Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

What's In A Name? or Put Not Thy Princes in Trust
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Seiat Gwragedd - Women's Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:58 pm    Post subject: obstinacy and insignnificance Reply with quote

In his romp through British history, John O' Farrell gives us a cruel picture of Queen Anne the fat boring thicko, woefully in need of good advice. I can't say if this charming pen portrait is accurate or not.

But we should remember that the originator of this charming legend was Sarah Churchill, by this time Duchess of Marlborough, and it is to be found in her memoirs written after she had broken up with Anne.

I'm not saying Sarah didn't have some acumen. She was just about the only toff not to be wiped out in the South Sea Bubble. She withdrew her shares just in time.

But I've seriously thought of giving her her own post in the Ella Whelan thread as a notorious bully. Every schoolboy knows that Anne and Sarah called each other Mrs Freeman and Mrs Morley to avoid the onerous courtly grovelling and formulae such as 'As Your Majesty Pleases.'

What he may not appreciate is that William iii was gay, and Mary ii and Anne were both lesbians. Or perhaps they were bisexual.

Anne was very fond of her husband George of Denmark too. Sarah may have been jealous even after the death of George. She barged into Anne's palace, and ordered her to stop brooding over sketches of George, and to get out of the house and go and live somewhere else.

Anne was so demoralised that she did as she was told after a feeble attempt to argue. Then at the ceremony to celebrate either the victory at Blenheim or the union of England and Scotland at St Paul's, Sarah told Anne never to speak to her or write to her again.

It had become an abusive relationship. So I wouldn't take Sarah's word at face value.

Like all abusive partners, she was indignant that her victim was not abject enough. She wrote sarcastically that one of Anne's 'perfections' was that from an early age, she would not admit to being in the wrong . Both Mary ii and Anne had terrible eyesight.

As children, they were arguing about whether an object seen at a distance was a man or a tree. When they were right up next to him and could see his breeches, stockings and buckled shoes, Mary asked, ''Now Sister, are you satisfied that it is a man?''

According to Sarah, Anne turned away saying, ''Nay Sister, 'tis a tree!'' The point is that Anne was ignorantly opinionated and stubborn beyond all reason This may be true.

She started the baby in the warming pan conspiracy theory before her brother was even born. She said she would never believe the baby was her sibling unless she saw the 'queen and it parted.' And then she refused to attend the parturition fest so she could say she had not seen it happen.

The nursery rhyme says Mary and Anne called their brother ' a shocking bad name.' It was presumably bastard. But after Protestant succession was established by law, it was academic whether he was a bastard or not. If he remained a Roman Catholic, he could have no claim to the throne.

The ominously named Alexander Pope made Anne look undignified with a bit of bathos, 'Here thou, Great Anna, whom three realms obey/ Dost sometimes counsel take - and sometimes - tay.' That was the current pronunciation of 'tea.'

Her image is not going to recover now. Poor Anne had a big bust up with her domineering girlfriend and never made it up . She was not speaking to Mary ii at the time of the latter's death, as Mary believed Anne had formed an anti-queen party, and went round saying, ''I am queen and I will be obeyed.''

She also hated William iii whom she called 'the Dutch abortion.' She naturally wasn't on speaking terms with her father, his second wife and her half siblings after the Glorious Revolution.' At one point, her stepmother attempted reconciliation but it wasn't really possible.

Of those children who were born alive, all predeceased her in particularly trying circumstances. So yes, she had a glorious reign but it seems that life's a bitch, even if you are queen.

About male monarchs who really stand out for insignificance. I think Anne's father James ii and vii was both a tyrant and a nobody. Opinion varies as to whether he was a scoundrel or a numbskull.

Even his Irish supporters called him Seamus a chacha - James the shit - after he left them in the lurch - I don't know if I'm aspirating caca correctly.

A duchess who met him in exile in France, remarked, ''King James is a kind good man but the silliest that I have ever met in my life. A child of seven would not make the crass remarks that he does. Piety makes people outrageously stupid.''

I suspect the present queen's father has some claims to insignificance. Somebody remarked condescendingly, ''He was a mess but he tried hard not to be'', a bit brutal.

His father George v was the apotheosis of dullness by all accounts, and managed to be a bully in his spare time.

So what male monarchs really stand out for inanity, do you think, Moritz? The Hanoverians had a nice try. The semi-Salic law finally uncoupled Britain and Hanover in 1837. John O' Farrell's comment was, ''Goodbye, Hanover; thanks for all the crap kings.''[/u]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Seamus a chacha - James the shit

It's a million years but I guess Seamus a Cacha.
Keep the second 'h' and drop the first.
James is a masculine word; feminine words mutate after 'the'.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:53 pm    Post subject: aspiration always Reply with quote

So cacha can be masculine or feminine depending on context? By the way, does the word for doctor mutate in Welsh after 'the' if it is a female doctor or is it always a masculine word?

I know all Celtic languages mutate, but I believe that in Gaelic and Irish, they like to call it aspiration. I've also heard that there is a vocative aspiration. Seamus is Seamus but if you address him, he becomes Hamish.

Then Mairi becomes Mhairi which is pronounced Vaari.

I'm thinking that maybe Charles I was a tyrant and a non entity simultaneously. According to Geoffrey Robertson, his defence was almost word for word the same as Saddam Hussein's, 'By what authority do you try me?', which is a bit academic.

He also didn't have the sense to keep his mouth shut between court appearances but spoke to his guards. He told them that he had never worried for a second about all the blood shed and other suffering that his tyranny and the civil wars had brought to people other than himself.

He didn't just fail to give a shit about the parliamentarian side which was perhaps understandable. This was how he felt about his royalist supporters!

So yes, we could argue that he was a bit of a shit too. The Van Dyck portraits, the equestrian pictures where he looks like a slightly worried Jesus, his canonisation by the Anglican Church as St Charles the Martyr are just spin and window dressing.

You could argue too that statements like 'a sovereign and a subject are clean different things' display not just intransigence but thinking problems, a real mental incapacity. When he said ''The king can not be tried'', he really meant not that it was legally invalid but that it was impossible. He literally could not believe it was happening.

I won't say anything against Charles ii as you'd be most insulted. And in fairness, he'd learned a lot from his father's mistakes.[/u]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 627


PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:53 pm Post subject: aspiration always Reply with quote


So cacha can be masculine or feminine depending on context? By the way, does the word for doctor mutate in Welsh after 'the' if it is a female doctor or is it always a masculine word?

I know all Celtic languages mutate, but I believe that in Gaelic and Irish, they like to call it aspiration. I've also heard that there is a vocative aspiration. Seamus is Seamus but if you address him, he becomes Hamish.

Then Mairi becomes Mhairi which is pronounced Vaari.

Gaelic has aspirate and nasal mutations, but not soft mutation.

Depends on which type of doctor:
the male doctor = y meddyg; the female doctor = y feddyg or ifn you need to emphasize the point y feddyges
the male PHD = y doethor; the female PHD = y ddoethor.

We gotta mutate, otherwise we end up with girls being it, next we say fewer and then we burn our children alive because they are it.

[/quote]
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 8:23 pm    Post subject: mutate or die Reply with quote

I agree that language is very important. In German child is 'Kind' which is grammatically neuter. You can call a child 'es' which is' it'. 'Madchen' and 'Fraulein' are also neuter.

Mark Twain was pained that in German a cabbage has a sex but a young lady does not. We need only look at German history to see where referring to a person as 'it' leads to. I think that in French, teacher is always le professeur regardless of the sex of the individual teacher.

If I'd been really touchy, I would see soft mutation of singular feminine nouns in Welsh as intolerably sexist. What fickle girly nouns they are, so changeable! But that's reading too much into grammar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. It's just that in Celtic, masculine nouns end in consonants, feminine nouns end in vowels, and when a consonant is between two vowels, it mutates, same as in Hebrew.

Celtic used to have a neutral gender, but we lost it. Ifn we had a word for "fewer", then a girl wouldn't just be it, she would be he.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:40 pm    Post subject: Quelle? Reply with quote

What? Hebrew nouns mutate? Give me some examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2639

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

" Savita died for Ireland " has just had 1000 views - congrats !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:41 am    Post subject: sad Reply with quote

Yes, in one sense I'm glad to get the message out but in another it's very sad to have to accept that the Catholic Church is as bad as we can now see it is, I would genuinely like to be able to think the best of everyone, individuals and institutions.

But only today I've seen stuff about how Catholic nuns in Rwanda handed people over after they sought refuge in their convents, thinking nuns were nice people. Two nuns have now been convicted of genocide, and the Vatican is still protesting their innocence. Pope Benedict has now said that the Inquisition was right to condemn Galileo after all!

There must be decent individuals in the Church, but as an organisation, it's a disaster! I'll add a few more posts under the Savita thread whicn is the obvious place for them.


Last edited by marianneh on Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Quelle? Reply with quote

marianneh wrote:
What? Hebrew nouns mutate? Give me some examples.

beyth = ty' =house: beveyth = yn nhy = in a house
kelev = ci =dog: lakhelev = i gi = to a dog: kalbim = cw'n = dogs
hammelekh = y brenhin = the king: hammalkah = y frenhines
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet


Last edited by Moritz on Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 10:33 pm    Post subject: diolch Reply with quote

O diolch cariad. Diddorel iawn!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the Feweristas finagled with the Grammar.

Heykhal = teml = temple. Therefore, by logic: heyklayim = dau deml - 2 temples and heyklim = temheloedd = many temples.

Feweristas say there is only one Temple, therefore plural words for temple are invalid because girls are it and he.

Yod Heh Waw Heh, Jehovah spelt with an I is just the regular word for to be.
Depending on the vowels, it could mean He causes to be or He super-doper IS with a capital IS

But THEN the Feweristas spelt the entire language differently. In modern Hebrew,
Quote:
he is
is spelt YHYH rather than YHWH

And then the Feweristas burnt the he girls and the it girls.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:36 am    Post subject: kibbutz Reply with quote

There are two kinds of plural in Hebrew including Modern Hebrew? So one kibbutz - two Kibbutzim - three or more?

When Yahweh spoke out of the bush that burnt but burnt not away, he was grammatically correct in saying 'I am he'?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moritz



Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:03 am    Post subject: Re: kibbutz Reply with quote

marianneh wrote:
There are two kinds of plural in Hebrew including Modern Hebrew? So one kibbutz - two Kibbutzim - three or more?

When Yahweh spoke out of the bush that burnt but burnt not away, he was grammatically correct in saying 'I am he'?

Almost, he said AHYH AsR AHYH using the PC spelling.
To be grammatically correct rather than PC, he should have said AHWH AsR AHWH.

Hebrew has dual number expecially for things that go in twos.
Reghel = troed = foot; raglaim = dau droed = pair of feet, reglim = many feet.
_________________
Liberty - Equality - Fraternity : Aux armes, Citoyens !

War is Politics by other Methods - General von Clausewitz
Politics is War by other Methods - Some guy on the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:52 pm    Post subject: coverture de jure Reply with quote

I've been spelling 'femme couvert' wrong up to now. It is not standard French but Norman French so it should be 'feme covert.'

According to Wikipedia, it never applied in Scotland, and it is unclear if it did in Wales.

Some blame Blackstone for effectively inventing the concept in his 'Commentaries on the Laws of England.' Similarly, marital rape was held to be legal just because Matthew Hale opined that it should be in his private writings.

Queens including kings' wives were exempt from coverture. Otherwise, queening would have been just about impossible.

In essence, for almost all purposes, the wife's existence was not recognised by the law for the duration of the marriage. She had the rights of a minor or a certified mad person. All the matrimonial property belonged to her husband, even if she had earned it.

A Victorian woman had her pocket picked. The culprit was charged with the theft of the property of Mr [Victim's Surname].

Mrs Victim felt quite upset and humiliated, at being reminded she had no claim to the money in her pocket. It was almost as bad as if she had been charged with stealing, herself.

It could work to a woman's advantage. In 'Oliver Twist', Mr Bumble protests that he did not sell Oliver. His wife did it.

He is told, ''If she did it in your presence, the law assumes she did it at your direction.'' He bursts out, ''If the law assumes that, the law is a bachelor and the law is an ass!''

The law would not make that assumption automatically now. But as late as 2013, the supposedly intelligent economist Vicky Price tried to 'nail' her ex-husband Chris Huhne by revealing that they had made a criminal pact in which she would accept points on her driving licence for him.

She claimed immunity from criminal responsibility by pleading ' marital coercion.' The jury rejected the plea, rightly I think. The judge said with some satisfaction that they had seen through her. She was no shrinking violet but a manipulative trouble maker.

Elizabeth Gaskell handed over every penny she made from her novels to her husband. She didn't really have a choice.

The Whig politician, William Lamb, Lord Melbourne shamelessly pocketed all the royalties from 'Glenarvon', the amateurish novel written by his embarrassing wife, Lady Caroline Lamb.

While he was prime minister he was close to the minor poet, Caroline Norton, a granddaughter of the playwright, Richard Brinsley Sheridan. He knew she was in an abusive marriage.

He didn't take it very seriously. He said, ''It is almost worthwhile for a woman to be beat, considering the exceeding pity she excites.'' He told the teenage Queen Victoria that the happiest marriages are the ones where the wife is taken by force.

Dickens and other reporters flocked to record the scandalous details when Caroline's husband George Norton sued the Prime Minister for 'criminal conversation' with his wife. Victorians generally said 'conversation' when they meant intercourse and 'intercourse' when they meant conversation.

Caroline did not see the amusing side. She was thrown out of the house, was forbidden to see her children, one of whom died soon afterwards, and was destitute.

George had the right to all her earnings. A married woman could not sue or make a contract. A husband was expected to pay his wife's debts, but he could put a notice in the newspapers warning that he would no longer do so.

Caroline was not even a party to the 'crim. con.' case as she had no legal existence. Although she claimed to believe in all sorts of nonsense including Eve's fall and guilt 'as part of my religion', she started a campaign to get some basic rights for women, and to change the 'cruel laws of England.'

In this, she had some success. Lord Melbourne had now transferred his affections to the young Queen Victoria. But when Victoria excitedly commended Caroline's work, Melbourne was laughingly dismissive. He was not keen on reformers and do gooders.

In Victorian times, people were reluctant to leave anything to women in their wills. What if they married? It would all become the property of their husbands.

It was possible to tie property up in equitable trust funds before marriage, but the legal status of pre-nuptial trust funds was unclear. A wife needed her husband's consent to make a will.

Two Married Women's Property Acts supported by Gladstone in the late Victorian age gave women the right to what our continental friends would call 'an independent economy' even if they were married.

Case law in 1891 established that a man could no longer even ambush his estranged wife, abduct her and keep her prisoner. But the complainant's sister rejoiced too soon in gloating, ''Coverture is dead!'' In law, it may have been. But in practice, it continued.


Last edited by marianneh on Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:56 pm    Post subject: coverture de facto Reply with quote

One of my northern relatives told me she and her husband couldn't buy anything on hire purchase in the 70s. He was self employed. They didn't know if he would be working from one week to the next.

But she found a delightful white wardrobe for sale in installments. Her mother-in-law agreed to be guarantor.

When her husband found out he cancelled it. He then went round to confront his mother.

She had never seen him so furious. ''I thought he was going to hit me!'', she said.

I didn't understand why he felt his power was being threatened. I had been a happily oblivious infant in that era.

Women were mostly expected to get fathers or husbands to sign for loans, or do without. Christine Edwards, 23, saved a 30% deposit to buy a moped so she could ride it to work.

The salesman said he needed her father's signature to secure the contract. She tried to explain that her parents had split up, and she wasn't in contact with her father. They refused to accept her mother's signature.

It had finally been decided after many test cases, that housekeeping money belonged jointly to husband and wife. But the husband was expected to provide it. It was believed that 'a woman got certain rights through the relevant man in her life.'

Susan Woolley earned a third more than her husband but needed his signature to get a three piece suite on hire purchase. She commented succinctly, ''I was extremely annoyed.''

Since late Victorian times, it was no longer illegal or invalid to treat married women as if they had 'a separate economy.' Retailers could have done so had they wished. But no one was going to make them do it.

Poor treatment was taken for granted. Few individuals felt up to taking on the powers that were.

The 'wonderful women at Dagenham' went on strike in 1968. The furore ushered in the Equal Pay Act in 1970.

It was after this that Kath Dawson tried to buy a washing machine on hire purchase. She was told her husband would have to sign for it.

She had to plead to be allowed to take the paperwork home for his signature as he worked in a different town. It was in his name although she made the payments.

Kath signed up for the AA, putting herself as the principal driver. When the membership cards came through, her husband was named as the full member and herself as the associate member although she had paid for the car.

Sheena Fraser worked in a bank in the 60s. While she was on honeymoon, her staff current account was changed to a joint account. It said, 'Mr [Husband's Name] and another.' Her contract was also changed to temporary staff.

She is haunted by this to this day. It has given her an undeservedly poor credit rating.

So did coverture end in 1975 with the Sex Discrimination Act when a woman could get any kind of bank card without a husband's signature?

It was then that Wimpy Bar and other places were no longer allowed to throw out 'unaccompanied females' after a certain time of night. They had probably done this because they took it for granted that a woman in public alone at night was a prostitute or at least a moral danger.

We heard a lot of people exclaiming about the Sex Discrimination Act when I first went to secondary school in 1978. They seemed to think it was bizarre. Their comments made me uneasy.

At our school now, boys had to do needlework and cookery as well as woodwork and metalwork and so did girls. But a good number of schools ignored the law.

The Times was reporting in 1978 that some retailers were still asking for male guarantors before letting a woman make a significant purchase.

I remember seeing an episode of 'Coronation Street' in the early 80s where Stan and Hilda Ogden hope to buy a decent house. Neither of them is very bright but Hilda is more talkative. Stan is just like a bump on a log.

The estate agent is charming to her and just about ignores Stan. But then he suddenly says, ''I'm afraid it'll have to be your signature, Mr Ogden.''

In a vintage black and white episode of 'Coronation Street' in the 60s, Annie Walker, the pub landlady quietly reproves women hanging round the bar by pointing to a large notice. It says 'Lady customers are kindly requested to sit in the lounge.'

It was not until 1982, that it was established that a woman had a right in law to be served in a bar. And even after that, the Conservative Club was a law unto itself.

My friend Liz and I were thrown out of the Conservative Club in Cardiff in the 80s for being female. They said they wouldn't even serve Margaret Thatcher. But they had her picture on the wall!

Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979. She was the most powerful woman in the country and perhaps the world. But it was her husband who had to fill out her tax forms until 1990. it was ironically the advent of the iniquitous poll tax that put an end to that anachronism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:36 am    Post subject: La Presidenta Reply with quote

When Margaret Thatcher began to make her presence felt in the House of Commons, some of her Conservative colleagues referred to her by her middle name Hilda. It was an allusion to the thick charwoman Hilda Ogden in 'Coronation Street.' The implication was that her only position in Parliament should be on her knees, scrubbing the floor.

Bernard Levin commented that it was ridiculous to think that she could ever be prime minister. How could a woman do that? His argument, somewhat surprisingly, was that the prejudice of female voters against their own sex would prevent it.

Margaret Thatcher herself said at one point that she never expected to see a woman prime minister in her lifetime. She told children on 'Jim'll Fix It' that she had had no such aspirations in her youth, as it just seemed impossible.

I think we were a bit dazed to see her victorious wave from outside Number Ten. It was only sixty years since women had reluctantly been allowed to become MPs after a bloody struggle. The suffragettes were still well within living memory.

For some time it seemed unreal. Yet we acclimatised. As one of her biographers said, power became her. In May 1979 she looked rather menopausal, and was often pictured with a shopping basket on her arm to advertise her frugality.

From this she became an all conquering warrior queen who went from strength to strength. The very MPs who had enjoyed sexist sniggers at her expense, became her most slavish acolytes.

For those of us who grew from children to adolescents or adults in Thatcher's decade, she was an apparent absolute ruler whom we expected to be there for ever. People wrote letters to the paper about their cute grandchildren who had asked about Mrs Thatcher.

One grandmother recounted that she had spoken of former prime ministers such as Edward Heath and Harold Wilson. Her grandchild had exclaimed in disbelief, ''What? Are men allowed to be prime minister?''

A TV advert featured an old lady whose grandchildren had asked if a man could ever be prime minister. She had chuckled as she said, ''Yes, but I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime!''

Thatcher had such a mesmerising effect on the country that it became unhelpful to ask people suspected of having dementia or schizophrenia if they knew who the prime minister was. Even people who were so mad that they didn't know who they were, would answer promptly, ''Maggie Thatcher'', when asked who the prime minister was.

When the grey, nondescript John Major was brought to power in the coup that toppled Thatcher, for a long time the Downing Street computer kept referring to the prime minister as 'she.' Thatcher said she intended to be a 'matriarch.' This was interpreted as meaning that just because she was no longer prime minister, it didn't mean she wasn't still running the country.

Two female front runners came into our sights as rivals to be the next PM, perhaps almost by default, as Gove and Johnson self destructed. Andrea Leadsom scored an own goal. It was not just her CV.

The maverick historian Naill Ferguson who wrote 'The Ascent of Money', trashed Keynesian economics ineptly. He said that as Keynes was gay and had no children, his grasp of economics was flawed.

It was easy for him to say, 'In the long run, we're all dead.' He would have no descendants.

For once, Ferguson apologised for this with becoming humility. It's below the belt for anyone to say that someone is more suited for public office or making policy decisions than another named individual on the grounds that the latter is childless.

It would not have been appropriate to say it about anyone. But, after all, a man can father a child at just about any age. So for him, it's a case of where there's life, there's hope.

A woman has quite a narrow window of opportunity biologically to bear children. Theresa May has obviously gone past it.

It sounds pretty spiteful to disparage her on those grounds. It might be a sore spot for her.

It does incidentally show how times have changed. Andrea Leadsom would once have been considered not more suitable to be prime minister because she is a mother, but someone who should not be in the workforce at all. My mother once heard a female lecturer say, ''I think mothers only go to work to get money for cigarettes!''

Leadsom's apology was not enough to save her. It became obvious a few days ago, that it was now a one horse race.

We saw a TV show a few days ago where children watch television and comment on it. One little girl said graciously that she approved of Theresa May. She had no objection to her becoming Britain's first woman prime minister.

Another girl said, ''She won't be the first. Maggie Thatcher was the first!''

''What??? She was prime minister!!'' exclaimed the first kid in disbelief. She has no memory of Margaret Thatcher being in the news for anything other than having strokes and suffering from dementia.

It had never occurred to her that Thatcher had ever been competent. How have the mighty fallen!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:52 am    Post subject: 60 years on Reply with quote

What was I thinking of? It was not 60 years but 61 years in 1979 since the Representation of the People Act in 1918. Not only working class men who failed to meet certain property qualifications but middle class sons over 21 who still lived with their parents, and male servants such as butlers who lived under their employers' roofs could not vote until nearly the end of the First World War.

As so many of these disenfranchised men had risked their lives in the trenches, manhood suffrage was a kind of reward. All men could now vote from the age of 21, but those who had been in the trenches could vote if they were over 19. An exception was made for deserters and conchies. They would be deprived of the right to vote for the next five years!

So what of women? The suffragettes had called off their campaign for the duration of the war. They had thrown themselves into the war effort. They obviously had to be given a sop so they would not start their old tricks again.

I imagine it was with some reluctance that women over 30 were granted the right to vote, and only then if they were graduates, householders or had certain other property qualifications.

It was separate legislation that gave women the right to stand for parliament. No attempt was made to be consistent.

Women could stand for election to the House of Commons at 21. So Jennie Lee became an MP but wasn't old enough to vote for herself. It may have been the same with Megan Lloyd George.

When Margaret Thatcher nee Roberts was born in 1925, the discriminatory franchise was still in force. It was in 1928 that all women could vote from the age of 21.

Newspapers did not approve, referring to the 'flapper vote folly.' The general election of 1929 was the first under full democracy.

The voting age was lowered to 18 only in 1969, to come into force on New Year's Day 1970. A mini-skirted teenager posed for a publicity shoot in that year's general election, the first teeny bopper to cast a vote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:33 am    Post subject: ice queen Reply with quote

Unless she is assassinated in the next few minutes, Theresa May will become Britain's second woman prime minister this afternoon. Floppy haired Boris, and clueless Dave will have the taunt ringing in their heads that no Eton boy wants to hear: ''You lost to a girl!''

We can only hope that we can soon say the same of Trump. But Joanna Taylor is concerned that women can only get the top jobs by taking on undesirable attributes that have traditionally been seen as macho. Even Matthew Paris had to admit how callous Thatcher was; she despised and wrote off whole swathes of society, including shipping and coal mining communities.

She even said there was no such thing as society. If she was the iron lady, Theresa May is already known as the ice queen. Joanna Taylor suggests we need to support female politicians with quite different sensibilities, those like Caroline Lucas and the late Jo Cox.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2639

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ghastly though he was, I think that we are going to end up looking back fondly upon David Cameron as " The Last Decent Englishman " who single-handedly held back the barbarians. Theresa May has started off with some conciliatory rhetoric but I have been following her agenda as Home Secretary and frankly when I bought the paper yesterday I found that I could not bear to open it to find out what lay behind that scary image of her on the front cover ... By the time that I arrived at Dafydd's I was seriously upset - frightened of what the news might be : but Dafydd is made of sterner stuff than me and stormed through its pages until he found the crossword and thus retrieved the bare foundations of civilisation. ...

... I still have not seen the inside of that newspaper : I turned over in bed last night for my last chance to look at the last news last thing on-line using my last mobile and the news was so appallingly bad - it broke the phone !!!! ... I think that this bodes very badly : surely this Theresa May must be in league with Satan - or maybe this is not even Theresa May at all but her hollowed out remains now parasitically occupied by ... Margaret Thatcher ? ... I mean - just because medical science has not progressed as far as being able to resurrect the dead does not mean that it is impossible that she has contrived to return from The Bottomless Pit ... she always was incredibly willful and it may well be that she has now returned reincarnated in a form that is even madder and badder - Theresa May ...

... Of course as Republicans we must uphold the right of freedom of worship and allow Theresa May to practice whatever rites she wishes to in private provided that before she vacates No.10 again she scours the place clean and puts the corpses and severed limbs out in the correct bags ready for collection from the gutters of Downing Street ... I am about to put down some brief notes about Margaret Murray on this matter of religious liberty - I wondered if you know anything about her and might contribute ideas about that to this thread -

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=3698#3698 -
The Mother of All Witches - but what were her politics ?

- I might add that I fully expect Theresa May to divert The Attention of The People from The Bloody Awful Woman's Mess by resorting to The Witch Hunt ... ironical that I started to cartoon The Republicans in Wales as witches ... because in a sense the shape of the political system of The Republic in Wales is - or ought to be - or might be - The Witches' Hat - if you can remember that playground equipment which was condemned as unsafe ? ... It is a good metaphor because the governing mechanism at the top is like The Supreme Court in a Nomocracy and the circular step/seat with the framework rising from it the successive tiers of the political system with the central pillar as The Rule of Law upholding the structure. ... OH MY GOVERNMENT ... Theresa May is making her opening speech after visiting The Queen to declare to her that The Conservative & Unionist Party have crowned her Prime Minister ... are there protesters are shouting in the background ? ... Her speech has reminded me of Margaret Thatcher's " Francis of Assisi " speech ... bloody hell : well it is never going to be their houses getting burned down by the mob is it ? ... But that is the point I suppose : create the misery that results in the political opposition which loudly warning about the dangers of civil disorder and then once the desired civil disorder is obtained - use it to blame the political opposition and introduce political repression arguing that this suppresses those who " advocated " civil disorder ... Readers in other countries may not believe that this is a regular practice in non-political system called The United Kingdom - but it is a pattern that can be traced back centuries ... basically this was the same argument that William The Conqueror used to justify invading England : to bring an end to the civil disorder being caused by the political opposition of King Harold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Seiat Gwragedd - Women's Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games