Blergh

OK, in one of those 'you can't make this up' deals, recently a Tennessee legislator proposed that the state's capital city of Nashville, Tennessee to have its airport renamed for. .#45 which [at least for now] failed in a House committee on March 18. HOWEVER, there's an online petition that's been put out to have that city's airport named for one of its most world- famous (and beloved ) residents. .Miss Dolly Parton. Yep, it would be called the Dolly Parton International Airport. As of this writing, the online petition has garnered over 18,000 signatures.

Now you've got me wondering if perhaps Mary herself might have worn a portrait of her own mother Catherine on her person but somehow this never got recorded or preserved. While Henry did his best to rid his domain of images of his earlier wives once disavowed them, Catherine had had lots of Continental supporters and relatives who'd have kept her image alive- including her nephew the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V./Charles I of Castille&Leon and Aragon who'd wind being Mary's father-in-law (possibly gifting a portrait of his aunt to his cousin/DIL as a wedding present).

Interesting new Podcast with the trio of AA, Dean Butler and Miss Pamela Bob detailing the Season One episode 'Voice of Tinker Jones'. I mean, they covered everything from how the 'molten metal' was created [and was nowhere near the volcanic temps of the real McCoy] to how one of the extra 'background kids'/ director's son Sean Penn somewhat vindicated AA's early rep as a delicate flower via his own rather sudden faint- and how they'd only talk about it at a teen party some years later. Oh, AA mentioned one poignant note via the ending with Nels giving his preteen offspring a look of surprised, genuine pride due to their participation with the other Walnut Grove kids in creating this bell- drawing the feuding adult townsfolk back together. I mean, I think that would be the ONLY time he'd do that before their respective [permanent] marriages. Something else a bit chilling that barely got touched upon before it become a Little House cabin elephant was how Harriet's 'bell rival', Mr. Kennedy wasn't just overly harsh to the show's cardboard villain but worse to Mrs. Kennedy via not even allowing her to speak! Yikes- and this was Mary's bestie's male DNA Donor yet his harshness (if the probability of being a spousal abuser) never got addressed by anyone else- even Charles or Caroline there. Anyway, I agree with the others that, despite its flaws, it was one of the best early episodes.

Does anyone else recall when Mr. Foreman regained a good bit of fame in the 1990's via somehow attaching his name to a an electric burger indoor table grill that was supposed to get rid of all the meats' fats via how it drained away in channels? Also, he named ALL of his sons after himself as in 'George, Jr.,George III,etc.'! I wonder how their mother/s felt about that? Anyway, he definitely was memorable. RIP, Mr. Foreman!

Yeah, I know that these performers wore makeup despite their characters having ostensibly been makeup free. However, with the harsh kleig lights and reflectors used, if the performers had used any makeup, they'd have appeared rather pasty-faced and peaked oncamera. BTW, one of the few behind-the-scenes observations that Melissa Sue Anderson made in her autobio was that ML insisted that the performers playing the Ingalls daughters ALL had to wear darker-than-usual makeup on camera so as to not appear downright ghostly compared to ML himself who not only was no WASP but also spent a great deal of time out in the sun.

I wonder when Elizabeth had that that ring made since not only did her own mini-portrait depict her as she was no earlier than the 1570's in term of style but more importantly (and horribly) Henry had done his best to erase ALL images of his onetime 2nd wife Anne. He went so far as to erase all the those decorations in Hampton Court that had included her initial (and had done the same to Catherine after their split). However, lucky for history, the workmen 'missed' one or two of the above in rather tough to find spots. Speaking of Dudley, though. One thing about Robert Dudley that gets overlooked is that was by no means the first time that a member of his family had had a close tie to a monarch. Specifically, his younger brother Guilford had been the husband of the Nine-Day Queen herself- Lady Jane Grey. The younger Mr. Dudley had not only had had his and Lady Jane's union arranged rather hastily while Edward VI was dying so both their fathers could take advantage of their children's bond and be the potential powers behind the throne but they spent only a very short time together (barely any time before the Nine Days then the 9 days themselves) before Mary not only successfully fought and overthrew this cousin's reign but also immediately had them imprisoned in very separate quarters in the Tower [with NO conjugal visits whatsoever allowed ] prior to their executions a year later. Yeah, Mary wasn't taking any chances of a possible rival line being made from these two! BTW, it should be noted that the staunchly Catholic Mary DID offer the young girl a chance to have her life spared IF she renounced her Protestant faith and became a nun [which would have also prevented a rival line]but the committed Protestant Jane refused. Regardless (or perhaps because) of his younger brother having run fatally afoul of her half-sister, Elizabeth quickly picked him out and would elevate him as her favorite.

As I said, I know that these half-sibs had serious . .issues but I don't think it would have hurt anything had Elizabeth buried Mary with Catherine of Aragon- even if it meant that either Catherine got moved to Westminster or Mary got fetched to Peterborough or the two of them were just in the same yard. Yes, it's true that Elizabeth showed some of her maternal relatives favor. However, others she wasn't crazy about. For instance her 1st cousin once-removed Lettice Knollys (1543-1634) [Anne's great-niece] incurred Elizabeth's wrath after she married one of Elizabeth's favorites Robert Dudley [each for the 2nd time] and banished her from court from that point on. Lettice also happened to be the mother of Robert Devereaux by her 1st husband- better known as the Earl of Essex who was ANOTHER of Elizabeth's faves (until his 1601 execution) but even that wouldn't be enough to get Elizabeth to soften her stance. However, it wound up that Lettice would survive three husbands and all her children but would live to 91 and have lots of grandchildren. BTW, there has been some speculation that Lettice's mother Catherine wasn't just Anne's niece but might have been one of Henry's nonmarital daughters though Mary Boleyn was married to someone else at the time. Regardless of whether they were solely maternally or possibly maternally AND paternally related to each other, they were related to each other, paintings of Lettice showed a somewhat strong resemblance to Elizabeth herself.

Now let's just hope us fans across the Pond get to see it X number of months later via the same means as before. I'll leave it at that. .

Either that, or he had LAYERs of Arrid X-tra Dry underarm antiperspirant on!LOL

True but would he have GOTTEN help? It seemed he had gotten such an EGO that it wasn't until he got diagnosed with terminal cancer that he FINALLY realized that drinking like a fish and smoking like a chimney for decades on end hadn't been worth it- even though he had built himself via exercise and weightlifting on the outside! I only hope that he had others drive him while tanked.

As long as we're talking Tudor, while undoubtedly Elizabeth was a very dynamic, shrewd monarch with a strong love for her nation, she was not perfect or flawless. Perhaps one of the more frustrating things she did or didn't do was fulfill her elder half-sis Mary's dying wish- being reunited with her own mother Catherine of Aragon in death since the two had been so cruelly torn apart by Henry while has trying to get his first union annulled by the Pope. I know that Elizabeth had no love lost for Mary (and for good reason). However, Elizabeth herself had lost her own mother at a very early age after Henry's execution of Anne Boleyn (and Anne's remains were buried beneath the Tower church and only vaguely identified in the 19th century with a plaque to mark the approximate spot) so it wouldn't have been impossible for Elizabeth to have considered having some empathy for her sister's poignant last wish. However, Elizabeth ignored this (as have all subsequent monarchs including the openly Catholic James II). Thus Catherine of Aragon remains buried beneath the floor of Peterborough Cathedral while Mary herself is buried beneath Westminster Abbey- not too far from Elizabeth herself as well as their cousin Mary, Queen of Scots (who both loathed and dreaded the possibility of her succeeding them but would never meet). At least none of them are anywhere near Henry who's buried beneath St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle so maybe that's a relief to them.

Very topical Podcast with Mr. Bridges,etc. Yes, I understand why the conversation Miss Bob had with her young daughter was awkward but it's far better to HAVE honest conversations about tough topics with one's offspring than to attempt to pretend said topics don't exist much less take umbrage that anyone would bring them up. Now that you mention it that it did seem a bit off that the Ingallses didn't attempt to gift the knowledge-seeking Solomon something to hold onto to give him the incentive to keep trying to improve himself despite such overwhelming odds (including those in his own family trying to insist on him settling). Yeah, why would Charles have gifted the elder-abusing, thieving Todd a new shirt but not have attempted anything for the earnest and positive Solomon? Even a prayer book [after Solomon had learned to read] would have been better than just a 'good luck and goodbye, kid' deal.

It would seem Mr. Woodhouse/Tristan somehow is in a mid-20th century invisible time capsule/bubble surrounded by a crew of . .careful New Millennials.

AFIAC, if someone wants to have the outward appearance of a completely fictional character altered in a newer adaptation from the original inception, that's fine. Let the audiences individually decide for themselves the later production's merits since by definition a fictional character can be appear as per the beholder's imagination. However, although this production is supposed to be loosely based on the lives of George III and Charlotte of Great Britain, I think at the very least there needs to be a disclaimer spelling out that the performer's appearance is NOT an accurate depiction of Her Majesty as far as contemporary accounts,paintings,etc. have indicated. IMO, it's somewhat akin to those depictions of the Tudors which have Catherine of Aragon having dark brown hair and eyes when she was known to have had auburn hair and blue eyes. OK, to try to bring some levity back to this thread. It seems in the early 1930's a courtier in the know had heard about the future Edward VIII's infatuation with the still-married Wallis Warfield Simpson and George V's annoyance with the above. Anyway, the courtier tried to console the monarch with 'God send the Prince a better companion!' However, George V had no illusions about his eldest son and heir got to the root of the matter, 'God send the companion a better Prince, then we'd be rid of her!'

^?

Remember: Those who deliberately attempt to suppress or erase history fear others' learning the truth and becoming emboldened from it instead of protecting others from lies!

I'm not unsympathetic to Queen Charlotte. In addition to her union's sad ending in limbo, she had been yanked from an quiet court in a rather obscure domain in Germany shortly after her own widowed mother's passing when she was just seventeen to marry the awkward George III.Then, after their quick wedding and coronation was essentially cut off from everyone outside a tiny court circle by George and his rather bitter widowed mother Augusta, the Princess Dowager of Wales (who herself had been married at sixteen to George II's eldest,loathed son Frederick, Prince of Wales only to be deprived of being Queen Consort via her rather browbeating spouse's early death and likely resented that Charlotte got to be Queen Consort the minute she married George- technically outranking her). Then, of course she had back to back babies ASAP until she was a mother of fifteen by the time of their youngest baby Amelia's birth in 1783. .then sadly would outlive her two youngest sons as well as Amelia herself while she had to deal with her own spouse having become completely incompatible to live with for roughly the last two decades of her life. Lastly almost a year to the day before her own death, her namesake granddaughter Princess Charlotte of Wales and the latter's potential son died as a result of a horrific childbirth (since there were signs the latter was still viable until roughly two hours before he was brought forth stillborn). And while genealogists know that at least one ancestress was recorded as having been 'Moorish', this ancestress had lived four centuries earlier so it's very unlikely that Charlotte would have resembled the performer playing her in the recent series series.

Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) was usually a sympathetic in character (e.g. having developed a warm friendship with the doomed Marie Antoinette solely via correspondence). However, she did have her faults. Not only did she treat her unmarried daughters like her personal slaves and kept them cooped up until their own middle ages. She was SO indulgent to Prinny that when George III showed his support for his wronged niece/daughter-in-law Caroline as the mother of his newborn heiress granddaughter, the usually prim and proper Charlotte actually openly supported the blatantly adultrous Prinny AND his current mistress Lady Jersey (who'd been made Caroline's Lady of the Bedchamber - which soon prompted Caroline would make ribald jokes about at Lady Jersey's expense to Prinny's fury with Lady Jersey taking umbrage).

All very good questions and show the likelihood of wars having unintended innocent casualties and/or collateral damage- even trade wars not firing a shot! Time will tell but I'm not sure WHAT it will tell by when all's said and done.

OK, are we sure that #45's fan Roseanne 'flat Earth' Barr didn't come up with that Twitter gem? I mean, how can Alaska be made the 53rd state when it's been the 49th US State since 1959? And where did #45 get the idea that the United States has 52 instead of 50 States? Has he not bothered to count the number of US Senators then divvied that number in half. ..or just counted the Stars in the blue part of the flag?

Place names often have had unexpected meanings/origins and Frogmore is no exception. The house (and nearby mausoleum that house Vic and Al) sit in a swampy part of the Windsor Estate that had (and still has) a large number of FROGS! BTW, Windsor itself evidently started out as the name of a spot on the Thames River shore that had a small bluff with a winch to safely hoist cargo from river boats to the shore. .IOW, a winch-shore. Well, due to that riverside bluff happening to be adjacent to a bend in England's most prominent river, William the Conqueror decided that this would be a good spot to build the first tower of what would become a huge complex of buildings and grounds which have been favored by the British Royals (and tourists) for centuries. Hence, when George V decided that mounting anti-German xenophobia during the Great War on the part of his subjects made the dynastic name of Saxe-Coburg Gotha a constant reminder of the family's German origins, he opted to change the dynastic name (as well as their seldom used surname of Wettin) to Windsor! 'I may be uninsipring but I'll be damned if I'm an alien!'

Sorry, I disagree about Representative Rankin! My late Papa was a WWII vet in the Pacific Theater and he told me quite a few intriguing stories of his time in that part of the world-including interaction with Japanese POWs. Anyway, had I been a representative in Congress, I likely WOULD have voted for war due to the Imperial Japanese Navy having attacked Pearl Harbor (and Manilla) without any declaration of war to the US AND while having sent representatives to DC to ostensibly negotiate peace with the US. HOWEVER, war for any reason virtually guarantees that there will be deaths and debilitating injuries some of the best and brightest of young adults in one's nation and the risk of the same to civilians on the homefront (as well as the risk to irreplaceable historic and cultural treasures that transcend national boundaries- to say nothing of spent resources for the purpose of the enemy's destruction that could have been used to better one's citizenry). Hence, it should NEVER be taken lightly or declared for purely emotional, jingoistic or impulsive MO's. IMO, Representative Rankin was perfectly correct in being the ONLY US Member of Congress to have voted 'NO' which prevented the vote from being a total rubber stamp deal- even with the knowledge of the extreme unpopularity of her stance which would result her being voted out of office by her Montana constituents. Having studied history of a wide range of times and nations, I can also say that I agree with her quote of 'You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake!' I'd like to point out that Representative Rankin was most proud of having been elected to the US Congress due to her state having had women's suffrage and she felt truly honored to have been able to have been in a position ( in 1918) to have voted FOR the 19th Amendment giving US women citizens over 21 the right to vote in all elections from federal, state to local levels- literally the ONLY woman US Representative to have been able to have done so! OK, to bring this to contemporary issues, I am very dissapointed in Governor Newsome for having invited Charlie Kirk (then later Steve Bannon) on his podcast- and essentially gushing over them. It would have been one thing had he invited them but CALLED them out on their stances (citing arguments about how he might have believed these stances were harmful to the California citizenry and US populace,etc). Alas, he just fawned all over them. IMO, the WORST part was that he bragged that his own 12-year-son was a FAN of Kirk. MAJOR parenting fail right there! Yeah, instead of attempting to have had a discussion with his minor son about why listening to Kirk's . ..stuff wasn't in the son's best interests [to say the least], he actually admitted he had opted to be his son's buddy via cheering his preteen's son's selections instead of behaving as his parent to advise against said selections or better yet enacting consequences for actions if the son continued to indulge in them. Come on twelve is a very volatile and vulnerable age where parents need to be even more clear about the expectations they want from their offspring and NOT the time to mindlessly cheer whatever they like to stay their pal nor to greenlight letting minors of that age indulge in counterproductive activities.

Is it just me or do at least some #45 defenders appear to treat those who raise objections with similar rationale to abuse-enablers? [e.g. 'It's your fault he did this to you because you PROVOKED him!', ' So what if he's done nothing but hurt you, if you don't take him back/give him another chance YOU are an unfair,bad person!' etc.]

Also, oddly enough, the show never depicted a married woman working outside the home despite being set in the future. Virtually every working female in this futuristic setting appeared to have never been married . Yes, it seems Jane Jetson had all same opportunities as Wilma Flintstone a million years before but somehow was LESS liberated than Wilma even though George seemed to have had an even shakier employment with Spacely Sprockets than Fred did with the Slate Quarry. Of course, it was funny in retrospect that supposedly 'push button fingers' would somehow be the homemaker's future occupational hazard the way 'dishpan hands' were during the show's airing ( yes, the showrunners may have 'predicted' moving sidewalks [which actually had been featured in the 1939 New York World's Fair] but there was no prediction of touchscreens. ..or internet.

It seems ML concocted the character of Albert [Quinn] Ingalls initially as a tribute to family friends who had lost their own son in a sudden accident before his 20th birthday- and ML bestowed the friends' late son's given name on the character. While I imagine that they may have initially felt honored by somewhat . .reviving their son's 'memory' re Albert's introduction, I can't help but wonder if their emotions may have become . . mixed at the very least due to all the angst and havoc this character would wreak on the Ingallses and other Walnut Grove citizenry. Even if they may have tried to hold onto wanting their late son 'immortalized' via a character with clay feet, I can't imagine that they wouldn't have felt as though their own son wasn't being 'killed' all over again via the character of Albert being rendered with a fatal diagnosis right about the same age as his RL namesake's actual death- even if the show never spelled out the character's death and offered a possibly 'alternate' fate via Laura's vocal postscript.