Favourite Famous Quotes I: Facebook ones...

I take life with a pinch of salt, a wedge of lime, and a shot of tequila.

(Now this is from a magnet I got after my first year of Uni and it really applied to how I take things in life! I really do take a shot and hope for the best in the end... alcoholics anonymous here I come!! I am sure I will be in Rehab with Amy Winehouse anyday soon!! LOL)

All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in simple words: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope. (Winston Churchill)
(Great man! And a very true quote. What would happen if every single one of us did this? If we were all merciful, hopeful and fair where would the world be? And if we all promoted honour and duty, would there be any yobbos on the street? I dunno, sometimes I wonder what Winston would have made of this world... and btw, I dont think he is by any means totally innocent. He could have been reminded of this speech at the Nuremburg trials... Why did the English, American, Russian and French never go on trial themselves?)

Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed. (Winston Churchill)
(This quote made me LMAO (laugh my arse off!!) I would like t be remembered for something good, but you know... not RIGHT now!!)

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it (Winston Churchill)
(Oh so true!! I am gonna be there writing it... go me, wee historian!! Go, Gal!! Go!!)

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination. (Oscar Wilde)
(This just makes me wonder... I live within my means... and i am seeking inspiration to spend it!! haha!! I like the idea, that if you can't take this money with you then you might as well do something exciting with it!!)

Mortality, like art, means drawing a line someplace (OW)

Oscar Wilde was a very wise man. This quote almost makes dying art in itself. Death is afterall just drawing a line underneath line. Hopefully there will be more afterwards!

Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much (OW)
(Btw this works, I have done it... they never live it down, even after you are friends years afterwards. They never understand why and it gives you a good feeling!)

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes (Ghandi)
(I have made many mistakes, and I have learnt a lot from them. It also means we can come to see other's errors and realise they are no less or more than us. It is equalising!)


An eye for an eye makes the world blind (gandhi)
(Heard this in a film before I realised this was said by Ghandi... Revenge really doesnt solve anything... see above!!)

"I'm just a fucked up girl looking for my own piece of mind" Clementine Kruczynski (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind)

(I am a fucked up girl and I am looking for my own piece of mind... solved? oh God no... see my blog!!)

How happy is the blameless Vestal's lot! / The world forgetting, by the world forgot / Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! / Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd.

(see my first ever blog...)

You find a glimmer of happiness in this world, theres always someone who wants to destroy it. (Finding Netherland)
(I love Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet in this movie, but this quote is so right. I work at a place where relationships with children are confiner by what we can and cannot do. We can't even hold thier hands if they are lost. What the world has come to, I do not know, but it is true... you do something pure, honest and good, and there will be one person to think it is wrong!)

I am a nice shark. Not a mindless eating machine. If i am to change this image, i must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food!
- Bruce (Finding Nemo)
GREAT QUOTE!!!

"You seen my girlfriend, tall, thin, legs for days?"
"Yeah. I pitched her overboard." (Center Stage)
*AGAIN HUMOROUS WITHIN THE CONTENT!! DAMN BALLET DANCERS!!)

The next man that laughs is gonna get his head ventilated.
- Bill Hickok (Calamity Jane)

When a man gets tired of London, he is tired of life (Dr. Johnson)

Thought the harder, heart the keener (ESEEX UNIVERSITY MOTTO)

"If his unpleasant wounding has in some way enlightened the rest of you as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life and inspired you to change your ways, then his injuries carry with it an inherent nobility and supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You say poor Toby; I say poor us." Sphinx
"He spoke." Tumbler
"Hey man, I thought you were from Long Beach." Memphis (Gone in 60 seconds)

"Nobody is as mysterious as they think they are" Claire Colburn (Elizabethtown)

"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends" Dumbledore (VERY TRUE! :s)

"Thoughts could leave deeper scarring than almost anything else" madam pomfrey

How much easier it is to be critical than correct. -Disraeli (REMEMBER THIS WHEN CRITICISING OTHERS....)

We make a living my what we get, we make a life by what we give. (Churchill) A MOTTO TO LIVE LIFE BY I THINK. IF WE ALL LIVED BY WHAT WE GAVE, WE WOULD ALL BE IN POVERTY...

Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. (Mao Tse Tung) TO BE HONEST THOUGH I CONCEDE BOTH ARE SOMETIMES NECESSARY, I DON'T LIKE EITHER.

"In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you." Mr Darcy (BEST NOVEL EVER- JOINT WITH PERSUASION- ROCK ON JANE AUSTEN!!)

"Can't you tell me off the record?"
"Off the record, I like to be kissed before I am fucked." (Blood Diamond)
GREAT QUOTE. THIS FILM IS ACE!! SEE IT!! SOUTH AFRICA/GREED/MONEY/CORRUPT/HOT LEONARDO DICAPRIO WHAT ELSE CAN YOU ASK FOR... ALSO- SEE THE DEPARTED!! WITH MATT DAMON IN WITH LEO!!

MUSE (favourite band of all time!), HYSTERIA!

HERE is one of my all time favourite songs by one of my all time favourite bands! Got me through some tricky times, but Oh God! Can they play their instruments! And Matt Bellamy was self-taught (vocalist, pianist and guitarist!) so woohoo! Go him, and went to school not too far from where my Grandparents now live! They were in the local paper when I was last down there and I was very excited, and so was my Grandad who was surprised to find a band I liked were in actual fact famous and were also from Devonshire!! Like the two couldn't be mutually exclusive!! haha!! Anyways, good song...

I really need to find out how you pop the youtube window in the blog....

***ROCK OUT LIL SOLDIERS!!***

Country House Rescue

Howdy folks!!

I was just having a quiet evening before the week of traditional Christmas overindulgence, and I was watching this programme on Channel 4 'Country House Rescue'. Now then, I love this lady who goes in here and pulls these little posh oiks, who have the self-discipline, common sense (ok granted I am not well-endowed in this myself!) and hedonistic attitude. Now this guy who has recently inherited Elmore Court in the Cotswolds, one Anselm Guise, with a family tree as long and as old as the establishment of England itself! Ruth Watson, this posh but rather surprisingly profanity-issuer, advises this 30-year-old-something DJ how to "diversify and raise revenue to secure his future". I got the impression that his parents had left him to sort it out himself in the hope it might make him grow up and take on some serious responsibility! I guess it worked, he set up a cookery school within his house complete with accommodation in the grand Tudor rooms. He pulled his socks up and made it a success.

It just made me glad to see these half-aristicratic heirs to historical heirlooms can a) take over the history and commitment the house needed and b) also showed the upper class brats being pulled up by their boot straps rather than just working class/middle class kids with programmes such as Lad's Army etc, etc, etc!

Very good programme though- plus some seriously nice old stuff!! haha technical term that for us historians! Gawd if only I could get my hands on that house! The wonder it could become.... but to be fair, there was no money to do anything. A sad state of English culture and heritage eh?

(btw- the photo on the left- this sewing box was sold for £4000!! It was lovely! I wouldn't have sold it!! It was far too nice!! The middle photo is of Elmore Court itself and the last photo is the state the kitchen was in!! Eeeep!!)

The Economic Contributions of Women in the Industrial Revolution: A Changing Role, or A Static Subordinance?

The increase of population in the late 1700s was an important cause in the change in the economy in that it stimulated demand, but it also affected society, because industrialisation caused economic slumps. This increased the strain on Poor Relief as more and more workers were laid off. The rate of growth of the British economy was particularly marked between 1770 and 1850, and this encouraged the search for methods that were more time and cost efficient.

The development of proto-industry and economy evolved into an 'Industiral Revolution', which expanded prospects for female employment. Women, who were considered “unskilled”, entered the workforce as cheap and flexible labour that provided the foundations for the textile industry.

It is perilous to assume that women’s work was transformed in a radical and uniformed way by the Industrial Revolution. Some historians argue that change was equally balanced with continuity, so even the term “revolution” is queried. Some believe the Industrial Revolution caused the demise of the “golden age” of women’s work. Yet few believe that the pre-capitalist economy was ideal for women, but they feel too that the late eighteenth century to 1850 saw a narrowing in opportunities for women to work. Women were economically marginalised by the Industrial Revolution, because they had jobs that required a low level of skill and were low in productivity. This seems to continue what had characterised women’s work for centuries. Indeed, other historians argue that there was no “golden age” for women in the pre-industrial past, but the same restrictions were still enforced. The pre-existence of female subordination was the cause of capitalist advancement, and in fact the oppression of women was necessary for the industrial capitalism to keep on working and evolve. There seems little change from the early modern period. Capitalism, key to the Industrial Revolution, was a long established system in the economy. The only variant in the British economy was that it became industrialist. However, in certain industries and at specific times, there was an increase in women’s opportunities in the workplace. There was seemingly a balance of change and continuity.


Long standing ideas of women as inferior shows little change in social constructions of females from the early modern period. So why were they employed? It seemed these exact ideas of women’s inferiority, which provide the answer. (By the way, these notions of female inferiority in this period masked male anxiety of being pushed out of their spheres of employment by women workers.) The fact that women were cheaper and more flexible meant that they were employed because they could be dropped easily in times of recession or a settling down of the economy. Unlike men, they weren’t considered the provider for the family and wouldn’t need to depend on charities to support them when out of work. Wage rates of women varied nationally, but were generally one-third to one-half of the wage of men. In the North and the Midlands, women earned higher wages because of the rapidly expanding industries of textiles, metal wares and pottery. The wages remained cheap even when there was pressure on labour supplies as in cotton and wool spinning because women’s work was seen as low status and supplemental to the household income. Women workers were also likely to be agreeable to the discipline of the factory and less able to oppose the autonomous work practice that they had enjoyed under the proto-industrialised system. An important factor in the demand for female labour was organisational and technological innovation. The use of female labour with these innovations was to yield higher profits that were impossible to reach before.

Despite female labour being termed as “unskilled”, women were important and technological change during industrialisation could provide the conditions for the breakdown of sexual division of labour. Unfortunately though, there was a redefinition of gender notions at the same time, which resulted in the reassertion of male superior status in the economy. Assumptions of being women physically weaker and intelligently inferior have dated back hundreds of years. Combined with this, there were social issues that had an effect such as the declining age in marriage and the rising rate of marriage, which endorsed dependency of women on men. They were no longer individual economic agents contributing to the economy. It was in this time that the Victorian ideal of domesticity of women was supported by legislation and male campaigns for the ‘breadwinner wage’. The principle of patriarchy remained a constant shaping factor in nineteenth century British society, partly in response to economic developments, which threatened the system.

The demographic effects of the agricultural revolution were important. It released peasants from their work as fewer men were needed to do the work because of mechanisation and new innovations. They drew on these people to produce in greater volumes of goods and at a lower wage. This work supplemented the income of the household economy. Family units were needed to work together, rather than individuals alone, so peasants married younger because they needed to. They couldn’t afford to do otherwise. Women still had the same duty to bare children, but now it was for the added reason of producing workers. This shows that the whole idea of the family changed to accommodate the new economy made by the Industrial Revolution.

On the other hand, the textile industry saw a dramatic contribution from women as a workforce. In the 1790s, there were over 900 spinning cotton mills. This jumped up to over 1000 in 1800, and the majority of the workforce was, indeed, women. They were the spinners. They had spun back when proto-industry was in full swing and had taken six people to supply yarn to a weaver, but technological advancement meant that spinning became more efficient, which increased production in the long term. But when Spinning Jennies developed and got larger, men took over. Hand loom weaving had always been considered males’ work but women did work more often as weavers in the West Riding and the West Country. Silk spinning remained a women’s monopoly and the ratio of women to men was significantly higher than in the wool or cotton industries.

The long wars with France also provided an opportunity for women to fill the labour gap left by men, but in times of employment crisis, women were excluded by male weavers. Stitching, glove making and lace making expanded rapidly on the basis of cheap female labour. Journeymen in the industry of Calico printing demanded higher wages, but in 1790 employers introduced new machines, which dislodged the journeyman’s hold and brought in cheaper female labour to do the work. Wedgwood also employed female labour for printing and decorating, although the idea of it being “skilled” labour was never applied to it. It was still a male dominated word for their work. Women began to infiltrate the working world despite staunch patriarchal ideologies.

Mining was an industry that varied in female labour employment. There was little national conformity. Few women actually worked below ground and was on the decline anyway in the late 1700s as well as the 1842 Mines Act that banned women from working underground. This legislation hardly affected English mining as only 5% of the miners were female, but it was universally condemned in Scotland where 35% of the miners were female. The increasing options in other field of work would also draw women away from mining with the 14 hour days and the danger it involved. Still, women were involved on the surface and their prime task was drawing, but iron tracks brought this job within the capability of a child, and so they were gradually replaced by even cheaper children. Generally women weren’t involved in heavy industry, but they could be found in light metal ware industries in Birmingham because of their deft agility.

Mainly married women withdrew from industry, which decreased economic contributions to society because they could rely on their husband to be the breadwinner and contemporary ideology of a woman’s role was to be a good housewife. Unlike married women, single or widowed women had only themselves to rely on, and in the case of a lot of widows, children to support. The combined earnings of women and children were able to double the family income, which therefore increased home demands in the late eighteenth century. Many widows carried on their husband’s trade, which had departed from what had gone before. However, women were gradually being excluded as capitalist advance took more work from the home, and as population growth accelerated, people flooded the market.

Despite all of this, one factor of the Industrial Revolution must be remembered. It was not nationally uniformed and varied regionally, so women received higher earnings and increased opportunities for earning were more characteristic of some areas. Neither did the increase in wages mean that they increased consumption. There was also some in society, who believed that factory employment of women was ‘unnatural’ as it had ‘ruinous consequences’ on the social order and children grew up wild like weeds’. Complaints were not just from fellow male workers either; it was people like the Utilitarians and Evangelicals, which included some women too. Society was divided over the matter of female labour, and to some extent female workers were considered by some male weavers to be as much the symptom as the cause of their problems. In short, the blame came to fall on the laps of the government and capitalist employers.

Women got involved in the rebellious movement, Chartism, as they were dissatisfied with their inferior status as “unskilled”, the appalling conditions in the factories and the low wages. The fact that these economic problems were not sorted out by either the employer or the government meant that they evolved into political problems, which resulted in riots and protests. The National Female Charter Association was set up and a vast amount of women were involved. Although many historians debate the effectiveness of Chartism, it is clear that the new roles of women in the factories allowed them to step out of their ‘inferior’ role and campaign for economic rights that extended past the economy and demanded a change in their social perception.

There was a slump at the end of the 1830s, which coincided with the organisation against factory girls by male workers. They became a target by the male workers as the cause for all their problems. The government realised something had to be done. The Factory Act of 1833 was hailed by its critics as being just a cosmetic exercise, as it did very little so as not to affect the employers or the economy. It however encouraged more females to work for the labour lost out on by barring young children from the factories. This did not abate the raucous protest of the male workers. In continued into the 1840s when people called for legislative controls over women’s work altogether. The male workers had a priority over female workers. This right was reinforced by the fact male workers had higher wages because they had the sole responsibility for the economic welfare of their families. In this respect women’s roles had become more restricted. It seems as they got more of a chance to make economic contributions, they were increasingly restricted because the male workers saw them as a threat. However other groups like the aristocracy and Evangelicals felt it was “unnatural” and went against a woman’s domestic role.

The Industrial Revolution changed the social structure dramatically. It was highly profitable for some and these formed a solid middle class. Also, a proletariat was formed because of the industrialisation which women were a part of. This period generally saw an increase in women being employed and the possibilities for greater female status and power were within sight. The economic changes had an adverse effect on society as gender division was created and held women back. The industrialisation of Britain, which gave women jobs, helped shake the foundations of the patriarchal society and from here onwards there is a gradual erosion of patriarchy in society (albeit there have also been some steps back since too!). Female labour was crucial to the economy as a whole and their earnings were a large part of the household income. They were also vital to the expanding out-put system for basic processes like spinning and knitting: “never before did such a large percentage of women participate in productive labour”. It became usual for women to be full time workers and they remained a strong presence in the textile trades. However, for all their economic contributions, they remained subordinate members of society dominated by males. It is surprising to see how little things had changed between1770-1850 considering it was supposed to be a “revolution”. Females rarely displaced male workers and sometimes were pushed out of the workforce. They were still poorly paid for all their labours and were not emancipated despite their contributions. This period seemed to be a sliding scale, in which events and issues in England affected which gender was employed more. For example, there were times like in the Napoleonic wars when men were in short supply, and then women were marginalised when there were slumps. In the end there was a change and it did increase women’s independence, but it wasn’t without problems. Their role remained fundamentally the same but it was slowly trying to evolve in the chances given to them by the Industrial Revolution. The structure of society was changed by the Industrial Revolution but some sections of society tried to keep the patriarchal sentiment present in it, but in the modernisation of industry and the need of workers to fill the demand, it was unlikely that women were going to be oppressed for long.

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound

I have had this tune going around my head! haha, it has been going round and round and round, and I always end up singing the songs that I have rattling around in my head and I REALLY can't sing plus I have a cold, so if I couldn't sing before I sure as hell can't now!! As an aside, I have a Ray Charles version of this song, which I love (see his version here on youtube.com) and you should check out! I love Ray Charles...

Anyways, why this song is in my head is interesting, or at least as interesting as things go in my life at the moment (that is a self-pitying moment there!! Forgive me!)

I had a day off on Monday and I sat down on the sofa with breakfast (my usual bran flakes and cuppa), put on the TV and scanned through the channels. (By the way, this is not the interesting bit!!) Now I tend to try and avoid getting to the film channel section because I know I will find something I will want to watch and then will indeed proceed to watch for the next two hours prompting me to do nothing but sit back and not move. However, there was a film on I wanted to see when it was on at the cinema when it was out and had failed to get around to see... as with so many things at the cinema!!

I ended up watching AMAZING GRACE with Ioan Gruffudd as William Wilberforce. Now I love Ioan from his days as Hornblower (AMAZING!- what can I say? I like naval history!- also, i am very sorry for the half pun thing there... amazing... amazing grace.... get it? nah, never mind...) but I also am quite interested in the history of Civil Rights and I did kinda study this chappy (William Wilberforce, not Hornblower or Ioan Gruffudd!) in my history AS-Level. It was a great film needless to say and it was this song that made me shed a little tear twice during the film. The first time was when he got married and his bride was the one bolstering him to keep going despite so many rebuffs in Parliament for abolishing slavery! It made me cry that his bride had chosen this song without him knowing to begin the wedding ceremony with. It was sweet. They clasped hands and looked directly at the altar/camera and sung with all their might and their 'damn anyone standing in our way' faces on. It was heart lifting!

The second time I did part with a tear or two was the closing scenes when bagpipes were heartily pumping out the tune of Amazing Grace again, this time for his funeral and the rolling credits reveal how much William Wilberforce did. My dad walked in at this point, clucked his tongue and shook his head with amusement at my tears. (He finds it funny that I have an attraction to anything on TV with fashion over a hundred years old!! I am still trying to get him to appreciate Hornblower- I half succeeded and got him to watch Master and Commander with Russell Crowe in. Half way I guess...)

Now apart from this being rather historically accurate, something I value in historical dramas (and believe me, despite the label 'historical dramas' there is often very little historical basis, facts or details), it was just a good watch and didn't batter you over the head with how bad slavery is... well it did, obviously, but not in a "It is all your fault" kind of way. It made you angry at the government and rich fat cats profiting from it. I did actually feel anger at them, and the frustration which Wilberforce must have felt at being completely ignored, ridiculed and never getting very far for his pains. This is a mark of a good film. If you can empathise with the characters and feel what they feel without you knowing you had felt it, then still have a lasting memory of it four/five days later, stands up for itself hailing it as a great film.

I think it was rather undervalued when it was in the cinema, and I suppose it is little well-known. I wouldn't know. But I do know it is immense and of epic proportions in the emotional sense. Summary: 'Tis great!!

As another aside, after researching what the lyrics are because I shamefully don't know them all I found out a bit about the guy behind the lyrics.

The author of the lyrics to “Amazing Grace” was John Newton, who was a slave trade after a stint in the Royal Navy. He wrote this hymn around Christmas time in 1772. Now , Newton was not initially a very religious man and according to Wikipedia, “the turning point in Newton's spiritual life was a violent storm that occurred one night while at sea. Moments after he left the deck, the crewman who had taken his place was swept overboard. Although he manned the vessel for the remainder of the tempest, he later commented that, throughout the tumult, he realized his helplessness and concluded that only the grace of God could save him.” Newton encouraged his sailors to pray and ensured that every member of his crew treated their human cargo with kindness, but it was 40 years later when Newton openly challenged the trafficking of slaves.

“Amazing Grace” summarises the doctrine of divine grace and the lyrics are based on reflections Newton had on his slave ship, the Greyhound, in 1748. His reflections were centred around 1 Chronicles 17:16-17, a prayer of King David in which he marvels at God's choosing him and his house.

The song is a known favourite with human rights supporters, partly because many believe it to be a testimony about the slave trading past of Newton. What I like about this song most is how it has become representative for me of the history of slavery and human rights. "Amazing Grace" chosen for the namesake of the film I watched on Monday about the English trying to abolish slavery was poignant and well chosen. I am not sure how relevant the song was to Wilberforce's life, but it was contemporaneous with him and it was popular at the time, so it is possible, and I like to think he perhaps hummed it under his breath in times of trouble!

But what a great tune to have stuck in your head all week!!

Favourite Music 1: Ghost of the Robot- Good Night Sweet Girl

Ace song! Great lyrics and instrumental melody. And of course, I do not like for the Spike factor much :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P_FIuNjyZWw

By the way, if anyone can let me know how you bring up the mini screen from youtube I would be very grateful :)

By the way, I am alive!

Heehee I am alive! I would say I have been busy, but I don't know where time has gone. I do not think I have been busy...

Charles I: The Ignition for the English Civil War?

I was sorting through some of my paperwork from university, clearly very well organised in a huge box *please hence the sarcasm on that one*. I always seem to be immaculately tidy right up till revision time and then everything becomes tangled and messy, mainly because I could never face the prospect of flicking back through all the paperwork again after the exam just in case I realised I made a devastating mistake!

Anyway, I am deviating again... I came across my last essay for a course in the first year where I got a first. It was broadly named "Society, Culture and Politics in Early Modern Europe" or some such... it was an ace course where we covered everything. It included the English Civil War and working at the castle now, people, who want to know how we came to have a Civil War. It is hard to explain in a sort span of time, without seemingly either lecturing or shortening it to the point of historical criminality where I miss out key bits. Anyway, I often remark that Charles I was his own undoing in some ways... and here my conclusion of my essay I found in my pile of notes explains... Perhaps I could be accused of historical criminality as I am missing out quite a chunk of what happened... but go along with it for me, please??

Unfortunately for Charles I, his reign was based on 'personal monarchy', where his personality determined the style, efficiency and effectiveness of his rule. It was apparent that Charles lacked a strong personality. His readiness to defer duties to others was a dangerous weakness and the flaw that should never be present in a monarch was inconsistency and a bad judge of character. When his main advisor and friend, Duke of Buckingham was assassinated, Charles was left to his own devices. However, instead of getting back onto his feet, he turned to his wife, who he came to rely heavily on. She was all too eager to fill the vacant position of political favourite despite her lack of knowledge of the country she resided in and the fear she invoked in the nation (she was a French Catholic in an unstable Protestant country who also had uneasy relations with the French).

Although Charles was under no obligation to call parliament and they were often only called when the monarch needed them, usually for money. However, Charles pushed his authority too far. He did not call parliament for eleven years and had 'illegally' used Ship Money (which was to be used only for when the Navy needed to be equipped due to a national emergency) to supplement his income, which caused many people to think he was determined to subvert the laws and customs of England, especially when he proclaimed that he had forbidden any one to talk of calling another government. The historian Margaret James argues that the Reformation and the evolution of more democratic political thought have a link. Luther had proclaimed that no Christian should be ruled except by his own consent, a potentially destabilising idea for a monarch who believed in the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Religion had provided a political basis for opposing Charles' rule.

Charles also added to this link between religion and politics. Although he did not think politically, he did think that “kingship was a sacramental concept” and that if he traded parts of it away, like he thought the first parliament he called was asking him to do, he was committing the act of sacrilege. His rule and how he ruled was directly linked to God and religion. He was actually politicising religion further and the saying "If you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself..." the same could almost be said for Charles and his dogmatic insistence that he was handpicked by God to rule.

This ties back into the idea of a 'personal monarchy'. Charles refused to budge on how he ruled and he upheld backward and frail institutions in a religiously divided nation with social and economic problems. The majority of the nation hated the outdated feudal system he insisted on keeping and he was lengthening his own rope. The historian, John Morrill, agrees: “the personal weakness of the monarch could in themselves cause the collapse of order” and it did. Indeed Charles was so inapt in his role as monarch that he agitated matters.

Of course, there were inherent problems in English society which long preceeded Charles I. Henry VIII and the Reformation had unbalanced society long established on the Catholic faith. This religious issue had not been helped by Henry's son and two daughters, who first killed Catholics, then Protestants and then Catholics again for heresy. Social and economic problems had been a long time grievance of the peasantry. The history of religious and social issues with additional current social problems were a key issue and provided a strong base for discontent in society, but I genuinely doubt whether it would generate enough fervour to drive the nation to decapitate their monarch. However, the ministers that helped dispose the King- what was their motivation? They did not share the same despair at failing crops as the peasantry did. They would not starve, just see a dent in their profits. It was political. And Charles. They really had a grievance with Parliament not being called for 11 years. They no longer welded political influence and this is what irked them! Charles failed at keeping the masses happy (there was no rise in real wages, a rise in rent and in food costs and the Poor Law wasn't coping) and also at keeping his ministers happy with regular meetings and any attempt at showing a caring, listening ear.

The revisionist historians, such as Morrill, believe that the ‘revolution’ was caused by the monarchy, not the people, (and also by the Scottish and Irish, not the English, which I will delve into later perhaps). I believe that the offensive prayer book of 1637 forced upon the Three Kingdoms in an attempt to try an unite them is an example of how Charles was politically ignorant and exacerbated already highly strung tensions in his country. Three very different countries with very different religious beliefs. Elizabeth I and James I had never tried to unite them.

Religion and politics were so interwoven that religious reforms have a political context, which Charles did not recognise and this blunder cost him dearly. If Charles had been politically more astute, the social, religious and political problems would have been kept suppressed, as previous monarchs had done. However, Charles’ tactless handling of both social and political problems with the addition of exacerbating religious division created the Civil War. And he lost his head for it.

I love days like to today because...

1) Something that you thought was going to turn out badly doesn't.
I have been trying for ages to meet up with various people and for one thing and another I was put off. I know I can be annoying in trying to organise these things.... possibly akin to a bloodhound with a scent up his nostril but there we are. Since finishing uni I still want to have a social life. I have realised that boyfriends do get put first, and maybe one day I will be exactly the same. I have realised that people will always be who they are and be flighty. That people do have things to do and it is hard to sort out a meeting time when work sometimes 6 days a week, rarely have a weekend off and can't drive. HOWEVER- going back to what I said- why I love today is- I am actually vacating my house in a social excursion whoop whoop!!

2) That I have two more working days before two days off!
This is better than a weekend sometimes because I can go into town and it is never as crowded as it is on a weekend! And it is, ok, one day working otuside in imminently cold weather and possibly rain but it is not a bad job. But I have another driving lesson booked for Wednesday morning and I am going to see High School Musical 3 (oh yes, have succumbed to the joys and cheesiness of HSM!!) with my brother, who it has to be said was possibly more depressed about being dumped by his girlfriend and now not having anyone to go and see HSM with. She was a really nice lass, but then men will never know what a good is when they have them.

3) I larked around today at work.
I do not take my work so seriously these days. I do a good job, but I have a sense of humour too. Something that is hard to maintain with some of the visitors we have. They can be rude, smelly, daft, stupid and often pretend you are invisible. The majority it has to be said are the complete reverse. So after a serious memo floating around work about distracting the coppers on the gate, which I thought I was possibly solely responsible for (I wasn't- the memo was a couple of days before the day of my duty on that post!) I was down and also a very rude old bag came through, anyways.... I am deviating... after a rough start it turned out alright. I had a lark around and a gossip with my work mates. Good day in total.

4) There are the beginnings of more reunions at university, a big one and a small one.
Woooo yay. I get to see people like the history gals and then some of the old crew I used to go out with. It is nice to know I have not been quite forgotten yet... and obviously I am not too much like a bloodhound then...

5) I have Mexican for dinner.
I love spicy food, and to be fair I do like staying in. Strictly Come Dancing is on, I sit down probably with a glass of Lambrini for it is a Saturday night after all and watch the dancing... then have some dinner and then chill out with the rents whilst my brother goes out. It is weird how things work out. My brother and I seem to have reversed roles!

So, yeah, a random Saturday in the life of a warden... in summary- friends, work, food and Strictly come dancing!! *jokes* I definitely feel much better after my purge yesterday on here! It is amazing what a bit of a rant and revealing some dee thoughts will do!! Wooo hooo...

One need not be a Chamber-to be Haunted-
One need not be a House-
The Brain had Corridors- surpassing
Material Place-

Far safer, of a Midnight Meeting
External Ghost
Than its interior Confronting-
That Cooler Host.

Far safer, through an Abbey gallop,
The Stones a'chase-
Than Unarmed, one's a'self encounter-
In lonesome Place-

Ourself behind ourself, concealed-
Should startle most-
Assassin hid in our Apartment
Be Horror's least.

The Body- borrows a Revolver-
He bolts the Door-
O'erlooking a superior spectre-
Or More-


Why is it you read something once and then ages later it comes back to bear some meaning on your life at that particular moment when it occurs to you to remember it? I immediately took to this poem, one of the first ever Emily Dickinson poems I ever came across, but today it came back to me... I uttered the words under my breath and I thought.... where did that come from? WEIRD! heehee... Anyway, this poem makes me feel, slightly oddly, better... I guess on days like this I know how Emily Dickinson felt. However, no more dwelling... up and on as I have already said! Get the stone rolling...

"Wine that turned to Vinegar"

To have loved, to have kissed
And- oh, God!- to have missed
The completion of Love!
To have turned to one
As the only sun
In one's sky above
And to find that his beams
Had merely in dreams
Their radiant light.
What so deep as the woe
Of those who did know
The joy of the height.
A more powerful thing
Than the broken wing
Of a bird that soared,
Is one driven by fate
To return with hate
Where she once adored.



Marie Stopes... of course! 1909

My Fear of Lethargy.

I have decided to concentrate a bit on framing what I am thinking. I am having a down day today, so I am going to frame my thoughts that have been rattling around in my mind.

I have literally just realised that I spend a lot of my time thinking, mostly subconsciously doing it, never forming any conclusions or helping me to progress from the same cycle, or perhaps it should be called a rut, of thinking. It is in fact worse if I subconsciously think, because it often bubbles to the surface, explodes and I end up saying something to myself replying to what I had been thinking about (I do have an irritating habit of talking to myself ALL the time!!) And the answer is rarely ever helpful. Another thing I do is go over and over and over until I almost go mad with things I should have done and not done. I again answer my thought with a sigh, exclamation, shout, groan, etc at these memories. I am a perfectionist, and of course nothing can ever be perfection and I constantly berate myself for not being perfect and simultaneously for striving to be perfect. Trust me, perfection is never perfect.

What has been really grating on me lately is that I am really lethargic at the moment. Well, it has been for longer than a moment. I know that I should be doing something but I procrastinate from doing anything. Then I feel bad for doing nothing, then I procrastinate further by doing nothing, well it is obviously something but nothing of worth like trawling the Internet and coming up with a million possibilities of perhaps what I should be doing, but thinking if only I could drive, I could get to that Pilate's class there, or if I had the courage to try that, perhaps I should do that job, maybe I should become that... what do I think of that career?... but I can't do that because of x, y and z.

I haven't felt this for a long time. Excusing myself from doing something by my inability to do it in some way. Feeling so capable and powered by achieving my degree (and yes we are back at this turning point of my relatively sort life- forgive my naivety to those older and wiser than me! I must be sounding like a broken record player!) so back to my degree and the feeling of fulfilment and something to strive for that drove me everyday to get up in the morning and go to my lecture, the library etc etc. In short, this has evaporated.

Now I know that university is not the be all and end all, and this is NOT what I am trying to convey to you. In fact, it was my degree that sustained me. I had fixated on something, but now it has gone, I have this vacancy of a part of me. I don't mean I am missing the degree, but the dedication towards something. At school, I made myself complete the work and not let myself down and to prove to the school I shouldn't be ignored (Gawd, I hated that place!) I was powered by the need to PROVE myself. It was lucky I could pull it off, otherwise I would have looked very foolish!!

Me and my mam had a conversation last night about my first year at university. It was awkward in places, and the worst skimmed over as per, but I stumbled over a few home truths over a shared bottle of wine with my mam. I was a wild child and my mam had despaired, but I came back to her, as she put it. Things culminated in the first year, particularly the first term. I had to look after myself for the first time, I had my independence, I was free to do what I wanted... and I did. I experienced the first joy of being 'naughty', of doing things I would never have done before! Silly things from wearing short skirts and staying out all night had been, up to this point, hitherto never participated in. In fact, I would perhaps consider it a rather libertine lifestyle I had in the first year. Drinking, smoking, drugs, sex... You name it, I would have given it a go. I used people and threw them aside as it suited me, as it had been done to me before. It is so easy to get on that slippery slope and slide all the way to the bottom, oh so easy with a bottle of vodka in one hand and a plethora of cheering mates in the other.

I thought I knew who I was before I stepped onto university soil. I thought I could withstand the rigours university posed. I thought, and I thought wrong. It resulted in a complete collapse. Total Destruction. I faced the abyss with no sense of self. Who was I? And genuinely I could not answer. Well, I can't answer now, but I have an innate feeling of who I am, and I know that if it is tested, I will not waver. I think it has been tested already and I am still around! I would say that this feeling has formed in the last year if truth be told. It has taken me two years, but in that time I never let go of striving to achieve what I went to university to do. The sense of proving myself, perhaps as an atonement for my behaviour in the first year. The third year saw me do it for a different reason thankfully. It can be exhausting continuously proving yourself.

It has always struck me as odd that I chose to do a subject at school that was not my best, that I was told in year seven that I just did not have a natural flair for or showed any interest in it... I think I should have known then that I perhaps chose history as a degree to be stubborn, to prove people wrong and to show that I could be good at anything I wanted. I was lucky that it worked out in my favour in the end. It doesn't work like that normally. You cannot be good at everything. I am not naturally good at history, but I have come to love history in a way that as propelled me to do well in it. It was not a chore to do the stacks of reading I had to do and the long essays I had to write. Had it not been for the love that formed, I doubt I would have done very well. I was not proving anything to anyone then. I was doing it now because I wanted to.

I have deceived people. I have hurt people. I have lied to myself. I have been a complete cow in summary. I have learnt the hard way. I found the bottom of my soul (and though it may seem cheesy, believe me there is not a speck of cheese in sight there). I have found who I am and who I can be, and now I am just facing up to these facts. Many of them are unfavourable and are, of course, taking time to come to terms with. It took no doctors, no prescription drugs and no therapy to sort me out. It just took me and my will to do it. I may be remarkable, but I doubt it. I think people can do more things than they think they can, if they only harnessed their self-destructive will for a strength that is employed for good. It is harder that way; it is easier by far to take the drugs, have a therapist tell you what you are, what you need etc, but I know what I am and if I ever find myself straying that way again, I know what I can do. I will always be my harshest critic and in this case it works to my favour. I will always over analyse everything I do and say, and then check myself back into order.

Now, I am lethargic at the moment, edging to a destructive state due to a vacancy in my life, but I know I am not as bad as I was and I know what I need to do. I know who I am now. I just need to muster up myself and get going again, pick up the momentum of life and enjoy it! Once the ball starts rolling, it is all plain sailing! After all, life is far too short to be languishing on bad thoughts... so I am expelling these thoughts (rather publicly) that have been mulling on in my mind for a few years, and as far as I am concerned that is a few years too many. So up and onwards... enough of this melancholic lethargy...

I will let you know how it goes :D Cathartic rant thus endeth...

Today, I am mostly these ten things...

1) Relaxed- I am currently chilling out, online obviously but have also been watching some good old rom coms, namely You've Got Mail, and period dramas of the A Room with a View variety. Also checked out Charlie Wilson's War today- ace stuff! Political and entertaining. Rarely those two words have been used in conjunction, sparing of course the part-time comedian-cum-politician Boris Johnson!

2) Happy- Surprisingly so. Been to uni this weekend, had a wicked weekend and realised that I have successfully detached myself from it. I do miss it, but I realise I miss the people and the lifestyle more than the actual place, which is good for me. I am continuously surprised by my natural emotional ability to work things out by themselves eventually.

3) Digging my cheap primark stretchy t-shirt! £2 and it is comfy and it is blue!

4) Enjoying roast dinners- something I definitely missed at uni! These are the epitome of English cuisine after fish and chips, curry and the fried breakfast... no wonder on reflection we have some the highest obesity rates! wooo hooo rock on my expanding waist line! More roast tatties please, Mam!

5) Tippling the Lambrini... For old times sake I have bought some and sipping it now. Slightly alcoholic lemonade really. Cheap and cheerful and very studenty!

6) Sad about Sharpe's Peril. Having been recommended it at work, I am slightly disappointed with it. Rock on Hornblower all the way... yum Ioan Gruffard... However, slightly shocked by the way to see him covorting on the screen along side Stephen Fry in Wilde as his gay fling! Very shocking stuff, however, I am sooo going to buy it! ... and some Oscar Wilde books too... I have long been a 'quote addict', that is someone who enjoys reading and gathering quotes, for quite a while and I shall have to put them up here eventually... and Wilde by far has my highest regard, so I have reckoned with myself that I really need to start reading his stuff. A wise man. Plus forever more I do believe I will picture Oscar Wilde as Stephen Fry (God I love that man- check out QI folks- tis the shiz!)

7) Loving the advert breaks today- I have days when I want to watch something on tv and simultaneously read. Advert breaks help me to do both without being mean to the book and not giving it my full attention and likewise with the tv programme! Plus also good time to fetch cheese and crackers with a cuppa tea for the next episode of Location, Location, Location or whatever it is called with my mam!

8) Too hot! This is hot as in the heating is on, half the house is well insulated due to strictly enforced government restrictions on new buildings so the extension part of the house is baking... no heat is going out, but the old part of the house is freezing due to 1933-ness of the house. Crazy shiz... Really need to relocate to shiny new decorated lounge where it is cool and obviously still smells like paint.... I love that smell...

9) Loving my bed... I have recognised the full greatness of my bed. It may be a single but I have had it forever and it is soooooo COMFY. It was my first bed and I have never had another and we are looking at replacing it and I am rather attached to it *sad face* I had a good, long lie in today and it was lovely. I have five pillows but I only ever sleep on two, maybe three, the rest just surround and make the bed uber comfy. I like my bed. I email from it, I watch movies, read, eat breakfast and of course sleep.

10) Concerned about the upcoming USA presidental elections... I am really worried. I am not entirely convinced who should win, who shouldn't win- you make think these are the same, but sometimes it is more about who you don't want to win an election than who you do. I am pretty sure I do not want Palin anywhere near the White House if it can be helped and if McCain coughs it, she will be president. How scary is that.... someone who thought it was the French President on the line... She'll never make it alive through the medianess! Still, media representations are often skewed, so i could be wrong, and to be fair, there is lttle I can do about it from England... good luck to us all...

That's all folks :D

Regressing to childhood... Reading Children's Books

Reading Frances Hodgson Burnett's The Little Princess and The Secret Garden not so long ago alongside Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories was great! Prompted by OF's blog on authors I feel comfortable with I thought about Burnett's books, which, having just read, was on my mind.

It was comforting and reminded me of being a child. I also re-read Harry Potter recently as I blogged about... sadly that was not really in my childhood; more my teenage years. However, the point I am trying very inarticulately to get to is: DIG OUT OLD CHILDHOOD FAVOURITES and give them a re-read! It is the most comforting thing in the world...

It has all the basics of a good plot, needs little thought and great characters = mega enjoyment and full relaxation!

Remember- Christina Rossetti

Remember me when I am gone away,
Gone far away into the silent land;
When you can no more hold me by the hand,
Nor I half turn to go yet turning stay.
Remember me when no more day by day
You tell me of our future that you planned:
Only remember me; you understand
It will be late to counsel then or pray.
Yet if you should forget me for a while
And afterwards remember, do not grieve:
For if the darkness and corruption leave
A vestige of the thoughts that once I had,
Better by far you should forget and smile
Than that you should remember and be sad.

This is what I've always wanted said at my funeral by the way, you know in case I shuffle off this mortal coil in the near future. It is beautiful and so apt about rememberance, grief and needing to get on with daily life. I think i was a little harsh on her in the last blog so I am repenting. This is probably more powerful than Dickinson's poem I typed up in the previous blog... and the sonnet layout works v. effectively... sorry Christina :S

Perhaps I was a little harsh

After Death

Christina Rossetti (1830-1894), contemporaneous with Emily Dickinson, was very similar to her in many ways. Like Emily, Christina never married but she did have her own social circle. However Rossetti did not recede from society like Emily Dickinson did, but Christina did have mental problems following from the nervous breakdown she had when she was 14. Both poets were very religious in their own ways; Emily a Calvinist and Christina was part of the Anglo-Catholic movement. But most importantly they both feared their death towards the end of their lives and reflected this in their poems...

The curtains were half drawn, the floor was swept

And strewn with rushes, rosemary and may

Lay thick upon the bed on which I lay,

Where though the lattice ivy-shawdows crept.

He leaned above me, thinking that I slept

And could not hear him; but I heard him say:

"Poor child, poor child:" as he turned away

Came a deep silence, and I knew he wept.

He did not touch the shroud, or raise the fold

That hid my face, or take my ahnd in his,

Or ruffle the smooth pillows for my head:

He did not love me living; but once dead

He pitied me; and very sweet it is

To know he still is warm though I am cold.

I heard a Fly buzz- when I died-

The Stillness in the Room

Was like the Stillness in the Air-

Between the Heaves of Storm-

The Eyes around- had wrung them dry-

And Breathes were gathering firm

For that last Onset- when the king

Be witnessed-in the Room-

I willed away my Keepsakes- Signed away

What portion of me be

Assignable- and then it was

There interposed a Fly-

With Blue- uncertain stumbling Buzz-

Between the light- and me-

And then the Window failed- and then
I could not see to see-

(See here for one of Emily's other poems about her death)

I prefer Emily Dickinson's style of poetry better than Christina's formal sonnet layout. Traditional and over used perhaps... but Emily's use of the dash works a lot better. Her fear of not being able to see into the world of death: "could not see to see" unnerves us because we can't see either because Emily doesn't. the dash leaves us hanging. There is no definite ending. Christina's poem ends on a full stop, which shown next to Emily's dash really puts a definite end to life. It is effective. There is no room for discussion. But I think it would not be as effective if it was not shown side by side next to Emily's poem. Anyways, that is what i think...

Does God Exist?

Don't worry... well, that much. It is not a long rambling debate on whether God exists. I am going to type out an essay I wrote when I was 17 and having to jump through the hoops of a course I had to do in the sixth form at my Catholic grammar school. I was just battling with my mam about me becoming more atheist and cynical at the time. Most kids at school did not even bother to finish off the course and write this essay. i was a geek and did. But I think it had more to do with teenage angst. I am still waiting for my certificate from the Archbishop for completing the course...

The arrogance combined with an acknowledgement of having to jump through the correct hoops to pass amused me on digging it out the other day when I was rummaging through my old school work and deciding what to throw out and what to keep.

"Through time human beings have existed, we have been 'obsessed' almost with the question of the existence of God. it is necessary, some argue, that God exists and there is in fact a great design for our lives. In this essay, I intend to answer the unanwswerable question: 'Does God Exist?'

"The ontological argument is a much debated argument for the existence of God. Ontologism is a theory that we have some natural and immediate intuition of God's existence. However, the main flaw of this argument is that we cannot prove the existence of God enough to satisfy the speculative reason. The classical argument was created by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. The idea that one needs a definition of God if only to dismiss God's existence. It is now easy to come to the conclusion that God exists in the mind and because of Anselm's idea of 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', he has to exist in reality because he is 'greater' than us and he need something in which to compare to. However, with the argument concerning reality, it brings up a whole new philosophical question: What is reality? (If you believe the film the Matrix: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.")

"In addition, the idea of God's existence is necessary to give reason to why we are here. However, Bertrand Russell said that Anselm used the word 'exist' incorrectly. He says that existence cannot predicate and does not exist. So in conclusion to the ontological argument, it seems somewhat unstable and therefore unsuccessful, as definitions are limited and it is difficult to establish a definition for God, especially seeing as we are not altogether sure that He/She exists, let alone what He/She is.

"The idea of 'MOTION', i.e. the passing of power to act as it takes place, implies a first unmoved Mover, who is God, otherwise we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is absurd. For the same causes, we see them operating in this world imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existenceand this is God. Also the fact that contigent beings exist (beings whose non-existence is recognised as possible) implies that the existence of a necessary being... or God. Also the chance of us just appearing with no cause is extremely unlikely (1/1x10133).

"Humans have a concept of 'perfection', so we will need something to compare it to- an absolute standard that is also actual and infinitely perfect, which we associate with God. there is also evidence of intelligent design, which the Universe and our world shows. it implies the existence of a supreme designer- God. The ethical argument is an idea of an internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law and therefore to the existence of a supreme lawgiver. The aesthetical argument also proves the existence and perception of beauty. This beauty has to come from somewhere and we must have some comparison as we polarise such things as beauty and ugliness.

"The cosmological argument assumes the validity of the principle of sufficient reason amounts to: that it is impossible according to the laws of human thoughtto give any rational explanation of the phenomena of outside experience and of internal conscience. Whatever exists or happens must have a reason for its existence or occurance. If it is used by a scientist and is valid to explain a phenomenom of physics, it has to be equally valid when used for the explanation of the Universe as a whole. Also the theory that certain things are effects and depend on another cause, and these causes can depend on another cause. One must also realise that our species had its origins late in the history of the universe, and from commonly accepted theories, the actual organisation of the universe has a definite beginning. If time had a definite beginning, then we had a beginning, then how did time and we originate? This happening by chance again is 1/1x10133, so extrememly unlikely then!!

"The telelogical argumentis absed on the existence of design in the universe and proves the existence of a supermundane mind of great intelligence and therefore the existence of God. The idea that we exist because of blind chance is absurd. The argument, however, is not weakened by our inability to explain somethings because we have limited knowledge of the entire design.

"The existence of evil could weaken all arguments promoted for the existence of God. Some believe that god balances evil and vice versa. God is all knowing and all powerful and benevolent, but does that make evil the opposite- not all knowing or powerful? It all seems a little hazy and seems like there is no definite answer. Why would God let evil and suffering exist if He/She is all benevolent? However, one could believe that we need to know evil and suffering to know good and happiness, and appreciate it.

"To conclude, there have been many arguments put forward for the existence of God, but there are flaws in everyone of them. I think in the end it is all to do with faith, if you believe or not. I suppose for the majority, we shall have to wait until death, either to tell us the 'truth' or confirm already stated beliefs."

What a cop out conclusion!! haha... jokes....

Taking a leaf out of OF's blog, I am going to continue his game.

Here are is his instructions: "Here’s a game I've been playing. Take no more than ten minutes. Write down two lists, one of ten authors whose books you feel at home with and the other of ten authors you don’t. Write the names down as they hit you, without too much reflection. Be honest – don’t include authors you think you ought to like/dislike."

Authors I Feel Comfortable With:

Elizabeth Gaskell
Daphne Du Maurier
Erica James
Jane Austen
Anne Bronte
J K Rowling
Dan Brown
Mauve Binchey
Margaret Atwood
Frances Hodgson Burnett
(wish the list could go on!!)

Authors I Feel Uncomfortable With:
Ian McEwan
Charles Dickens
J R R Tolkien
Daniel Defoe
Emily Bronte
Sebastian Faulks
John Steinbeck
George Orwell
Stephen King
Wilbur Smith

The reason feel uncomfortable with those I have mentioned is not to say they aren't any good, but I did not enjoy them in the sense that I would willingly pick them up again and re-read them for COMFORT. George Orwell was a genius, but his ideas can be overwhelming and make you feel naff as a human being for our inherent flaws. Faulks... his writing style just made me cringe (see my other blog here), etc, etc.

For the ones I feel comfortable with, you will see them sitting in pride of place on my bookshelf well thumbed on my shelves.

Children, The World's Little Angels and Natural Comedians!

Now I haven't been working at the Castle for all that long, but as far as I can tell, you are always guaranteed a laugh from one of the kids that comes through your room. Now here are a few things I have noticed about children at Windsor Castle that is really endearing, even if naughty...

1) Rope Fun! No matter what the room or exhibit is, the ropes are always the most interesting aspect. They have to run their hands up and down the rope for the entire room or the game is lost. They have to swing at least one rope really hard and look to see if Mummy/Daddy/Warden is paying attention.

2) Grumps and Charmers. You tend to get two types of children. The Grumps and the Charmers. The Grumps are just hilarious as they pout, grumble and stick their little tongues out in defiance. They give you one withering scowl and move on to scowl at someone else too. The Charmers will give you the biggest grin, giggle, gurgle and gasp at you giving them attention and really make your day. Those really will be the heartbreakers when they are older, as cliched as it may sound. However, as a tendency, the Grumps, barring the occasional floor rolling tantrum (see below), are better behaved because they know they haven't charmed you off your feet so will not hasten to sit on a the two hundred year old throne or the three hundred year old chair or rock the unstable old table with a priceless vase on top, as invariably the toddling wee Charmers do! I couldn't but laugh on seeing a little boy cheekily sitting on the chair after sneaking under the ropes whilst I was telling off one of his relatives for using their mobile phone!!

3)The Tantrums. Deary me. We do see a lot of them. And the parents are just as funny. Seeing little children throw themselves on the soft carpets and roll around while incoherently exclaiming some vast wrong been committed by their parents to them. Some will be placated by the soft carpet and the fun of rolling around. Others will have great fun at causing the most noise and attract the most attention as possible whilst their red-faced parents (from both anger and embarrassment) drag said child out of the room.

4) Pushchairs. Now, I never knew that children invested so much emotional value in their pushchairs. This little girl earnestly told me I was to look after her pushchair with particular care. On collecting it with her mother she marched around it making sure everything was as it should be before placing her bottom primly in the seat and giving her mother a solemn nod of OK. Kids have wailed at having their pushchair being put in storage, even if they hadn't even been seated in it!

5) Nudes. Again no matter what else is in the room, excluding of course the ropes as previously mentioned, kids will immediately find the portrait of the lady with her breasts exposed and the cherub on the ceiling with a small willy, resulting in the parents or teachers (internally giggling) red-faced trying to explain that it is artistic/that was how they dressed/they are naughty/because they didn't have clothes, etc.

6) Audio Guides. Audio Guides are both swords, swinging fun and telephones. Kids will have duels with these things jabbing their best friend in the eye, stomach or back with it, smacking their sister in the mouth, their dads in the legs and whacking themselves in the privates. Others talk back to the audio guide asking questions like "Well, where is it then?" Or they comment like "you're lying, I can't see it". Or "Hey, I see it. That's cool, isn't it? What is it? yeah..." The best comment I ever heard is, "The small person in the mobile, Mummy, says we need to press number 12 now." Cute!

7) If there is a puddle, it must be jumped in, even if it splashing rain water up an American man's trouser leg.

8) If you let a three year old child push their own pushchair, it will be pushed down the hill and out of sight with the new china plates you have just bought out of the shop.

9)If there is a most inconvenient place to squat and take a look around the room, it will be right in the middle of where everyone is walking.

10) And finally, if there is something that can be touched, it will be.

Without kids, even the mischievous ones, my day would be long and dull. May I be able to have kids and lots of them when I too am all growed up! :D hee hee... The World's Natural Comedians!