Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Nothing new: They were having it off in Antoinette era too

Expand Messages
  • Kristin Marie Wall
    It is possible M-A inherited her mother s interest in military tactics. As for financial acumen, medeival ladies of the manor and royal houses were in charge
    Message 1 of 50 , Jun 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      It is possible M-A inherited her mother's interest in military
      tactics.

      As for financial acumen, medeival ladies of the manor and royal
      houses were in charge of household finaces as that was considered
      women's work. They used to wear a hidden key on their person as they
      were the ones who opened the house/kingdom coffers for expenditures.
      They settled the accounts. It is natural the interest would spill
      over into the sources of the income. Daily payments to vendors was
      common for a long time and by the Victorian era, weekly payments
      were typical; of course, nowadays, we expect no more than monthly
      payments to vendors/creditors. These types of responsibilities
      occupied noble/royal women, but they weren't considered to be
      working; today, we'd consider them accountants and bookkeepers as
      well as household mananagers. Perhaps someone has handy how many
      people were in residence in Versailles? I've read a thousand, but
      don't have a source handy. That would be a challenge to handle that
      sizeable a household. I've been a manager for trade show production
      and know how much work it is to plan to provide resources for groups
      of people. The average American household of four people or so is
      enough challenge for most people to plan and manage resources, and
      many go bankrupt, etc. I've tried to imagine handling the household
      of nobility in residence at Versailles, before, and it boggles my
      mind.
      Kristin-Marie


      --- In Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com, George Caffine
      <geocaffine@...> wrote:
      >
      > Doritmi,
      >
      > Although I'm not much in favor of beating dead horses, I can;t
      resist the banter. So:
      >
      > With regard to Churchill's remark, I believe he was being
      provincial. He was not thinking outside the history box by
      considering other times and unrecorded cultures. There is a culture
      which has existed successfully from before the Old Kingdom of Egypt
      to modern times. They have no leaders, little crime, no jails, and
      above all, equality between the sexes and between people of
      different ages. Their culture is probably the oldest surviving human
      culture, although its ongoing survival is doubtful. The culture is
      the Pygmies; I am a big fan and records exist in ancient Egyptian
      tombs and in modern anthropological studies. They have never had a
      democracy.
      >
      > I have read through Marie Antoinette's letters and I'm fascinated
      by her interest in military matters. That wasn't her business and
      she had no official connection. There is no doubt she took an
      interest in financial matters, how else explain her meddling with
      the appointment of a finance minister. She had an inquiring mind; I
      find it impossible to believe she wouldn't keep up with Adam Smith's
      book or the physiocrat philosophizing. Saying she "did not REALLY
      have financial advisors" suggests she could have asked questions but
      had no one officially delegated to answer those questions; you and I
      don't REALLY have financial advisors but that doesn't stop us from
      voicing our opinions, or taking action on the basis of same. (I will
      refrain from comment on the efficacy of advisors to national
      leaders.)
      >
      > It's true she was only permitted to spend money for personal
      expenses, but she must've spent enough to earn the
      appellation "Madame Deficit". People say I'm wrong to think of the
      Petite Trianon or her hamlet as public property, but she was
      criticised for limiting who could visit there; that criticism could
      only arise from thinking she owed access to unwelcome guests (as if
      she shouldn't hoard public property). There is no doubt those places
      have become public property, and without any deeds of transfer; I
      have no doubt Marie Antoinette had it in mind that those places
      would ultimately become national treasures, she was certainly
      intelligent enough to realize that. Since she wasn't allowed to
      spend money for general welfare, it's not to farfetched to assume
      she spent money where she could.
      >
      > George
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: doritmi <drub@...>
      > To: Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:27:11 PM
      > Subject: Re: Nothing new: They were having it off in Antoinette
      era too
      >
      > George, I think it would help to separate MA's contribution to the
      > French economy into two:
      > a. her charity.
      > b. her spending on clothes, buildings, etc'.
      > I think they had a very different effect and came from different
      sources.
      > as the the other point, MA did not really have financial advisors.
      > Louis XVI had those - and they sometimes told MA to cut spending,
      but
      > that's where it ended...
      >
      > There were some good people in France screaming for a better deal,
      but
      > their needs were impossible to separate from their outrageous
      ranting.
      > Using a word that's new to you, like "alms", doesn't change the
      > nature of the gift. Marie Antoinette wasn't standing on the street
      > corner, handing out pennies, she was spending large sums of money
      > paying people for working; that's part of the reason they killed
      her.
      > And, during the critical period, she and her family had stopped
      > buying expensive jewelry, let alone buying "some diamond
      > > earbobs". No, she didn't understand Keynesian economics, few of
      us
      > do, but she had the additional disadvantage of dying a century
      before
      > Keynes was born. She did have financial advisors though, and I'm
      sure
      > they were studying Adam Smith's book.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _____________________________________________________________________
      _______________
      > Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added
      security of spyware protection.
      > http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
      >
    • charlesdiago
      I disagree that the powerful mix of sex and power cannot be discussed on a group message board about Marie Antoinette: there are few other places where it
      Message 50 of 50 , Jun 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I disagree that the powerful mix of sex and power cannot be discussed
        on a group message board about Marie Antoinette: there are few other
        places where it would be more appropriate.

        I take people and reporters to task for claiming that oral sex was dangerous, when the actual researchers said that no one needed to change their practices. I mean, if someone heard a report, was the
        reporter reporting on the actual research, in which case he was
        mistaken, or was he making stuff up to Clinton-bash, in which case
        the person was watching a local Fox News affiliate?

        It's been said here quoting local news with reference to throat
        diseases, amongst them cancer, causes by Oral sex as the reporter
        explained, primarily intended for teenagers to understand that oral
        sex is just as dangerous as the usual ordinary method."

        The leading causes of throat cancer are heavy smoking and drinking,
        so to mention oral sex, which has a link to throat cancer, but is not
        a primary cause of it, *is* dishonest, if she claims it is true.

        I think almost ten years on it's sad to see people so desperate
        to find fault with Clinton for his indiscretions (although I do agree
        with Georgette Mosbacher: Couldn't he have taken Monica to Vernon
        Jordan's house?).

        But whether or not I like Clinton is not as important as how I feel
        about oral sex.

        The truth about it, I mean.



        --- In Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com, "Astroboy xxx"
        <astroboy.xxx1@...> wrote:
        >
        > JAN, this is NOT the place to be discussing your hatred of Bill
        Clinton and
        > all your other absurd views about oral sex and politics. None of
        your
        > arguments even make sense! Stick to the topic of Marie Antoinette
        thank
        > you.
        >
        >
        >
        > I suggest you get counseling to help you through your anger and
        delusions.
        >
        >
        > On 5/29/07, janet fauble <janetcfauble@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hey Charles, What I am really concerned about it your over
        reaction to
        > > a simple statement. I heard it on the news...local news with
        reference to
        > > throat diseases, amongst them cancer, causes by Oral sex as the
        reporter
        > > explained, primarily intended for teenagers to understand that
        oral sex is
        > > just as dangerous as the usual ordinary method.
        > >
        > > Your calling me dishonest is really more than I can fathom. All
        these
        > > posts are are simple statements, written statements, and for you
        not to be
        > > able to interpret them correctly states your problem in reading.
        I am in no
        > > ways dishonest about passing on a statement made by a local
        reporter who
        > > obviously probably got it off an ap wire.
        > >
        > > You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself for jumping to
        > > conclusions and hurling insults.
        > >
        > > Jan
        > >
        > > *charlesdiago <charlesdiago@...>* wrote:
        > >
        > > You are quoting the History Channel for evidence of sex through
        the
        > > ages!
        > >
        > > That is so sad.
        > >
        > > One news journalist does not a theory prove.
        > >
        > > And your dishonest way of using "science" to buttress your flimsy
        > > moral views makes me want to throw up.
        > >
        > > And not even science, but science by hearsay!
        > >
        > > You quote "a news reporter", saying he "notified the locals" (what
        > > does *that* mean?) about the link between oral cancer and oral
        sex.
        > >
        > > If you'd bothered to make a few simple web searches, you would
        have
        > > known that a study, published in the New Scientist in 2004, found
        the
        > > link. The cancer is linked to HPV, which also causes cervical
        cancer.
        > >
        > > The BBC reported on the study that same week:
        > >
        > > "Writing in New Scientist magazine, US researchers said the human
        > > papilloma virus, which causes most cervical cancers, may also
        cause
        > > oral tumours.
        > >
        > > Experts say heavy smoking or drinking causes most mouth cancers,
        but
        > > the HPV link could help explain why some young adults develop the
        > > rare disease.
        > >
        > > But they stressed people did not need to alter their behaviour."
        > >
        > > And why do you think that they said that people did not need to
        alter
        > > their behavior?
        > >
        > > Again, the BBC:
        > >
        > > "Scientists are working on a vaccine that would be effective
        against
        > > the most common strains in an attempt to cut the number of cases
        of
        > > cervical cancer.
        > >
        > > They now hope a vaccine could have the added benefit of reducing
        oral
        > > cancers, which affect around one in 10,000 people."
        > >
        > > 1 in 10,000. The percentage of young women between the ages of 18
        to
        > > 22 in the UK who have some form of HPV is 20%.
        > >
        > > Which means that statistically one is more likely to have HPV
        than to
        > > get oral cancer from it.
        > >
        > > Your ignorant or perhaps dishonest way of calling up "reporters"
        > > instead of actually thinking of the problem disgusts me.
        > >
        > > You should be ashamed of spreading lies on a web group devoted to
        > > Marie Antoinette, who was so often hurt by the lies and calumny
        > > spread about her by her enemies.
        > >
        > > --- In
        Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com<Images_of_Marie_Antoinette%
        40yahoogroups.com>,
        > > janet fauble
        > > <janetcfauble@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Charles, History channel has shown all kinds of scenes painted
        in
        > > Roman boudoirs illustrating sexual acts so there is no doubt that
        > > there is nothing new about sex under the sun, but the news media
        is
        > > who alerts us to each new generation's reactions to the current
        > > events of the time, and it was a news journalist who pointed out
        that
        > > sexual activity amongst teenagers had been under the influence of
        the
        > > Clinton scandal, using the "Monica" as it is now called since it
        > > had become so nationally infamous. In fact, this past week, a news
        > > reporter again notified the locals that throat cancer has
        increased
        > > amongst many teenagers doing the "monica".
        > > >
        > > > There was an outcry from the conservatives who do not want their
        > > children to learn sexual depravities from television news stories
        and
        > > that is what most influenced the election of George Bush, believe
        it
        > > or not. That and his devotion to Jesus. (SENSE OF SARCASM FROM ME
        > > NOW ON THE WORD DEVOTION!) Sorry, but George uses fear as a means
        to
        > > an end too much to be a true devotee to Jesus for my tastes.
        > > >
        > > > JAN
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > charlesdiago <charlesdiago@> wrote:
        > > > I'm sorry, what did Clinton do to young teenagers around
        > > the world?
        > > >
        > > > Ridiculous. This kind of remark is the reason we are
        > > > having the problems we are having in the world. It is called
        > > > denial. Instead of facing their problems, or dealing openly with
        > > > them, they deny they exist, until a convenient scandal or issue
        or
        > > > group of people allows them to use it as a scapegoat.
        > > >
        > > > Teenagers have been having it off long before Bill Clinton gave
        in
        > > > to the blow job from the legal-age twentysomething.
        > > >
        > > > They were having it off in the Victorian era.
        > > >
        > > > They were having it off in Marie Antoinette's era.
        > > >
        > > > To deny this is to not fully benefit from reading history.
        > > >
        > > > Next we will be told that condoms are murder weapons!
        > > >
        > > > --- In
        Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com<Images_of_Marie_Antoinette%
        40yahoogroups.com>,
        > > "doritmi"
        > > > <drub@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Re: Lustful press smeared Antoinette as it did Clinton
        peccadillos -
        > > Off Topic
        > > > >
        > > > > Monica Lewinsky was not under age. she was born in 1973. You
        can
        > > > argue
        > > > > that he was in position of authority and took advantage of
        her,
        > > > but I
        > > > > have not seen her claim it. Only in America would that be a
        > > > scandal;
        > > > > in any normal country it would be an issue between Clinton
        and his
        > > > > wife. The real scandal was that he lied under oath, but who
        can
        > > > blame him?
        > > > > and as a side issue, I thought George was talking very much
        about
        > > > > Marie Antoinette.
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In
        Images_of_Marie_Antoinette@yahoogroups.com<Images_of_Marie_Antoinette%
        40yahoogroups.com>,
        > > Janet Fauble
        > > > > <jan_neptune@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Oh boy, George! You are obviously talking about
        > > > > > Clinton and Bush. Clinton showed no respect for the
        > > > > > office of the Presidency at all by using Monica
        > > > > > Lewinsky, and underage intern, to service his sexual
        > > > > > lusts. I think he deserves worse than he got for what
        > > > > > he did to young teenagers around the world. Jan
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- George Caffine <geocaffine@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Re: Coppola film - Missed chance to explore Antoinette's
        real
        > > > life?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > I would classify Coppola's film as a "melodrama"
        > > > > > > except for the fact that a melodrama emphasizes
        > > > > > > action over character. This film missed on both
        > > > > > > counts, no action and no characterization. It
        > > > > > > offered a guided tour of 200-year-old lives of the
        > > > > > > rich and famous.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I believe Marie Antoinette was a strong character.
        > > > > > > From her beginnings as a rebellious child who
        > > > > > > wouldn't do her lessons, to her trial as a woman too
        > > > > > > strong to dominate. Jefferson had it backwards: the
        > > > > > > revolution didn't happen because of her, she was the
        > > > > > > only person of authority who could have avoided the
        > > > > > > debacle.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > The "Queen's Necklace", what a perfect choice. A
        > > > > > > swindle, prooved to be a swindle, and yet laid on an
        > > > > > > innocent who did everything she could to root out
        > > > > > > the perpetrators. Marie Antoinette was found guilty
        > > > > > > of a crime she exposed, and all the while she was
        > > > > > > working to reduce royal expenditures.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > It proves the power of a sick press. Marie
        > > > > > > Antoinette to this day is smeared by their brush. An
        > > > > > > evil press was created just for her, and it exists
        > > > > > > to this day when we throw out a decent president
        > > > > > > because he succumbed to a little naughtiness, while
        > > > > > > other men are kept on because invading other
        > > > > > > countries seems such good fun.
        > > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ---------------------------------
        > > > Bored stiff? Loosen up...
        > > > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------
        > > Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
        > > Check out fitting gifts for
        grads<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48249/*http://search.yahoo.com/search
        ?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz>at Yahoo! Search.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.