Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 15:28:08 GMT -5
Due to unprecedented demand from around the world, everyone reading ' The Third' is cordially invited to Somerset House promptly at 19:00 (GMT) on Monday 20 February 2017. Somerset House - Noma: My Perfect StormJoin us for a perfect storm! Noma - My Perfect StormNoma has been voted the very best restaurant in the world on several occasions. Like Andy Hayler, I am not so sure! Andy Hayler - NomaNoma is closing down in Copenhagen and moving to Mexico! Nevertheless, I suspect that it will be back! NomaI find it difficult to compare the food, because taste is so subjective. Pic might still have the edge!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 2:14:17 GMT -5
Everyone reading ' The Third' is cordially invited to Somerset House. In the sixteenth century, the Strand, the north bank of the Thames, between the City of London and the Palace of Westminster, was a favoured site for the mansions of the nobility. In 1539 Edward Seymour, first Earl of Hertford, obtained a grant of land at "Chester Place, outside Temple Bar, London" from his brother-in-law King Henry VIII. When his nephew the boy-king Edward VI came to the throne in 1547, Seymour became Duke of Somerset and Lord Protector. In about 1549 he pulled down an old Inn of Chancery and other houses which stood on the site and began to build himself a palatial residence, making liberal use of other nearby buildings including some of the chantry chapels and cloisters at St. Paul's which were demolished - partly at his behest - as part of the ongoing Dissolution of the Monasteries. His new residence was a two-storey house built around a quadrangle with a gateway rising to three stories, and it was one of the earliest examples of Renaissance architecture in England. It is not known who designed the building. Does England need a new boy-king would members say?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 7, 2017 4:08:45 GMT -5
Does England need a new boy-king would members say? England doesn't have a monarch of its own anyway, its monarch being that of UK. If implicit in your question is the notion that "England" - or more properly UK - doesn't need the present Queen (and it rather looks that way given that " a new boy-king" could not be installed without her death or abdication occurring first), I would reply that, whilst the fate of the UK monarchy might be in doubt following her resignation or demise, it is not so at the moment; indeed, several staunch Republicans of my acquaintance would not wish for the dissolution of the UK monarchy as long as the present Queen occupies the position that she has done for 65 years as of yesterday. Edward VI was not even ten years of age when he became king of England (not UK, of course, as that hadn't been invented then) and his "reign", such as it was, lasted only some 6½ years so, as he died before reaching the age of majority, his value as a monarch was clearly questionable. Accordingly, in the light of this and other considerations, why " a new boy-king" would be needed for UK should its monarchy outlive its present incumbent - not to say what purpose/s one such might be expected to serve - is by no means clear to me, so the answer from this member at least is a resounding and unequivocal "no".
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 7, 2017 6:05:44 GMT -5
Due to unprecedented demand from around the world, everyone reading ' The Third' is cordially invited to Somerset House promptly at 19:00 (GMT) on Monday 20 February 2017. Somerset House - Noma: My Perfect StormJoin us for a perfect storm! Noma - My Perfect StormNoma has been voted the very best restaurant in the world on several occasions. Like Andy Hayler, I am not so sure! Andy Hayler - NomaNoma is closing down in Copenhagen and moving to Mexico! Nevertheless, I suspect that it will be back! NomaI find it difficult to compare the food, because taste is so subjective. Pic might still have the edge! I saw a programme about Noma once; fascinating, without doubt, but were I to have a gun (or perhaps pestel) held to my head and forced to choose between it and Ms Pic, the latter would win out every time (not least because she's French!)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 10:27:59 GMT -5
If I may address your final question directly, Sydney: ' ... Does England need a new boy-king would members say?' Conscious that ahinton has just answered this particular question, I should start by agreeing with him. No! Members would say that England does not need a new boy-king. I don't think that England needs a monarch at all, and although most of them have historically been male, most of the better ones have arguably been female. The line of succession currently runs through Princes Charles, William and George, of whom only Prince George could conceivably be Sydney's new boy-king! I don't think that England, Australia or anywhere else, needs a King George, although I daresay that if we get a new king, he will be controversial. Queen Elizabeth (II) has, in many ways, enjoyed something of a golden age. We are privileged to have witnessed it. As for Somerset House, I should perhaps clarify that its food is not quite up to Noma, nor Pic. It was once a royal palace, although today it is perhaps better known for its Christmas ice rink, films and exhibitions. We could be entering a perfect storm, Sydney!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 7, 2017 12:03:04 GMT -5
If I may address your final question directly, Sydney: ' ... Does England need a new boy-king would members say?' Conscious that ahinton has just answered this particular question, I should start by agreeing with him. No! Members would say that England does not need a new boy-king. I don't think that England needs a monarch at all, and although most of them have historically been male, most of the better ones have arguably been female. The line of succession currently runs through Princes Charles, William and George, of whom only Prince George could conceivably be Sydney's new boy-king! I don't think that England, Australia or anywhere else, needs a King George, although I daresay that if we get a new king, he will be controversial. Queen Elizabeth (II) has, in many ways, enjoyed something of a golden age. We are privileged to have witnessed it. The likelihood that the succession procedure would put Prince George in the place of the present Queen is pretty much zilch; even if Princes Charles and William were unable to fulfil the rôle for any reason, it would surely not pass to someone under the age of majority?! In any case, Prince George himself will probably be an adult by the time that the present Queen's reign finally comes to an close! That said, one never knows; we might end up over here with King Donald and become the 51st, 52nd, 53rd and 54th states of the US of A with the ten provinces of what's now Canada as states 55 - 64!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 12:49:51 GMT -5
Well, if King Donald cannot go to Westminster Palace, perhaps he could come to Somerset House instead? Spring
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 7, 2017 15:36:27 GMT -5
Well, if King Donald cannot go to Westminster Palace, perhaps he could come to Somerset House instead? SpringPossibly but, until and unless we get to know (if indeed we ever do) whether or not said King Donald to be (or not to be) can go to the Palace of Westminster or to any of the Queen's residences it would seem that the jury (such as it might or might not be) remains out on all of that...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 23:35:21 GMT -5
" a new boy-king" could not be installed without her death or abdication occurring first) What the member says is incorrect. There is nothing to prevent there being half a dozen. Under Marx in fact every male person can be - nay is - a king. Who "installs" then? Well the "installer" of course!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 8, 2017 0:10:31 GMT -5
" a new boy-king" could not be installed without her death or abdication occurring first) What the member says is incorrect. There is nothing to prevent there being half a dozen. Under Marx in fact every male person can be - nay is - a king. Who "installs" then? Well the "installer" of course! But the UK is not "under Marx"; it is a monarchy. Your own reference to "a new boy-king" stemmed in any case from a reference to Edward VI, who was an English monarch. It is obvious that, under the monarchical system that pertains in UK today, " a new boy-king" could not, as I stated, be installed without the death or abdication of the current monarch occurring first; that system provides for a single monarch at any one time (and did so in Edward VI's time), just as is the case under most if not all other monarchies. You had made no reference to UK, or even England, as a Marxist régime, which is just as well since it is nothing of the kind and never has been. "What the member says" is therefore entirely correct; what the member who asked the question said could pertain only in fantasy-land. What in any case is the source of your notion that "under Marx...every male person can be - nay is - a king"? Does it presume that every female one is a queen? What in any case do "king" and "queen" mean in such a context?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 3:00:33 GMT -5
It is obvious that, under the monarchical system that pertains in UK today, " a new boy-king" could not, as I stated, be installed without the death or abdication of the current monarch occurring first; that system provides for a single monarch at any one time (and did so in Edward VI's time). We hate to say it but our member remains mistaken about our glorious monarchy. William and Mary were co-regnants over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Their joint reign began in February 1689. Or does not a female count for him? They even lunched together more than once with the Somersets we dare say. Nor has the member explained the role and identity of his "installer"!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 8, 2017 7:47:05 GMT -5
It is obvious that, under the monarchical system that pertains in UK today, " a new boy-king" could not, as I stated, be installed without the death or abdication of the current monarch occurring first; that system provides for a single monarch at any one time (and did so in Edward VI's time). We hate to say it Really?(!)... but our member remains mistaken about our glorious monarchy. William and Mary were co-regnants over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Their joint reign began in February 1689. I am of course well aware of William & Mary. However, their circumstances as co-regnants more than three centuries ago were quite different to anything that could pertain in UK today. As Wiki states, "their joint reign began in February 1689 after they were offered the throne by the Convention Parliament irregularly summoned by William after his victorious invasion of England in November 1688, the Glorious Revolution (my italics); Wiki also confirms that "Parliament offered William and Mary a co-regency, at the couple's behest" (and that "after Mary died in 1694, William ruled alone until his death in 1702"). For one thing, there is today no such "Convention Parliament" (described, again in Wiki, as "an assembly of the Parliament of England which transferred the crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland from James II to William III and Mary II as co-regents") - nor, quite obviously, is there the remotest requirement for one. For another, for the William and Mary example to be followed now, the present Queen, in tandem with another person, would have to persuade our present very different Parliament to offer a co-regency at her own and said other person's joint behest; not only is this inconceivable, it is also the case that, as William III was born in 1650 and Mary II in 1662, neither was a minor at the time when their co-regency commenced, so the former could hardly be described as " a new boy-king" at the time of his accession in any case. Or does not a female count for him? That's rich indeed, coming from you (amusing, though!). Nor has the member explained the role and identity of his "installer"! In William & Mary's case, this would have been said "Convention Parliament"; were something similar to happen today (which, as I have stated, it could not), it would presumably have to be the present quite different and differently constituted Parliament on the urging of the Queen, although such urging would be unimaginable since the implementation of such action would of itself overturn and indeed undermine the monarchical succession arrangements currently in place in UK. Frankly, I suspect that the Queen might at the moment be rather more exercised by the vexed and vexing issue of whether to invite President Trump to Buckingham Palace and, if not, how best to extricate herself from such a dilemma than by contemplating the conversion of the rôle as UK monarch that she has now held alone perfectly capably for 65 years into some irrational fantasy co-regency with an as yet unidentified male who is under the age of majority...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 9:46:02 GMT -5
As it happens, I recently watched a television programme about the Glorious Revolution. BBC Four - British History's Biggest Fibs with Lucy WorsleyAccording to Lucy Worsley, in 1688, the British Isles were invaded by a huge army led by Dutch prince, William of Orange. With his English wife Mary he stole the throne from Mary's father, the Catholic King James II. This was the death knell for absolute royal power and laid the foundations of our constitutional monarchy. It was spun as a 'glorious and bloodless revolution'. But how 'glorious' was it really? It led to huge slaughter in Ireland and Scotland. Lucy reveals how the facts and fictions surrounding 1688 have shaped our national story ever since. BBC - The Glorious RevolutionComing back to the idea of a new boy-king, well, I suppose that King Donald could invade England and install Barron on the throne, Sydney! A better idea would be if everyone came clubbing at Somerset House instead. It is not without precedent. On 29 February 2012, for example, Queen Elizabeth II opened the East Wing of Somerset House. 180 years after King’s was built on the Strand, the College has realised its long-held ambition to move into the East Wing. King’s has breathed new life into the building which has now been restored to its original status as a landmark London public building, refurbished to the highest standards with its architectural harmony enhanced and public access improved. The Queen, Patron of the College, accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh, was escorted through the Grade I listed building by Lord Douro, Chairman of King’s College Council, and Professor Sir Rick Trainor, the College Principal. The building is the new home for the School of Law and The Queen watched a student Moot Court in session before meeting staff and students from the School. She also visited the Inigo Rooms, a dedicated cultural space. At the end of the visit The Queen unveiled a plaque to formally open the re-furbished building. The official launch of Somerset House East Wing came after 18 months of restoration, which began when King’s secured a 78 year lease for the building in 2009. The interior has been stripped of alterations made over the years, new lifts have been installed and the basement floor lowered. Original features, such as cornices and fireplaces, have been refurbished. The interior decoration has been carefully conceived to complement the historic setting of the building. Designers have re-introduced colours in keeping with the Georgian style, whilst creating a fresh and modern interior suited to a working building for the 21st century. King's College London - The Queen opens Somerset House East WingWhat is the state of London night club culture and what are the views on the near future? Well, in order to give the nocturnal city a boost, the Queen could go clubbing, too! New for 2017, ' Nocturnal City: The State of London Club Life' is a series of events exploring the state of London’s nightlife and its influence in pushing the boundaries of culture. Due to unprecedented demand from around the world, everyone reading ' The Third' is cordially invited to the River Rooms from 17:00 (GMT) on Saturday 11 March 2017. Curated by Studio resident Estela Oliva in collaboration with Somerset House Studios, the first edition will interrogate the interplay between London and Berlin nightlife with an evening of installations, panel talks and performances. The line-up features DJs, artists and professionals from both cities, including London Night Czar Amy Lamé, musicians Laurel Halo and Beatrice Dillon and artists Lawrence Lek and LaTurbo Avedon. Berlin’s Berghain nightclub recently received the same tax status as the city’s concert halls in recognition of its contribution to culture. Yet in London, nearly half of its nightclubs have closed in the last ten years. With rents spiralling in the capital, more and more London artists and DJs are decamping to Berlin each year, contributing to an ever more international and vibrant cultural landscape. A series of conversations includes recently-appointed London Night Tsar Amy Lamé in discussion with the Clubcommission Berlin, the industry association for Berlin clubs, to share ideas on the development and safe guarding of club culture. Berlin Community Radio will participate on the rise of independent online platforms and their roles in distilling new forms of music and culture emerging from the cities into a global audience. The evening continues with a series of DJ performances including a special dance set by Berlin-based electronic artist Laurel Halo, alongside London producer, musician and NTS DJ Beatrice Dillon. Throughout the event, audiences can take a virtual reality tour of LaTurbo Avedon’s virtual nightclub Club Rothko and enjoy Lawrence Lek’s Berlin Mirror, which presents a simulation of a Berlin institution and its fictional exhibition in 2042. Somerset House - Nocturnal City: The State of London Club LifeMy own guess would be that Sydney would prefer such a Nocturnal City to dinner chez Anne-Sophie Pic! Do you enjoy clubbing, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 8, 2017 9:59:54 GMT -5
As it happens, I recently watched a television programme about the Glorious Revolution. BBC Four - British History's Biggest Fibs with Lucy WorsleyAccording to Lucy Worsley, in 1688, the British Isles were invaded by a huge army led by Dutch prince, William of Orange. With his English wife Mary he stole the throne from Mary's father, the Catholic King James II. This was the death knell for absolute royal power and laid the foundations of our constitutional monarchy. It was spun as a 'glorious and bloodless revolution'. But how 'glorious' was it really? It led to huge slaughter in Ireland and Scotland. Lucy reveals how the facts and fictions surrounding 1688 have shaped our national story ever since. BBC - The Glorious RevolutionComing back to the idea of a new boy-king, well, I suppose that King Donald could invade and install Barron on the throne, Sydney! Son;t you mean Bannon, as in the dreaded and dreadful Stgeven of that ilk? My own guess would be that Sydney would prefer such a Nocturnal City to dinner chez Anne-Sophie Pic! I would not even make such a guess, not least because I have less than no idea how - or even if - Sydney might compare those two prospects; I only know that I would far prefer the latter! Do you enjoy clubbing, ahinton? I don't do it, but I wouldn't enjoy it if I did, which is why I don't. I would, however, enjoy taking my Pic, so to speak; of that I am quite certain!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 10:16:08 GMT -5
Fine! I shall find out whether Anne-Sophie could be available.
|
|