Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.usage.english > #681240

Re: Occupation-derived surnames

Show all headers | View raw

On 08/06/2017 12:54, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:02:23 AM UTC-4, GordonD wrote:
>> On 08/06/2017 04:02, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:12:08 PM UTC-4, Peter Young wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2017  Mack A. Damia <drsteerforth@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:23:20 +0100, Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 May 2017  Mack A. Damia <drsteerforth@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 11:56:33 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:53:14 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>>>>>>> <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is formal approval by the Queen. She is "advised" by her ministers
>>>>>>>>> to grant approval. That is advice that she can't refuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She can, but it would be a constitutional crisis.  Can't she fire her
>>>>>>> ministers if she wants to?  Same as DJT.  If they don't give you what
>>>>>>> you want, fire them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The play/TV show "King Charles III" hinged on Charles, as King,
>>>>>>>> refusing to sign a bill presented to him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the play, a constitutional crisis did occur. He then exerted his
>>>>>> "constitutional right" to dissolve Parliament. Eventually the King had
>>>>>> to abdicate.
>>>>
>>>>> Never watched it.  Is this supposed to be Prince Charles, QE2's son?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed so. He refuses to give Royal Consent to a Bill limiting press
>>>> freedom, leading to the said crisis.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was an excellent play, but my friend-who-is-a-lady has
>>>> reservations about portraying living persons on the stage.
>>>>
>>>> See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(play)> for a
>>>> synopsis.
>>>
>>> Channel 50.1 (NJTV) showed it this evening. Was anyone else put off by the
>>> contortions in syntax to fit the dialogue into "Shakespearean" blank verse,
>>> with rhymed couplets to end scenes, no less?
>>
>>
>> I hadn't heard ahead of time that the play was written in this manner.
>> Once I realised what they were doing I quite enjoyed it.
> 
> Neither had I. I noticed fairly early on that maybe some of the actors
> weren't experienced Shakespearians and were perhaps accenting their
> lines a bit too much in order to bring out the iambs. I think the only
> character who spoke in prose was the butcher (was he or wasn't he the
> father of the girlfriend?); at first I thought maybe only the royals
> would use verse, but then the PM did, too, and then the commoner girlfriend.
> Not sure about the fellow who happened on Harry in her flat and may
> or may not have recognized him immediately.
> 
> (BTW is William that much taller than Harry in real life? and have
> their been questions about Harry's pedigree?)
> 
> My subsequent comment was worthy of consideration rather than deletion:
> 
> In the minidocumentary afterward, the late Mr Piggott-Smith said that the
> blank verse was one of the things that attracted him to the role, and that
> the play is in the tradition of *Richard II* and *Richard III*.
> 

I deleted it because I had nothing to say about it. I hate it when
someone posts a comment halfway through the post they're responding to,
and having read it I scroll down through a couple of screens of text
only to find nothing new has been added afterwards.

(Yes, in this case it was a three-line paragraph rather than a couple of
screens but it's how these things get started...)

-- 
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

Back to alt.usage.english | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Occupation-derived surnames Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:23 +0100
  Re: Occupation-derived surnames Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 19:09 +0100
    Re: Occupation-derived surnames David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 12:12 -0700
    Re: Occupation-derived surnames "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2017-06-07 20:02 -0700
      Re: Occupation-derived surnames GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2017-06-08 11:02 +0100
        Re: Occupation-derived surnames "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2017-06-08 04:54 -0700
          Re: Occupation-derived surnames "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2017-06-08 13:44 +0100
            Re: Occupation-derived surnames "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2017-06-08 06:26 -0700
          Re: Occupation-derived surnames GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2017-06-09 07:24 +0100
            Re: Occupation-derived surnames "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2017-06-09 04:33 -0700
  Re: Occupation-derived surnames Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:12 +0100
  Re: Occupation-derived surnames Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2017-05-17 20:16 +0100

csiph-web