Page 21 of 53 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 1046
  1. #401
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sending my thoughts and prayers to the people of Elliott Lake :(
    Age
    41
    Posts
    5,283
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I can't see it not being streamed live. Not in this day and age. I'm sure that's part of the details that are still being ironed out.

  2. #402
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sending my thoughts and prayers to the people of Elliott Lake :(
    Age
    41
    Posts
    5,283
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Really interesting article up over at The Daily Mail about the very first Royal Tour of an English Prince to the Middle East...

    Daily Mail ~ The first EVER photographs of a Royal tour: Banished to the Holy Land after a notorious sex scandal, Edward VII spent his days smoking and shooting crocodiles before returning home... with a tattoo

    The pictures that go w/this are the truly amazing part of it. These were some of the first pictures of the Great Pyramid of Giza and other Holy Places in the Middle East and also The Acropolis in Athens. They are truly fascinating and form what will be two up coming exhibits. First at the Palace of Holyrood House in Scotland and then at Buckingham Palace. I'd love to be able to go to one of these exhibits, as these are just incredable, can you imagine what the entire collection is like?

    Also...Now take this w/a grain of salt, but if true then...

    Now Magazine = Prince William to present Kate Middleton with her own sparkly new tiara when she's a mum

    As I said...Take it w/a grain of salt.

    The Daily Mail is also reporting that Kate will be taking on three new Patronages and they will be announced w/in the month. She will also be undertaking her first Engagement since visiting St. Andrews just before the Announcement of the little one on the way and her going into Hospital on the 19th. Which is Tuesday. Not too much longer to wait and she'll be visiting one of Action on Addiction's programs.

    Now in much sadder news...

    BBC News ~ North Wales ~ North Wales RAF serviceman named among Scots avalanche victims

    An RAF serviceman based in North Wales was one of three people killed in an avalanche in the Scottish Highlands yesterday. He has been named by Northern Constabulary as Rimon Than, 33, a squadron leader based at RAF Valley, North Wales.
    For those wondering the connection, RAF Valley is Prince William's current base where he is working as a Search and Rescue Pilot.


  3. #403
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sending my thoughts and prayers to the people of Elliott Lake :(
    Age
    41
    Posts
    5,283
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Button down the hatches and get ready for a slew of articles and photos tomorrow. It's finally almost here. Kate's first engagement since being hospilitzed for that form of severe morning sickness (Not even going to try and spell that thing...) and the Announcement of the Baby News.

    It would not shock me in the slightest if the media isn't already camped out in some manner near the Action on Addiction facility she's visiting tomorrow.

    Still....Very much looking forward to seeing Kate out and about again on Her Majesty's Service.

  4. #404
    Mad for mangelwurzels
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Failing to grow a forest in the desert
    Posts
    10,329
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    62450
    Booker Prize winning author Hilary Mantel, who wrote Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies, makes her feelings about Kate quite plain:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21502937

    Multi award-winning author Hilary Mantel has compared the Duchess of Cambridge to a "shop-window mannequin" with "no personality of her own".

    In an address to the London Review of Books Lecture at the British Museum, Mantel described the duchess as "gloss varnished" with a "plastic smile".
    Be with me always—take any form—drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you! Oh, God! it is unutterable! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!"

  5. #405

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,387
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by orientalplane View Post
    Booker Prize winning author Hilary Mantel, who wrote Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies, makes her feelings about Kate quite plain:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21502937
    And did she base this opinion on any real life interaction with the Duchess, or on media reports and her own imagination?

    She sounds insufferable.

  6. #406
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,079
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3730
    What a bitch.

  7. #407

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    12,933
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17196
    What gives her the right to say such things?
    For all her "success", could she be jealous of the Duchess of Cambridge?

  8. #408

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Refusing to perform on demand
    Posts
    14,447
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1779
    It seems her comments were more complex:

    http://news.yahoo.com/tabloid-slams-...122552877.html

    Mantel's speech, reprinted this week in the London Review of Books, was about the British public's complex relationship with royalty over the centuries — a relationship both symbiotic and voyeuristic.

    The speech looked at the way the public and the press glorify and destroy royals, from Anne Boleyn to Princess Diana, casting them in roles and stories in which "adulation can swing to persecution, within hours."

    ...

    It quoted Mantel's speech at length, though did not note that Mantel was describing what she saw as a view of Kate constructed by the press and public opinion.

    ...

    Others argued that Mantel's real target was not Kate, but the press. On the Daily Telegraph website, journalist Catherine Scott said Mantel's speech was "an attack on how some parts of the media canonize royal women ... while also rendering them voiceless and purposeless."

    ...

    Mantel said Diana "passed through trials, through ordeals at the world's hands." Prince Harry "doesn't know which he is, a person or a prince" — a confusion Harry himself recently remarked on.

    And Kate, whose first child is due in July, finds herself cast by the press as someone whose "only point and purpose (is) to give birth."

    Of the royal family, she said that "however airy the enclosure they inhabit, it's still a cage."

    Mantel ended her speech — ironically, given the media furor — with a plea for us all "to back off and not be brutes."
    Creating drama!

  9. #409

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    12,933
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17196
    The Duchess is hardly a naive, uneducated fool; or "dupe" of the Royal Family.
    If Mantel intended to "shame" the press by her comments; she may have had quite the opposite effect.

  10. #410
    snarking for AZE
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    vera ellen's turtleneck museum
    Posts
    29,860
    vCash
    2068
    Rep Power
    22794
    i like the wrap dress kate has on today. it looks like every dress i wore to work when i left the house to work. also, the little bit of extra weight in the face is flattering.
    I feel like I'm in a dream. But it can't be a dream because there are no boy dancers!

  11. #411
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,079
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3730
    Quote Originally Posted by skatesindreams View Post
    If Mantel intended to "shame" the press by her comments; she may have had quite the opposite effect.
    Exactly. For an award winning author, she's not much of a communicator - the point she's trying to make is obscure at best, and repeating negative views of Kate just serves to prolong the very thing she's apparently against. Reminds me of that recent Rex Reed rant on Melissa McCarthy - in what may be a well intentioned effort my media outlets and other celebrities to defend Melissa and shame Rex, the things he said were repeated over and over, thus adding life to his words and doing no favours to Melissa.

    And, I'll argue that the author is perhaps spending a bit too much time in centuries past, and has a one-dimensional and dated view of the media's relationship with Kate and the current royals, and for that matter how the royals work the press and in fact go around them using social media quite effectively. A great deal has changed since Diana's day.

  12. #412
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Macondo
    Posts
    3,323
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skatesindreams View Post
    What gives her the right to say such things?
    It's called freedom of speech. The British instituted it some time after the U.S. broke away.

    Here's a link to the text and a recording of Mantel's speech: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies

    Here's the bit about the Duchess of Cambridge:

    Antoinette as a royal consort was a gliding, smiling disaster, much like Diana in another time and another country. But Kate Middleton, as she was, appeared to have been designed by a committee and built by craftsmen, with a perfect plastic smile and the spindles of her limbs hand-turned and gloss-varnished. When it was announced that Diana was to join the royal family, the Duke of Edinburgh is said to have given her his approval because she would ‘breed in some height’. Presumably Kate was designed to breed in some manners. She looks like a nicely brought up young lady, with ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ part of her vocabulary. But in her first official portrait by Paul Emsley, unveiled in January, her eyes are dead and she wears the strained smile of a woman who really wants to tell the painter to bugger off. One critic said perceptively that she appeared ‘weary of being looked at’. Another that the portrait might pass muster as the cover of a Catherine Cookson novel: an opinion I find thought-provoking, as Cookson’s simple tales of poor women extricating themselves from adverse circumstances were for twenty years, according to the Public Lending Right statistics, the nation’s favourite reading. Sue Townsend said of Diana that she was ‘a fatal non-reader’. She didn’t know the end of her own story. She enjoyed only the romances of Barbara Cartland. I’m far too snobbish to have read one, but I assume they are stories in which a wedding takes place and they all live happily ever after. Diana didn’t see the possible twists in the narrative. What does Kate read? It’s a question.

    Kate seems to have been selected for her role of princess because she was irreproachable: as painfully thin as anyone could wish, without quirks, without oddities, without the risk of the emergence of character. She appears precision-made, machine-made, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture. Diana was capable of transforming herself from galumphing schoolgirl to ice queen, from wraith to Amazon. Kate seems capable of going from perfect bride to perfect mother, with no messy deviation. When her pregnancy became public she had been visiting her old school, and had picked up a hockey stick and run a few paces for the camera. BBC News devoted a discussion to whether a pregnant woman could safely put on a turn of speed while wearing high heels. It is sad to think that intelligent people could devote themselves to this topic with earnest furrowings of the brow, but that’s what discourse about royals comes to: a compulsion to comment, a discourse empty of content, mouthed rather than spoken. And in the same way one is compelled to look at them: to ask what they are made of, and is their substance the same as ours.
    Although Mantel does say elsewhere in the speech

    And then the queen passed close to me and I stared at her. I am ashamed now to say it but I passed my eyes over her as a cannibal views his dinner, my gaze sharp enough to pick the meat off her bones. I felt that such was the force of my devouring curiosity that the party had dematerialised and the walls melted and there were only two of us in the vast room, and such was the hard power of my stare that Her Majesty turned and looked back at me, as if she had been jabbed in the shoulder; and for a split second her face expressed not anger but hurt bewilderment.
    the irony of the part that I have quoted in boldface appears lost on her.

  13. #413

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    12,933
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17196
    I didn't need the reminder --- or the comment, Vagabond.

  14. #414

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Refusing to perform on demand
    Posts
    14,447
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1779
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Exactly. For an award winning author, she's not much of a communicator - the point she's trying to make is obscure at best, and repeating negative views of Kate just serves to prolong the very thing she's apparently against.
    And that justifies calling her a b*tch?
    Creating drama!

  15. #415
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,079
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3730
    I said that based on the initial reports of her remarks, before I read a few more detailed articles. Now I'm just calling her a bad communicator

  16. #416

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Refusing to perform on demand
    Posts
    14,447
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1779
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    I said that based on the initial reports of her remarks, before I read a few more detailed articles. Now I'm just calling her a bad communicator
    So, that's a no?
    Creating drama!

  17. #417
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sending my thoughts and prayers to the people of Elliott Lake :(
    Age
    41
    Posts
    5,283
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Getting away from those nasty snide and vicious remarks by someone who obviously has been immersed in the Past for a bit too long...

    BTW...Someone w/a BA in History of Art, which is known as one of the toughest BA's to achieve according to Family Friends who teach at a University in the US, is anything but dumb or naive and certainly knows what's what in the World. Someone who has won two Booker Prizes *should* have known better IMO.

    On that note....I happened to mention over at TRF that I thought the Palace dropped the ball a wee bit w/today's Engagement because all we heard was that Kate was visiting Hope House, an Action on Addiction project, and that was it. Nothing about what the place does to help those women deal w/and come to terms w/their addiction/s. Only that Kate was visiting the place due to it being part of Action on Addiction's work.

    Okay then...As it turns out, they have a very successful Art Therapy program and have actually helped one of their "graduates" to end up w/having one of her plays being produced and another one is in the process of being produced. So, since one of Kate's known causes so far is that Art can help those w/problems to deal w/their emotions and/or situation, as her Patronage of The Art Room has shown.

    So...All I said was, I thought the Palace PR had dropped the ball a wee bit by not saying that Hope House has this great program and this is part of the reason Kate was visiting. It ties in w/the Art Room patronage perfectly and this proves that HRH does believe Art can help turn someone's life around, not to mention giving badly needed exposure to the Program at Hope House, which could be only help them in the long run.

    However, was any of this mentioned by the Palace? No, and I felt it was a missed chance to both highlight one of the Duchess' causes that she believes in and also to give the program at Hope House a shot in the arm. After all, isn't one of the "points" in Martel's "essay" that we know nothing about Kate other than she's a Barbie doll w/no thoughts of her own?

    I have since been told off that I'm completely off base and there was no need to "justify" Kate's visit today. Not to mention the expected comparison to Diana I obviously gave someone an excuse to do.

    I never said she needed to "justify" the visit. However, w/certain Press "people" going on and on about just what does Kate believe in or stand for and then Martel's rather nasty "essay", the Palace had a perfect chance w/this visit to do just that. They didn't, I feel they missed a golden chance to do just that and I still stand by what I think : On a PR stand point, they dropped the ball a wee bit.

    Now as to what was actually the focus of the visit, how Kate looked ( ) , I thought she looked gorgeous!! The added weight really has done wonders for her and combine that w/her glowing and I thought she just looked incredable. Also smart to wear a wrap dress. That's one of those things that look good on just about everyone and she can also wear it again after the baby comes as well. Very wise considering Britain's economic recovery is still wobbly.

    Some links...

    Hello ~ Kate admits pregnancy nerves as she returns to work with baby bump

    Telegraph ~ Duchess of Cambridge admits being nervous about giving birth

    That also has video of the visit along w/it. My favourite part of that one though...

    As she left the centre, the Duchess was presented with a posy of roses by Hugo Woodward, nine, and his sister Serena, seven, whose family are major donors to the charity.

    The Duchess was told that today is Hugo’s birthday, and she said: “Oh! Are you doing anything special?”

    His mother Katie said: “Yes. He’s here!”

  18. #418

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    12,933
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    17196
    ^^^
    I hope Hugo will remember the day, with pleasure.

  19. #419

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,382
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1941
    Has anyone actually read the entire Mantel speech? I somehow think it's become tabloid fodder without these so called journalists understanding what Mantel actually had to say. This article provides a nice summary.

    I think the issue is that the media chose to publish a very tiny part of her speech, and in doing so took it out of context. The actual speech isn't that bad at all.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  20. #420
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,079
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3730
    What I don't understand is where Mantel - and the writer of that article for that matter - is getting her ideas of what the media and the public supposedly think of Kate.

    I don't think that it's generally true that media and the public think Kate is a doll or mannequin, has "no personality of her own," or is "entirely defined by what she wears." And I don't know what this "set of threadbare attributions" is that we've supposedly "draped" her in as a mother to be.

    The writer of the article then shares a bunch of sweeping generalizations of her own, saying that Mantel is criticizing "the role we have all squeezed her into." What exactly is that role, and does she really believe it's something we "all" have perpetrated?

    The author also says that "we're all addicted to salacious royal gossip," and I really don't think that's true. In fact, I do believe that much of the interest that Kate attracts is in fact the opposite - it is the very lack of salaciousness that makes her attractive to many.

    And I don't think this point is "apparent" at all:
    In 2013 it is scandalous that we are all apparently fine with a tertiary-educated, worldly and mature duchess with no power to express herself other than via her choice of fashion.
    Last edited by Jenny; 02-20-2013 at 09:29 PM.

Page 21 of 53 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •