Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont.
Tilly
Channel surfing when I found this film ( everything else is crap).
Wonderful character acting!
--
femai...@gmail.com
ChristianKnight
> (on Maori TV).
>
> Channel surfing when I found this film ( everything else is crap).
>
> Wonderful character acting!
> --
Maybe you should Avatar in 3D with me?
Christ's love
hellicopter
> (on Maori TV).
>
> Channel surfing when I found this film ( everything else is crap).
>
>
> Wonderful character acting!
Christmas is for people with families, so there's no good
putting on new movies when only the kids will watch the
TV. So the movies are all repeats that haven't been on
for ages. Ergo it all looks crap.
TVNZ has been bad, this maybe explained by the new Nats
want to unwind (any) regulations, TVNZ would thus play into
the new Nats and produce uncommonly bad TV. Antique Roadshow!
Geopelia
"hellicopter" <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hh4rbk$paj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
with films we have missed.
What's wrong with the Antiques Roadshow? That's one of the best programs
around.
Tilly
news:hh4sks$8bt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont had Joan Plowright in it and several other well
known actors of similar age.
Geopelia
"Tilly" <paul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hh4uar$kj7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
John Cawston
> "hellicopter" <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:hh4rbk$paj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Tilly wrote:
>>
>>> (on Maori TV).
>>>
>>> Channel surfing when I found this film ( everything else is crap).
>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful character acting!
>> Christmas is for people with families, so there's no good
>> putting on new movies when only the kids will watch the
>> TV. So the movies are all repeats that haven't been on
>> for ages. Ergo it all looks crap.
>>
>> TVNZ has been bad, this maybe explained by the new Nats
>> want to unwind (any) regulations, TVNZ would thus play into
>> the new Nats and produce uncommonly bad TV. Antique Roadshow!
>>
>>
>>
> We watched "The Castle" again. The repeats are a good chance to catch up
> with films we have missed.
During the 1970s, it seemed that "The African Queen" was the
stock Christmas film every year, and these days it looks like
"Forrest Gump" is heading the same way.
"Blazing Saddles" always sends up a groan in our family, but once
its underway everyone watches intently and laughs at the antics.
In Sweden the TV at Christmas always plays certain Donald Duck
and MM clips.. and Swedes have been watching the same show for 50
years by popular demand.. any hint that the networks are going to
change the annual format is met with a storm of protest..
Simply put, these films are the ties that bind families, they
recreate the wonder of Christmas with the childlike repetition of
the familiar and cause a suspension of worries or tension in
keeping with the season.. its a splendid thing.
> What's wrong with the Antiques Roadshow? That's one of the best programs
> around.
Definitely.
JC
>
>
retro
>
> Channel surfing when I found this film ( everything else is crap).
>
> Wonderful character acting!
> --
Yeah I saw it a couple of years ago, not bad.
I went to Coco Avant Chanel the other day
a very good movie, french with english subtitles, lovely sets,
I was a bit disappointed we didn't see more of her fashion design from
the art deco era, but oh well..........other than that it was a good
movie.
speaking of fashion design from the art deco era, here are just a few
of the vintage fashions I made in the past year or so, including a
trad looking men's pinstripe blaser and lots of lovely satin, organza
and lace.
ChristianKnight
"Geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hh4sks$8bt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
It seemed to radicle for someone like me who just gives in to others demands
most of the time .
Christ's love
ChristianKnight
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hh5ce5$g1j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Christ's love
Lyndon Watson
> During the 1970s, it seemed that "The African Queen" was the
> stock Christmas film every year, and these days it looks like
> "Forrest Gump" is heading the same way.
>
> "Blazing Saddles" always sends up a groan in our family, but once
> its underway everyone watches intently and laughs at the antics.
>
> In Sweden the TV at Christmas always plays certain Donald Duck
> and MM clips.. and Swedes have been watching the same show for 50
> years by popular demand.. any hint that the networks are going to
> change the annual format is met with a storm of protest..
>
> Simply put, these films are the ties that bind families, they
> recreate the wonder of Christmas with the childlike repetition of
> the familiar and cause a suspension of worries or tension in
> keeping with the season.. its a splendid thing.
Some of the usuals seem to be missing this year. I haven't seen that
Rowan Atkinson reverse Scrooge thing, or anything that seems to have a
real Christmas reference. Mrs Palfrey was a welcome bit of quality;
it's a while since it has been on.
Maori television has become more and more the channel that seems to
have a proper feel for what is appropriate, and not just on Anzac
Day. But it's a pity there wasn't a proper church service on one of
them.
LW
Tilly
news:B0vZm.4147$DR6....@newsfe19.iad...
TVNZ did have a Xmas movie on Christmas Eve, Keisha Castle-Hughes was in
it.
Geopelia
"retro" <galle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e439be04-01f1-4496...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I like your Art Deco floral. It's very like the dresses I make today, only
mine are knee length, and in brighter colours. I wear mine, and to my
surprise I get people coming up saying they like my dress, especially kids.
(And I'm 80, not 18).
But around home I wear shorts and T shirts all the time.
The fifties clothes were gorgeous (see Mad Men) but the full skirts are not
very practical these days. Try using a public toilet in a full skirt and
stiff petticoat, without brushing against the walls.
The sixties clothes were great, short, bright, and very practical if made
knee length, not very mini.
After that, clothes went pear shaped (and so did some figures, alas!) Such
drab colours, and so many jeans and tracksuits.
Don't girls want to look pretty, these days?
Brian Dooley
Carol Hirschfeld's influence perhaps?
Smart and good-looking with it.
>But it's a pity there wasn't a proper church service on one of
>them.
>
>LW
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Geopelia
"Lyndon Watson" <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:e9421866-4338-4195...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
LW
Years ago they used to show the lessons and traditional carols, I think from
Cambridge UK.
That was a great program.
But I suppose it wouldn't be PC today.
ChristianKnight
An indoor plasterer and a child to him.
Christ's love
ChristianKnight
definition Tv's
I was watching Star wars with the young Darthvader when he was a Gedi
apprentice . They had close ups of his face and you could easily see behind
the makeup his face was absolutely riddled with make up.
High definition may bring about a new era of role modeling as people drift
to the natural all round beauty above those that are placed because the
directer scored alot of free drugs or lollies.
Christ's love
Geopelia
inappropriate.
Mary was probably younger than she is, anyway.
Geopelia
It's sad to see young girls hiding their natural beauty under it, though.
Lyndon Watson
> Years ago they used to show the lessons and traditional carols, I think from
> Cambridge UK.
> That was a great program.
>
> But I suppose it wouldn't be PC today.
Even for radio. I remember when National Radio (or, rather, the Main
National Programme of the New Zealand Broadcasting Service as it was
then; 3YA to us) used to broadcast a full church service every Sunday
morning and services on special occasions. Even the ungodly seem to
respond to the form on occasions, even if they cannot understand the
meaning.
LW
-Newsman-
<te...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 11:50=A0pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> Years ago they used to show the lessons and traditional carols, I think f=
>rom
>> Cambridge UK.
>> That was a great program.
>>
>> But I suppose it wouldn't be PC today.
>
>Even for radio. I remember when National Radio (or, rather, the Main
>National Programme of the New Zealand Broadcasting Service as it was
>then; 3YA to us) used to broadcast a full church service every Sunday
>morning and services on special occasions.
In the UK, the BBC still does so to a large, loyal audience; public
service broadcasting.
>Even the ungodly seem to
>respond to the form on occasions, even if they cannot understand the
>meaning.
>
Radio New Zealand National broadcasts two weekly programmes: Spiritual
Outlook and Sunday Hymns. Unfailingly popular, the audiences for
these are huge and have been for donkey's years.
Again, Radio NZ National's annual Chirstmas carol/hymn requests
programme is jam-packed oversubscribed within hours of its broadcast
date being announced.
You see, "Secular" is so terribly drab and dreary. A zero-stimulus
vacancy of the human spirit solely comprised of those three essential
L's of the atrophied, moribund intellect:
Laziness; Lethargy; Lassitude.
Brian Dooley
-Newsman-
wrote:
>
It's been broadcast by the BBC every year (except 1930) since 1928
70 years and still going strong. A valued spiritual tradition
acknowledged and enjoyed by listeners around the world, all the more
easily now since the audio is live streamed by the BBC.
Geopelia
"Brian Dooley" <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:l5lgj59rq93magrag...@4ax.com...
Yes, that's the one.
But years ago they had better known carols when it was performed in local
churches.
The boy soprano used to start "Once in Royal David's City" and then the
procession would come down the aisle.
The congregation would join in singing some of the carols.
-Newsman-
wrote:
Still happens in towns all over the UK, Geopelia, and it's just about
the only time the churches are packed. Midnight Mass is as popular as
ever; they're also held in New Zealand.
It's just that, in New Zealand, television and radio are too scared of
the drab and dreary secularist thought police to make anything of
them.
retro
> "retro" <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e439be04-01f1-4496...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 9:47 pm, "Tilly" <paul1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> (on Maori TV).
>
> >> Channel surfing when I found this film ( everything else is crap).
>
> >> Wonderful character acting!
> >> --
> >> femail1...@gmail.com
>
> > Yeah I saw it a couple of years ago, not bad.
>
> > I went to Coco Avant Chanel the other day
> > a very good movie, french with english subtitles, lovely sets,
> > I was a bit disappointed we didn't see more of her fashion design from
> > the art deco era, but oh well..........other than that it was a good
> > movie.
>
> > speaking of fashion design from the art deco era, here are just a few
> > of the vintage fashions I made in the past year or so, including a
> > trad looking men's pinstripe blaser and lots of lovely satin, organza
> > and lace.
>
> >http://entertainment.webshots.com/album/548352489oKRHSL
>
> I like your Art Deco floral.
It's a retro pattern from the 30's
> It's very like the dresses I make today, only
> mine are knee length, and in brighter colours. I wear mine, and to my
> surprise I get people coming up saying they like my dress, especially kids.
> (And I'm 80, not 18).
> But around home I wear shorts and T shirts all the time.
>
> The fifties clothes were gorgeous
yeah I have also created quite an impressive collection of 50's
outfits, including petticoats
>(see Mad Men) but the full skirts are not
> very practical these days. Try using a public toilet in a full skirt and
> stiff petticoat, without brushing against the walls.
Never seen mad men (other than on various newsgroups),
I saw some shorts of the TV series and intended to watch it
but life's so busy, I don't have much time for watching TV.
It must be simply awful to be obsessed about hygiene like you are,
especially when washing clothes is quite a simple matter.
> The sixties clothes were great, short, bright, and very practical if made
> knee length, not very mini.
>
> After that, clothes went pear shaped (and so did some figures, alas!) Such
> drab colours, and so many jeans and tracksuits.
>
> Don't girls want to look pretty, these days?
Dunno, I guess people settle for whatever's easiest.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
It is one of the results of the total commercialisation of TV - such
programmes do not attract the advertising dollar sufficiently.
Geopelia
"-Newsman-" <sla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b391ae6...@news.eternal-september.org...
The church used to be packed out for Harvest Festival too, but that often
ended up as a sort of flower and vegetable show, with much deplorable
rivalry.
Geopelia
I'm probably less obsessed about hygiene than most folks today!
>> The sixties clothes were great, short, bright, and very practical if made
>> knee length, not very mini.
>>
>> After that, clothes went pear shaped (and so did some figures, alas!)
>> Such
>> drab colours, and so many jeans and tracksuits.
>>
>> Don't girls want to look pretty, these days?
>
> Dunno, I guess people settle for whatever's easiest.
And yet they still plaster their faces with make up!
But here you don't see women in headsquares and curlers, with a cigarette
stuck in their mouths.
>
retro
Actually it's funny you should have mentioned toileting, a couple of
weeks ago i was at a seminar on addiction assessment and treatment
planning.
We watched a demonstration of a therapist conducting a comprehensive
assessment, during the assessment the person being assessed mentioned
that she doesn't use public toilets and doesn't eat in public.
The therapist took note of that, in this case the person being
interviewed and assessed wasn't a real client and so her scenario was
made up, however the therapist is qualified and experienced and the
demonstration was showing how mental health issues are part of the
comprehensive assessment process, so we were watching a demo which
included social anxieties and other complexities. Well anyway it is
funny that you should mention toileting and how you don't like public
toilets also, I say when you gotta go, you gotta go.
> >> The sixties clothes were great, short, bright, and very practical if made
> >> knee length, not very mini.
>
> >> After that, clothes went pear shaped (and so did some figures, alas!)
> >> Such
> >> drab colours, and so many jeans and tracksuits.
>
> >> Don't girls want to look pretty, these days?
>
> > Dunno, I guess people settle for whatever's easiest.
>
> And yet they still plaster their faces with make up!
They do ?
> But here you don't see women in headsquares and curlers, with a cigarette
> stuck in their mouths.
strange name for a scarf,
so where do you most commonly see women in scarves with fags stuck in
their mouth then?
Brian Dooley
A former boss of mine was a keen dahlia grower and told me about
the cut-throat capers at the flower shows. If you can't trust a
dahlia grower who can you trust?
Lyndon Watson
> A former boss of mine was a keen dahlia grower and told me about
> the cut-throat capers at the flower shows. If you can't trust a
> dahlia grower who can you trust?
Well Muldoon was a lily enthusiast. . . .
LW
Heh Heh
Geopelia
I hate to see young girls in make up. Natural young beauty lasts such a
short time.
>> But here you don't see women in headsquares and curlers, with a cigarette
>> stuck in their mouths.
>
> strange name for a scarf,
> so where do you most commonly see women in scarves with fags stuck in
> their mouth then?
They were called headsquares because they were square. Even the Queen wore
one in the country. Scarves were long, usually in football or speedway
colours.
There were plenty of women like that in London when I was there, but perhaps
there aren't so many these days. After all, clothes were rationed, and not
everyone could afford a perm. And hair in curlers and covered wouldn't get
in factory machinery. Women worn snoods too, a sort of thick hairnet.
The old idea that ladies didn't smoke in public seemed to have gone out in
wartime.
Today girls seem to want long straight hair flopping around, anyway.
A _L_ P
>
> Never seen mad men (other than on various newsgroups),
> I saw some shorts of the TV series and intended to watch it
> but life's so busy, I don't have much time for watching TV.
>
If you're seriously interested in styles including the 60s you're crazy
to miss it. The period detail is spot on - clothes, hair, movement,
food, smoking, morality in theory and practice :-)
A L P
Geopelia
"A _L_ P" <hay.he...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhcri9$8he$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It would be the later fifties or the sixties before Mary Quant, from the
fashions.
I think the morality may be nearer to our time than theirs though.
But America was probably further ahead than New Zealand in those days.
retro
>
> >> And yet they still plaster their faces with make up!
>
> > They do ?
>
> I hate to see young girls in make up. Natural young beauty lasts such a
> short time.
doesn't bother me
> >> But here you don't see women in headsquares and curlers, with a cigarette
> >> stuck in their mouths.
>
> > strange name for a scarf,
> > so where do you most commonly see women in scarves with fags stuck in
> > their mouth then?
>
> They were called headsquares because they were square. Even the Queen wore
> one in the country. Scarves were long, usually in football or speedway
> colours.
>
> There were plenty of women like that in London when I was there, but perhaps
> there aren't so many these days. After all, clothes were rationed, and not
> everyone could afford a perm. And hair in curlers and covered wouldn't get
> in factory machinery. Women worn snoods too, a sort of thick hairnet.
> The old idea that ladies didn't smoke in public seemed to have gone out in
> wartime.
>
> Today girls seem to want long straight hair flopping around, anyway.-
I made a 1920-30's style teal felt hat yesterday, cloche style with a
droopy brim which tilts longer on one side, it's rather gorgeous and
I'm pleased with the result, bags of wool are cheap as chips so
felting is very economical.
I see that vintage patterns are quite the collectors item at the
moment with quite a few websites selling them, here's one such:
http://betsyvintage.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=6
check out the prices
retro
I'll make a point of viewing the next episode
Brian Dooley
I saw him with them on telly once.
I didn't recognise them as lilies at all.
hellicopter
>
> "hellicopter" <stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:hh4rbk$paj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Tilly wrote:
>>
>>> (on Maori TV).
>>>
>>> Channel surfing when I found this film ( everything else is crap).
>>>
>>>
>>> Wonderful character acting!
>>
>> Christmas is for people with families, so there's no good
>> putting on new movies when only the kids will watch the
>> TV. So the movies are all repeats that haven't been on
>> for ages. Ergo it all looks crap.
>>
>> TVNZ has been bad, this maybe explained by the new Nats
>> want to unwind (any) regulations, TVNZ would thus play into
>> the new Nats and produce uncommonly bad TV. Antique Roadshow!
>>
>>
>>
> We watched "The Castle" again. The repeats are a good chance to catch up
> with films we have missed.
Yes. If they haven't seen them.
> What's wrong with the Antiques Roadshow? That's one of the best programs
> around.
Attention is consent. Usually I would agree but the crime industry
which breeds criminals, criminal populations, prisons for criminals,
is rewarded by a culture that values property over people. Low
crime countries, countries that attach value to children, I would
have no problem with such programming. But when we live in a
culture that breeds people who want to harm their kids (smack),
wants to build more prisons (and beat out the US for number of
criminals in jail), and breeds welfare dependency, child poverty,
denies basic health care to children, dual purposes welfare
to turn what is described as a 'benefit' system actually creates
huge social harm, then yeah, I don't want the harm so I don't
give the culture of wealth my attention. i.e. valuing trinkets
over children. Its wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Tilly
Your arrogance is astounding.
Who values things over their childen here?
>
Tilly
Has it ever occurred to you that people enjoy Antiques Roadshow because it's
interesting and enjoyable?
Why do feel the need to turn everything into a political rant?
Why should Geopelia, a childless 79 year old woman be ashamed you loon?
That is who you are addressing.
ChristianKnight
> Geopelia wrote:
>
> > "hellicopter" <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like the Road Show because of it's informatively historic.
Though I agree with people being better at work than on a bennefit and
children better fostering then a violent home life.
Christ's love
hellicopter
So is watching boxing. Or porn. Yes, people enjoy many media that
have consequences for others. Materialism is no different.
> Why do feel the need to turn everything into a political rant?
Why would anyone, I'm offended that Chinese news runs a NZ Ministry
of Health report into child health access in NZ.
Kiwi youth suffer some of the worst health outcomes in the developed world,
but funding for their health services is "tenuous", a new report says.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3196998/Kiwi-youth-unhealthy-but-help-tenuous-says-report
Oh, yeah, antique roadshow is so cutting edge TV, TV that should
be dealing with real issues, real failings of our government, that
harms our community.
> Why should Geopelia, a childless 79 year old woman be ashamed you loon?
> That is who you are addressing.
There are many moderated forums for such censorship. But I do agree
I went to far, she said nothing directly about children and I
withdraw those comments. And redirect my rant at the TVNZ who
produce this materialism when there are real people being harmed
right under their noses.
Geopelia
The onion, believe it or not, is a lily!
Perhaps the "lilies of the field" are the wild onion weed. But I think that
just means wild flowers in general.
hellicopter
Old people give money in wills, to charity, not out of charity, but
revenge. The whole aged community have their heads up their...
Trying in one last effort to get in the after life...
Yet their 'best' experience is watching this materialistic
excuse for respectability, called the antique road show.
What a world they have left their grandkids! Oh look
nice objada though. To hell with the kids walking to school without
shoes, the mothers who can't afford to take their kids to the
doctor because of another beat up single mums make them save
for an uncertain future of National cutbacks.
Lock them up, sensible sentencing trust, who we certainly
should not trust, who are far from sensible sentencing as you
can possible get without being thrown out of the TV interview.
Geopelia
"Tilly" <paul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hheofn$j58$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I don't know if he was talking to me or not.
But with some of the kids around these days, perhaps some of us would prefer
antiques. :-)
If there was some big disaster, and you could save either the Mona Lisa or a
baby (not related to you), which should you save?
Interesting problem, isn't it?
Geopelia
doesn't bother me
check out the prices
-----------------------------------
Some of those patterns are like the ones I'm still using.
Apart from the "New Look" and the full skirted fifties patterns, dress
styles don't change much.
The practical "Utility" styles of the forties wouldn't look out of place
today.
Forget the weird stuff that appears on the catwalks - and the even weirder
models.
Are you anywhere near Browns Bay, North Shore? Ike's Emporium had boxes of
old patterns last time I went there.
Tilly
There is a hell of difference betweeb boxing and porn and The Antiques Road
Show ' which teaches people about the history of the items shown as well as
valuing them.
>
>> Why do feel the need to turn everything into a political rant?
>
> Why would anyone, I'm offended that Chinese news runs a NZ Ministry
> of Health report into child health access in NZ.
>
> Kiwi youth suffer some of the worst health outcomes in the developed
> world,
> but funding for their health services is "tenuous", a new report says.
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3196998/Kiwi-youth-unhealthy-but-help-tenuous-says-report
>
> Oh, yeah, antique roadshow is so cutting edge TV, TV that should
> be .dealing with real issues, real failings of our government, that
> harms our community>
>
>> Why should Geopelia, a childless 79 year old woman be ashamed you loon?
>> That is who you are addressing.
>
> There are many moderated forums for such censorship. But I do agree
> I went to far, she said nothing directly about children and I
> withdraw those comments. And redirect my rant at the TVNZ who
> produce this materialism when there are real people being harmed
> right under their noses.
>
>
>
People usually want to relax and be entertained with quality programming
when they watch TV, (which we aren't getting enough of at thr moment) they
don't want to be bombarded with politically biased programmes which is
what you are suggesting. It's reminiscent of the sort of stuff people are
forced to watch in undemocratic countries.
What you are suggesting is the sort of crap people are subjected to .--
femai...@gmail.com
Tilly
Provide evidence to support the above claim.
Waiting................
> Yet their 'best' experience is watching this materialistic
> excuse for respectability, called the antique road show.
> What a world they have left their grandkids! Oh look
> nice objada though.
F**k you are arrogant and judgmental.
To hell with the kids walking to school without
> shoes, the mothers who can't afford to take their kids to the
> doctor because of another beat up single mums make them save
> for an uncertain future of National cutbacks.
> Lock them up, sensible sentencing trust, who we certainly
> should not trust, who are far from sensible sentencing as you
> can possible get without being thrown out of the TV interview.
>
>
Do you spend your entire life thinking about nothing about politics / the
above?
Is it your entire world?
Do you feel it's your role in life to judge others and to attempt to make
them feel guilty about watching
TV programmes which you feel to be unworthy ,such as the 'Antiques
Roadshow', because kids are going without shoes
etc ?
Do you ever laugh or have fun or is your life as miserable as your rants
suggest?
retro
> "retro" <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I just googled and got the phone number for Ike's, I think I have been
there some time ago, I recall going to an emporium on the north shore
a few years ago but I can't remember the name, it may have been Ike's.
i'll phone'm and see whether they still have old patterns.
Actually Mrs palfrey at the claremont reminds me of a woman I know,
she was the one who originally told me about Mrs palfrey, she seemed
to like the movie a lot and perhaps in some way she identifies with
the character of Mrs palfrey.
This woman ( I will call her 'A') lost her husband ( 'B') a few years
ago and the husband died just a few weeks after his mother (I will
call her 'C').
B's parents owned lot of property and if his mother had passed away
after him her legacy would have been inherited by her grandson and
grand-daughter, who are both adults.
However B passed away just weeks before his mother and his inheritance
went to his wife A. So A inherited a sizeable fortune from her
husband's parents and as I said if B had passed away just weeks sooner
his share of his parent's estate would have fallen to A and B's adult
children.
So A is now very wealthy after inheriting the inlaw's estate, and I
should add that she always used to complain about her inlaws and go on
about them behind their back.
Meanwhile A's daughter (who is the rightful heiress according to her
grandparent's will) and grand children struggle along with hefty
mortgages, raising children and generally working their backsides off
survive.
A's daughter 'D' works, studies to get qualifications and improve her
lot in life and babysits her own grandchildren, so her daughter can
also work to get ahead, D also does whatever she can for her mother
A, who inherited the fortune.
Meanwhile A mainly languishes around her new apartment with all the
best trappings, brand new car, the works, she spends most days
shopping and reading books, living like a retired movie star and
complaining about how cruel life has been to her, complaining about
her grief, complaining about the younger generation, complaining about
her health, complaining about sons, daughters, grandchildren, great
grandchildren, complaining about christmas, you name it, she will
complain about it, she is often also rather nasty and bitter towards
people.
I think 'A' identifies with mrs palfrey in some way and would like to
have people think that her family aren't there for her, are
unsupportive and wont do anything for her, she also has a lot of blind
spots and can't see her own failings.
Lyndon Watson
> Meanwhile A's daughter (who is the rightful heiress according to her
> grandparent's will)
If that is the case, then the will should have gone to probate and the
estate should have been distributed to her as directed by the will.
If the estate has not gone according to the will, then the Court will
step in if she complains.
LW
retro
Apparently not in this case.
The grandparent's wills stated that if the sons or daughters die
before them, then their legacy would go to the grandchildren but
because the son (B) outlived his mother by just a few weeks, the
legacy went into B's estate and he left his estate to his wife, which
over-rides the grandparents wishes.
The dutiful daughter never kicked up any fuss during the probate time
because she knows how mean her mother can get and thought it might
cost a lot of money, which she doesn't have so her mother quite
happily inherited the proceedings from the in-laws.
Geopelia
On Dec 31, 11:37 am, Lyndon Watson <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:30 am, retro <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile A's daughter (who is the rightful heiress according to her
> > grandparent's will)
>
> If that is the case, then the will should have gone to probate and the
> estate should have been distributed to her as directed by the will.
> If the estate has not gone according to the will, then the Court will
> step in if she complains.
>
> LW
Apparently not in this case.
The grandparent's wills stated that if the sons or daughters die
before them, then their legacy would go to the grandchildren but
because the son (B) outlived his mother by just a few weeks, the
legacy went into B's estate and he left his estate to his wife, which
over-rides the grandparents wishes.
-----------------
But wasn't that perfectly legal as the will stood? How could it be
overturned?
-------------------------
The dutiful daughter never kicked up any fuss during the probate time
because she knows how mean her mother can get and thought it might
cost a lot of money, which she doesn't have so her mother quite
happily inherited the proceedings from the in-laws.
---------------
Don't make a will by yourself. A solicitor can point out all the legal
problems that may arise, and make sure the will agrees with your intentions.
This new relationship property act complicates things, too.
Lyndon Watson
> On Dec 31, 11:37 am, Lyndon Watson <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 8:30 am, retro <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Meanwhile A's daughter (who is the rightful heiress according to her
> > > grandparent's will)
>
> > If that is the case, then the will should have gone to probate and the
> > estate should have been distributed to her as directed by the will.
> > If the estate has not gone according to the will, then the Court will
> > step in if she complains.
>
>
> The grandparent's wills stated that if the sons or daughters die
> before them, then their legacy would go to the grandchildren but
> because the son (B) outlived his mother by just a few weeks, the
> legacy went into B's estate and he left his estate to his wife, which
> over-rides the grandparents wishes.
Actually the legacy went exactly as the grandparents wished - to their
son. After that it was his property, not theirs, and he chose to
leave it to his widow. If they had wanted to provide for their
granddaughter, they could and should have done so in the will instead
of leaving it all to their son.
> The dutiful daughter never kicked up any fuss during the probate time
> because she knows how mean her mother can get and thought it might
> cost a lot of money, which she doesn't have so her mother quite
> happily inherited the proceedings from the in-laws.
But inherited not from the in-laws; from her husband. The daughter
could have challenged both her grandparents' will (which would have
put her against her father and mother) or her father's will. She was
right about the cost of Family Protection proceedings. In the case of
her father's will she would probably have got a share (perhaps a
quarter) of his estate, but thousands of dollars would have gone out
of the estate to pay for the proceedings.
LW
Lyndon Watson
> "retro" <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> before them, then their legacy would go to the grandchildren but
> because the son (B) outlived his mother by just a few weeks, the
> legacy went into B's estate and he left his estate to his wife, which
> over-rides the grandparents wishes.
>
> overturned?
The Family Protection Act 1955 s.4 gives the Court the power to
override wills and give shares of an estate to various family members
if "adequate provision is not available from [the] estate for the
proper maintenance and support" of those persons. Claims and orders
under this provision are very common.
> Don't make a will by yourself. A solicitor can point out all the legal
> problems that may arise, and make sure the will agrees with your intentions.
> This new relationship property act complicates things, too.
Yep. In Retro's case, the widow (mother) would probably have been
entitled to a half of her husband's estate (which included the legacy
from his parents) as relationship property, effectively taking it out
of the estate. The daughter's laim would have been for a share of the
half that was left, and I'm guessing that she might have got a half of
that, but it depends on the circumstances.
LW
Brian Dooley
But what language was it in originally - Aramaic? Greek?
Geopelia
Probably translated from Greek.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html
But it may have been translated from Hebrew into Greek.
Jesus would originally have said it in Aramaic though, wouldn't he?
And "lilies of the field" sounds nicer than "weeds".
hellicopter
Who owns the copyright on a will? I mean why don't people
publish contracts, wills, etc so we know what a legally tight
document is supposed to look like. I mean if your dead
what do you care that people the world over reads your will!
I mean most people just want their estate split between
surviving children-partner (that they knew about) and leave any
matters to their partners to clear up.
retro
> On Dec 31, 3:46 pm, retro <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 11:37 am, Lyndon Watson <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > > On Dec 31, 8:30 am, retro <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Meanwhile A's daughter (who is the rightful heiress according to her
> > > > grandparent's will)
>
> > > If that is the case, then the will should have gone to probate and the
> > > estate should have been distributed to her as directed by the will.
> > > If the estate has not gone according to the will, then the Court will
> > > step in if she complains.
>
> > Apparently not in this case.
>
> > The grandparent's wills stated that if the sons or daughters die
> > before them, then their legacy would go to the grandchildren but
> > because the son (B) outlived his mother by just a few weeks, the
> > legacy went into B's estate and he left his estate to his wife, which
> > over-rides the grandparents wishes.
>
> Actually the legacy went exactly as the grandparents wished - to their
> son. After that it was his property, not theirs, and he chose to
> leave it to his widow. If they had wanted to provide for their
> granddaughter, they could and should have done so in the will instead
> of leaving it all to their son.
well they did provide for the grand-daughter in so much that they
didn't expect the son to die straight after his mother, before he
actually received any of the legacy.
The now rich widow should think herself extremely fortunate that her
husband managed to live just a few weeks after his mother, otherwise
the legacy would have gone straight to their children.
It is such a pity she can't be nicer to her family instead of the
constant emotional abuse which she heaps upon them.
I know quite a few widows who are left with not much at all, other
than their home and they have to survive on the pension, they don't
seem to languish about heaping disgust and oppression upon their
families.
> > The dutiful daughter never kicked up any fuss during the probate time
> > because she knows how mean her mother can get and thought it might
> > cost a lot of money, which she doesn't have so her mother quite
> > happily inherited the proceedings from the in-laws.
>
> But inherited not from the in-laws; from her husband. The daughter
> could have challenged both her grandparents' will (which would have
> put her against her father and mother) or her father's will. She was
> right about the cost of Family Protection proceedings. In the case of
> her father's will she would probably have got a share (perhaps a
> quarter) of his estate, but thousands of dollars would have gone out
> of the estate to pay for the proceedings.
well anyway, recently the daughter has scored a really great
opportunity in another town and so she will not be available to run
around after her mother like she has been.
She is about to extract herself from the unhealthy co-dependence which
has dragged her down for most of her life and is set to make her own
fortune, at the same time she also feels guilty about leaving town and
not being available to help her mother out but then her mother should
be easily able to pay people for help as required, rather than using
and abusing.
> LW
retro
> "retro" <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
well anyway it is all very complicated
back to your comment:
>Some of those patterns are like the ones I'm still using.
Apart from the "New Look" and the full skirted fifties patterns, dress
styles don't change much.
>The practical "Utility" styles of the forties wouldn't look out of place
today.
yes that is quite so people don't seem to pay too much attention to
retro and vintage clothing and that is probably because every decade
the fashion industry revamps clothing from previous eras.
i.e a lot of the clothing in the 1970's was very 1930's looking with
leg of mutton sleeves, pinched in waistlines and large bell bottom
trousers which were reminiscent of what was fashionable in the 1930's,
and the 1980's brought back the batwing and dolman sleeves which were
quite art deco.
The empire dress also keeps coming back in it's various shapes, forms
and lengths.
There are some really good resource books around at the moment such as
this one
http://www.amazon.com/Deco-Fashion-Pepin-Press-Books/dp/905496135X
which are invaluable reference material.
Lyndon Watson
> Who owns the copyright on a will?
Unless they agree to the contrary (most unlikely), the lawyer draws up
a will on commission for the client, so the copyright in any original
wording belongs to the client and, after the client's death, becomes
an asset of the estate. But since most clauses of most wills are
standard in form, and probably taken from a book of precedents, the
copyright often belongs to some legal author who has licensed its use
or waived the copyright.
> I mean why don't people
> publish contracts, wills, etc so we know what a legally tight
> document is supposed to look like. I mean if your dead
> what do you care that people the world over reads your will!
There is an industry in publishing forms of wills for people to do
their own. If you get hold of one of those, you will get good
clauses. There aren't usually problems in simple, common provisions,
and the Courts will alwys try to work out what the testator intended
and give effect to that. Problems are more likely to arise not from
defective wording but from not understanding the effect of provisions
such as the Family Protection Act, the Testamentary Promises Act and
the Property (Relationships) Act on what the testator wants to do, and
only expert advice can help there.
> I mean most people just want their estate split between
> surviving children-partner (that they knew about) and leave any
> matters to their partners to clear up.
Yes, it's easy enough to find standard clauses to do that, but you
have to make sure that you are not going to fall foul of one of those
statutes - e.g. remember that your spouse/partner is entitled to a
share in the relationship property before it goes into your estate;
and make sure all your obligations to your family are satisfied. It's
usually safest to what the grandparents in Retro's case did and leave
it all to your children, but your children don't always do what you
expect.
LW
Squiggle
> Geopelia wrote:
>
>
>
>> What's wrong with the Antiques Roadshow? That's one of the best programs around.
>>
>
> Attention is consent. Usually I would agree but the crime industry
> which breeds criminals, criminal populations, prisons for criminals,
> is rewarded by a culture that values property over people. Low
> crime countries, countries that attach value to children, I would
> have no problem with such programming.
low crime countries that "attach value to children"?
> But when we live in a
> culture that breeds people who want to harm their kids (smack),
>
Ah bollocks, an ocassional open handed smack on the arse does not
harm a child.
> wants to build more prisons (and beat out the US for number of
> criminals in jail), and breeds welfare dependency, child poverty,
> denies basic health care to children,
Where the hell does NZ deny basic healthcare to children?
> dual purposes welfare
> to turn what is described as a 'benefit' system actually creates
> huge social harm,
Perhaps we should remove the welfare system altogether then? Then
you will see that the welfare system does not do more harm than
good. The only thing wrong with the system at teh moment is that
it leaves the option of welfare bludger for life as a valid
option in the minds of some.
hellicopter
> On Jan 1, 5:58 am, hellicopter <stonesn...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
>> Who owns the copyright on a will?
>
> Unless they agree to the contrary (most unlikely), the lawyer draws up
> a will on commission for the client, so the copyright in any original
> wording belongs to the client and, after the client's death, becomes
> an asset of the estate. But since most clauses of most wills are
> standard in form, and probably taken from a book of precedents, the
> copyright often belongs to some legal author who has licensed its use
> or waived the copyright.
...or people died and had written wills 70 years or more ago.
Or generic and obvious wills aren't significantly hard to
write that copyright could be gained.
>
>> I mean why don't people
>> publish contracts, wills, etc so we know what a legally tight
>> document is supposed to look like. I mean if your dead
>> what do you care that people the world over reads your will!
>
> There is an industry in publishing forms of wills for people to do
> their own. If you get hold of one of those, you will get good
> clauses. There aren't usually problems in simple, common provisions,
> and the Courts will alwys try to work out what the testator intended
> and give effect to that. Problems are more likely to arise not from
> defective wording but from not understanding the effect of provisions
> such as the Family Protection Act, the Testamentary Promises Act and
> the Property (Relationships) Act on what the testator wants to do, and
> only expert advice can help there.
Ah, and so it begins. I get it. They just put a whole new
set of responsibilities under urgency into law and the
existing wills all become tainted, needing new lawyers to
know the law at the time, the cultural intent of
leaving your property to your kids of the migrant from
the transval who happen to be Buddhist in later years, etc, etc.
Oh, the fees just keep coming.
>
>> I mean most people just want their estate split between
>> surviving children-partner (that they knew about) and leave any
>> matters to their partners to clear up.
>
> Yes, it's easy enough to find standard clauses to do that, but you
> have to make sure that you are not going to fall foul of one of those
> statutes - e.g. remember that your spouse/partner is entitled to a
> share in the relationship property before it goes into your estate;
> and make sure all your obligations to your family are satisfied. It's
> usually safest to what the grandparents in Retro's case did and leave
> it all to your children, but your children don't always do what you
> expect.
Very pleasent of you to put death in that way. You must be a lawyer
or a funeral director. Don't always do what you expect. Tee Hee
>
> LW
Lyndon Watson
> Lyndon Watson wrote:
> > There is an industry in publishing forms of wills for people to do
> > their own. If you get hold of one of those, you will get good
> > clauses. There aren't usually problems in simple, common provisions,
> > and the Courts will alwys try to work out what the testator intended
> > and give effect to that. Problems are more likely to arise not from
> > defective wording but from not understanding the effect of provisions
> > such as the Family Protection Act, the Testamentary Promises Act and
> > the Property (Relationships) Act on what the testator wants to do, and
> > only expert advice can help there.
>
> Ah, and so it begins. I get it. They just put a whole new
> set of responsibilities under urgency into law and the
> existing wills all become tainted, needing new lawyers to
> know the law at the time, the cultural intent of
> leaving your property to your kids of the migrant from
> the transval who happen to be Buddhist in later years, etc, etc.
> Oh, the fees just keep coming.
This is one field which the politicians have largely left alone once
the basic rules were laid down. The only significant change in the
last fifty years has been the Matrimonial Property Act, now replaced
with the Property (Relationships) Act, and that was long debated. But
the criteria for giving a share under the Family Protection Act have
tended to vary with the prevailing social attitudes of the time, and
it has tended to be money-spinner for lawyers working in that field
because everyone's costs, regardless of success, usually come out of
the estate. Something, in my opinion, should be done about that.
LW
Brian Dooley
retro
> "A _L_ P" <hay.hell....@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:hhcri9$8he$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > retro wrote:
>
> >> Never seen mad men (other than on various newsgroups),
> >> I saw some shorts of the TV series and intended to watch it
> >> but life's so busy, I don't have much time for watching TV.
>
> > If you're seriously interested in styles including the 60s you're crazy to
> > miss it. The period detail is spot on - clothes, hair, movement, food,
> > smoking, morality in theory and practice :-)
>
> > A L P
>
> It would be the later fifties or the sixties before Mary Quant, from the
> fashions.
> I think the morality may be nearer to our time than theirs though.
> But America was probably further ahead than New Zealand in those days.
Brilliant piece of fashion footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-7z2OiiqzA&feature=related
Geopelia
------------------
I can't get youtube, being on dial up. (I could, but it would take over half
an hour to download).
But I've lived through every fashion era from the thirties on.
My favourites to wear myself, forties Utility (before the New Look), and
sixties Mini style but made knee length.
And the good old A line, without a waist. Such sensible, comfortable
clothes.
Short shorts and T shirts seem ageless, and great around home.
But for watching pretty girls, the fifties win!
retro
> "retro" <galleria...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8cd4b4b9-ced0-45a4...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30 2009, 9:56 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "A _L_ P" <hay.hell....@gmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:hhcri9$8he$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > retro wrote:
>
> > >> Never seen mad men (other than on various newsgroups),
> > >> I saw some shorts of the TV series and intended to watch it
> > >> but life's so busy, I don't have much time for watching TV.
>
> > > If you're seriously interested in styles including the 60s you're crazy
> > > to
> > > miss it. The period detail is spot on - clothes, hair, movement, food,
> > > smoking, morality in theory and practice :-)
>
> > > A L P
>
> > It would be the later fifties or the sixties before Mary Quant, from the
> > fashions.
> > I think the morality may be nearer to our time than theirs though.
> > But America was probably further ahead than New Zealand in those days.
>
> ------------------
> I can't get youtube, being on dial up. (I could, but it would take over half
> an hour to download).
>
> But I've lived through every fashion era from the thirties on.
> My favourites to wear myself, forties Utility (before the New Look), and
> sixties Mini style but made knee length.
> And the good old A line, without a waist. Such sensible, comfortable
> clothes.
> Short shorts and T shirts seem ageless, and great around home.
>
> But for watching pretty girls, the fifties win!
Yep I like 40's clothes too, vogue have reproduction retro/vintage
patterns in their pattern books, some of which are 1940's era and the
repro patterns are good because you get the old styles and designs but
the patterns are well marked with the lines and words indicating darts
and cutting lines etc, whereas the original old patterns don't have
markings to indicate darts, pleats etc, just holes, which are ok but
not uite as clear as the modern repro patterns.
I had a look at mad men last night but I found the storyline somewhat
dreary and the clothes weren't so fascinating either, at the same time
there were 2 Elvis movies were on TCM, Viva Las Vegas and Girl Happy,
those movies had lots of different examples of 60's clothing which
were infinitely more interesting than mad men and were the originals
for that era, so I flicked between mad men and elvis for a while but
eventually settled on watching the Elvis movies, with the music and
plenty of clothes to draw inspiration from.
Lyndon Watson
Ah, the era of hotpants. . . .
> But for watching pretty girls, the fifties win!
I dunno, I'm not doing too bad in my sixties either.
I'd better go and lie down now
LW