Prince Charles now wears made-to-measure instead of bespoke suits
Q
sSheet=/news/2006/01/29/ixhome.html
Suits you, Sir?
By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
(Filed: 29/01/2006)
For decades he followed the tradition of his royal forefathers, dressing
impeccably in £4,000 suits from Savile Row.
Now, however, Prince Charles has shocked the world of fine tailoring by
turning his back on his distinctive bespoke outfits. Instead, he has become
the first heir to the throne in modern times to buy made-to-measure
alternatives - at less than half the price.
The move has prompted accusations that the Prince of Wales has let bespoke
tailors - and himself - down by looking, in his mid-fifties, far less
elegantly dressed. It has seen him desert the tailors Anderson & Sheppard,
removing their prestigious royal warrant, after being a loyal customer for
the past two decades.
Royal sources say that Prince Charles, 57, has recently bought several
made-to-measure suits from Turnbull & Asser, who have held a royal warrant
from the Prince for their shirts since 1980.
It is thought his turning away from bespoke tailoring may have been
influenced by his new wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, while others suspect
his frugal private secretary, Sir Michael Peat.
Officials close to the Prince, however, put the change down to "personal
taste".
The relationship between a man and his tailor has been likened to that of a
woman and her hairdresser: it usually inspires great loyalty but
occasionally the relationship can, to use a phrase Prince Charles coined for
his first marriage, "irretrievably break down".
Last night Thomas Mahon, one of Britain's most respected tailors, who made
Prince Charles's suits for three years until 1995, said he believed the move
towards more casual, made-to-measure suits was a mistake. Mr Mahon, who was
a senior tailor at Anderson & Sheppard, which has premises just off Savile
Row, said: "I think what has happened is very sad. He was photographed in
November with Camilla and President and Mrs Bush outside the White House
and, almost 20 years ago
to the day, he was photographed in the same place with Diana [Princess of
Wales] and President and Mrs Reagan. The change is so apparent. Twenty years
ago - when he was wearing Anderson & Sheppard - he looked so elegant. But in
the photograph two months ago he looked bloody awful in a made-to-measure
suit. To fit the human body is not the hardest job in the world but
character and style - that's the challenge."
Bespoke is a term dating from the 17th century, when tailors held the full
lengths of cloth on their premises. When a customer chose a length, it was
said to have "been spoken for". A tailor who makes a customer's clothes
individually is called "bespoke".
More than 20 measurements and figuration details are taken from a customer
before his suit is cut. That is unlike "made-to-measure", which simply uses
a template pattern that is then adjusted, with less precision, to an
individual's measurements. Mr Mahon, 40, whose company, English Cut, has
clients in America, said: "We are constantly being told [by his aides] that
Prince Charles is more confident and relaxed. But he certainly looked more
confident and relaxed in the suit from 20 years ago - and a lot of that is
down to the tailoring."
Prince Charles's newly favoured tailors, Turnbull & Asser, who have premises
in Jermyn Street, sells made-to-measure suits costing from £1,400 to £2,500.
John Hitchcock, the managing director of Anderson & Sheppard, which is 100
years old this year, confirmed that the Prince was no longer a customer. The
firm had made 20 suits for him. "It's unfortunate but if Prince Charles
chooses to buy made-to-measure suits - or even factory-made suits - that's
up to him," he said.
It is not known who made the suit in which the Prince was photographed in
America in November.
A spokesman at Turnbull & Asser confirmed that the shop did supply him with
shirts but would not comment on his suits.
Prince Charles's new image has its fans as well as its critics. When Andre
3000, the hip-hop singer with the band OutKast, came to London to pick up an
award from GQ magazine in 2004, he said: "Prince Charles is my number one
British style icon."
The last word, however, should go to Richard Walker, the author of Savile
Row: An Illustrated History: "The perfect suit is like the perfect wine - it
does not exist, except in terms of individual taste."
Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0)
207 538 7505 or e-mail syndi...@telegraph.co.uk
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
"Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
news:43dc1331$0$93713$540e...@novia.net...
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/29/nchas29.xml&
> sSheet=/news/2006/01/29/ixhome.html
>
> Suits you, Sir?
> By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
> (Filed: 29/01/2006)
>
> For decades he followed the tradition of his royal forefathers, dressing
> impeccably in £4,000 suits from Savile Row.
> Now, however, Prince Charles has shocked the world of fine tailoring by
> turning his back on his distinctive bespoke outfits. Instead, he has
> become
> the first heir to the throne in modern times to buy made-to-measure
> alternatives - at less than half the price.
It's as well to remember that Charles' 'economy suits' still represent about
4 months gross income for a person on minimum wages (of which Britain has
increasing millions)
As to *why* this vain and worthless man has chosen to buy 'cheaper'
clothing, there could be a number of reasons.
His penchant for throwing his clothes on the floor for his servants to pick
up, for example (not to mention his equally odious habit of flinging them,
once again, to the floor if the washed and ironed garments have not be laid
out to his complete satisfaction) - perhaps Camilla has pointed out that if
he's going to behave like a spoiled brat, it's a waste of cash to buy
expensive items.
Or, there again, perhaps it's his habit of flinging boiled eggs at his
servants if they (the eggs, of course) are not ready to eat at the precise
moment he returns from slaughtering game birds at Balmoral - perhaps his new
wife has told him plainly, "Charles, if you *are* going to spatter yourself
with egg yolk, you'll either have to wear a bib, or get cheaper jackets!"
My money, though, is on Camilla's chain-smokery - even the Prince of
Profligacy, who appears to think that the sole function of UK plebs is to
pander to his every whim, may have grown tired of having his nice suits
covered in smoke and fag ash.
Doubtless, when he divorces Camilla, he'll be buying bespoke items once
again. Until then, it's make do and mend......
Q
"Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah" <pi...@lascala.com> wrote in message
news:442jii...@individual.net...
>
> "Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
> news:43dc1331$0$93713$540e...@novia.net...
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/29/nchas29.xml&
> > sSheet=/news/2006/01/29/ixhome.html
> >
> > Suits you, Sir?
> > By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
> > (Filed: 29/01/2006)
> >
> > For decades he followed the tradition of his royal forefathers, dressing
> > impeccably in £4,000 suits from Savile Row.
> > Now, however, Prince Charles has shocked the world of fine tailoring by
> > turning his back on his distinctive bespoke outfits. Instead, he has
> > become
> > the first heir to the throne in modern times to buy made-to-measure
> > alternatives - at less than half the price.
>
>
> It's as well to remember that Charles' 'economy suits' still represent
about
> 4 months gross income for a person on minimum wages (of which Britain has
> increasing millions)
At least PC isn't hoarding all of his dough. For every £4,000 he spends on
a suit, much of it -- maybe even all of it -- goes to British workers.
>
> As to *why* this vain and worthless man has chosen to buy 'cheaper'
> clothing, there could be a number of reasons.
According to the article, he bought 20 custom-made suits over 20 years.
Granted the suits were very expensive, but that's only one new suit a year.
I don't know how many suits men need, or typically buy in a given year.
Maybe he wanted to buy twice as many for the same amount of money.
Women, of course, are always shopping for clothes -- and nearly all of the
women's clothing sold in America is now manufactured in Third World
countries by workers are being paid a wage they can scarcely live on, who
work under sweatshop conditions.
Looking at pictures of Charles in his various suits, can anybody who is not
a professional tailor tell the difference between the bespoke ones and the
made-to-measure? -- Q
fla...@verizon.net
film.
But I startled even myself when they did a close-up on Pierce Brosnan,
because
what I saw made me burst out, *out loud* that "The plaid doesn't match!!" I
have
to admit that I really was stunned. A $5,000 (!!!) suit and they couldn't
even bother
to match the plaid at the shoulder.
My guess is that Charles might have finally seen that off-the-rack might
sometimes
be just as good as tailored. Some people are lucky enough to look the same
in both.
And if you look at it or, in this case, him - it makes some sense. He's not
taller
than the average or shorter - in fact, he's only an inch or so above the
American
average for male height. He's definitely not fat, he's not too thin - at
most he might
need what is called "atheltic cut". In fact, I'd say his *most* pressing (no
pun
intended) reason to get bespoke suits is to promote British tailoring. I
fully expect
someone to whine about that.
SusanC
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
"Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
> At least PC isn't hoarding all of his dough<<
*HIS* dough?!!! - every single penny in that man's pocket has been stolen
from the British people! The entire monarchical system is a disgusting
aberration - and is supported only be those who derive personal advantage
from its continuance, or are too fearful to desire change, or too simple to
care.
Are you *seriously* supporting the system of hereditary rule?!! - are you
saying that I, in due time, must consider myself subject to this liar and
oath-breaker simply because his mother currently has power over us, and
because her father had power over us?!!
Since they are all descended from illegitimate usurpers who were imported as
part of the machinations of politics during the 17th Century, their 'claim'
to the throne does not even have any historical precedent - particularly so
as they have broken their pledge to uphold the liberties of England,
especially the Protestant faith.
> nearly all of the<
> women's clothing sold in America is now manufactured in Third World
> countries by workers are being paid a wage they can scarcely live on, who
> work under sweatshop conditions.<
The sort of conditions imposed on the British working class by the
feudal/monarchical system!
Wages here are now very low - people groan under the burden of taxation,
they live in fear of not being able to pay their mortgages and bills and
spend their entire lives deep in debt - while the Windsor's loot the nation
with impunity.
Men who fought for this country are too poor to afford heating in the
winter, and shiver accordingly - while a royal 'prince' airily wastes
thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on RAF helicopters to convey his
worthless carcass to yet another round of golf in Scotland.
> Looking at pictures of Charles in his various suits, can anybody who is
> not
> a professional tailor tell the difference between the bespoke ones and the
> made-to-measure? -- Q<<
The only view that most Britons want of Charles' clothes is the back of his
jacket as be boards the plane that takes him into exile.
Q
>
> "Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
> news:43dc3933$0$93718$540e...@novia.net...
>
> > At least PC isn't hoarding all of his dough<<
>
> *HIS* dough?!!! - every single penny in that man's pocket has been stolen
> from the British people!
Okay. *Your* dough. I was just looking for the bright side. I had no idea
that men's clothing cost that much. Unlike jewelry, it has no potential
resale value.
>The entire monarchical system is a disgusting
> aberration - and is supported only be those who derive personal advantage
> from its continuance, or are too fearful to desire change, or too simple
to
> care.
>
> Are you *seriously* supporting the system of hereditary rule?!! - are you
> saying that I, in due time, must consider myself subject to this liar and
> oath-breaker simply because his mother currently has power over us, and
> because her father had power over us?!!
No. Did I write that? I'm only wondering why anybody would confine
himself to a single, extremely expensive garment each year when he could
have several less-expensive ones.
And I'd like to know what the difference is between the £4,000 suit and the
£2,000 model. The bespoke tailors interviewed for the story groused about
the difference, but they didn't actually say what it was. Perhaps the
former is air conditioned. Or bulletproof.
>
> Since they are all descended from illegitimate usurpers who were imported
as
> part of the machinations of politics during the 17th Century, their
'claim'
> to the throne does not even have any historical precedent - particularly
so
> as they have broken their pledge to uphold the liberties of England,
> especially the Protestant faith.
>
>
>
> > nearly all of the<
> > women's clothing sold in America is now manufactured in Third World
> > countries by workers are being paid a wage they can scarcely live on,
who
> > work under sweatshop conditions.<
>
>
> The sort of conditions imposed on the British working class by the
> feudal/monarchical system!
We have those same conditions here, and we've managed to get them without a
feudal/monarchical system.
>
> Wages here are now very low - people groan under the burden of taxation,
> they live in fear of not being able to pay their mortgages and bills and
> spend their entire lives deep in debt - while the Windsor's loot the
nation
> with impunity.
If you were to substitute a different family name for "Windsors", the same
could be said about America. Perhaps the difference is that our politicians
are more reticent about insulting the poor with lavish displays of wealth
than your monarchs.
>
> Men who fought for this country are too poor to afford heating in the
> winter, and shiver accordingly
That's because they're having to compete with laborers who will (or rather,
have been forced to) work for a bowl of rice every day. IMO, feudal
monarchs are not the only class who need to be on that plane into exile.
>- while a royal 'prince' airily wastes
> thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on RAF helicopters to convey his
> worthless carcass to yet another round of golf in Scotland.
>
>
>
> > Looking at pictures of Charles in his various suits, can anybody who is
> > not
> > a professional tailor tell the difference between the bespoke ones and
the
> > made-to-measure? -- Q<<
>
> The only view that most Britons want of Charles' clothes is the back of
his
> jacket as be boards the plane that takes him into exile.
Any suggestions about where the £4,000-suit gang ought to be sent? -- Q
>
>
volcaran
I am surprised there is so much debate about the cost of a suit.
Personally I wouldn't be tempted to partake of the extravagance or even
pay £100 plus for a T&A shirt but would anyone raise more than a
passing eyebrow about a woman who could afford it paying a similar
amount for say a Versace dress. Given men's suits can be worn more than
once without the "didn't she wear that dress before?", its clear where
the better value is. Having said that I would take some convincing
(materials aside) that a bespoke suit is "worth" 20 plus times the off
the peg M&S (or similar) variety.
Q
"volcaran" <volc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138543176....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
***IMO, paying that sort of money for a dress is equally silly. And -- in
fact -- many people who wear those dresses dont' actually pay that much (if
anything) for them. For many of these famous designers, most of the profit
comes from the licensing of the name for perfume, linens, china, and things
like that. The couture that goes unsold, generally ends up on the sale
rack -- and according to one designer that I've interviewed whose name is a
household word -- that would be most of it.
***The rich and famous who are photographed in Versaces, Laurens, and
Herreras very often borrow them. Even women who are not so rich and famous,
but who are regularly seen at public events, are often offered free clothes.
Given men's suits can be worn more than
once without the "didn't she wear that dress before?", its clear where
the better value is. Having said that I would take some convincing
(materials aside) that a bespoke suit is "worth" 20 plus times the off
the peg M&S (or similar) variety.
***The story gives the impression that the PoW was making due with one new
suit a year. My guess is that he'd buy one bespoke suit, and also a number
of others that were made-to-measure. I bet he's been wearing
made-to-measure for many years, rather than just a few. -- Q
volcaran
I agree many of the "red carpet" events are simply women acting as
models rather than buying but there are many still paying over the odds
for designer labels.
>
> Given men's suits can be worn more than
> once without the "didn't she wear that dress before?", its clear where
> the better value is. Having said that I would take some convincing
> (materials aside) that a bespoke suit is "worth" 20 plus times the off
> the peg M&S (or similar) variety.
>
> ***The story gives the impression that the PoW was making due with one new
> suit a year. My guess is that he'd buy one bespoke suit, and also a number
> of others that were made-to-measure. I bet he's been wearing
> made-to-measure for many years, rather than just a few. -- Q
It is indeed highly unlikely that he survived on one suit a year.
rickym
Do upper-crusty men's suit styles change so noticeably that he
wouldn't be able to wear suits purchased over the past 5-10 years?
--r
Jean Sue Libkind
quality in classic styles. I myself...while I have more clothes than I
need... am still wearing some items which are 20 years old.
Also, Charles's clothes have impeccable care given them. Nobody is about
is about to accidentally throw his wool blazer in the dryer, shrinking
it two sizes.
js
Breton
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
> "Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
> news:43dc3933$0$93718$540e...@novia.net...
>
> > At least PC isn't hoarding all of his dough<<
>
> *HIS* dough?!!! - every single penny in that man's pocket has been stolen
> from the British people!
No. Prince Charles' income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall, which has
never been the property of "the people".
> Since they are all descended from illegitimate usurpers who were imported as
> part of the machinations of politics during the 17th Century, their 'claim'
> to the throne does not even have any historical precedent - particularly so
> as they have broken their pledge to uphold the liberties of England,
> especially the Protestant faith.
Usurpers? I don't think so. The line of success was set by Parliament.
Breton
fla...@verizon.net
On 29-Jan-2006, "volcaran" <volc...@aol.com> wrote:
> I am surprised there is so much debate about the cost of a suit.
> Personally I wouldn't be tempted to partake of the extravagance or even
> pay £100 plus for a T&A shirt but would anyone raise more than a
> passing eyebrow about a woman who could afford it paying a similar
> amount for say a Versace dress. Given men's suits can be worn more than
> once without the "didn't she wear that dress before?", its clear where
> the better value is. Having said that I would take some convincing
> (materials aside) that a bespoke suit is "worth" 20 plus times the off
> the peg M&S (or similar) variety.
You're surprised Society is sexist?
That women are *expected* to be decorative?
Where *have* you been? :->
SusanC, who gets a kick out of recreating designer stuff muy cheapo!!
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
"Breton" <royalis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138567313.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
>> "Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
>> news:43dc3933$0$93718$540e...@novia.net...
>>
>> > At least PC isn't hoarding all of his dough<<
>>
>> *HIS* dough?!!! - every single penny in that man's pocket has been stolen
>> from the British people!
>
> No. Prince Charles' income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall, which has
> never been the property of "the people".<<
Come, Nick - you're not a stupid man and you know perfectly well that *all*
land was originally annexed by those with the power to do so. Hence,
whatever ancient 'titles' might exist for the 'Duchy', are invalid since the
lands were originally appropriated by force and without general consent.
To argue otherwise is to give consent to thieves retaining their spoils.
> Usurpers? I don't think so. The line of success was set by Parliament.<
And since when did a 17th century Parliament uphold the rights of the common
man? - even the concern of Parliament for the maintenance of Protestantism
was motivated more by concern for the lands and privileges that would be
lost in a Catholic restoration, than by conviction of faith.
Hence, the 'bloodless revolution' was nothing more than the Establishment
securing its position - and had nothing to do with the 'people'. For the
benefit of the gentry, a foreign monarch was foisted on this nation, and all
manner of spurious laws were drafted to ensure its success.
*if* we are to have a monarch (and I, for one, certainly don't want to be
ruled by that ungodly and unscriptural institution) then let it be decided
by lineage - which certainly rules out the Kraut-come-lately's.
thom...@nyc.rr.com
of) of your "arguments". The Act of Settlement etc was early 18th,
not 17th century. There was a reason (of its time and place, as all
legislation) that the protestant Hanoverians- the closest in the Stuary
succession- were chosen (as constitutional monarchs). You'd better go
back to your English constitution textbooks pal.
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
<thom...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1138595612....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
------
You're quite right - the term 'Kraut' was not entirely appropriate. 'Hun'
is a much better description..
However, your attempted lecture on constitutional matter is as misleading as
it is tedious - The house of Hanover was a Germanic royal dynasty, was it
not? - descended from other Germanic royal dynasties, including the house of
Welf, and the house of Este?
So, then, 'Hun' is the word, agreed?
Better than a Nip, though, granted.
Right, that's it 'pal', you can go now............I'll ring for you the next
time I require a pompous twat.
JA**
"Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/29/nchas29.xml&
> sSheet=/news/2006/01/29/ixhome.html
>
> Suits you, Sir?
> By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
> (Filed: 29/01/2006)
>
> For decades he followed the tradition of his royal forefathers, dressing
> impeccably in £4,000 suits from Savile Row.
> Now, however, Prince Charles has shocked the world of fine tailoring by
> turning his back on his distinctive bespoke outfits. Instead, he has
> become
> the first heir to the throne in modern times to buy made-to-measure
> alternatives - at less than half the price.
---------------->
He needs to cut down to pay for all those on going facelifts for Camilla
rickym
Camilla hasn't had any facelifts, but on-going has a hyphen. --r
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Jan-2006, "rickym" <ricky9m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He needs to cut down to pay for all those on going facelifts for Camilla
>
> Camilla hasn't had any facelifts, but on-going has a hyphen. --r
A juggernaut of misinformation will not be stopped by a few grammatical
errors.
SusanC
su-t...@webtv.net
He needs to cut down to pay for all those on going facelifts for Camilla
------------------
ricky9m...@yahoo.com (rickym) wrote:
Camilla hasn't had any facelifts, but on-going has a hyphen. --r
===================
Camilla appears to have had facial alterations, ..... though perhaps not
the old-fashioned surgeries, such as "face-lift", .... she's obviously
had work done.
Susan Wms, Su_Texas my opinions
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
<su-t...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2644-43DF...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
There you go - why is it that you will never hear men making catty remarks
about their opponents appearance?
I don't think I've ever heard a man describe another man as 'ugly', or say
that he's obviously had a facelift or other cosmetic enhancements - yet it's
the first weapon that a feuding woman reaches for.
And women wonder why men still don't take them seriously!....bless 'em.
Breton
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
> I don't think I've ever heard a man describe another man as 'ugly',
No? How about this: "Mr Cook gave hope and inspiration to ugly men
everywhere - all of whom were transfixed by the bedroom successes of
that wrinkled garden gnome!"
Care to guess who said that?
Breton
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
Yes, Yes, but you're deliberately misconstruing that post - that wasn't a
criticism of the late little lothario! It was an acknowledgement of his
bedroom successes and his undoubtedly huge penis.
An accolade, in fact.
Breton
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
> Yes, Yes, but you're deliberately misconstruing that post -
Um, no. What I did was read the words, and repost them. You referred to
Cook as ugly.
Res ipsa loquitur, old chap.
Case closed.
Breton
PS, re your current posting name, you may want to note that G.F.
Handel's famous oratorio is called "Messiah", not "The Messiah".
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
>
> Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
>
>> Yes, Yes, but you're deliberately misconstruing that post -
>
> Um, no. What I did was read the words, and repost them. You referred to
> Cook as ugly.<
Indeed - but not disparagingly, which was the point I was making.
You'll have to row harder, Mr B, your vessel appears to be in a headwind.
-----
> Res ipsa loquitur, old chap<
Quod scripsi, scrips, old bean.
> PS, re your current posting name, you may want to note that G.F.
> Handel's famous oratorio is called "Messiah", not "The Messiah".
And *where*, exactly, have I stated that Pink and I are singing George's
work!!
There's more than one Messiah, you know!
(wouldn't you be better clutching a larger straw?)
Breton
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
> Quod scripsi, scrips, old bean.
It's "quod scripsi, scripsi" actually old man.
Another anti-semite remark: "What I have written I have written", a
reference to Pontius Piliate's response to whose who wanted the sign on
Jesus' cross to read "He said he was the King of the Jews".
Breton
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
>
> Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
>
>> Quod scripsi, scrips, old bean.
>
> It's "quod scripsi, scripsi" actually old man.<
Yes, old fruit, it was a typo (you make them, but I'm too great an artiste
to point them out - see your next paragraph, cough...)
>
> Another anti-semite remark: "What I have written I have written", a
> reference to Pontius Piliate's response to whose who wanted the sign on
> Jesus' cross to read "He said he was the King of the Jews".<<
---
Only a fevered imagination could possibly discern 'anti-Semitism' in that
quote. Still, there you go...........
On the subject of Pilate, you'll remember that he disclaimed the guilt for
sentencing Christ, and that the Jews, in response, bawled, "Let his blood
be upon our heads, and the heads of our children"
Given subsequent events, do you think that it was?
fla...@verizon.net
Normally, I would say it sounds like an anti-Pilate remark, but, considering
the source, I have to agree w/you.
SusanC
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:SwSDf.29026$5G.1899@trnddc08...
You might well be unfamiliar with the New Testament, Sue, so allow me to
explain.
Pilate ordered the sign to read 'King of the Jews' - but the Pharisees
(being the sort of people that they were) tried to tell Pilate to alter the
legend to, 'He *claimed* to be King of the Jews'
Now Pilate wasn't going to be told what to do by these scurrilous priests,
and he stood his ground, making his now famous statement, 'What I have
written, I have written'
And, of course, he was right to do so - for Christ is the King of the Jews -
and every knee shall bow, and every tongue (including your own forked one)
will one day attest to that fact.
Of course, it will necessitate God allowing the destruction of Israel to
break the arrogance and obstinacy of the Jews for this to occur - but, there
you go, it's all preordained.........
My interest lies in seeing *how* this will come about, and *what* the
circumstances will be that cause America to turn its back on Israel and
leave it defenceless - or, even, attack Israel itself.
Of course, if it ever transpired that Israel had perpetrated a terrible
atrocity in the US, that might well be enough to raise howls of outrage
against American/Jewish support and sweep an anti-Israel government into
power..
What's more - I'll lay you 50:1 that, when that day comes, you'll be
shouting anti-Israeli slogans with the rest of 'em.
That's because you wouldn't know a principle if it came up and bit you in
the arse.
Q
In what way is "Quod scripsi, scripsi" antisemitic? -- Q
>
> Breton
>
yaffaDina
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
> <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:SwSDf.29026$5G.1899@trnddc08...
> >
> > On 31-Jan-2006, "Breton" <royalis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah wrote:
> >>
> >> > Quod scripsi, scrips, old bean.
> >>
> >> It's "quod scripsi, scripsi" actually old man.
> >>
> >> Another anti-semite remark: "What I have written I have written", a
> >> reference to Pontius Piliate's response to whose who wanted the sign on
> >> Jesus' cross to read "He said he was the King of the Jews".
> >
> > Normally, I would say it sounds like an anti-Pilate remark, but,
> > considering
> > the source, I have to agree w/you.
>
>
> You might well be unfamiliar with the New Testament, Sue, so allow me to
> explain.
>
> Pilate ordered the sign to read 'King of the Jews' - but the Pharisees
> (being the sort of people that they were) tried to tell Pilate to alter the
> legend to, 'He *claimed* to be King of the Jews'
The Romasn, Pilate, ordered the sign. Not Jesus. Is that what you're
saying? Didn't Jesus call himself the Son of Man, not the son of God?
>
> Now Pilate wasn't going to be told what to do by these scurrilous priests,
> and he stood his ground, making his now famous statement, 'What I have
> written, I have written'
Again, the Romans, not Jesus, not the Jews.
>
> And, of course, he was right to do so - for Christ is the King of the Jews -
> and every knee shall bow, and every tongue (including your own forked one)
> will one day attest to that fact.
Tell me how this works. Waiting for the Messiah. Someone comes -- and
let's remember there were several 'messiahs' running around at that
time. That someone goes. And ooops, now you're waiting for the Second
Coming. which was prophisized where in the Bible?
> Of course, it will necessitate God allowing the destruction of Israel to
> break the arrogance and obstinacy of the Jews for this to occur - but, there
> you go, it's all preordained.........
And thanks to fundamentalist Christians who don't give a rap for
anything the Creator of the World might think, instead, go around
killing, ala the worshippers of the anti-Christ, i.e. destruction
rather than creation.
>
> My interest lies in seeing *how* this will come about, and *what* the
> circumstances will be that cause America to turn its back on Israel and
> leave it defenceless - or, even, attack Israel itself.
Ah, c'mon, the Muslims don't need the help of anybody to wreak havoc in
the name of their god of destruction.
>
> Of course, if it ever transpired that Israel had perpetrated a terrible
> atrocity in the US, that might well be enough to raise howls of outrage
> against American/Jewish support and sweep an anti-Israel government into
> power..
Oh, you mean like the politicians in the British House of Commons and
the House of Lords, which I'm given to understand are more overtly
anti-Jewish than even the French, and that's saying something.
>
> What's more - I'll lay you 50:1 that, when that day comes, you'll be
> shouting anti-Israeli slogans with the rest of 'em.
Betting!? You're waging a bet on the end of the world? Just like any
old common or garden anti-christ believer. The wages of sin are death.
Betting is sin enough but the "game" -- because it is a game to you
isn't it? -- could well put you beyond redemption. I'd start repenting
now, you never know when that bus'll come along and run right over you,
and it'll be too late.
>
> That's because you wouldn't know a principle if it came up and bit you in
> the arse.
Shouldn't that be "Principle?" And again, your choice of words -- in
this case "arse" -- is surely not the language of the Saved, of the
followers of the Creator? Lucky you're not the advertising director of
God, Inc. But not to worry, you and the other armageddon types who need
the Jews to bring about the end of the world may well get your way but
personally, I'd keep my back to the wall, son, the anti-christ and his
followers don't care who or what they destroy. Destruction is the
name of their game.
yD
Pinky & Perky sing Horst Wessel
"yaffaDina" <yaffa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> Pilate ordered the sign to read 'King of the Jews' - but the Pharisees
>> (being the sort of people that they were) tried to tell Pilate to alter
>> the
>> legend to, 'He *claimed* to be King of the Jews'
>
> The Romasn, Pilate, ordered the sign. Not Jesus. Is that what you're
> saying?<
Yes.
Didn't Jesus call himself the Son of Man, not the son of God?<
Jesus, actually *is* God - and said so - "I and my Father am one", "If you
have seen me you have seen the Father"
John the Baptist, talking about Jesus, said, "He (Jesus) was in the world,
and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not"
Jesus also said that he was the Messiah - talking to the Samarian woman at
the well, she said that she was awaiting the Messiah, and Jesus answered, "I
am He of whom you speak"
>> Now Pilate wasn't going to be told what to do by these scurrilous
>> priests,
>> and he stood his ground, making his now famous statement, 'What I have
>> written, I have written'
>
> Again, the Romans, not Jesus, not the Jews.<<
Pilate would have released Jesus with a whipping, if he had not been coerced
by the Jews - who reminded Pilate that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews,
and thus put himself in opposition to Caesar. The Jews threatened to tell
Caesar that Pilate was aiding and abetting an insurrection - leaving him
little choice but to acquiess to their demands for Christ's death.
The imperative for his death came solely from the Jews.
>> And, of course, he was right to do so - for Christ is the King of the
>> Jews -
>> and every knee shall bow, and every tongue (including your own forked
>> one)
>> will one day attest to that fact.
>
> Tell me how this works. Waiting for the Messiah. Someone comes -- and
> let's remember there were several 'messiahs' running around at that
> time. That someone goes. And ooops, now you're waiting for the Second
> Coming. which was prophisized where in the Bible?
Yes - that's about the size of it.
Mind you, the waiting is almost over now.
>> Of course, it will necessitate God allowing the destruction of Israel to
>> break the arrogance and obstinacy of the Jews for this to occur - but,
>> there
>> you go, it's all preordained...<
......
> And thanks to fundamentalist Christians who don't give a rap for
> anything the Creator of the World might think, instead, go around
> killing, ala the worshippers of the anti-Christ, i.e. destruction
> rather than creation.<
None of these wars are fought *for* God - Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of
the world - else would my servants foght (to establish it)"
Certain events, however, were promised to occur before Christ's return -
including the return of Jews to Israel, and the rise of homosexual power and
influence.
>> My interest lies in seeing *how* this will come about, and *what* the
>> circumstances will be that cause America to turn its back on Israel and
>> leave it defenceless - or, even, attack Israel itself.<
>
> Ah, c'mon, the Muslims don't need the help of anybody to wreak havoc in
> the name of their god of destruction.
>>
>> Of course, if it ever transpired that Israel had perpetrated a terrible
>> atrocity in the US, that might well be enough to raise howls of outrage
>> against American/Jewish support and sweep an anti-Israel government into
>> power..<
> Oh, you mean like the politicians in the British House of Commons and
> the House of Lords, which I'm given to understand are more overtly
> anti-Jewish than even the French, and that's saying something.
>>
>> What's more - I'll lay you 50:1 that, when that day comes, you'll be
>> shouting anti-Israeli slogans with the rest of 'em.
>
> Betting!? You're waging a bet on the end of the world? Just like any
> old common or garden anti-christ believer. The wages of sin are death.
> Betting is sin enough but the "game" -- because it is a game to you
> isn't it? -- could well put you beyond redemption. I'd start repenting
> now, you never know when that bus'll come along and run right over you,
> and it'll be too late.<<
The disciples cast lots to replace Judas Iscariot - so perhaps gambling is
not the vice you seem to think it is.
> Shouldn't that be "Principle?" And again, your choice of words -- in
> this case "arse" -- is surely not the language of the Saved, of the
> followers of the Creator? Lucky you're not the advertising director of
> God, Inc. But not to worry, you and the other armageddon types who need
> the Jews to bring about the end of the world may well get your way but
> personally, I'd keep my back to the wall, son, the anti-christ and his
> followers don't care who or what they destroy. Destruction is the
> name of their game.
Christians will be amongst the first to suffer - and it is very possible
that the architects of their misery will be Jews.
Buried away in the 'holocaust' laws (which make it possible for an Israeli
court to demand holocaust questioners are deported to stand trial in Israel)
are other statutes about defaming the Jewish faith.
Stating that Jews killed Christ is considered by many orthodox rabbi's to be
an example of such defamation - and, theoretically, I could have my arse
(Anglo-Saxon word, you wouldn't understand) hauled off to Tel-Aviv to
explain myself to the synagogue of Satan.
Not today - but, tomorrow? - who knows?
still, what will happen, will happen - but don't be deceived into thinking
that arrogant young Israeli's with guns will be able to swagger and kill
with endless impunity.
One might have expected a great deal more compassion from the people who
walked out of the concentration camps - but, as in the time of Christ, the
Jews remain haughty, proud, and contemptuous.
for now.
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Feb-2006, "Pinky & Perky sing Horst Wessel" <pi...@therally.com> wrote:
Ah, more daydreaming about Jewish blood running in the streets.
But Phil's not a bigot - just ask him!
Well, points for honesty wth his "e-mail" address.
Pinky & Perky sing Horst Wessel
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mwqEf.19405$oo1.19019@trnddc02...
What a thoroughly peculiar woman you are!
Where on earth, in this or any other post, have I ever talked about 'Jewish
blood running in the streets', (Oih Veh!!, such emotion, already!)
I have no desire to see *anyone's* blood running in the streets, my little
adopted daughter of Zion, not even yours..
It seems to me that you are desperately disappointed that you missed the
Holocaust - you would almost certainly have enjoyed feeling persecuted.
As it is, you are compelled to bite your lip in fury while others recount
their terrible experiences in the camps - while the best you can come up
with is a less than impressive yarn about being sacked by an 'anti-Semitic
boss who had the audacity to feel cheated because of the inordinate amount
of time you spent during working hours fighting fascism on the net.
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Feb-2006, "Pinky & Perky sing Horst Wessel" <pi...@therally.com> wrote:
> <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:mwqEf.19405$oo1.19019@trnddc02...
> >
> > On 2-Feb-2006, "Pinky & Perky sing Horst Wessel" <pi...@therally.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ah, more daydreaming about Jewish blood running in the streets.
> > But Phil's not a bigot - just ask him!
> > Well, points for honesty wth his "e-mail" address.
>
>
> What a thoroughly peculiar woman you are!
>
> Where on earth, in this or any other post, have I ever talked about
> 'Jewish
> blood running in the streets',
[snip rest of bigotry]
I see disingenuousness is now coming nto play.
Funny how most *other* people know about the Horst Wessel
Susan
Q
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5yAEf.26597$oo1.20355@trnddc02...
Those words aren't in the Horst Wessel Song. -- Q
>
> Susan
alcordia
neelsen
oojam
narryonl...@gmail.com
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/29/nchas29.xml&
> sSheet=/news/2006/01/29/ixhome.html
>
> Suits you, Sir?
> By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
> (Filed: 29/01/2006)
>
> For decades he followed the tradition of his royal forefathers, dressing
> impeccably in £4,000 suits from Savile Row.
> Now, however, Prince Charles has shocked the world of fine tailoring by
> turning his back on his distinctive bespoke outfits. Instead, he has become
> the first heir to the throne in modern times to buy made-to-measure
> alternatives - at less than half the price.
>
> tailors - and himself - down by looking, in his mid-fifties, far less
> elegantly dressed. It has seen him desert the tailors Anderson & Sheppard,
> removing their prestigious royal warrant, after being a loyal customer for
> the past two decades.
>
> Royal sources say that Prince Charles, 57, has recently bought several
> made-to-measure suits from Turnbull & Asser, who have held a royal warrant
> from the Prince for their shirts since 1980.
>
> It is thought his turning away from bespoke tailoring may have been
> influenced by his new wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, while others suspect
> his frugal private secretary, Sir Michael Peat.
>
> Officials close to the Prince, however, put the change down to "personal
> taste".
>
> The relationship between a man and his tailor has been likened to that of a
> woman and her hairdresser: it usually inspires great loyalty but
> occasionally the relationship can, to use a phrase Prince Charles coined for
> his first marriage, "irretrievably break down".
>
> Last night Thomas Mahon, one of Britain's most respected tailors, who made
> Prince Charles's suits for three years until 1995, said he believed the move
> towards more casual, made-to-measure suits was a mistake. Mr Mahon, who was
> a senior tailor at Anderson & Sheppard, which has premises just off Savile
> Row, said: "I think what has happened is very sad. He was photographed in
> November with Camilla and President and Mrs Bush outside the White House
> and, almost 20 years ago
> to the day, he was photographed in the same place with Diana [Princess of
> Wales] and President and Mrs Reagan. The change is so apparent. Twenty years
> ago - when he was wearing Anderson & Sheppard - he looked so elegant. But in
> the photograph two months ago he looked bloody awful in a made-to-measure
> suit. To fit the human body is not the hardest job in the world but
> character and style - that's the challenge."
>
> Bespoke is a term dating from the 17th century, when tailors held the full
> lengths of cloth on their premises. When a customer chose a length, it was
> said to have "been spoken for". A tailor who makes a customer's clothes
> individually is called "bespoke".
>
> More than 20 measurements and figuration details are taken from a customer
> before his suit is cut. That is unlike "made-to-measure", which simply uses
> a template pattern that is then adjusted, with less precision, to an
> individual's measurements. Mr Mahon, 40, whose company, English Cut, has
> clients in America, said: "We are constantly being told [by his aides] that
> Prince Charles is more confident and relaxed. But he certainly looked more
> confident and relaxed in the suit from 20 years ago - and a lot of that is
> down to the tailoring."
>
> Prince Charles's newly favoured tailors, Turnbull & Asser, who have premises
> in Jermyn Street, sells made-to-measure suits costing from £1,400 to £2,500.
>
> John Hitchcock, the managing director of Anderson & Sheppard, which is 100
> years old this year, confirmed that the Prince was no longer a customer. The
> firm had made 20 suits for him. "It's unfortunate but if Prince Charles
> chooses to buy made-to-measure suits - or even factory-made suits - that's
> up to him," he said.
>
> It is not known who made the suit in which the Prince was photographed in
> America in November.
>
> A spokesman at Turnbull & Asser confirmed that the shop did supply him with
> shirts but would not comment on his suits.
> Prince Charles's new image has its fans as well as its critics. When Andre
> 3000, the hip-hop singer with the band OutKast, came to London to pick up an
> award from GQ magazine in 2004, he said: "Prince Charles is my number one
> British style icon."
>
> The last word, however, should go to Richard Walker, the author of Savile
> Row: An Illustrated History: "The perfect suit is like the perfect wine - it
> does not exist, except in terms of individual taste."
>
> Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0)
> 207 538 7505 or e-mail syndi...@telegraph.co.uk
Cloths makes your personality.Narry Suits can make you more handsome. Narry is suits tailor company of Thailand with Bangkok and Phuket branches. Narry is expertise in custom made suits with designer look. Measured suits and shirts are available at http://www.narry.com/. Narry was started with one small store in Thailand and now it have many branches in major cities. Narry is known as one of the best Bespoke Tailor Bangkok.