Knitting Paradise® - Knitting and Crochet Forum
Home | Knitting Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: KroSha
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1329 next>>
Mar 24, 2017 00:21:33   #
no1girl wrote:
surely the giraffe one is photo shopped! great fun though.

Yup, as I'm sure are the boxer/bulldog's bulging eyes and the jumping horsey, but they were so funny !!!
__________
 
Mar 24, 2017 00:08:38   #
riversong200 wrote:
Thanks for including the photos in your posts. It makes it easier to decide if I want to investigate further.

Mar 23, 2017 16:15:35   #
smasha12 wrote:
Without checking my facts, I believe there is a verse in Leviticus that can be interpreted to mean that a man should not lie with his dead brother's widow. That verse formed the basis for the dispute between Henry and the Pope. It was a matter of interpretation. I think Henry didn't really move so far from Catholicism, but others in his realm and family did. The schism was very bitter for a century or so.

Kind of the opposite - - Deuteronomy 25:5

"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." (KJV)
__________
Mar 23, 2017 15:57:04   #
Oldhenwife wrote:
He didn't. I don't care what Wiki says, historians will tell you the real story.

Dear OHW,

I don't understandl: He didn't what ???
__________
Mar 23, 2017 15:05:23   #
SeasideKnit wrote:
If that's the case, then Prince Charles should have been given an annulment, not a divorce.

No, that's neither possible nor appropriate these days. There weren't any REAL grounds to annul.

Back in the day when the Monarch REALLY ruled ALL aspects of the roost, it was different and Kings (or Queens) could do stuff more or less as they chose, but which today, they wouldn't be able to "get by with".

Behavior is observed directly by way of news & the internet, and the public expects even Royals to play by some rules that apply to everyone.
__________
Mar 23, 2017 14:34:35   #
SeasideKnit wrote:
Interestingly, the Church of England (Anglican) was founded by Henry VIII because the Catholic Church, of which he was a member, did not permit divorce. So, the Church of England was founded on the principle of divorce.

"Founded on the principle of divorce" probably mischaracterizes Henry's purpose. He no longer wanted the Pope to be able to dictate how and when "The King" would marry. Although he and Catherine of Aragon were married for over 20 years, he wanted to void the union, if I remember correctly, something having to do with marrying his deceased brother's wife being sort of like he married his sister - - in other words, incest. When the Pope wouldn't agree to an annulment, Henry formed the Church of England with himself as head, so he could do things as he wanted. As a result, he ended up having his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. He never actually divorced - - here is the 6 wife breakdown;

Catherine of Aragon - - annulled, died under guard
(Daughter, Queen Mary 1st)
Anne Boleyn - - annulled, then beheaded, feeble evidence
(Daughter, Queen Elizabeth 1st)
Jane Seymour - - died 12 days after childbirth
(Son, Edward)
(Said to be heartbroken, later buried beside her)
Anne of Cleves - - annulled, remained friends
Catherine Howard - - adultry, etc, executed
Catherine Parr - - married 3-1/2 years, his death

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII

The marriage concept was only one of the many things that establishing the Anglican Church was auming to improve. As part of the Protestant movement, having the Catholic Church set the rules for a sovereign and a kingdom was becoming unacceptable.




 
Mar 23, 2017 12:48:09   #
Aimee'smom wrote:
Love water and being in it but remember small boat sailing in the Sound at the end of Long Island when tide went out. We had to walk the boat back through shallow water and I could see all the crabs scurrying on the bottom. Still can't forget my panic with every step and that was 50 plus years ago.

Never having been in a situation like that, I'm having some difficulty imagining what you're trying to say: do they move out of your path, or do you end up stepping on them - - they have pincers don't they ??? Yikes !!!
__________
Mar 23, 2017 12:35:28   #
gwennieh68 wrote:
I love the Queen and certainly don't wish her to die. However, I remember very vaguely seeing the Coronation on a very small screen TV when I was a child (I'm 71 now), and I would love to live long enough to see another Coronation. I have lived in the US for over 50 years now but still consider England "home," even though I am a citizen here, and I just think we British do such ceremonies better than anyone. I do hope I live long enough to see Prince Charles crowned.

This is kind of fun to know that you watched the coronation LIVE because you were in England at the time. I'm also 71 now. We were one of the few in our neighborhood fortunate enough to have a TV (my dad enjoyed Friday night boxing and could stay home instead of needing to travel a distance to go to a match in person).

In June 1953, I was 7 years old and a 2nd grader. Our teacher said we would get "extra credit" if we'd get up early, watch the Queen's coronation, and write a report. Mom woke me at something like 3 in the morning. It must have been nippy as I remember sitting on the living room couch with a pillow and blanket, sipping Ovaltine.

I considered my viewing a little while back, and wondered how I saw it, because it couldn't have been live over here in the US. A bit of research gave me my answer, and I thought you might find it interesting. The link I'm giving describes how the live televising happened in England and Europe in general, so you may want to read the article in its entirety. But the part I'm quoting here is how the FILM was IN FLIGHT across the Atlantic to Canada and the US. The innovative tech AT THE TIME was inspiring:
__________
(quoting)

June 2, 1953: Coronation Shown on Global Kluge TV

Throughout Britain, people watched the hours-long ceremonies on small black-and-white screens, often newly bought for the occasion, and often in the company of many neighbors who could not yet afford the still-expensive entertainment novelty. About 56 percent of the population watched on TV, compared to 32 percent who listened on radio. Viewers in France, the Netherlands and West Germany also watched live.

People elsewhere listened to the ceremony on a live, global radio hookup. But those who wanted to see it had to wait a few hours.

Communications satellites were a decade in the future. Even videotape was still a few years off. Instead, networks made kinescope films of the BBC television signal at Heathrow airport. They also rushed newsreel film by motorcycle relays from Westminster to the airport. They then loaded the undeveloped film in batches onto airplanes specially fitted out to develop the film in flight. The films were processed while flying west across the Atlantic.

Record-breaking Canberra PR3 jets of Britain’s Royal Air Force flew the films to Gander, Newfoundland. Then CFIOOs of the Royal Canadian Air Force took one series of films to Montreal, which supplied CBC in Canada and — through a special hookup to New York City — ABC and NBC in the United States. (This was Plan B for NBC, whose own hired jet developed mid-Atlantic mechanical troubles and had to turn back.) RCAF Mustang P51s flew films directly to Boston for the CBS national broadcast.

Once on the North American mainland, the freshly developed films were rushed to TV studios to be broadcast, sight unseen, to a waiting public.
CBS lagged 10 minutes behind the other networks in getting its coverage on the air. But it was NBC that came in for considerable criticism for running too many commercials, and for airing a coronation “interview” with its famous Today show chimpanzee, J. Fred Muggs.

The era of “global village” mega-events would not dawn until a decade later, with the state funerals of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and erstwhile coronation-on-TV opponent Churchill in 1965.

______________
(end quoting)

https://www.wired.com/2009/06/dayintech_0602/

It was certainly spectacular !!! Knowing that the next coronation won't occur until more than a year after the death of the reigning monarch, I don't have any desire to see another coronation. The wedding of Charles and Di, Princess Diana's funeral and the wedding of William and Kate are all the Pomp and Circumstance I'll ever need.


Mar 23, 2017 11:39:08   #
Oldhenwife wrote:
They are all matters of opinion - as are all the positive feelings many have.

But we don't know the Duchess of Cornwall, only what we're told. From what I've seen (not been told) I like her, she's not false as Diana Princess of Wales was, she laughs a lot and doesn't court the media. Being chosen by the Duke of Cornwall is enough recommendation.

Diana was very young and not familiar with the ways of Royal life - - and I'm certainly not saying that all those ways are proper or just. However, there WERE 3 in the marriage from the outset and for the duration, and the guidance given by the elders, particularly The Queen Mum, was to buck up and keep a stiff upper lip. We don't need to make Princess Diana false in order to justify the acceptance of Camilla - - we can like both.
__________
Mar 23, 2017 11:23:21   #
luvmapups wrote:
"If I'm feeling disappointed, I have personally stepped off MY path."

In case you're interested, that methodology, and words to that effect, come from Abraham-Hicks and Law of Attraction, and also from physics, which tells us that we live in a vibratory universe, and the way we FEEL is direct communication with Source Energy - - the creative force of ALL manifestation.
__________
Mar 23, 2017 11:02:07   #
luvmapups wrote:
Wow! kroSha....You are on a roll! I'd like to borrow that quote, if I may. 😆

Everything I said is pretty general, so I don't own the rights to any of the words - - but which was it you liked ???
__________
 
Mar 23, 2017 08:29:47   #
messymissy wrote:
Very funny. I can remember picking up what I thought was a currant only to find it was a dead spider. Yuk. I still shudder at the thought. (as if it could do me any harm! lol)

Well, I guess - - EWWWWW...
__________
Mar 23, 2017 07:53:22   #
This didn't happen to me in the water, but a girlfriend told me that she thought she saw a spider in my slipper - - AFTER I had my foot IN the slipper.

I probably looked just like the horse in the last picture - - the rapidity with which I flew out of my slippers, lept in the air (I'm told the height was remarkable) and, fortunately, had been standing immediately adjacent to the bed that I landed upon, shaking like a Jell-O for a good 5 minutes afterward - - things you never forget !!!
__________
Mar 23, 2017 07:34:24   #
CrystalP wrote:
I just want to throw in my 2 cents.
Prince Charles and Camilla are a true love story.
Charles married Diana, when he loved Camilla.
Diana knew about her, she said ' there are 3 people in this marriage' in an interview.
But my point is, Camilla was there throughout the whole thing. And they are still together today.
That is love.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that...

We have been focusing on the technicalities of becoming King.

Some folks may remain miffed at Camilla and not want her to attain the title of Queen Consort one day; but if Elizabeth, William and Harry are on board with it, it's no one else's business.
__________
Mar 23, 2017 07:01:57   #
Hahaha...


















Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1329 next>>
          
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
KnittingParadise.com - Forum
Copyright 2004-2016 Knitting Paradise, Inc.