Charles has gone 'sour' on Highgrove
pk4...@yepmail.net
Bowles was always rumpling her sheets when she was away.
"The Prince, his £8m & Highgrove, a home he no longer loves -
2005/06/25 19:30
The Prince, his £8m, and a home he no longer loves
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
26 June 2005 The Independent
He still proudly surveys its glorious organic gardens, but for Prince
Charles, the dream that was Highgrove has turned sour. First the
marriage that was meant to flourish there came crashing to a bitter
end. Now his financing of the estate is under the microscope.
Little wonder the Prince's affections have shifted, towards Birkhall,
the residence on the edge of Balmoral left to him by the Queen Mother.
It is where he honeymooned with the Duchess of Cornwall. It is there he
likes to escape the metropolitan media glare.
And yet the shadow of Highgrove stalks him. Today's revelation that
Prince Charles has paid himself around £8m in rent since the Duchy of
Cornwall bought the estate is just the latest in a series of "creative
accounting" procedures raising eyebrows. "
FJae
Unbelievable! Well he can turn it over to the public,
Spoilt stupid man. He brought it on himself.
pk4...@yepmail.net
No wonder a couple of months ago we heard how he wanted William to have
it !
Too slippery by half !!
thom...@nyc.rr.com
pay themselves rent?? Ridiculous.
volcaran
pk4...@yepmail.net wrote:
> It's not really his anymore.
Of course it is not his, it is owned by the Duchy.
>..not if he owes 8 mil toward it !
He owes nothing - he has legitimately paid a market rent.
> No wonder a couple of months ago we heard how he wanted William to have
> it !
If William "had it". William would pay rent to the Duchy or they would
have to buy it back.
FJae
that will.
volcaran
FJae wrote:
> the point is he is not using it anymore..so hand it over to someone
> that will.
It would be a point if it was true but it isn't.
Danny
>I shouldn't call others 'slippery' if I were you.....and how can anyone
>pay themselves rent?? Ridiculous.
I own my office, yet I pay rent for it - not riduculous.
thom...@nyc.rr.com
the annexe-which is not new or recent by the way-shows what the
Independent actually knows) last week-end as supporters (International
Patrons) of HRH's Foundation...perhaps it was the neighbour's gardens
they had drinks in??
The Duchy of Cornwal is not a business but a Crown body...regulated by
law. Kindly see the website.
FJae
thom...@nyc.rr.com wrote:
> This will come as a surprise to my friends who dined at Highgrove (in
> the annexe-which is not new or recent by the way-shows what the
> Independent actually knows) last week-end as supporters (International
> Patrons) of HRH's Foundation...
I can direct them to much better Foundations if they like.
Although if they pay enough they would be invited to family social
events, if that is what they want...
thom...@nyc.rr.com
FJae wrote:
> I can direct them to much better Foundations if they like.
> Although if they pay enough they would be invited to family social
> events, if that is what they want...
They are on the boards of several important philantropic charities
already...I'm sure they don't need advice from you on 'much better
foundations'. They support The Prince of Wales's charitable eneavours
here in the US. I doubt whether you have a clue as to what they are.
And I'm sure they wouldn't want to join your family's social events!
Louis Epstein
: Diana did that more than 20 years ago when she found Mrs. Milly P.
: Bowles was always rumpling her sheets when she was away.
Since Charles got into an affair less than 20 years ago
(after Diana's dalliances with Manakee and Hewitt) this
is nonsense.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Coco
Good article, PK! Charlie is one tricky-dicky, and hopefully the
government will catch up with him, and bill him for the million, upon
millions, of pounds he has scammed off the public through his various
scams! I guess this is why he is under investigation so long, and not
just for the "Duchy" books trickery, but they are trying to keep it
quiet, Top Secret Folks!
Lux
better keep your filthy tongue off the World Trade Center as well.
Lux
her whoredom and homewrecking. [See the grass stains on their pajamas
story.] So Charles is not about to live there with her. William or
Harry should have it.
FJae
God sick or what...
fron the archives:
Anyway, grass stains equals sexual romp because that's what the valet
said it
equalled.
He stated that Prince Charles would meet Camilla in the gardens at
Highgrove
for a sexual tryst while Diana was sleeping inside Highgrove, leaving
grass
stains on the pajamas that he had to remove.
He said it, I read it, and I'm merely relaying it to the group.
FJae
and sacha said this abuot it!
Such spontaneity and joie de vivre!
FJae
clean the
grass stains off of the princes's pyjamas, after her and the leman had
been
doing it in the garden, while his wife slept upstairs. Both S. Barry
and
Stronach echo the same feeling that the Prince took large risks with
the woman,
but he is blind to everything {or addicted as Barry put it" when he is
with
her.
Sacha
1119885379.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Lux"
<luxpe...@aol.com> wrote:
> The Cow doesn't like to be at Highgrove because it reminds the world of
> her whoredom and homewrecking. [See the grass stains on their pajamas
> story.] So Charles is not about to live there with her. William or
> Harry should have it.
>
<snip>
The Prince of Wales lives at Highgrove, nonsensical gossip nothwithstanding.
And William and Harry could not, in any case, 'have' Highgrove because it
belongs to the Duchy and not to them or to the PoW. The administrators and
trustees of the Duchy would have to arrange any such change in the use of
Highgrove, not the Prince of Wales.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Danny
>
>and sacha said this abuot it!
>
>Such spontaneity and joie de vivre!
she'd know being who and what she is.
Q
"Lux" <luxpe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119885254.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Since you are a rewriter of history [read: liar], perhaps you had
> better keep your filthy tongue off the World Trade Center as well.
Why? Do you own it? -- Q
Louis Epstein
: Since you are a rewriter of history [read: liar], perhaps you had
: better keep your filthy tongue off the World Trade Center as well.
The truth is as I say,not as Dianamaniacs say.
I will continue my years-long struggle for proper
restoration of the WTC (see http://www.put.com/wtc/
for details).
:
Lux
Charles did not betray Diana. You are also the person who we in the US
should get a monarchy and a aristocracy. How goes it with the
counterrevolution, then? Maybe we should install a Winter Palace at
the site, with an open grassy field for our new tsar to shoot at the
peasants in.
Danny
>Oh, so you know not only how to properly restore the WTC, but also that
>Charles did not betray Diana. You are also the person who we in the US
>should get a monarchy and a aristocracy. How goes it with the
>counterrevolution, then? Maybe we should install a Winter Palace at
>the site, with an open grassy field for our new tsar to shoot at the
>peasants in.
and import some cows for good measure.
Brian Pears
>Since you are a rewriter of history [read: liar], perhaps you had
>better keep your filthy tongue off the World Trade Center as well.
What Louis wrote is completely true - Diana did have affairs
long before Charles had his single affair. Where's the
rewriting?
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
Brian Pears
>Oh, so you know not only how to properly restore the WTC, but also that
>Charles did not betray Diana. You are also the person who we in the US
>should get a monarchy and a aristocracy. How goes it with the
>counterrevolution, then? Maybe we should install a Winter Palace at
>the site, with an open grassy field for our new tsar to shoot at the
>peasants in.
Perhaps you should rewrite that when you are sober.
FJae
Her first documente affair was with hewitt, at the same time as the
tapes came on about camilla with charles, so no she didn't he had an
affair with CAmilla long before, haven';t you read the press there'sis
a a 30 year affair.
Brian Pears
>Her first documente affair was with hewitt, at the same time as the
>tapes came on about camilla with charles, so no she didn't he had an
>affair with CAmilla long before, haven';t you read the press there'sis
>a a 30 year affair.
Not a 30 year affair - a 30 year friendship. Charles' early
friendship with Camilla wasn't an "affair" as neither were
married. Their "affair" began after Diana started bedding
any male who took her fancy.
FJae
YOu were there were you?
The cufflinks said it all, if my husband brought along cufflinks a gift
from an ex for this wedding, having spent a night with her two to three
days before the wedding ya I would think he was having an affair
"whatever love is"
nice guy
Brian Pears
>YOu were there were you?
>The cufflinks said it all, if my husband brought along cufflinks a gift
>from an ex for this wedding, having spent a night with her two to three
>days before the wedding ya I would think he was having an affair
>"whatever love is"
>nice guy
Where does this "spent a night with her ..." nonsense come from?
It is, of course, rubbish.
Danny
Danny
wrote:
>FJae <f_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
back up yuor lies.
Danny
wrote:
>FJae <f_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
she spent the night with him on a train shortly before the wedding
while he was engaged - it has been widely reported. at the time, the
sun claimed it was diana when they knew it was not.
FJae
Bi Polar wants to save all the parts that further his argument and
repeat them until he really believes he is right.
Of course this was reported, i have seen it in print and on the tv.
The only thing that is rubbish is the small receptacle that he calls
home ...
Unfortunately for the neighborhood stray cats, as he has taken over
their ad hoc litter box.
Brian Pears
>Bi Polar wants to save all the parts that further his argument and
>repeat them until he really believes he is right. Of course this was
>reported, i have seen it in print and on the tv. The only thing that is
>rubbish is the small receptacle that he calls home ... Unfortunately
>for the neighborhood stray cats, as he has taken over their ad hoc
>litter box.
Once again Francesca attacks me, now using childish name-calling
and comments about my home which would put a five-year-old to
shame. Grow up you silly woman.
And as for her reasoning "i have seen it in print and on tv"
Wow! That's really conclusive isn't it? After all everything
in print is true, and everything on TV is absolutely correct!
What rubbish. It was scurrilous rubbish when it first appeared
in the trashy media and so it remains.
FJae
Brian Pears wrote:
> FJae <f_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Bi Polar wants to save all the parts that further his argument and
> >repeat them until he really believes he is right. Of course this was
> >reported, i have seen it in print and on the tv. The only thing that is
> >rubbish is the small receptacle that he calls home ... Unfortunately
> >for the neighborhood stray cats, as he has taken over their ad hoc
> >litter box.
>
> Once again Francesca attacks me, now using childish name-calling
No I was describing your home, if you are talking about me as that is
not my name.
> and comments about my home which would put a five-year-old to
> shame. Grow up you silly woman.
>
I know it would put anyone to shame, there must be a centrepoint type
place in Gateshead where you could say
> And as for her reasoning "i have seen it in print and on tv"
> Wow! That's really conclusive isn't it? After all everything
> in print is true, and everything on TV is absolutely correct!
Dismissing most english papers as being trash does not correlate with
the above statement.
> What rubbish. It was scurrilous rubbish when it first appeared
> in the trashy media and so it remains.
Whatever Brian, we GOSSIP here, that is what we do, if you don't like
go somewhere else.
volcaran
FJae wrote:
> Brian Pears wrote:
> > FJae <f_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Bi Polar wants to save all the parts that further his argument and
> > >repeat them until he really believes he is right. Of course this was
> > >reported, i have seen it in print and on the tv. The only thing that is
> > >rubbish is the small receptacle that he calls home ... Unfortunately
> > >for the neighborhood stray cats, as he has taken over their ad hoc
> > >litter box.
> >
> > Once again Francesca attacks me, now using childish name-calling
>
>
> No I was describing your home, if you are talking about me as that is
> not my name.
>
> > and comments about my home which would put a five-year-old to
> > shame. Grow up you silly woman.
> >
>
> I know it would put anyone to shame, there must be a centrepoint type
> place in Gateshead where you could say
Why would Brian want to live in a 1960's designed office block
(innovative as it was at the time)?
Danny
wrote:
>FJae <f_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
what in yuor tiny pea brained mind makes it true? confirmation from
Sacha and/or Pam?
the story is 100% true - nothing you say or do will change that you
silly old fool.
Breton
Breton
Danny
Breton
Brian Pears wrote:
> And as for her reasoning "i have seen it in print and on tv"
> Wow! That's really conclusive isn't it? After all everything
> in print is true, and everything on TV is absolutely correct!
> What rubbish. It was scurrilous rubbish when it first appeared
> in the trashy media and so it remains.
The trouble is that FJae, PK, Danny, Lux and the other worshippers
appear to be ready to believe anything that is printed by anyone about
anyone. Practically every post that PK makes, for instance, is
accompanied by a hyper link to some publication, trashy or not. It
seems she has a desperate need to prove to us that she is not making
something up.
Celebrity pursuit, particularly here in North America, has made a whole
generation, particularly women, notably more credulous that people
would normally be. Folks who usually have a healthy scepticism about
marketing ploys and the like suddenly lose all rationality when
confronted with something about someone famous. Their reasoning seems
to be "if it's in print, it must be right", or, "I saw it on the telly,
it must be true".
But the worshippers' credulity is selective. For instance, this week
there were (unsubstantiated) allegations that Diana had an affair with
JFk Jr. and that she tried cocaine. The woman has been dead for nearly
8 years, but - whatever. These activities (adultery and drug taking)
have been the subject of intense scorn by the worshippers when
attributed to folks they don't like (notably Camilla and her
offspring). The worshippers have posted countless times that these
activities make people worthless, whores, sluts, homewreckers, blah
blah. Notice, however, that when the sainted Diana is said to have
indulged in them (for instance, she was a serial adulterer), the
worshippers are either silent or blame Charles for the behaviour.
Readers and lurkers therefore beware: treat the anti- Charles and
Camilla posts with caution because they are likely not "gossip" in the
sense of speculating about the unknown, but rather attempts to present
"gossip" (malicious gossip) as fact.
Breton
Brian Pears
>Whatever Brian, we GOSSIP here, that is what we do, if you don't like
>go somewhere else.
No, you don't gossip, you lie, spin and otherwise misrepresent.
Q
"Breton" <royalis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119977049.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Brian Pears wrote:
>
> > And as for her reasoning "i have seen it in print and on tv"
> > Wow! That's really conclusive isn't it? After all everything
> > in print is true, and everything on TV is absolutely correct!
> > What rubbish. It was scurrilous rubbish when it first appeared
> > in the trashy media and so it remains.
>
> The trouble is that FJae, PK, Danny, Lux and the other worshippers
> appear to be ready to believe anything that is printed by anyone about
> anyone. Practically every post that PK makes, for instance, is
> accompanied by a hyper link to some publication, trashy or not. It
> seems she has a desperate need to prove to us that she is not making
> something up.
Surely it's better to do that, than to actually make things up.
>
> Celebrity pursuit, particularly here in North America, has made a whole
> generation, particularly women, notably more credulous that people
> would normally be. Folks who usually have a healthy scepticism about
> marketing ploys and the like suddenly lose all rationality when
> confronted with something about someone famous. Their reasoning seems
> to be "if it's in print, it must be right", or, "I saw it on the telly,
> it must be true".
That's why journalistic standards need to be higher, especially in the UK.
People should read the news critically, yes, but you cannot expect an
ordinary person to do her own research. We should be able to assume --
which we cannot do at the moment -- that what is printed in newspapers is
true.
>
> But the worshippers' credulity is selective.
Everybody's credulity is selective. There's been a mountain of tripe
published in the papers about nearly everybody.
>For instance, this week
> there were (unsubstantiated) allegations that Diana had an affair with
> JFk Jr. and that she tried cocaine. The woman has been dead for nearly
> 8 years, but - whatever. These activities (adultery and drug taking)
> have been the subject of intense scorn by the worshippers when
> attributed to folks they don't like (notably Camilla and her
> offspring). The worshippers have posted countless times that these
> activities make people worthless, whores, sluts, homewreckers, blah
> blah. Notice, however, that when the sainted Diana is said to have
> indulged in them (for instance, she was a serial adulterer), the
> worshippers are either silent or blame Charles for the behaviour.
>
> Readers and lurkers therefore beware: treat the anti- Charles and
> Camilla posts with caution because they are likely not "gossip" in the
> sense of speculating about the unknown, but rather attempts to present
> "gossip" (malicious gossip) as fact.
I think that every reader needs to be careful about that, not just readers
who support any one side. -- Q
>
> Breton
>
Louis Epstein
: On 27/6/05 16:16, in article
But surely the Prince heads the administration of the Duchy,
and will do so until William becomes Duke of Cornwall?
Louis Epstein
: On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:12:41 GMT, Brian Pears <bpe...@freenet.co.uk>
No...it's the truth Dianamaniacs lie about.
Camilla was not Charles's most recent ex-girlfriend at
the time of his engagement...and the "great love of my
life" business is frankly 20/20 hindsight on HIS part.
He didn't start an affair with her,he said,until his
"marriage had irretrievably broken down" (=Diana cheated),
and Diana didn't contradict that because she knew the
facts were against her.
FJae
WHO are you to provide a warning.
PS there should be a warning on the photo you have been circulating by
email of yourself, disgusting.
JFlexer
"Q" <Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote in message
news:42c02ed5$0$16779$bb4e...@newscene.com...
>
> "Lux" <luxpe...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1119885254.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Since you are a rewriter of history [read: liar], perhaps you had
> > better keep your filthy tongue off the World Trade Center as well.
>
Duxie,
Do yourself a favor - don't try to argue with Louis - he has more knowledge
about royalty in a little finger than you'll ever have...
When you dally with the folks at ATR, you're playing in the big leagues...
they'll eat you for a snack and call you indigestion...
-J
Breton
you to have one too?
Or have I missed something?
Breton
Jean Sue Libkind
Back from Alaska.... I see nothing has changed. I saw some lovely ice
floes upon which we could float "the girls."
js
Q
"Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.net> wrote in message
news:3ids93F...@individual.net...
But did you see any hungry polar bears? -- Q
>
> js
Jean Sue Libkind
> "Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.net> wrote in message
> news:3ids93F...@individual.net...
>>Back from Alaska.... I see nothing has changed. I saw some lovely ice
>>floes upon which we could float "the girls."
>
>
> But did you see any hungry polar bears? -- Q
Nope. Didn't go that far north. However, did see (and smell) a black
bear, whales, seals, sea lions, puffins, tufted puffins, mountain goats,
porpoises, sea otters, major glaciers (including one calving), but NO moose.
Traveled on a 4-seat airplane, a 6-seat airplane, two small day-cruise
boats, two small-ish prop planes, and spent an extra three days in
Toronto when I became ill on the way home. Himself fell and broke two
ribs within an hour of landing in Anchorage.
Yep, it was some trip!!!!
js
Q
> Q wrote:
> > "Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ids93F...@individual.net...
>
> >>Back from Alaska.... I see nothing has changed. I saw some lovely ice
> >>floes upon which we could float "the girls."
> >
> >
> > But did you see any hungry polar bears? -- Q
>
>
> Nope. Didn't go that far north. However, did see (and smell) a black
> bear, whales, seals, sea lions, puffins, tufted puffins,
I've always wanted to see live puffins. And what's the difference between a
seal and a sea lion?
>mountain goats,
> porpoises, sea otters, major glaciers (including one calving), but NO
moose.
>
> Traveled on a 4-seat airplane, a 6-seat airplane, two small day-cruise
> boats, two small-ish prop planes, and spent an extra three days in
> Toronto when I became ill on the way home.
Last time I traveled in one of those -- a bi-plane that I believe was made
in Ireland -- the overhead bins opened in unison the minute we were aloft,
spilling all of our cargo onto our heads. Also, the flight was at such a
low altitude that the passengers could follow its progress by watching the
roads beneath us.
>Himself fell and broke two
> ribs within an hour of landing in Anchorage.
That's not good. Is he okay? How about you? -- Q
Jean Sue Libkind
> "Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.net> wrote in message
> news:3idu9qF...@individual.net...
>
>>Q wrote:
>>
>>>"Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3ids93F...@individual.net...
>>
>>>>Back from Alaska.... I see nothing has changed. I saw some lovely ice
>>>>floes upon which we could float "the girls."
>>>
>>>
>>>But did you see any hungry polar bears? -- Q
>>
>>
>>Nope. Didn't go that far north. However, did see (and smell) a black
>>bear, whales, seals, sea lions, puffins, tufted puffins,
>
>
> I've always wanted to see live puffins. And what's the difference between a
> seal and a sea lion?
As I understand it, seals are smaller and cannot stand on their hind
flippers; sea lions are humongous (especially the males) and can walk
upright on their hind flippers. I basically depended on the
identification by the naturalists ;)
I had seen puffins in Maine but the tufted puffins of Alaska were really
neat.
>
>
>>mountain goats,
>>porpoises, sea otters, major glaciers (including one calving), but NO
>
> moose.
>
>>Traveled on a 4-seat airplane, a 6-seat airplane, two small day-cruise
>>boats, two small-ish prop planes, and spent an extra three days in
>>Toronto when I became ill on the way home.
>
>
> Last time I traveled in one of those -- a bi-plane that I believe was made
> in Ireland -- the overhead bins opened in unison the minute we were aloft,
> spilling all of our cargo onto our heads. Also, the flight was at such a
> low altitude that the passengers could follow its progress by watching the
> roads beneath us.
These went a bit higher, through a mountain pass, as a matter of fact.
However, I have been on a plane that flew so low i could count the ducks
on Long Island Sound. Not a good sensation.
>
>
>>Himself fell and broke two
>>ribs within an hour of landing in Anchorage.
>
>
> That's not good. Is he okay? How about you? -- Q
Bob's ribs have basically healed in the three weeks we were gone but now
he has a terrible head cold. I came home exhausted and in considerable
hip pain with a mild cold but the trip was fantastic and, yes, we'd do
it again.
js
JFlexer
Okay, lady, you REEEALLY want me to hate you, don't you!!
We took a week-long cruise up the inner passage three years ago, and I"ve
been campaigning heavily to return. I could go there every year... it's
just beautiful!
more details, please!
-J
JFlexer
<snip nonstop blabbering about the beauty and the majesty...>
> the trip was fantastic and, yes, we'd do it again.
>
> js
Okay. It's official. I hate you. <sigh>
-j
(oh, and welcome home, dearie! can you tell I need a vacation?!)
Q
> Q wrote:
> > "Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.net> wrote in message
> > news:3idu9qF...@individual.net...
> >
> >>Q wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3ids93F...@individual.net...
> >>
> >>>>Back from Alaska.... I see nothing has changed. I saw some lovely ice
> >>>>floes upon which we could float "the girls."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But did you see any hungry polar bears? -- Q
> >>
> >>
> >>Nope. Didn't go that far north. However, did see (and smell) a black
> >>bear, whales, seals, sea lions, puffins, tufted puffins,
> >
> >
> > I've always wanted to see live puffins. And what's the difference
between a
> > seal and a sea lion?
>
> As I understand it, seals are smaller and cannot stand on their hind
> flippers;
... except in the circus.
> sea lions are humongous (especially the males) and can walk
> upright on their hind flippers. I basically depended on the
> identification by the naturalists ;)
I'd like to see that.
>
> I had seen puffins in Maine but the tufted puffins of Alaska were really
> neat.
I didn't know that Maine had puffins. I thought puffins only existed
further to the north. Maine also has moose and black bears. Maybe I should
go there.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>mountain goats,
> >>porpoises, sea otters, major glaciers (including one calving), but NO
> >
> > moose.
> >
> >>Traveled on a 4-seat airplane, a 6-seat airplane, two small day-cruise
> >>boats, two small-ish prop planes, and spent an extra three days in
> >>Toronto when I became ill on the way home.
> >
> >
> > Last time I traveled in one of those -- a bi-plane that I believe was
made
> > in Ireland -- the overhead bins opened in unison the minute we were
aloft,
> > spilling all of our cargo onto our heads. Also, the flight was at such
a
> > low altitude that the passengers could follow its progress by watching
the
> > roads beneath us.
>
>
> These went a bit higher, through a mountain pass, as a matter of fact.
> However, I have been on a plane that flew so low i could count the ducks
> on Long Island Sound. Not a good sensation.
I was okay with it. Watching the plane travel up US 7 and make a right turn
at I-84 kept me busy. Also, maybe I'm more used to flying at those low
altitudes because I've spent a lot of time riding in helicopters. When I
look out of a window, I like to see stuff -- not just clouds, or a patchwork
of farms.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Himself fell and broke two
> >>ribs within an hour of landing in Anchorage.
> >
> >
> > That's not good. Is he okay? How about you?
>
> Bob's ribs have basically healed in the three weeks we were gone but now
> he has a terrible head cold. I came home exhausted and in considerable
> hip pain with a mild cold but the trip was fantastic and, yes, we'd do
> it again.
So maybe now you two ought to take a vacation. -- Q
> js
Breton
other way.
Breton
yaffaDina
Jean Sue Libkind wrote:
> ... snipped to point ...> >
>
> Back from Alaska.... I see nothing has changed. I saw some lovely ice
> floes upon which we could float "the girls."
>
> js
You should check out the situation on alt.talk.royalty.
yD
Jean Sue Libkind
> Okay, lady, you REEEALLY want me to hate you, don't you!!
>
> We took a week-long cruise up the inner passage three years ago, and I"ve
> been campaigning heavily to return. I could go there every year... it's
> just beautiful!
>
> more details, please!
> -J
We first flew to Anchorage to stay with my cousin and his wife; within
an hour, Bob fell into their sunken family room and broke two ribs. Not
an auspicious start!
Flying into Anchorage, we had clear skies and great views of the
mountains, mudflats, volanoes and Cook's Inlet. Took a grand tour of the
harbor sights, various lookouts, the fishermen of Ship's Creek (standing
hip-to-hip in a downtown river hauling in huge salmon), and the
thousands of float planes that call their airport home.
We drove the next day to Seward, on the Kenai Peninsula, stopping at the
Portage Glacier on the way. Our first glacier experience. Stayed in
Seward and spent the morning at their sea mammal facility (where the
tufted puffins were up-close-and-personal), then drove across Kenai to
Homer and stayed at the end of the spit. Our room had a large picture
window onto Cook Inlet and we had a delightful view of a dining sea
otter as he floated past dining on clams and oysters.
Idiot tourist of the trip: the man behind me at dinner commented on the
view, "I don't like the color of the rocks." Bob offered to get a can of
spray paint.
Drove back to Anchorage and then headed north to Palmer and Hatcher's
Pass (the gold mine road was still snowed in). I put 750 miles on the
rental car in three days but we saw such a variety of terrain, from the
rugged, snow-capped mountains to the rounded, tree-covered smaller
moutains, to the sea, the fjord and an interesting area where the land
had sunk during the earthquake in the '65 earthquake, leaving the tree
roots in salt water whereby they all slowly died, leaving spindly trunks.
Flew to Juneau for the evening and then took a 6-seater to Gustavus
where we stayed at the Annie Mae Lodge, a wonderful, family-owned B&B.
Met their three Newfie-mixes who accompanied us to the beach for a
picnic; given that we were willing to throw their stick, they were our
friends for life. Also attracted the interest of Diva, a strawberry roan
who trotted up to me and insisted on becoming boon companions. She did
not chase the stick, however.
Took a twelve-hour cruise of Glacier Bay seeing a bear, whales, mountain
goats, sea lions, several glaciers, including Margriete which
conveniently calved while we watched. Small ship, only 40+ people on
board. Quite lovely.
Back to Juneau for a week in a suite hotel and to see another cousin:
lovely city, quite like Bergen. Went up the tram (dramatic views and a
steeper incline than I've experienced before), out to Mendenhall Glacier
(twice), did the Glacier Gardens which have to be seen to be believed
(Alaska's flowers are not to be believed), the shrine of St. Teresa,
Point Lena (a local beach which was indeed lovely and quiet, away from
the throngs of the cruise ships). Most of these places have websites for
full details. I offer http://www.glaciergardens.com/ for the gardeners
among you.
I must say that we were in several towns when they were inundated by the
large cruise ships and the 2,000 people per ship are overwhelming, to
say nothing of the change in the landscape; you can't see across the
sound in Juneau to Douglas Island with four of those behemoths in port.
And the passengers all seem to be in competition to see who can spend
the most money. There seems little interaction with the local
environment on their part; some don't get off the ship and most don't
bother to take the trip to the glacier (or know its name). It's kind of
disgusting, really.
We left Juneau on a small boat (70 people) and cruised the inside
passage for three days, staying two nights in Petersburg and one in
Ketchikan. By taking a boat without room for sleeping, we were able to
go down Wrangell Narrows and up inlets the larger boats cannot go. We
broke an ice field to get within 3/4 of a mile to South Sawyer Glacier,
the first boat to do so since last July. Saw a lot of seal mom-and-pup
couples on the various ice floes. The seals make little nose. (Got great
pictures including one of a seal pup peeking out of a hole in the ice).
Able to see a lot of humpbacks and orcas and dahl porpoises which kept
us amused for over twenty minutes, surfing along our bow. Saw four
glaciers on this trip, each more spectacular than the last. The blue
color even remains in the larger icebergs and it's quite fascinating;
hard to believe it is 'natural.' I kept thinking I had enough pictures
of ice but then, the next one would be so unique, I would take more. Of
course, the photos don't really convey the immensity; South Sawyer is
250' high.
Went by another colony of sea lions; they are quite noisy... I would
liken them to a gaggle of teenagers with cell phones.
Went by the flats outside Wrangel and there were at least 200 bald
eagles lined up on the shore waiting for salmon; Alaska has been short
of rain and some of the creeks are low; it was explained to me that the
salmon were not yet heading upstream, therefore, but everyone was
certainly waiting for them to start!
Petersburg was wonderful; we had a special banquet at the Sons of Norway
Lodge (so you know I was happy) and a presentation by Norwegian folk
dancers. Ketchikan gets the large cruise boats and so was quite spoiled
IMO; Petersburg is still real: people work at the cannery, shop on the
main street with limited tourist traps (I got a few but that was in the
hardware store), the local toy stores give out packs of free baseball
cards to kids with good report cards.
All through these trips we had great food: fresh halibut and salmon. Bob
was able to finally try sable fish (black cod). Great local beer! And we
found better hamburgers than we can get in Philly.
The last day we returned to Anchorage to do souvenir shopping and see
parts of downtown we had missed before (Bob got a reindeer sausage
sandwich). As noted before, I got sick on the plane from Vancouver to
Toronto so we stayed three extra days there before finally making it
home. Now both of us have colds but we're recuperating.
Except for the beginning broken ribs and the concluding exhaustion, we
had a fabulous time and came home with over fourteen roles of
photographs. We'll be doing a website of our travels once we recuperate;
let me know if you want me to email you the address when it's available.
Next time we have to do Fairbanks and Whitehorse plus the Aleutian Islands.
Oh, and appropo of a previous conversation, there are two "tribes" of
northern peoples: the Inuit and the Aleuts; there are many tribes of
Native Americans, most of them subsets of the Athabaskans, including the
Tlingits along the inland passage.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
> I didn't know that Maine had puffins. I thought puffins only existed
> further to the north. Maine also has moose and black bears. Maybe I should
> go there.
We go every other year; the whale watching cruises going out of Bar
Harbor usually see puffins.
> So maybe now you two ought to take a vacation. -- Q
I am torn between agreeing whole heartedly and saying that I am never
leaving my doorstep again ;)
js
pk4...@yepmail.net
Although if they pay enough they would be invited to family social
events, if that is what they want...
I'm quite sure you could give those who aren't looking to be seen with
anyone royal GREAT advice !
The Queen is said to be appalled by this scheme of "Give and you will
receive an invite to a Royal residence ! "
Of course other Foundations don't require one to buy tatty souvenirs
when they attend an evening meal either...As Barbara Walters said is
standard practice at Highgrove where she paid an outrageous sum for a
tasteless key chain...BECAUSE before one is seated in the dining room
at Highgrove, you are herded into a gift shop.
yaffaDina
Tell that to the trolls on atr who've quite successfully disrupted the
big leagues and as a result, we have Louis on agr with his own troll
impersonations and who has, with a little help, managed to keep up the
squabbles here while others stood back or stayed silent.
yD
>
> -J
JFlexer
news:1120140421....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I haven't been over there lately - and looked last night. I didn't know the
invasion had bled into their world as well.
-J
Susan Cohen
"JFlexer" <jf0962...@fbuster.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da1b1...@news1.newsguy.com...
> "yaffaDina" <yaffa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120140421....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> big leagues and as a result, we have Louis on agr with his own troll
>> impersonations and who has, with a little help, managed to keep up the
>> squabbles here while others stood back or stayed silent.
>
> the
> invasion had bled into their world as well.
Louis has been trolling on agr??
Louis has been stirring things up?
I must have missed all that, somehow.
SusanC
>
> -J
>
>