Whodunnit?
Martha Tassi
barely saw a twinkle of jewelry on the royal throats, ears, wrists and
fingers. Each of those women has access to Serious Jewelry. Why aren't
they wearing it? Not that they have to be dripping with diamonds like those
cascading Christmas lights, but you'd think the royal baubles would get an
airing.
-Martha
=================
loki
Not currently fashionable.
Loki
Martha Tassi
"loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a3etee$v7e$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
-----------------------
> Not currently fashionable.
>
> Loki
>
>
===============
BITE YOUR TONGUE!!!!! Diamonds with formal evening dress are always
fashionable! Note I didn't say "why don't they drape themselves like
little girls playing dress up". These women are in possession of most
beautiful and historic jewels - why aren't they wearing some of them for a
beautiful and historic occassion?
-Martha
==============
Kenneth Stuart Green
Not only that, but what a terrible waste of potential
resources. Think of all the good that could be done for the
common people were the crown jewels sold and the money put
to *productive* use. Nothing productive is currently
realized by having such resources tied up in purely
decorative objects. Would the monarchy be in any way
lessoned as a result? I think not, in fact I think by doing
so they would be elevated by the people.
Kenneth Stuart Green
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:ZWC68.45624$Ig2.12...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
Sorry to disagree with you again Martha but I have to agree
that at this moment in time they are NOT fashionable; NOT
because they don't look nice, sure they do, BUT they are not
fashionably thought of in today's world of starving people
throughout the world, people in dire straights etc. To
dress up like Queen Mary (the dowager queen that is) would
be a definite public relations nightmare.
I restate, sell the bloody things and do something good for
the common people.
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
Royals don't do Gala that often. We should see all the loot on display
for Märtha Louise's wedding.
Tomorrow we will have to be content at laughing at the funny hats.
--
Susan T
This Just In! - Links to the latest on-line articles about the Royals
http://croneprincess.home.att.net/news.html
Martha Tassi
> Susan T
===========
I know they aren't doing the tiara thing unless it's either "gala" or a
state occasion. What about SOME kind of earring, bracelet or necklace?
Again, I'm not talking about looking like a Christmas tree just some
personal ornamentation.
-Martha
===========
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
to have seen Marie-Chantal decked out in gems AND that dress.
Martha Tassi
"Susan T" <cronep...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16c4cd5af...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
=========
Perhaps some jeweled fruit on her head?
-Marhta
=========
Kenneth Stuart Green
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
they who? I've lost track of who we are talking about here,
the British royals or the Dutch royals? If the British,
again I think it would be in poor taste...
Susan Cohen
Kenneth Stuart Green wrote:
> "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:a3etee$v7e$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote
> >
> > > Okay - where are the jewels? We saw the pictures of the
> world's royals
> > and
> > > barely saw a twinkle of jewelry on the royal throats,
> ears, wrists and
> > > fingers. Each of those women has access to Serious
> Jewelry. Why aren't
> > > they wearing it? Not that they have to be dripping with
> diamonds like
> > those
> > > cascading Christmas lights, but you'd think the royal
> baubles would get an
> > > airing.
> >
> > Not currently fashionable.
> >
> > Loki
> >
> >
>
> Not only that, but what a terrible waste of potential
> resources. Think of all the good that could be done for the
> common people were the crown jewels sold and the money put
> to *productive* use.
Well, I may have to revise my opinion of who's trolling and who isn't.
Or are you completely unaware that you are discussing destroying
historical artifacts?
I say, let's all go to the Smithsonian, break into the jewel cases in
the Museum of Natural Histiry and sell everything we can find.
And once someone else has the jewlry, we can let Kenneth tell
*them* *they* have to sell it to feed the poor...... Hey, this could
get to be quite an enterprise!!
The jewelry is going to be owned by *someone* - far better to be
*not* the personal property of one or a few people, but the symbol
of a nation.
SusanC
felix
"Kenneth Stuart Green" <kgr...@albedo.net> wrote in message
news:3c5a...@news.sentex.net...
>
> "Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
> news:ZWC68.45624$Ig2.12...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com
> are always
> > fashionable! Note I didn't say "why don't they drape
> themselves like
> > little girls playing dress up". These women are in
> possession of most
> > beautiful and historic jewels - why aren't they wearing
> some of them for a
> > beautiful and historic occassion?
> >
> > -Martha
> > ==============
> >
> >
>
> Sorry to disagree with you again Martha but I have to agree
> that at this moment in time they are NOT fashionable; NOT
> because they don't look nice, sure they do, BUT they are not
> fashionably thought of in today's world of starving people
> throughout the world, people in dire straights etc. To
> dress up like Queen Mary (the dowager queen that is) would
> be a definite public relations nightmare.
>
> I restate, sell the bloody things and do something good for
> the common people.
>
>
>
potential philanthropic use. Fact is, all of this jewellry exists; much (if
not most) of it was acquired by previous generations; and much (if not most)
isn't sellable anyhow because it is - literally - priceless. How would you
determine the cash value? Do you factor in the history of the owners?
Would every royal house carry the same weight in the valuation, or do you
have a factor for the degree of decorum or scandal each house provides?
IMHO, one just needs to look at these jewels as beautiful objects, worn to
adorn, and not try to attempt to put a price tag or a moral significance on
them.
Judy
Susan Cohen
Kenneth Stuart Green wrote:
> I restate, sell the bloody things and do something good for
> the common people.
And what are you going to do to the rich people who buy them?
And how are you going to replace the historical value of the
artifcats you want to break up?
SusanC
Kenneth Stuart Green
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
LOL
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
Kenneth Stuart Green
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
news:3C5B0426...@hers.com...
I think the symbol of a nation should be something ethereal,
something abstract, some set of values or statement of
principles rather than something material like gems,
historical or otherwise. I didn't say destroy them, I said
sell them. As to our cultural heritage in museums, I think
they are fine as long as they are public. In your example
we could have our cake and eat it too; sell the gems to
public museums and spend the proceeds on the poor and
suffering. If sold to private individuals, I have no
problem with that either; it's what is done with the money
and the fact that valuable resources be no longer tied up
that concerns me.
Kenneth Stuart Green
I would do *nothing* to the rich people who buy them, why
would I?
I would replace the gems with statements of principles etc
(as previously posted) to become the new symbols of the
crown. Symbols need not be physical, why can they not be
ethereal?
Kenneth Stuart Green
"felix" <fel...@home.dotcom> wrote in message
news:DxD68.20830$gd.46...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...
not so, there are many rich people who may purchase the gems
who do not do other potentially philanthropic things with
their money
> Fact is, all of this jewellry exists; much (if
> not most) of it was acquired by previous generations; and
much (if not most)
> isn't sellable anyhow because it is - literally -
priceless. How would you
> determine the cash value?
That's easy... in any market value is always determined by
the buyer. There is an old saying that goes something like
"a thing is only worth whatever someone is willing to give
you for it" In that vein, nothing is truely priceless.
>Do you factor in the history of the owners?
Nah
> Would every royal house carry the same weight in the
valuation, or do you
> have a factor for the degree of decorum or scandal each
house provides?
>
> IMHO, one just needs to look at these jewels as beautiful
objects, worn to
> adorn, and not try to attempt to put a price tag or a
moral significance on
> them.
I'm not saying they are not beautiful, and that they do not
look lovely when worn, I'm saying let someone else buy and
wear them and do something morally, ethically, and
spiritually correct with the money to the betterment of
mankind; a higher more valuable course of action than
keeping a bunch of rocks on display.
>
> Judy
>
>
Martha Tassi
And we can't lose sight of the fact that these jewels are family heirlooms.
No family should be made to sell their heirlooms to spend the proceeds
funding another person's ideals.
-Martha
P.S. If "Granny's Chips" go on the market I've got dibs.
==========
Martha Tassi
> =========
> Ooooooo. Those apples and pears arsty-crafty people cover with beads.
>
> --
> Susan T
>
> This Just In! - Links to the latest on-line articles about the Royals
> http://croneprincess.home.att.net/news.html
=========
Give me a tiara any day.
-Martha
=========
His Jadedness
>
>I know they aren't doing the tiara thing unless it's either "gala" or a
>state occasion. What about SOME kind of earring, bracelet or necklace?
>Again, I'm not talking about looking like a Christmas tree just some
>personal ornamentation.
>
>-Martha
>===========
Exactly! These are royalty damnit and should look the part- not some silly
society matrons attending the annual country club dinner.
--
His Jadedness, Andy- The Armchair Genealogist, OK(jmh)
"PK-The Media Whore of Usenet, Diana is dead-Long Live PK!"
His Jadedness
>Maybe Queen Beatrix specified "no jewelry" on the invitations? I'd hate
>to have seen Marie-Chantal decked out in gems AND that dress.
>
>--
>Susan T
ok- on that one you DO have a point!
Andrea Martell
> I would do *nothing* to the rich people who buy them, why
> would I?
>
> I would replace the gems with statements of principles etc
> (as previously posted) to become the new symbols of the
> crown. Symbols need not be physical, why can they not be
> ethereal?
i think I have to agree with a fellow Canadian here at least to some degree.
I think its people that matter, and not jewels and such. While all those
artifacts may be priceless, I believe that people both the ones who are
wearing them, and the ones who are not are far more priceless. A life has
far more value to it, than a piece of stone which only has the value we
choose to give it.
History is riddled with great families and royals who have wound up fleeing
for their lives, and their jewels have wound up at auctions and antique
shops. Seems to me its better to sell 'em to serve the nation, then for the
nation to serve you up on a platter eventually for one reason or another.
I sometimes think of the Romanovs and all the stuff that was sold off after
the revolution..which was more important: the people, or the jewels
themselves?
I also agree its not the appropriate time for it. People who wind up dancing
at balls bedecked in jewels while a country mourns wind up dead..or so
history has shown...
I know this wasn't all expressed correctly, but oh well. I tried.
Martha Tassi
> i think I have to agree with a fellow Canadian here at least to some
degree.
> I think its people that matter, and not jewels and such. While all those
> artifacts may be priceless, I believe that people both the ones who are
> wearing them, and the ones who are not are far more priceless. A life has
> far more value to it, than a piece of stone which only has the value we
> choose to give it.
>
> History is riddled with great families and royals who have wound up
fleeing
> for their lives, and their jewels have wound up at auctions and antique
> shops. Seems to me its better to sell 'em to serve the nation, then for
the
> nation to serve you up on a platter eventually for one reason or another.
>
> I sometimes think of the Romanovs and all the stuff that was sold off
after
> the revolution..which was more important: the people, or the jewels
> themselves?
>
> I also agree its not the appropriate time for it. People who wind up
dancing
> at balls bedecked in jewels while a country mourns wind up dead..or so
> history has shown...
>
> I know this wasn't all expressed correctly, but oh well. I tried.
>
>
============
Stalin sold the Romanov jewels, but all that money did nothing to help the
Russian people. Many of the jewels and Fabrege eggs wound up in the
private collection of Marjorie Merriwether Post. So they went from the
Royal family to a wealthy family and not one poor person was helped in the
process.
By the way, I didn't know the Netherlands was mourning.
-Martha
============
felix
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> And we can't lose sight of the fact that these jewels are family
heirlooms.
> No family should be made to sell their heirlooms to spend the proceeds
> funding another person's ideals.
>
> -Martha
Thank you Martha - THAT is what I was trying to say!
Judy
Andrea Martell
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
>
> Stalin sold the Romanov jewels, but all that money did nothing to help the
> Russian people. Many of the jewels and Fabrege eggs wound up in the
> private collection of Marjorie Merriwether Post. So they went from the
> Royal family to a wealthy family and not one poor person was helped in the
> process.
I was speaking more of the remaining Romanov's and other emigres forced to
sell their jewels in order to live....
>
> By the way, I didn't know the Netherlands was mourning.
Perhaps not, but right now with the war, and what happened in New York and
Washington and the consequences of it, its not exactly the time to be
showing off the jewels. I think thats what everyone is referring to.
Martha Tassi
the
> > Russian people. Many of the jewels and Fabrege eggs wound up in the
> > private collection of Marjorie Merriwether Post. So they went from the
> > Royal family to a wealthy family and not one poor person was helped in
the
> > process.
>
> I was speaking more of the remaining Romanov's and other emigres forced to
> sell their jewels in order to live....
>
>
> >
> > By the way, I didn't know the Netherlands was mourning.
>
> Perhaps not, but right now with the war, and what happened in New York and
> Washington and the consequences of it, its not exactly the time to be
> showing off the jewels. I think thats what everyone is referring to.
>
>
>
I don't think wearing an heirloom necklace/earring set indicates callousness
towards the calamity that hit New York. More of a "we're still standing" is
how I see it. While all countries and cultures should, I believe, support
peace and prosperity for all it just won't be negatively effected by a royal
wearing jewels to a formal evening event. Just my opinion, of course.
-Martha
========
Martha Tassi
> heirlooms.
> > No family should be made to sell their heirlooms to spend the proceeds
> > funding another person's ideals.
> >
> > -Martha
>
> Thank you Martha - THAT is what I was trying to say!
>
> Judy
>
>
No charge, Judy.
-Martha
=====
Martha Tassi
> >Give me a tiara any day.
> >
> >-Martha
> >=========
> >
>
> --
> Sacha
> (remove spamtrap)
=======
My daughter has her dress-up stuff all over the living room right now. I
think I'll borrow her tiara. The one with the REALLY big stones and the
matching sparkly earrings. Or do you think that by doing so I prevent a
family in a third world country from finding food?
-Martha
========
Martha Tassi
> > I know they aren't doing the tiara thing unless it's either "gala" or a
> > state occasion. What about SOME kind of earring, bracelet or necklace?
> > Again, I'm not talking about looking like a Christmas tree just some
> > personal ornamentation.
> >
> > -Martha
> > ===========
> >Maybe Queen Beatrix specified "no jewelry" on the invitations? I'd hate
> >to have seen Marie-Chantal decked out in gems AND that dress.
>
> you said it. It's not usual to specify no jewellery. ''Black tie"
> indicates what the men should wear and that indicates what the women
> will wear. It's 'informal' in the strictest sense. That's what makes
> me wonder if there's to be a white tie ball at which everything will
> be worn including sunglasses to cut the glare. ;-) Tiaras for women
> and black ties for men isn't/ain't usual.
> --
> Sacha
> (remove spamtrap)
============
If you can't wear your jewels why bother going?
-Martha
============
Charlene Rauch
especially like dressing up, told Bobo after a particularly splashy banquet
(tiara,necklace, earrings, bracelets, various orders, etc), "Well, I gave
them my best bits!" It'd be like seeing Dolly Parton with her true face to
see a royal attender with no sparklies! By the way, what are the different
orders and who gets them?
"His Jadedness" <agh...@aol.comte.jade> wrote in message
news:20020201171424...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Martha Tassi
"Charlene Rauch" <ra...@enter.net> wrote in message news:0cH68.47
> I agree with you, Martha--I recall reading a story about how QE, who
doesn't
> especially like dressing up, told Bobo after a particularly splashy
banquet
> (tiara,necklace, earrings, bracelets, various orders, etc), "Well, I gave
> them my best bits!" It'd be like seeing Dolly Parton with her true face to
> see a royal attender with no sparklies! By the way, what are the different
> orders and who gets them?
========
Excellent question. There's the Order of the Garter.
Anyone???
-Martha
========
Charlene Rauch
pinned to a sash and backed by pastel watered silk ribbons. They seem to be
miniature portraits and I understand they are the personal gifts of the
sovereign, but who is entitled to wear them, and what happens to them after
the giftee dies? Are they returned or inherited?
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:GoH68.46263$Ig2.12...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
Charlene Rauch
those miniature portrait things that one always sees pinned to a sash,
backed by a pastel watered silk ribbon. I believe they are gifts from the
sovereign, but who gets them and what happens to them after the giftee dies?
Are they returned or are they inherited? For instance, QE currently wears
one of her father. Does anyone else have one? Will it be passed on or
retired when the Queen (God prolong the day!) also 'retires'?
"Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:GoH68.46263$Ig2.12...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
>
JFlexer
>
> "Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:a3etee$v7e$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > "Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote
<SNIP>
> > > > but you'd think the royal baubles would get an airing.
> > >
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> >
> > > Not currently fashionable.
> > >
> > > Loki
> > >
> > >
> > ===============
> >
> > BITE YOUR TONGUE!!!!! Diamonds with formal evening dress
> are always
> > fashionable! Note I didn't say "why don't they drape
> themselves like
> > little girls playing dress up". These women are in
> possession of most
> > beautiful and historic jewels - why aren't they wearing
> some of them for a
> > beautiful and historic occassion?
> >
> > -Martha
> > ==============
> >
> >
>
> Sorry to disagree with you again Martha but I have to agree
> that at this moment in time they are NOT fashionable; NOT
> because they don't look nice, sure they do, BUT they are not
> fashionably thought of in today's world of starving people
> throughout the world, people in dire straights etc. To
> dress up like Queen Mary (the dowager queen that is) would
> be a definite public relations nightmare.
>
> I restate, sell the bloody things and do something good for
> the common people.
>
Sorry to disagree, but I hang with Martha on this one... There is an
expectation that the royals turn themselves out in a dignified manner as a
representative of their proud, successful, prosperous nations. As the Head
of State, a monarch must be a manifestation of the reputation of their
country to the world.
regarding the British monarch jewels, for example:
A large part of the jewelry collection Martha is referring to is privately
owned by the Queen - she is under no particular compulsion to sell it and
donate the money to the poor than Ivana Trump.
If the Queen so desires, she could make a cash donation to the poor that
would be greater than the cash value of the jewels... they're worth a
lot... but not enough to save the world's impoverished...
Additionally, the Queen gives far more money to the government every year by
way to the income derived from the Crown Estates and the Duchy of
Lancaster...
The part of the jewelry collection that is owned by the state she is not at
liberty to dispose. Further, most of that jewelry is significantly involved
with the rituals of coronation. The government of UK would not be inclined
to sell those pieces, as they are so heaped in tradition that many citizen
would be outraged...
the historical value of these pieces are such that the government would most
likely dispose of them by donating or selling them to a museum... many of
them would be priceless... literally
again, the amount of money raised would be substantial, as you or I might
measure finance, but miniscule in the eyes of a first-world nation's budget.
So Martha, let's send a telegram: "Ladies... Drag out the Rocks!"
-J
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
Susan T
sa...@nospamgarden506.fsnet.co.uk says...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 21:01:29 GMT, Susan T
<cronep...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In article <GhD68.45631$Ig2.12...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>,
you said it. It's not usual to specify no jewellery. ''Black tie"
indicates what the men should wear and that indicates what the women
will wear. It's 'informal' in the strictest sense. That's what makes
me wonder if there's to be a white tie ball at which everything will
be worn including sunglasses to cut the glare. ;-) Tiaras for women
and black ties for men isn't/ain't usual.
--
Sacha
(remove spamtrap)
=========
birthday, so I think it was sort of a two-fer-one celebration. And
Beatrix doesn't much care for wearing her tiaras.
Today the guests attended a concert, and tomorrow the civil ceremony is
a 10:00 am and I believe the religious ceremony is at 11:30 am. So
like I said in an earlier post, we will have to wait until Martha
Louise's wedding. And that's assuming that hers follows the same dress
code as Haakons (tiaras and orders at a 5:00 pm ceremony followed by the
wedding dinner followed by the ball).
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
redecorated.
Susan T
says...
I was thinking more of the family orders, the ones that you always see
pinned to a sash and backed by pastel watered silk ribbons. They seem to be
miniature portraits and I understand they are the personal gifts of the
sovereign, but who is entitled to wear them, and what happens to them after
the giftee dies? Are they returned or inherited?
Madeleine and Victoria of Sweden were wearing miniature portraits of
their father.
Martha Tassi
Let's do that. And we should all go back to wearing tiaras when we post.
Gentlemen may wear a sash and medals.
-Martha
==============
Martha Tassi
> =========
>
> Give me a tiara any day.
>
> -Martha
> =========
> A tiara would not have helped Marie Chantal's dress.
>
> --
> Susan T
>
==========
No, we're back to the jeweled fruit again.
-Martha
==========
Martha Tassi
=============
That and laugh at some of the dresses. I suppose there's always the
backstairs lottery on whether or not Ernst will pee on something. Gotta be
present to collect, just in case.
-Martha
============
Martha Tassi
> Susan T
========
In that case I'm glad I sent my regrets.
-Martha
========
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
that bad. Hopefully the hats will be more assuming tomorrow. Though
Beatrix will have to go some to top the "wedding cake" hat she wore to
Constantijn and Laurentien's wedding.
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
wedding. The ceremony begins at 4:00 AM on the East Coast. This Crone
intends to watch wearing her jammies and slippers.
Martha Tassi
==========
Suit yourself. I'll be wearing my Imperial Crown, sash and medals,
ballgown, jeweled slippers and will be wielding the Imperial Hammer.
-Martha
==========
Martha Tassi
>
> That and laugh at some of the dresses. I suppose there's always the
> backstairs lottery on whether or not Ernst will pee on something. Gotta
be
> present to collect, just in case.
>
> -Martha
> ============
> Exactly. Though I have to say that most of the gowns weren't really
> that bad. Hopefully the hats will be more assuming tomorrow. Though
> Beatrix will have to go some to top the "wedding cake" hat she wore to
> Constantijn and Laurentien's wedding.
>
> --
> Susan T
>
> This Just In! - Links to the latest on-line articles about the Royals
> http://croneprincess.home.att.net/news.html
==========
Always have faith, Susan. They never disappoint us when it comes to the
hats.
-Martha
==========
Susan T
mta...@Home.com says...
Linda Jocelyn
> Okay - where are the jewels? We saw the pictures of the world's royals
and
> barely saw a twinkle of jewelry on the royal throats, ears, wrists and
> fingers. Each of those women has access to Serious Jewelry. Why aren't
> they wearing it? Not that they have to be dripping with diamonds like
those
> cascading Christmas lights, but you'd think the royal baubles would get an
> airing.
>
> =================
Maybe they have all decided that the stock market is a better investment now
that the commonfolk don't agree on their tax free state and government
handouts and they need a better return on their holdings ie jewelry etc
Linda
>
Susan T
sa...@nospamgarden506.fsnet.co.uk says...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 02:47:15 GMT, Susan T
tiara, nobody else could. What a great shame but obviously she wanted
a more informal event and tiaras would have made it white tie and just
generally 'starchier'.
>
>Today the guests attended a concert, and tomorrow the civil ceremony is
>a 10:00 am and I believe the religious ceremony is at 11:30 am. So
>like I said in an earlier post, we will have to wait until Martha
>Louise's wedding. And that's assuming that hers follows the same dress
>code as Haakons (tiaras and orders at a 5:00 pm ceremony followed by the
>wedding dinner followed by the ball).
>
wedding. ;-))
--
Sacha
==============
The Scotsman has a really vicious article about Beatrix and Maxima,
written by somebody in Berlin, of all places. Sounds like his sources
were the German tabloids, because he's claiming that Beatrix hates
Maxima.
Here's an excerpt:
The Dutch monarch has ordered a strict dress code for Ms Zorreguieta’s
friends, fearing that they will dress inappropriately. All the bride’s
female guests have had to submit their dress sizes to the queen’s
secretary so outfits of "decorum" can be made for the occasion, it was
revealed yesterday.
"She wanted muted tones, apparently, and said that Maxima’s friends
would dress too flashily," a friend told the German mass-market
newspaper Bild.
IF this is true, too bad Beatrix didn't say anything to Marie-Chantal
(or maybe she did and M-C was telling her where she could go with her
muted colors.)
The article also claims that Beatrix wanted her son to marry Victoria of
Sweden and that Victoria was once Willem-Alexander's girlfriend! Um,
maybe the German tabloids are stupid enough to think that two heirs
would be allowed to marry, but somehow I doubt Beatrix is that dumb.
The article also claims Prince Claus is Willem-Alexander's STEP-Father,
so that let's you know just how reliable the rest of the article is.
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=125782002
Edwin Garrett
> Think of all the good that could be done for the
>common people were the crown jewels sold and the money put
>to *productive* use. Nothing productive is currently
>realized by having such resources tied up in purely
>decorative objects. Would the monarchy be in any way
>lessoned as a result? I think not, in fact I think by doing
>so they would be elevated by the people.
"Mary brought a pound of very costly perfume,
pure oil of nard. . .
At this Judas. . . said. . . Why was this perfume
not sold for thirty pounds and given to the poor?"
Edwin Garrett
Martha Tassi
> national debt of several countries.
> --
> Sacha
> (remove spamtrap)
==========
Then I shall do my service to humanity and not go shoe shopping today with
my daughter.
-Martha
==========
Martha Tassi
> rocks do that might come later. ;-)
> --
> Sacha
> (remove spamtrap)
===========
Well, there's jewelry and there's Jewelry. And a girl does need some of
both.
-Martha
===========
Martha Tassi
======
Was this article supposed to be a farce?
-Martha
======
Charlene Rauch
I'm reading the book "The Royal Jewels" by Suzy Menkes and just wondered
about those family orders.
"Sacha" <sa...@nospamgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7njn5uc56mruilahh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 01:42:27 GMT, "Charlene Rauch" <ra...@enter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I was thinking more of the family orders, the ones that you always see
> >pinned to a sash and backed by pastel watered silk ribbons. They seem to
be
> >miniature portraits and I understand they are the personal gifts of the
> >sovereign, but who is entitled to wear them, and what happens to them
after
> >the giftee dies? Are they returned or inherited?
> >
> <snip>
>
> It sounds as if you might mean the one in the Queen's personal gift.
> The one she gives to royal ladies? Orders are given to the
> individual so they're not inherited.
> From the royal website:
> "ROYAL FAMILY ORDERS
>
> George IV started the formal practice of presenting Family Orders, or
> portraits of the Sovereign set in diamonds suspended from a ribbon.
> Before 1820, the Sovereign's portrait set in a jewelled frame had been
> worn by both ladies and gentlemen at Court, and especially by female
> members of the Royal family.
>
> George IV's successors continued this practice, with most sovereigns
> presenting jewelled portraits of themselves suspended on different
> coloured ribbon for each monarch - that of George V was white, that of
> George VI was rose pink, and The Queen's is chartreuse yellow.
>
> The Orders are now worn on formal occasions by female members of the
> Royal family only. The Queen and her sister, The Princess Margaret,
> were given their awards by their father, George VI, and both wore them
> as young girls at the coronation of their parents in 1937. More than
> one Order can be worn at the same time - for example, Queen Elizabeth
> The Queen Mother wears the Orders of both The Queen and George VI."
>
> If you click on this link: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page500.asp
> it will show you one of the Orders and link you to others, too.
>
> --
> Sacha
> (remove spamtrap)
truebrit
Edwin Garrett wrote in message ...
"Business!" cried the Ghost.
"Mankind *was* my business. The common welfare was my business; charity,
mercy, forbearance and benevolence were, all, my business."
The Ghost brought forth two children. They were a boy and girl. . .They
stood shaking beneath the robe. . ."Spirit! are they yours?" "No, they are
yours. . .This boy is Ignorance. This girl is want. Beware of them both, for
on their brow is written the word *doom*. They spell the downfall of you
and all who deny their existence."
Brilliant!
Mrs H
>
>
truebrit
truebrit wrote in message ...
robe. . ."Spirit! are they yours?" "No, they are
MANS. . .This boy is Ignorance. This girl is want. Beware of them both, for
>on their brow is written the word *doom*. They spell the downfall of you
>and all who deny their existence."
>
>Brilliant!
>Mrs H
Meant to add that the warning in this passage from A Christmas Carol, is
just as important as it was in Dickens' time. IMO
Susan Cohen
Kenneth Stuart Green wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3C5B0426...@hers.com...
> >
> >
> > Kenneth Stuart Green wrote:
> >
> > > "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a3etee$v7e$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > "Martha Tassi" <mta...@Home.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Okay - where are the jewels? We saw the pictures of
> the
> > > world's royals
> > > > and
> > > > > barely saw a twinkle of jewelry on the royal
> throats,
> > > ears, wrists and
> > > > > fingers. Each of those women has access to Serious
> > > Jewelry. Why aren't
> > > > > they wearing it? Not that they have to be dripping
> with
> > > diamonds like
> > > > those
> > > > > cascading Christmas lights, but you'd think the
> royal
> > > baubles would get an
> > > > > airing.
> > > >
> > > > Not currently fashionable.
> > > >
> > > > Loki
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not only that, but what a terrible waste of potential
> > > resources. Think of all the good that could be done for
> the
> > > common people were the crown jewels sold and the money
> put
> > > to *productive* use.
> >
> > Well, I may have to revise my opinion of who's trolling
> and who isn't.
> > Or are you completely unaware that you are discussing
> destroying
> > historical artifacts?
> > I say, let's all go to the Smithsonian, break into the
> jewel cases in
> > the Museum of Natural Histiry and sell everything we can
> find.
> > And once someone else has the jewlry, we can let Kenneth
> tell
> > *them* *they* have to sell it to feed the poor...... Hey,
> this could
> > get to be quite an enterprise!!
> > The jewelry is going to be owned by *someone* - far better
> to be
> > *not* the personal property of one or a few people, but
> the symbol
> > of a nation.
> >
> > SusanC
> >
>
> I think the symbol of a nation should be something ethereal,
> something abstract, some set of values or statement of
> principles rather than something material like gems,
> historical or otherwise.
Then why do you keep going on about Diana, who was the antithesis
of the values and statement of principles that the monarchy embodies?
> I didn't say destroy them, I said
> sell them.
As they are now, they are unsellable.
> As to our cultural heritage in museums, I think
> they are fine as long as they are public.
Which is precisely how the Crown Regalia is displayed.
> In your example
> we could have our cake and eat it too; sell the gems to
> public museums and spend the proceeds on the poor and
> suffering
No, in my example, we would not be selling them at all.
In the example you claim is mine, the huge flaw is that by
*selling* them to museums, we take money that could be
used in salvaging some other important piece of history
and waste it by taking something that doesn't need to be
removed from where it is.
> . If sold to private individuals, I have no
> problem with that either;
Except, of course, for the loss of cultural heritage - *and*
the fact that if you insist that private ownership deprives
the masses, then no matter who holds the gems, you
will complain.
> it's what is done with the money
> and the fact that valuable resources be no longer tied up
> that concerns me.
I'd be willing to bet that the revenue generated by *generations*
of tourism (do you know how many people troop through the
Tower to see those things?) is astronimically more than could
be generated by *any* *one* sale.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
Edwin Garrett wrote:
I remember watching "Jesus Christ SuperStar" (your
quote reminded me of a scene that particularly jit me
right between the eyes) and thinking, "No wonder the
Church has condemned this - it makes Jesus out to
be a flaky priss and Judas out to be a tortured good
samaritan!"
SusanC
Susan Cohen
SusanC
Martha Tassi
> Russell & Bromley's ears! ;-))
> --
> Sacha
> (remove spamtrap)
========
Just for today. The stores are open again tomorrow.
-Martha
========
Martha Tassi
>
> Hadn't you heard Martha, we're supposed to be selling everything and
giving it
> to the poor. It must be some sort of strange pre-lenten thing - either
that or
> his next mission is working for the "Shinning Path".
>
> Edwin
=============
While I don't have jewelry anywhere near the scale of royal jewels, I do
have a few very nice things that were left to me. I defy any entity to
tell me I can't keep them in the family by handing them down to my daughter.
-Martha
=============
>
Wull
Talk about grappling with a Kraken.
Wull
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
K. Green
I don't *go on* about her, I simply made a few posts
expressing my opinion
>
> > I didn't say destroy them, I said
> > sell them.
>
> As they are now, they are unsellable.
then take the gems out of their settings first, simple
enough done
>
> > As to our cultural heritage in museums, I think
> > they are fine as long as they are public.
>
> Which is precisely how the Crown Regalia is displayed.
>
> > In your example
> > we could have our cake and eat it too; sell the gems to
> > public museums and spend the proceeds on the poor and
> > suffering
>
> No, in my example, we would not be selling them at all.
> In the example you claim is mine, the huge flaw is that by
> *selling* them to museums, we take money that could be
> used in salvaging some other important piece of history
> and waste it by taking something that doesn't need to be
> removed from where it is.
why does the one have to exclude the other? Patrons of the
arts are always buying up items which they then donate to
museums for the benefit of the public
>
> > . If sold to private individuals, I have no
> > problem with that either;
>
> Except, of course, for the loss of cultural heritage -
*and*
> the fact that if you insist that private ownership
deprives
> the masses, then no matter who holds the gems, you
> will complain.
that's simply no so
>
> > it's what is done with the money
> > and the fact that valuable resources be no longer tied
up
> > that concerns me.
>
> I'd be willing to bet that the revenue generated by
*generations*
> of tourism (do you know how many people troop through the
> Tower to see those things?) is astronimically more than
could
> be generated by *any* *one* sale.
>
> SusanC
>
now on that one you may have a point, I can't think of a
good argument for that... good thinking!
hugs
Karen Horn
:
: Perhaps not, but right now with the war, and what happened in New York and
: Washington and the consequences of it, its not exactly the time to be
: showing off the jewels. I think thats what everyone is referring to.
And why the hell NOT? Did you sell your car, house, family jewels and
stop living?
Karen
K. Green
"Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
news:3c5d4ea1$0$85044$e2e...@nntp.cts.com...
I'm not sure why but I feel like Alice looking through the
looking glass, I always seem to see the opposite
perspective... anyway here goes...
you suggest that in distancing themselves from their gems
for awhile they 'stop living'... I see it quite the
reverse... by separating themselves from their gems they
indicate to the people that they hold higher principles and
values as more valuable, and hence 'start living'... (in a
higher sense)
Karen Horn
:
: "Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
NUTS!!!! That is STUPID. The more you change your life on account
of dirtbag terrorists, the more they have "won."
What EARTHLY good would it do for the jewels to sit in a box rather
than around someone's throat or wrist or head? They're still there.
Only tree hugging assholes like you want to play "let's pretend."
I bet you voted for that dirtbag Clinnochio because you hallucinated
he "felt your pain." You're a sucker.
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: That and laugh at some of the dresses. I suppose there's always the
: backstairs lottery on whether or not Ernst will pee on something. Gotta be
: present to collect, just in case.
:
: -Martha
: ============
:
Ernst was invited? Or did the cat drag him in?
Karen
Karen Horn
: ============
: Exactly. Though I have to say that most of the gowns weren't really
: that bad. Hopefully the hats will be more assuming tomorrow. Though
: Beatrix will have to go some to top the "wedding cake" hat she wore to
: Constantijn and Laurentien's wedding.
NOTHING can be worse than what Anne wore to Charles's wedding. I thought
Diana looked hideous enough, but Anne outdid her. She looked like
a scrambled egg explosion.
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: I'd be willing to bet that the revenue generated by *generations*
: of tourism (do you know how many people troop through the
: Tower to see those things?) is astronimically more than could
: be generated by *any* *one* sale.
Exactly, not that that imbecile Kenneth can grasp that on the box
of air which is taking the place where his brain should be. PErhaps
he sold THAT to help the poor and enfeebled, forgetting of course,
that when he did that he'd be brain dead.
Anyway, Kenny is depriving some village of an idiot.
Karen
K. Green
listen sweetheart!! read my reply to her, I said on that
she had a good point, I said on that, that I could not think
of a good argument, I gave her congrats on that for 'good
thinking'
I might be an 'imbecile' as you put it, but it appears that
you have no reading or comprehension skills
Wull
I do not read a lot of posts so I may have missed whatever
it is that lit your fuse. I have read enough of his to know
that the remarks are undeserved.
Also, I do not get some posts, as the first time I read them
is in an answer from some other poster.
I find your put downs toward Ken to be abominable. Unless
maybe you do not comprehend the meaning of imbecile, idiot
and brain dead.
If you don't like the guy, or don't like what he says, that
is your prerogative. I say that to people a lot myself.
Your cuts are to the core. I do find that to be quite
scathing for a professed "Catholic".
Have a nice day
Wull
Karen Horn wrote:
>
> Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
> :
> :<snot deleted>
> :
>
> Exactly, not that that imbecile Kenneth can grasp that on the box
> of air which is taking the place where his brain should be. PErhaps
> he sold THAT to help the poor and enfeebled, forgetting of course,
> that when he did that he'd be brain dead.
>
> Anyway, Kenny is depriving some village of an idiot.
>
> Karen
Susan Cohen
Karen Horn wrote:
> NOTHING can be worse than what Anne wore to Charles's wedding
Oh, no - Marie Chantal's dress topped it. Really.
SusanC
Karen Horn
:
:
:
:> NOTHING can be worse than what Anne wore to Charles's wedding
:
: Oh, no - Marie Chantal's dress topped it. Really.
:
: SusanC
:-D Well, I suppose you can get the bowls of milk out for us.
Meow! Plain milk, or would you like chocolate?
Karen
:
:> . I thought
:
Karen Horn
: Your cuts are to the core. I do find that to be quite
: scathing for a professed "Catholic".
:
: Have a nice day
: Wull
Well, I never claimed not to be a bitch sometimes!
KAren
:
Karen Horn
: Well, leave it to Hornoccio to take a difference of opinion and turn it
: into another of her foul-mouthed tirades.
:
: Regards,
:
: slm
Drop dead, you cowardly asshole.
:
:
: "Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
: news:3c5da6bf$0$495$e2e...@nntp.cts.com...
:
:
Karen Horn
:
: "K. Green" <kgr...@albedo.net> wrote in message
: news:3c5d...@news.sentex.net...
:>
:> "Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
:>
:>
:
:
: Poor Hornoccio has no social skills either. A most pitiful creature is she!
:
: Kind Regards,
:
: slm
:
:
:
:
Go shit on yourself you contortionist.
Karen Horn
: I'm afraid poor Hornoccio is a Catholic in name only. By her example she is
: an embarrassment to the Church.
:
: Kind regards,
:
: slm
You're an embarrassment to the bitch who whelped you and the pimp
that fathered you.
:
:
: "Wull" <gug...@sinamail.com> wrote in message
: news:3C5DB2F9...@datarecall.net...
:> I think this might be my first post to you Karen.
:
:
Ken Green
Karen, Karen. Remember, love thy neighbor
Karen Horn
: My Dear Hornoccio,
:
: Why don't you work on your vocabulary. Maybe you could learn to make your
: points in a civilized manner. Of course that won't happen will it, you
: pathetic little misfit.
:
: Kind regards,
:
: slm
When you can post your bullshit from a non hotmail account, then
I and only then will I treat you like a person. Go fuck yourself,
Steve.
:
:
: "Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
: news:3c5f1d50$0$41966$e2e...@nntp.cts.com...
:> :
:
: