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

Groups > alt.usage.english > #677791 > unrolled thread

Re: Occupation-derived surnames

Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#677791 — Re: Occupation-derived surnames

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.

Peter.

-- 
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)  (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK.           Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#677804

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.

> I thought he already indicated that he would assume the throne as
> "George VII".   Not certain about that.

That's often said, but I don't know of any established fact. He can 
rule under any of his given names: Charles Philip Arthur George.
What price King Arthur II?

Peter.

-- 
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)  (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK.           Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#677821

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:12:08 AM UTC-7, 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.
> 
> > I thought he already indicated that he would assume the throne as
> > "George VII".   Not certain about that.
> 
> That's often said, but I don't know of any established fact. He can 
> rule under any of his given names: Charles Philip Arthur George.
> What price King Arthur II?
 
I doubt that II. I even doubt Alfred II. The Edwards ignore
the Anglo-Saxon Edward (I think there was only one).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681089

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?

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*.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681122

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.

-- 
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681132

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*. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681143

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:54:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> 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?)

I haven't seen the play. So I can't answer that first question other
than to say that William is slightly taller than Harry (an inch or two?)

These are photos from June 2014:
http://cdn.lifebuzz.com/images/142795/lifebuzz-517546eb9d156dc8540218264f9e43f0-limit_2000.jpg

and December 2015:
http://cdn.lifebuzz.com/images/142771/lifebuzz-26cba190e3aa1dd6819556e7b8663836-limit_2000.jpg

from:
http://www.lifebuzz.com/prince-look/

There have been questions about Harry's pedigree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry#James_Hewitt

    There were rumours that Harry is the son of James Hewitt, with whom
    his mother had an affair. In response, Hewitt told the press
    that Harry had been born before the affair began. Hewitt's 2002
    statement read:
    
        There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's
        father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not. Admittedly
        the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. I
        have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with
        Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not
        Harry's father. When I met Diana, he was already a toddler.
    
    The statement was seconded by one of Diana's police bodyguards, Ken
    Wharfe:
    
        The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of
        Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly. The nonsense should be
        scotched here and now. Harry was born on 15 September 1984.
        Diana did not meet James until the summer of 1986, and the red
        hair, gossips so love to cite as proof is, of course, a Spencer
        trait.

Spencer is Diana's maiden name. This shows her younger brother, Earl
Spencer, with his former wife and their children. Note his hair:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/06/article-1384440-00EA944C00000190-268_634x422.jpg




>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*. 

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681150

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:44:09 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:54:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> 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?)
> 
> I haven't seen the play. So I can't answer that first question other
> than to say that William is slightly taller than Harry (an inch or two?)

Definitely worth a see. NJTV/PBS offered the DVD for $29.95, which seems 
rather pricey for a 80-minute movie (even for them).

The William was at least a head taller than the Harry.

Otherwise the resemblances of the actors to the real people were 
uncanny -- unlike in, say, *The King's Speech*.

> These are photos from June 2014:
> http://cdn.lifebuzz.com/images/142795/lifebuzz-517546eb9d156dc8540218264f9e43f0-limit_2000.jpg
> 
> and December 2015:
> http://cdn.lifebuzz.com/images/142771/lifebuzz-26cba190e3aa1dd6819556e7b8663836-limit_2000.jpg
> 
> from:
> http://www.lifebuzz.com/prince-look/
> 
> There have been questions about Harry's pedigree.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry#James_Hewitt
> 
>     There were rumours that Harry is the son of James Hewitt, with whom
>     his mother had an affair. In response, Hewitt told the press
>     that Harry had been born before the affair began. Hewitt's 2002
>     statement read:
>     
>         There really is no possibility whatsoever that I am Harry's
>         father. I can absolutely assure you that I am not. Admittedly
>         the red hair is similar to mine and people say we look alike. I
>         have never encouraged these comparisons and although I was with
>         Diana for a long time I must state once and for all that I'm not
>         Harry's father. When I met Diana, he was already a toddler.
>     
>     The statement was seconded by one of Diana's police bodyguards, Ken
>     Wharfe:
>     
>         The malicious rumours that still persist about the paternity of
>         Prince Harry used to anger Diana greatly. The nonsense should be
>         scotched here and now. Harry was born on 15 September 1984.
>         Diana did not meet James until the summer of 1986, and the red
>         hair, gossips so love to cite as proof is, of course, a Spencer
>         trait.
> 
> Spencer is Diana's maiden name. This shows her younger brother, Earl
> Spencer, with his former wife and their children. Note his hair:
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/06/article-1384440-00EA944C00000190-268_634x422.jpg
> 
> >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*. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681240

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681268

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 2:24:16 AM UTC-4, GordonD wrote:
> 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...)

I cannot help being aware that some persons see of what I write only that
which is quoted by others, and then draw utterly false, not to say idiotic, 
conclusions about what they think I write, and then distribute their 
ill will throughout the newsgroup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#677823

On 17 May 2017  Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> In article <5129be3d56.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
> pnyoung@ormail.co.uk says...
>> 
>> 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.

>   That's a "right" which no longer exists.

That's why I put in it quotes. In the play, the Speaker appears to 
hold up his right, which is no doubt dramatic licence.

Peter.

-- 
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)  (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK.           Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#677824

On 17/05/2017 19:28, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2017 14:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 10:35:35 -0700, 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?
>>
>> Yes.
>>>
>>> I thought he already indicated that he would assume the throne as
>>> "George VII".   Not certain about that.
>>
>> You do understand that the play/TV show is fiction?  That particular
>> choice was evidently not considered to be necessary as a plot point.
> 
> Yes, of course.  I just wondered why they didn't call the program,
> *George VII*, if that is what he will be called, but maybe that's just
> somebody's fanciful thinking.
> 
I imagine someone decided that this might confuse the audience.
"The Madness of King George" is an example of that approach.

-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english

csiph-web