Re: "Classic 001.jpg" yEnc (1/1) 238312 bytes
HMS Victor Victorian
<nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>On 06 Nov 2008 20:49:10 GMT, victorvict...@hushmail.com (HMS
>Victor Victorian) wrote:
>
>>Classic 001.jpg
>
>These are Classic indeed. This one, of the Law hounding nude bathers,
>as is the one with the female whip-brandishing termagant in demoniacal
>pursuit of unclad urchin swimmers by the Thames(?), is a very famous &
>not infrequently published one, captured by an outstanding
>photographer some time back, shortly after the Romans left. These
>kids, Dickensian waifs & strays, who may have spent days in factories,
>mines or up chimneys, have the audacity to dive into the rivers of the
>city without "full-body coverage!!!! What an outrage to Victorian
>morals!!!!! These wicked 8 year olds.
>
>I think it should be shoved in the face of today's hysterical lynch
>mobs, who do not see children as they really are through the blinkers
>of their pit-bull intolerance!
>
>Thanks for allowing these to re-surface here, & during these benighted
>times.
>
>Mephi
Yes. I believe the photographer was Angle or Saxon, using the
wet-plate method, an old but dependable technology for use along
bodies of water, particularly, in this case, the Serpentine.
Now, photographing nude boys was perfectly acceptable in late
Victorian times, and personally codified by Her Majesty, Herself in
royal edict--youthful enthusiasm reminding her of her own dear Albert,
lost many decades hence--provided of course, one did not photograph
their penises or testicles.
For that, one was required to be an Italian photographer.
Cheers,
VV
God Save the Queen!
God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
Rule Britannia!