views were.
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-11 02:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Of course Norway is a rather special case in so far as the tax
register, listing people's taxable income and fortune, is public and
appears every year in the newspaper!
So you don't have to ask, you just do a quick online search!
Of course this is a Socialist practice that well-bred conservative
people with a sense of decency and respect for privacy don't like.
But envy is traditionally said to be stronger than libido in
Norwegians, that's the explanation. The only reason we are a monarchy
is that we wouldn't find any of our commoner compatriots worthy enough
to be elected president, since Fritjof Nansen already is dead!
Donald4564
2011-02-11 06:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Of course Norway is a rather special case in so far as the tax
register, listing people's taxable income and fortune, is public and
appears every year in the newspaper!
Good heavens - that would never do in Oz!
Post by Zwartendÿk
So you don't have to ask, you just do a quick online search!
Of course this is a Socialist practice that well-bred conservative
people with a sense of decency and respect for privacy don't like.
But envy is traditionally said to be stronger than libido in
Norwegians, that's the explanation. The only reason we are a monarchy
is that we wouldn't find any of our commoner compatriots worthy enough
to be elected president, since Fritjof Nansen already is dead!
I wish some of the republican element in Australia could take heed of
the very sensible Norwegians.

Regards
Donald BInks
Donald4564
2011-02-11 06:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
There are many wealthy people who own vast tracts of land and are not
ennobled.
Quite right. In the "If YOU Were Monarch, How Would You Organize Your
Dynasty, Court and Nobility?" thread I am trying to argue that they
should be ennobled.
Good, because in your Kingdom I would be a Peer. (I must get down the
end of it and start a concert party!)
Post by Zwartendÿk
I agree with you for all practical purposes, but not technically.
Perhaps you know that in German and the Scandinavian languages, there
is no word for "gentleman"!? (Granted, there is no contemporary word
for the concept in French either, but Louis XIV showed he knew the
difference when he said: "The King can make him a nobleman, but not a
gentleman.")
Would not "Herrschaftlich" be a word in the old Deutsch? Perhaps
though, as I have heard, people
more often say "hochgeboren" to refer to someone with impeccable
manners - giving them a courtesy title I suppose.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Of course not, but the whole notion is so illogical that it's
meaningless, because nobody can know all the Jews there are. People
are just people, also Jews.
A lot of conversations are meaningless. Try listen to politicians
being interviewed to gain some idea.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Probably we here in Norway are somewhat between that Anglo-Saxon
tradition and the French one, in which you can discuss everything
except money. I would certainly find it very odd and uncomfortable
bordering on rude if my dinner partner asked me how much money I made
or had, but I would be just thrilled if they asked me what my
religious or political views were.
I have not as yet been to Norway - but I suppose I might get there one
day. (Please).

I was once asked by a dinner guest next to me how much I earned in a
year, to which I replied $26 million. (of course this was before the
days of company executives awarding themselves huge stipends and
therefore the guest was suitably rebuked)

I love dinners where the conversation is lively and the topics covered
are numerous. It helps also if there is adequate libation to help with
parched lips.


At formal dinners one used always to have the loyal toast before
slurping the soup. Nowadays that seems to have gone by the board...

Regards
Donald BInks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-11 06:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Would not "Herrschaftlich" be a word in the old Deutsch?
Indeed. The noun "Herr" ("herre" in Norwegian) means both Lord (as in
God and as in the Lord of X) and Mister. You can say that somebody is
a true "Herr", but it sounds very old-fashioned and pompous (much more
than "gentleman"). It implies good manners, but not necessarily
chivalry or personal integrity, and indicates more of the likes of a
"grand-seigneur". Unlike gentleman it's not democratic and cannot be
used about a man of the lower classes.

In the Denmark-Norway of yore there was the "dannemand", not a Danish
man and not just Coloneless Dannemand, the mistress of King Frederik
VI, but an honourable, upright, productive subject/citizen, similar to
the French prud'homme and the German Biedermann. Since these people
usually were styled "hæderlige og velbyrdige", The Honourable and
Wellborn, the Anglo-Saxon style "The Honourable" seems very lowly in a
Scandinavian ear, not at all fit for ministers and peers' heirs!
Post by Donald4564
though, as I have heard, people
more often say "hochgeboren" to refer to someone with impeccable
manners - giving them a courtesy title I suppose.
That would be said rather ironic, yes, because Hochgeboren was the
predicate of non-immediate counts. Wohlgeboren, well-born, was for
commoners, but would of course also sound rather comic today.
Donald4564
2011-02-11 07:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Indeed. The noun "Herr" ("herre" in Norwegian) means both Lord (as in
God and as in the Lord of X) and Mister. You can say that somebody is
a true "Herr", but it sounds very old-fashioned and pompous (much more
than "gentleman"). It implies good manners, but not necessarily
chivalry or personal integrity, and indicates more of the likes of a
"grand-seigneur". Unlike gentleman it's not democratic and cannot be
used about a man of the lower classes.
I have heard "du bist ein treue Herr!" Mind you that is in the dim
dark recesses of memory.
It also reminds of all the different ways one could say thank you...
Post by Zwartendÿk
In the Denmark-Norway of yore there was the "dannemand", not a Danish
man and not just Coloneless Dannemand, the mistress of King Frederik
VI, but an honourable, upright, productive subject/citizen, similar to
the French prud'homme and the German Biedermann. Since these people
usually were styled "hæderlige og velbyrdige", The Honourable and
Wellborn, the Anglo-Saxon style "The Honourable" seems very lowly in a
Scandinavian ear, not at all fit for ministers and peers' heirs!
Was not "Biedermann" used for somebody in business? - The people who
get to wear an "Honourable" in front of their cognomen these days are
usually far from being so - mostly politicians. To add to it
"Wellborn" would be adding insult to injury.

I quite like "Poobah" as an honourific.
Post by Zwartendÿk
That would be said rather ironic, yes, because Hochgeboren was the
predicate of non-immediate counts. Wohlgeboren, well-born, was for
commoners, but would of course also sound rather comic today.
I suppose that when I was little and living in Germany and Austria I
must have been surrounded by a lot of Herr Grafs.

I think that my German now is frightfully "altmodisch" because I still
use words like "funk" and "fernsprecher" both of which have been given
over to the English equivalent.

Was there not also the phrase "hoch UND wohlgeboren"? I seem to
remember that one as well.

I suppose I will have to get used to being quite comical on my next
visit to Germany.

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-15 01:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Was not "Biedermann" used for somebody in business? -
It is linked, both positively and negatively, to petit-bourgeois
values, yes.
Post by Donald4564
The people who
get to wear an "Honourable" in front of their cognomen these days are
usually far from being so - mostly politicians. To add to it
"Wellborn" would be adding insult to injury.
It has started to amuse me that our looks-obsessed age worships
another category of well-born people, beautiful people, just as much
if not more than former Biedermänner worshipped their Hoch-und-
Wohlgeborene superiors. (In the Scandinavian languages høy/høj/hög,
i.e. hoch or high, also means "tall", so many models could certainly
be styled Hennes Høybårenhet - Her Highbornness!)
Post by Donald4564
I suppose that when I was little and living in Germany and Austria I
must have been surrounded by a lot of Herr Grafs.
Graf Gudenus aka edespalais? :-)
Post by Donald4564
I think that my German now is frightfully "altmodisch" because I still
use words like "funk" and "fernsprecher" both of which have been given
over to the English equivalent.
Lol, I certainly have to think twice about those words, I've only
encountered them in connection with WW2.
Post by Donald4564
Was there not also the phrase "hoch UND wohlgeboren"? I seem to
remember that one as well.
Yes, it was for barons. And "hochwohlgeboren" for mere untitled nobles.
Donald4564
2011-02-15 01:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
It is linked, both positively and negatively, to petit-bourgeois
values, yes.
I thank you for up-dating my faded memory and confirming my
recollections.
Post by Zwartendÿk
It has started to amuse me that our looks-obsessed age worships
another category of well-born people, beautiful people, just as much
if not more than former Biedermänner worshipped their Hoch-und-
Wohlgeborene superiors. (In the Scandinavian languages høy/høj/hög,
i.e. hoch or high, also means "tall", so many models could certainly
be styled Hennes Høybårenhet - Her Highbornness!)
Could we thus find new titles such as "His Ugliness"? I quite like
this and it could cover quite a wide ground. (grin) On the other hand
you could have "Her Most Beautiful" which on occasion could warrant a
slap across the face when used in bars and taverns.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I suppose that when I was little and living in Germany and Austria I
must have been surrounded by a lot of Herr Grafs.
Graf Gudenus aka edespalais? :-)
I have never wrung the wrist of this blighter. I daresay if we ever
did meet it would resemble the dialogues of the deaf in that I have
never really understood any of his messages on here. (He probably
hasn't understood mine either)
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I think that my German now is frightfully "altmodisch" because I still
use words like "funk" and "fernsprecher" both of which have been given
over to the English equivalent.
Lol, I certainly have to think twice about those words, I've only
encountered them in connection with WW2.
Yes, well even my English is now considered archaic my modern
standards - I don't seem to use words like "dude" or "cool" or any of
the other idioms thrust upon us from across the pond. I even refuse to
use "radio" preferring the British/Australian term "wireless". I am
thought of as rather quaint - but it bothers me not.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
Was there not also the phrase "hoch UND wohlgeboren"? I seem to
remember that one as well.
Yes, it was for barons. And "hochwohlgeboren" for mere untitled nobles.
I remember that when I was living in Austria in the noneteen-fofties
that aristocratic people were still addressed according to their
titles etc., - even though they had all been thrown out in 1919. I
suppose that in those days it was a habit that the older generations
could not grow out of easily. I daresay that over the years the formal
addresses have disappeared altogether and the young ones of today
would not even know what they were?

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-15 02:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
I daresay that over the years the formal
addresses have disappeared altogether and the young ones of today
would not even know what they were?
Yep, I venture they know more about Dame Edna Everage, Crocodile
Dundee and Steve Irwin than the present Princes Lobkowitz,
Trautmannsdorff and Windischgrätz. And know "Waltzing Mathilda" better
than "Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser". (I remember "Waltzing Mathilda"
was in our school songbok back in Norway back in the 1990s).

BTW there are some Australian mysteries we still don't know: When I
read up on Julian Assange on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see that
the Aboriginals on his home island Magnetic Island annually evacuated
their island in order to save themselves from head hunting expeditions
from Papua New Guinea and the Torres Strait Islands. I had NO IDEA
that this kind of cross-continental travelling went on into historic
times and that Australia wasn't completely isolated!
Donald4564
2011-02-15 02:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I daresay that over the years the formal
addresses have disappeared altogether and the young ones of today
would not even know what they were?
Yep, I venture they know more about Dame Edna Everage,
She was created a Dame by the then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam whom
we all thought modeled himself on Emperor Nero of Rome
Post by Zwartendÿk
Crocodile
Dundee and Steve Irwin than the present
I suppose the focus is always on the lesser breeds of culture. I would
prefer some Australian names such as Joan Sutherland, Nellie Melba,
Peter Dawson, Macfarlane Burnet etc.,
Post by Zwartendÿk
Princes Lobkowitz,
Trautmannsdorff and Windischgrätz.
I know of the last one on your list but not the other two? Should I?
Post by Zwartendÿk
And know "Waltzing Mathilda" better
than "Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser". (I remember "Waltzing Mathilda"
was in our school songbok back in Norway back in the 1990s).
"Waltzing Matilda" were apparently the words set to a German Marching
tune. It has become a song synonymous with Australia but I think "I
still call Australia Home" has overtaken it in popularity in recent
years. "Waltzing Matilda" was a candidate for a National Anthem in the
1970's. God help us!
Post by Zwartendÿk
BTW there are some Australian mysteries we still don't know: When I
read up on Julian Assange on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see that
the Aboriginals on his home island Magnetic Island annually evacuated
their island in order to save themselves from head hunting expeditions
from Papua New Guinea and the Torres Strait Islands. I had NO IDEA
that this kind of cross-continental travelling went on into historic
times and that Australia wasn't completely isolated!
It's a pity we still don't let these people in from New Guinea and
allow them further south, say to Canberra....

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-15 03:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
Yep, I venture they know more about Dame Edna Everage,
She was created a Dame by the then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam whom
we all thought modeled himself on Emperor Nero of Rome
Lol, so (s)he was just Edna before that? Funny, because Dame Edna is a
fond childhood TV memory and in Norwegian "dame" (pronounced à la
allemande) today means "woman". (Well, not because of her, of course!)
Post by Donald4564
I suppose the focus is always on the lesser breeds of culture. I would
prefer some Australian names such as Joan Sutherland, Nellie Melba,
Peter Dawson, Macfarlane Burnet etc.,
Sadly, the Burgtheater is no longer the supreme spreader of culture in
Austria!

Well at least now you have Lionel Logue (who'd think an Australian
could teach people elocution!? On the other hand, Australian vowels
are so tense that in a way they are rather clipped.) And now you have
Julian Assange. (Even though his disturbed alter ego, Lisbeth
Salander, according to the New York Times, ironically is a fictional
character from the Emasculated Kingdom of Violent Feminists who are
out to get his wiki-leaky ass.)
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
Princes Lobkowitz,
Trautmannsdorff and Windischgrätz.
I know of the last one on your list but not the other two? Should I?
I don't know! You should know, being more Austrian than me! I just
took the names from Franz Joseph's 1900 list of approved eligible
spouses for Habsburg dynasts!
Post by Donald4564
"Waltzing Matilda" were apparently the words set to a German Marching
tune. It has become a song synonymous with Australia but I think "I
still call Australia Home" has overtaken it in popularity in recent
years.
Interesting, I had never heard this one, but from the sound of it on
Youtube, it would make a great anthem.
BTW I don't think Australia should be ashamed if they wanted such a
simple nonsense song as "Waltzing Mathilda" as national anthem. Just
look at Quebec, there the birthday song doubles as national anthem! No
wonder that Quebec nationalism is going strong... :-)
Donald4564
2011-02-15 04:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Lol, so (s)he was just Edna before that? Funny, because Dame Edna is a
fond childhood TV memory and in Norwegian "dame" (pronounced à la
allemande) today means "woman". (Well, not because of her, of course!)
Edna Everage is a character created by Barrie Humphries as early as
1957. Over the years the character has developed along the way to
become a national icon. For the most part Australians missed the
biting satire which was directed upon them.

My more favourite character in Mr. Humphries repertoire is that of Sir
Les Patterson, the cultural attache at large. I have seen people
exactly like him in real life. Shudder, shudder.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Well at least now you have Lionel Logue (who'd think an Australian
could teach people elocution!?
Why not? Australians were big on elocution in the Edwardian days - my
father was an elocutionist and was successful in quite a number of
competitions.

What I find wonderful about Lionel Logue is that he practiced on
Harley Street as a speech therapist without any qualifications
whatsoever. How absolutely wonderful!
Post by Zwartendÿk
On the other hand, Australian vowels
are so tense that in a way they are rather clipped.)
I would have thought that they were rather languorous although the
tendency is now towards a clearer speech - probably something of a
trans-Pacific accent.

In the old days we were were taught to strive towards BBC type speech
and most of our announcers on the wireless used to talk like this.

There are really quite a few Australian accents. There is the still
broad accent in the rural areas. There is the so-called "refined"
accent defined so by those who speak it which makes each "i" into an
"a" - so that "five" becomes "fave" and so on. There is the "Greco-
Australian" accent derived from the descendants of Greek immigrants
and there is the city type talk.

I myself have never really had a so-called Australian accent - I am
thought of as a pommee.
Post by Zwartendÿk
And now you have
Julian Assange. (Even though his disturbed alter ego, Lisbeth
Salander, according to the New York Times, ironically is a fictional
character from the Emasculated Kingdom of Violent Feminists who are
out to get his wiki-leaky ass.)
I have no problem with Julian Assange in fact I am rather proud to
have him as a fellow countryman. Of course there are those people -
especially in the United States who hold a completely opposing view -
but one has to remember, he is not the one who actually pinched the
information he has published.

As to violent feminists - one must remember that the whole feminist
business was greatly helped along by another Australian - a frumpy
woman called Germaine Greer who wrote a book called "The Female
Eunuch".
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
Princes Lobkowitz,
Trautmannsdorff and Windischgrätz.
I know of the last one on your list but not the other two? Should I?
I don't know! You should know, being more Austrian than me! I just
took the names from Franz Joseph's 1900 list of approved eligible
spouses for Habsburg dynasts!
Well, grin, the whole of Europe is smothered with nobility - the
reason being that everyone in the family gets a gong regardless. It is
a long time since I was living in Austria and I can't really remember
all the names of those I knew then - reading these pages though has
brought out a few names here and there that I remember through the fog
of time. I daresay a lot of them are still parading themselves about
like the cast of a long lost operetta
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
"Waltzing Matilda" were apparently the words set to a German Marching
tune. It has become a song synonymous with Australia but I think "I
still call Australia Home" has overtaken it in popularity in recent
years.
Interesting, I had never heard this one, but from the sound of it on
Youtube, it would make a great anthem.
The tune yes - but surely not the words? An anthem is meant to be a
hymn is it not?
Post by Zwartendÿk
BTW I don't think Australia should be ashamed if they wanted such a
simple nonsense song as "Waltzing Mathilda" as national anthem. Just
look at Quebec, there the birthday song doubles as national anthem! No
wonder that Quebec nationalism is going strong... :-)
Reminds me of a wonderful story about King Edward VII. He was on a
railway platform somewhere or other and the band played "Pop Goes the
Weasel". He stood to attention and saluted and muttered to one of his
aides "Ours or theirs?"

(He was apparently quite tone deaf).

Regards
Donald Binks
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-16 01:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
My more favourite character in Mr. Humphries repertoire is that of Sir
Les Patterson, the cultural attache at large. I have seen people
exactly like him in real life. Shudder, shudder.
Oh, good God, what a character!
Post by Donald4564
Why not? Australians were big on elocution in the Edwardian days - my
father was an elocutionist and was successful in quite a number of
competitions.
Oh, "The King's Speech" must be especially dear and interesting to you
then.
Post by Donald4564
What I find wonderful about Lionel Logue is that he practiced on
Harley Street as a speech therapist without any qualifications
whatsoever. How absolutely wonderful!
I agree - wonderful!
Post by Donald4564
I have no problem with Julian Assange in fact I am rather proud to
have him as a fellow countryman.
Don't worry, I don't have a problem with him either.
Post by Donald4564
As to violent feminists - one must remember that the whole feminist
business was greatly helped along by another Australian - a frumpy
woman called Germaine Greer who wrote a book called "The Female
Eunuch".
I love Germaine Greer! (As a young Protestant Scandinavian male, I've
been kind of indoctrinated to view feminist godesses as the equivalent
of the Virgin Mary: Trying to bring out the best and most chivalrous
in us men.)
Donald4564
2011-02-16 02:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Sir
Post by Donald4564
Les Patterson, the cultural attache at large. I have seen people
exactly like him in real life. Shudder, shudder.
Oh, good God, what a character!
I find it surprising that Sir Les Patterson is known of in Norway! Do
you know the other character "Sandy Stone"? He is another of my
favourites.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Oh, "The King's Speech" must be especially dear and interesting to you
then.
Oh yes in many ways. My father was on the Australasian tour with the
Prince of Wales in 1920 - so there was that element as well.
Post by Zwartendÿk
I love Germaine Greer!
There is no accounting for taste! Most of us consider her to be an old
bag. She now lives in England and comes out here occasionally poking
her nose into things, causing a stir then retreating back to old
blighty.
Post by Zwartendÿk
(As a young Protestant Scandinavian male, I've
been kind of indoctrinated to view feminist godesses as the equivalent
of the Virgin Mary: Trying to bring out the best and most chivalrous
in us men.)
I've never really understood what it is that women actually want and I
don't think they do either. I still stand up when they enter the room
and open doors for them and all that sort of thing. I have been told
off by the more ardent feminists but I don't think I will be changing
my manners on account of them.

Having said this - I am fully behind equality and if some women wish
to become bricklayers or tow-truck drivers - that's OK with me. Once
upon a time we used to call this sort of woman a lesbian? Nicht wahr?
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-16 02:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
I find it surprising that Sir Les Patterson is known of in Norway! Do
you know the other character "Sandy Stone"? He is another of my
favourites.
No, he isn't. I just looked at him on Youtube. But I got a Proustian
sense of deja-vu, so perhaps he was occassionally included in the Dame
Edna shows broadcast in Norway.
Sandy Stone I've never seen before. But I found this clip of Germaine
Greer saying he's her Barry Humphries character!

Post by Donald4564
I've never really understood what it is that women actually want and I
don't think they do either.
Some time ago I realized something cute about both sexes' dark rape
fantasies. It is often said that male rapists fantasize about their
victims actually wanting it and enjoying it. Women also have rape
fantasies, about being raped by exactly the hot stranger they'd want
to have sex with anyway if they dared to admit it. But if both parties
wanted it, it wouldn't be rape, LOL!
Post by Donald4564
Having said this - I am fully behind equality and if some women wish
to become bricklayers or tow-truck drivers - that's OK with me. Once
upon a time we used to call this sort of woman a lesbian? Nicht wahr?
Lol, like Queen Victoria, I am rather ignorant about lesbians, so I
wouldn't know. BTW the other day I watched "The Secret Diaries of Miss
Anne Lister", about a real upper-class lesbian in Regency Britain. A
very interesting movie.
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-16 02:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
But I found this clip of Germaine
Greer saying he's her Barry Humphries http://youtu.be/-qkbWgtiVwU
favourite B.H. character, of course.
Windemere
2011-02-16 15:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Zwartendÿk
Greer saying he's her Barry Humphries http://youtu.be/-qkbWgtiVwU
favourite B.H. character, of course.
Actually, record-players (with their ability to play 'ancient' vinyl
records) have acquired something of a mystique among modern teenagers,
and are highly prized acquisitions.
Zwartendÿk
2011-02-24 19:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Since this topic originally was about an issue closely related to the
abdication crisis and why have touched different cultural aspects, I
must mention that I think it's awfully insular for many Anglophones to
go on and on about the Dutchess of Windsor and her case as a singular
event without comparing her to the Princess de Réthy, or comparing
Edward VIII to Leopold III.

It's startling how little many Britons know about Belgium, considering
its their closest Continental neighbour and they went to war to
preserve it in 1914.

David
2011-02-15 03:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
It is linked, both positively and negatively, to petit-bourgeois
values, yes.
I thank you for up-dating my faded memory and confirming my
recollections.
Post by Zwartendÿk
It has started to amuse me that our looks-obsessed age worships
another category of well-born people, beautiful people, just as much
if not more than former Biedermänner worshipped their Hoch-und-
Wohlgeborene superiors. (In the Scandinavian languages høy/høj/hög,
i.e. hoch or high, also means "tall", so many models could certainly
be styled Hennes Høybårenhet - Her Highbornness!)
Could we thus find new titles such as "His Ugliness"? I quite like
this and it could cover quite a wide ground. (grin) On the other hand
you could have "Her Most Beautiful" which on occasion could warrant a
slap across the face when used in bars and taverns.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I suppose that when I was little and living in Germany and Austria I
must have been surrounded by a lot of Herr Grafs.
Graf Gudenus aka edespalais? :-)
I have never wrung the wrist of this blighter. I daresay if we ever
did meet it would resemble the dialogues of the deaf in that I have
never really understood any of his messages on here. (He probably
hasn't understood mine either)
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I think that my German now is frightfully "altmodisch" because I still
use words like "funk" and "fernsprecher" both of which have been given
over to the English equivalent.
Lol, I certainly have to think twice about those words, I've only
encountered them in connection with WW2.
Yes, well even my English is now considered archaic my modern
standards - I don't seem to use words like "dude" or "cool" or any of
the other idioms thrust upon us from across the pond. I even refuse to
use "radio" preferring the British/Australian term "wireless". I am
thought of as rather quaint - but it bothers me not.
Well, both words are "slang" (of the 1910s, roughly speaking);
"wireless" is short for "wireless telegraph" (i.e., a machine that
transmits and/or receives telegrams without the aid of a telegraph
wire) and "radio" is short for "radiotelegraph" (i.e., a machine that
transmits and/or receives telegrams by means of "rays" - Latin
'radii'). You may recall that it was possible to transmit Morse Code
signals (in the form of bursts of static) via radio waves years before
it was possible to transmit the human voice ("radiotelephony" or
"wireless telephony").

Neither one is particularly "quaint" (as both are about the same age);
but in the United Kingdom, as well as the United States (and I believe
in Australia as well) by far the most common word in use is "radio".
Now that "wireless" has been pressed into service (aptly) to refer to
'electronic' communications using some part of the electromagnetic
spectrum as medium, the use of "wireless" to refer to radiotelegraphy/
radiotelephony is likely to cause confusion.
Donald4564
2011-02-15 04:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Donald4564
Post by Zwartendÿk
It is linked, both positively and negatively, to petit-bourgeois
values, yes.
I thank you for up-dating my faded memory and confirming my
recollections.
Post by Zwartendÿk
It has started to amuse me that our looks-obsessed age worships
another category of well-born people, beautiful people, just as much
if not more than former Biedermänner worshipped their Hoch-und-
Wohlgeborene superiors. (In the Scandinavian languages høy/høj/hög,
i.e. hoch or high, also means "tall", so many models could certainly
be styled Hennes Høybårenhet - Her Highbornness!)
Could we thus find new titles such as "His Ugliness"? I quite like
this and it could cover quite a wide ground. (grin) On the other hand
you could have "Her Most Beautiful" which on occasion could warrant a
slap across the face when used in bars and taverns.
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I suppose that when I was little and living in Germany and Austria I
must have been surrounded by a lot of Herr Grafs.
Graf Gudenus aka edespalais? :-)
I have never wrung the wrist of this blighter. I daresay if we ever
did meet it would resemble the dialogues of the deaf in that I have
never really understood any of his messages on here. (He probably
hasn't understood mine either)
Post by Zwartendÿk
Post by Donald4564
I think that my German now is frightfully "altmodisch" because I still
use words like "funk" and "fernsprecher" both of which have been given
over to the English equivalent.
Lol, I certainly have to think twice about those words, I've only
encountered them in connection with WW2.
Yes, well even my English is now considered archaic my modern
standards - I don't seem to use words like "dude" or "cool" or any of
the other idioms thrust upon us from across the pond. I even refuse to
use "radio" preferring the British/Australian term "wireless". I am
thought of as rather quaint - but it bothers me not.
Well, both words are "slang" (of the 1910s, roughly speaking);
"wireless" is short for "wireless telegraph" (i.e., a machine that
transmits and/or receives telegrams without the aid of a telegraph
wire) and "radio" is short for "radiotelegraph" (i.e., a machine that
transmits and/or receives telegrams by means of "rays" - Latin
'radii').  You may recall that it was possible to transmit Morse Code
signals (in the form of bursts of static) via radio waves years before
it was possible to transmit the human voice ("radiotelephony" or
"wireless telephony").
Neither one is particularly "quaint" (as both are about the same age);
but in the United Kingdom, as well as the United States (and I believe
in Australia as well) by far the most common word in use is "radio".
Now that "wireless" has been pressed into service (aptly) to refer to
'electronic' communications using some part of the electromagnetic
spectrum as medium, the use of "wireless" to refer to radiotelegraphy/
radiotelephony is likely to cause confusion.
Well, one knew all of this of course (grin). I still like to use
"wireless" though as I do the word "gramophone" . It is I who is
regarded as quaint - perhaps because of my chosen vocabulary not
because of that vocabulary in itself.

Can't see how there can be a confusion about "I heard it on the
wireless" with "Do you have wireless internet". Horses of entirely
different colours.

Regards
Donald Binks
David
2011-02-15 12:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Well, one knew all of this of course (grin). I still like to use
"wireless" though as I do the word "gramophone" . It is I who is
regarded as quaint - perhaps because of my chosen vocabulary not
because of that vocabulary in itself.
Can't see how there can be a confusion about "I heard it on the
wireless" with "Do you have wireless internet". Horses of entirely
different colours.
Perhaps not in those sentences, but how about "I get all my news from
wireless"? There would seem to be plenty of opportunities for
semantic intersection.

"Gramophone" was not originally a generic term for a phonograph, but a
trademark of the "Gramophone Company". The use of "gramophone" for
phonograph is like calling a bandage a "band-aid" or a piece of
hygienic tissue paper a "kleenex".

For people of my age and class, the item in question is neither a
gramophone nor a phonograph, but a record player; for people somewhat
younger than myself, it is neither gramophone, phonograph, nor record
player, but a musty instrument of uncertain function only seen in
museums (where it is, no doubt, soon to be joined by the compact disc
player).
Donald4564
2011-02-16 02:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Perhaps not in those sentences, but how about "I get all my news from
wireless"?  There would seem to be plenty of opportunities for
semantic intersection.
I daresay - but most people would say either "I got my news off the
wireless" or "I got my news off the Internet" I hain't heard nobody
use "wireless" instead of saying "internet" - maybe you can be the
first and have your own brand of quaintness?
Post by David
"Gramophone" was not originally a generic term for a phonograph, but a
trademark of the "Gramophone Company".  The use of "gramophone" for
phonograph is like calling a bandage a "band-aid" or a piece of
hygienic tissue paper a "kleenex".
I think that was because His Master's Voice had a virtual monopoly on
making gramophones and gramophone records for such a long time that it
became part of the language - much the same as gramophone was known in
the United Snakes as the Victrola - Victor Records being the U.S.,
brand name of His Master's Voice.

Do you honestly go around asking people if they have a "hygienic
tissue paper"?
Post by David
For people of my age and class, the item in question is neither a
gramophone nor a phonograph, but a record player; for people somewhat
younger than myself, it is neither gramophone, phonograph, nor record
player, but a musty instrument of uncertain function only seen in
museums (where it is, no doubt, soon to be joined by the compact disc
player).
I act as an educative impulse for people of your age - I suppose
you'll be telling me next that you don't know what a Wurlitzer organ
is? (grin)

I still play my gramophone by the way. It is an electric machine I
bought in the 1980's and I still play 78's as well as LP's - I have
never thrown anything out....

Regards
Donald Binks
Chris Pitt Lewis
2011-02-15 20:01:12 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by Donald4564
Post by David
Post by Donald4564
Yes, well even my English is now considered archaic my modern
standards - I don't seem to use words like "dude" or "cool" or any of
the other idioms thrust upon us from across the pond. I even refuse to
use "radio" preferring the British/Australian term "wireless". I am
thought of as rather quaint - but it bothers me not.
Well, both words are "slang" (of the 1910s, roughly speaking);
"wireless" is short for "wireless telegraph" (i.e., a machine that
transmits and/or receives telegrams without the aid of a telegraph
wire) and "radio" is short for "radiotelegraph" (i.e., a machine that
transmits and/or receives telegrams by means of "rays" - Latin
'radii').  You may recall that it was possible to transmit Morse Code
signals (in the form of bursts of static) via radio waves years before
it was possible to transmit the human voice ("radiotelephony" or
"wireless telephony").
Neither one is particularly "quaint" (as both are about the same age);
but in the United Kingdom, as well as the United States (and I believe
in Australia as well) by far the most common word in use is "radio".
Now that "wireless" has been pressed into service (aptly) to refer to
'electronic' communications using some part of the electromagnetic
spectrum as medium, the use of "wireless" to refer to radiotelegraphy/
radiotelephony is likely to cause confusion.
Well, one knew all of this of course (grin). I still like to use
"wireless" though as I do the word "gramophone" . It is I who is
regarded as quaint - perhaps because of my chosen vocabulary not
because of that vocabulary in itself.
Can't see how there can be a confusion about "I heard it on the
wireless" with "Do you have wireless internet". Horses of entirely
different colours.
Regards
Donald Binks
I never could understand, as a child, why it was called a wireless when
it needed a wire to plug it into the electric socket on the wall. And
why, when we finally got one that didn't need to be plugged in, it
wasn't called a wireless, but a transistor radio.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
Donald4564
2011-02-16 02:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
I never could understand, as a child, why it was called a wireless when
it needed a wire to plug it into the electric socket on the wall. And
why, when we finally got one that didn't need to be plugged in, it
wasn't called a wireless, but a transistor radio.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
You have hit upon the marvelousness of the English language which must
confuse foreigners no end. (How wonderful).

Regards
Donald Binks
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...