April 12, 2005
WTF? or, "Woman, don't you know someone done shot that there game fowl on your head?"
Rob, you're the expert on such things---is there some bizarre, ancient ritual dating back to the Jutes where the heir apparent, when remarrying a strumpet, has to display her publicly with a dead pheasant on her head?
I blame the Venerable Bede, somehow.
Yips! from Robbo: Actually, this represents something of a reform: I understand that Wallis Simpson wore the head of a puppy on a heavy gold necklace.
It's a trick! Don't look at it!
Oh great, now she's got you hypnotized! Your duty? Her every whim. On the only remedy a media fast... you're a goner.
Posted by: Paladin at April 12, 2005 10:03 AMI think it's wheat. Gilded wheat.
Posted by: Sarah at April 12, 2005 10:17 AMI actually liked the feathers. They allow you to look at the whole head in a fuzzy, gilt swirl, which accomplishes the near-impossible feat of making her look sort of pretty.
Posted by: tee bee at April 12, 2005 11:19 AMa little off the subject, but didja notice the hyperventilating press reports that Chas and Cams confessed aloud to 'MANIFEST sins and wickedness"
(my caps)? no, no, boys, it's 'MANIFOLD'. don't you have like english majors to check this sort of stuff?
hence my oft repeated mantra: "I read it in the newspaper, so it must be true."
anyway, what's wrong with shooting pheasants if you eat same?
by the bye i think she'd be better looking if she got rid of the farrah fawcett hair.
You mean it's not carburetor sins and wickedness?
And why are some Anglicans so upset that the future king had an affair, got divorced and remarried? Wasn't, like, the Church of England founded by a guy who did that, and more than once? (don't mean to be snarky, I really am puzzled by that.)
Well, yes, we 'palies have heard that one from time to time. No question that Henry was an opportunist who used the Protestant clergy of his day (Cranmer, Laud et al) for his own convenience--to defy the temporal authority of his particular pope because he wanted an annulment from Katharine of Aragon--NOT that time a divorce, actually.(But long before him, royalty was being granted divorces by the Church and remarrying-- for one,Eleanor of Aquataine who then married Henry II of England--Katharine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole to most folks-- Anyway, Henry argued that the marriage was in fact an error to begin with because the preceding pope who had given a dispensation to allow it was wrong to do so. Katharine had first been married to Henry's older brother Arthur who died shortly afterwards, and Katherine always averred that THAT marriage had never been consummated because of his ill health--and you thought queasy-making celeb headlines were something new--ANYway since she could never produce a surviving son and heir, Henry decided that THEIR marriage must have been improper, and this was God's way of showing displeasure. (Not the first time a head of state assumed tht his and God's thoughts were indistinguishable.) So Henry demanded that the subsequent pope declare that the dispensation of his predecessor was granted in error, wh he (th pope) was hardly going to do--for a number of reasons wh I am going to spare you from reading abt. Henry otherwise followed Roman Catholic dogma and practices quite strictly;
he considered himself a properly pious, observant son of the church. The Protestant clergy who held different doctrinal ideas entirely were delighted to use his authority to found the Anglican church, but there is not question that if it weren't for Henry's quarrel with the pope abt the annulment, there would have been no C of E on his watch, anyway.
Now aren't you sorry you brought that up to an old time 'palie who had maintained consciousness during confirmation class AND World History 101?
Ouch, my head hurts now. Think I'll go lie down.
Thanks mom.
