Blergh

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.

I get where you're coming from re well-meaning but somewhat comparing apples and oranges folks. Decades ago, at my sister's funeral, I recall one of Mama's cousins consoling that she 'knew what it was like to lose a child'- due to her one of her daughters splitting from a beloved son-in-law! I know Mama's cousin meant well (truly so- especially she did drive a some hours to our city to attend the funeral and console Mama &the rest of our family in town ). However, not only was her former son-in-law not her actual child (regardless of how warmly she felt about him) but he was still LIVING and would stay friends with them the rest of their lives.

Emma Heming Willis (Bruce Willis's wife and mother of their three children) who is having to care for her own dementia afflicted spouse had this to say about Mr. Hackman and Ms. Arakawa's passings on Instagram (March 11,2025): "Caregivers need care too Period. Full stop." "It's just made me think of this broader story, and that is that caregivers need care too and that they are vital, and that it is so important that we show up for them so that they can continue to show up for their person." " I think that there's this common misconception that like caregivers, they got it figured out. They got it covered. They're good. I don't subscribe to that. I think that we need to be showing up for them so that they can continue to show up for their person." I couldn't have said it better myself or agree more! GOOD FOR HER! Of course, it's also good that not only have Mr. Willis's grown daughters by his first union helped rally to assist in her care of her afflicted spouse but so has their own mother Demi Moore (yes, I have to say that this has brought up my esteem for her considerably). Anyway, I'm glad that Mrs. Willis said what she said (and it seems she wants to help uplift and advocate for other familial caregivers)!

OK, your question sent me to do a 'seminar' with Prof. Wiki and among the thing I found out was that the future William IV and 'Mrs. Jordan' wound up naming 9 of their 10 children after the Duke of Clarence's OWN siblings. - and his co-parent had had no fewer than four previous offspring by previous paramours! Anyway, one of the Duke of Clarence's other titles had been 'Earl of Munster' [ a region and onetime kingdom in the current Republic of Ireland- NOT having anything to do with the 1960's movie monster spoof sitcom]. OK, after George IV ('Prinny') died in 1830- and Duke of Clarence his eldest surviving brother succeeded as William IV at age 65, His Majesty arranged it that his eldest nonmarital son George Fitzclarence[yes, one of the nine named after sibs] would succeed him as 'Earl of Munster' and even authorized him to use the Royal Coat of Arms though altered with a diagonal 'sash' to denote that line's non-marital origins. Funny enough, though, William IV HAD been in the Royal Navy as Duke of Clarence, he had the 'sash' decorated with anchors to highlight his descendants personal link to him. OK, the first Fitzclarence Earl of Munster tragically took his own life at age 48. However, he had surviving sons and the line of the Earls of Munster would last through seven Earls [five generations] until the last direct male heir died in 2000 (who has two surviving daughters and grandchildren) having been a member of the House of Lords until 1999! Yes, William IV and 'Mrs. Jordan' had other sons but none of them had surviving children as well as some daughters who DO have living descendants. It also needs to be said that (as Duke of Clarence) he DID have two marital daughters by the Duchess Adelaide- Princess Charlotte and Princess Elizabeth of Clarence but, tragically both of these daughters died in infancy then afterwards their twin sons were stillborn .Poor Adelaide would have no more children . However, despite her losses, she would dote on Vic during her early childhood until Vic's mother the Duchess of Kent somewhat iced things to keep her from having influence -especially since Adelaide tried to warn the Duchess about Conroy possibly getting too much power and the Duchess didn't like to be told what she didn't want to hear). I hope this satisfies!

I agree! To each one's own . However,I say that if the British Royal family can wait until birth to find out their offspring's genders, then I don't see why anyone else would have more of a pressing need. FWIW, just get onesies that can be worn inside out with pink/blue on the outside and the inverse on the inside so the bundle of joy can be clothed ASAP after their first bath and get a teddy bear that either gender would be happy to embrace instead of worrying out whether to gift a football or a doll before the little one's birth.

Interesting that since James Anthony-Rose (Mr. Carmody) was asked what he wanted to happen to the characters in Season Six, it may mean that perhaps Mr. Carmody might at least make an appearance in the upcoming season. I wonder if they might depict how he's been faring in London.?

And since George III's 4th son William had been made the Duke of Clarence, this meant that the surname he bestowed the 10 kids was Fitz-Clarence. BTW, they stayed in his life long after he broke up with their mother called Mrs. Jordan and after he married the 25-year-old Princess Adelheid of Saxe-Meiningen (later known as Queen Adelaide), she welcomed them into their home including after the Duke of Clarence became King at age 65! This somewhat irked Vic's widowed mother the Duchess of Kent and this was the excuse she gave as to why she wouldn't let Vic (William's heiress) spend time with the other family (though it's likely that she didn't want anyone besides herself to influence Vic OR for Vic to let slip how their own household was faring). However, one significant thing about William IV's nonmarital offspring was that he DID legally acknowledge them as his and he tried his best during his reign to find his sons the best positions and his daughters the most adventageous marriages . Moreover, he'd wind up the LAST British monarch to date to legally acknowledge the nonmarital offspring that had been conceived. Yes, in spite of Edward VII being even more openly. ..randy than his 'Wicked [Great]Uncles',he never acknowledged any offspring who might have been conceived with one of his flings!

OK, my twice-daily asthma powder now costs three times as much as it did last year even WITH insurance (and the pharmacy told me it was either insurance or Good Rx but I could no longer use both like last year). I don't blame the pharmacist because that individual doesn't set the price. However, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S. Yeah, I paid for it since I happen to like breathing and the last time I quit using it within two months I had some of my worst attacks in ages. Thankfully, I'm still employed (unlike so many these days) but still. ..

Sorry, I mixed up the deal of which state and which tribes in Arizona do/ don't observe Daylight Savings TIme! I woke up later than I meant to,today. Hopefully that extra sleep will prevent me from oversleeping before tomorrow's work commute!

True about Royal children being left to nannies to raise but there were Royal parents who were far more attentive and empathetic to their offspring than others (e.g. George VI was quite the doting father to both the Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret- in spite of having been raised by rather aloof parents himself). BTW, I might as well put a couple of postscripts to the George IV and Queen Caroline Disaster here. George had tried to pay her off 50,000 pounds per annum to stay away from England but she refused and that's when he tried for the last time to have a Parliamentary divorce. Anyway, one of her lawyers nearly bungled things for her when he likened his client's charges being brought against her as being persecuted 'like the Woman Taken by Adultery' in the Gospels despite the defense's entire argument trying to claim that she had somehow NOT committed adultery in all those decades despite George's mistreatment and rejection. This led to one wag putting out a spoof poem reading, Most Gracious Queen We Thee Implore To Go Away And Sin No More But Should You Find that Task Too Great Just Go Away At Any Rate! Caroline herself made the best argument when she stated that she'd only committed adultery one time 'and THAT was with Mrs. Fitzherbert's husband!'

Compared to the union between George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, Charles III's with the late Diana, Princess of Wales seemed like a match made in heaven- even in the age of arranged marriages between royals being the rule, this was a total disaster! They wed in 1795 because the then, George, Prince of Wales had massive debts from his gambling and spendthrift ways and his father George III agreed to pay them off ONLY if the 33-year-old 'Prinny' agreed to marry the Protestant princess of his father's choice (while everyone ignored the fact that Prinny HAD married a former mistress a widow named Maria Fitzherbert who was a commoner and. .[gasp] a Catholic). Mrs. Fitzherbert was a known entity to her in-laws who even financially supported her but since Prinny would have been barred from the British throne due to being wed to a Catholic, they all pretended that their supposedly secret marriage was invalid. .and amazingly enough, Parliament went along with it. Anyway, George III insisted that Prinny marry George's own maternal niece Princess Caroline of Brunswick (yes, Prinny's 1st cousin). Their first meeting [unlike Charles and Diana's] was a total disaster with him openly glaring at her asking if she'd bathed and saying he needed a brandy while she asked (in French) if the prince was always like that- adding that she found him fat and gross and nothing like his portrait. Well, since Caroline was in her mid-20's and there was no bigger Protestant royal marital prize than the British heir and George III reminded Prinny that he wouldn't pay a penny of the gigantic debt unless he went through it, they both reluctantly went through the ceremony which had him get so drunk that he nearly crawled out on his knees before George III led him back to the altar. Anyway, Caroline would claim that he got so drunk that he passed out by the fireplace grate on their wedding night. .. but somehow the two of them managed to conceive a child of unquestionable parentage during this rather grim honeymoon. They had already lived in separate wings of the palace by the time the new Princess of Wales was pronounced to be in the family way- and her reaction was to laugh and proclaim 'I don't BELIEVE IT!'. Well, nine months later, Princess Caroline safely bore their daughter Princess Charlotte of Wales but the new parents were on such poor terms that Prinny stated that NOTHING would induce him to sleep with Caroline again- not even his heiress's death. The two of them would use poor Princess Charlotte as a pawn in their constant bickering her entire childhood and she would later say that she knew her mother was bad but she added that 'she wouldn't be AS bad if my father wasn't infinitely WORSE!' Through a series of misadventures, Charlotte would meet one of the Russian Emperor Alexander I's aids, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld (one of the Emperor's brother-in-laws) and, after more turmoil and a near forced union with the Prince of Orange, Charlotte was able to get Prinny (now Prince Regent) to bless and approve her intended union to Leopold. They were happy for those eighteen months until Charlotte was due to give birth to their first live child (after to miscarriages). Her labor was one of the most excruciating in medical history (and very diligently recorded by the physicians) and after a 50-hour (yes over two days), poor Charlotte was delivered of a 9 pound stillborn son. Oh, and most maddenly, forceps were brought to her bedroom but NO ONE considered using them. Charlotte tried to console Leopold that they'd have more children before Leopold finally collapsed to sleep. Then just a few hours after that the 21-year-old Charlotte had a hemorrhage and DIED! EVERYONE in Great Britain was devastated because they had all adored Charlotte and believed that her eventual reign with her husband Leopold at her side would be a breath of fresh air after what her grandfather and father had been putting them through. One observer said that it was as though every single household in Great Britain believed that they had lost a favorite daughter and she'd be openly mourned on an emotional scale not seen again until Diana's sudden death. Prinny himself was recorded as literally banging his head for roughly an hour after learning the news about his heiress's demise along with his potential grandson's. Believe it or not, despite Charlotte and Leopold's mansion of Claremont having gone many subsequent owners and even functions, the overcoat and bonnet she took off after she started her labor after a walk is still preserved where she left it. Poor Caroline had gone into exile on the Continent and had been waiting for news of her grandchild's birth only to get the news of both generations being wiped out by a passing messenger- rather than via the bitterly estranged Prinny (who'd be livid at Leopold for actually visiting Caroline for them to console each other over Charlotte and the stillborn son some months later). Yes, this would lead to Prinny's younger brothers including Edward, Duke of Kent being urged to wed Protestant princesses to save the Hanoverian line (as due to the Royal Marriage Act not recognizing offspring of marriages not personally approved by the monarch or regent, Charlotte had been the ONLY legit grandchild who could have succeeded George III despite the Times of London reporting that his 15 children had produced no less than 56 children but not one qualified for the throne).Yep, it's safe to say that but for Princess Charlotte of Wales and her son's deaths, Vic not only wouldn't have been Queen, it's likely she wouldn't have been conceived! Anyway, two years later George III finally died in 1820 long considered insane as well as blind and very deaf. George IV succeeded and tried to renew efforts to divorce Caroline but despite compelling evidence George IV was SO unpopular that Parliament wouldn't grant it despite there being no shortage of evidence. However, George IV did get her excluded on the prayer list for the Royal family in the Church of England. Shortly after that, he staged a very elaborate Coronation in Westminster Abbey with him making cow eyes at his latest mistress. Meantime Caroline actually tried to crash the Coronation but was told that she'd need a ticket. and was barred from seeing it. A few weeks later she died rather suddenly. About this time, news of Napoleon's death in St. Helena reached Great Britain and the messenger dispatched to convey it to Prinny started to convey it with the opening of 'Your Majesty, I have the honor of informing you that your greatest enemy is now dead! To which Prinny immediately replied' Is she ? By God!' Yep, UNhapplily ever after!

Since no one else has brought this up, I guess I must: On the off chance anyone in this Forum hasn't seen it in any other media outlet,etc.: TONIGHT is Daylight Savings Time! Actually, it will start at 2AM Sunday, March 9,2025 in the Western Hemisphere (minus Hawaii, the Navajo Nation and a few other spots) which means that this time we SPRING FORWARD! OK, in addition to switching ahead all non-online alarm clocks, car clocks,watches,etc., this is also a good time to CHANGE any smoke detector batteries in one's abode! Yeah, that means I will have to drive into work Monday seeing if I can somehow STILL beat the morning glare. .then hope there's still daylight when it's time to make my commute home. I suppose in X number of weeks, there will be daylight on the homeward commute but until then. Oh well

^ Noted.

Mexico City with over 9 million citizens in the city proper and a metropolitan population of over 21 million people, is 5th largest city in the world, the largest city in the Americas and the largest Spanish-speaking city in the world- yet also has a large number of Nahual speakers(the original Aztec language). It is the oldest continuously inhabited capital city in the Americas and has been a capital city without interruption since its official founding in 1325 as the capital of the Aztec Empire. . then the Spanish colony of New Spain from 1521 on before becoming the capital of the Republic of Mexico from 1821. Even at the time of Cortez's conquest in 1521, it had a population of no less than 200,000 people- the largest population of any city or town in the Americas at that time.