Your description of the breakfast room in a Roman hotel is absolutely horrifying. I, too, would be startled if a strangely dressed couple just parked themselves at my table, but I would be even more offended at someone absconding with my anti-murder juice, I mean, coffee.
I think it is in the Gospel according to St Matthew that if someone takes one's coffee one ought to follow him back to his table and offer one's pastry also.
"Still other people appear to think that a hotel dining room operates entirely like a high school cafeteria, and that you’re free to sit at any old table you think looks worth joining."
But, I thought that is generally how Europeans eat out. They even see it as a plus: sit with strangers and get to know them.
Getting to know me is a bad idea and no one should try it. My solution to telephone calls from scammers is to say "I'm glad you've called because I would like to tell you about the good news of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (the scammers from overseas hang up, but one time an American-accented self-described atheist got really offended and talked to me for several minutes. The current harvest season is Democrats. They call me *and* come to my door.) If someone sat at a table with me and I was not at work, we would talk about Jesus or they would leave.
That's a good one, Bridget. If I accidentally answer a call from a name or number I don't recognize, I always ask for the caller's home number and promise to return the call at my convenience. That usually solves the problem. But I like your solution better.
Maybe not surprising the Labour Party is not rushing to expel the bishops. England and Wales had one of the most religiously devout working classes of any European country in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Labour Party was famously said to be "More Methodist than Marxist" and Pius XI, as related by Cardinal Heenan to Ramsay MacDonald, said that the Pope's objections to Socialism did not apply to British Socialism. Also, Cardinal Manning's intervention in the dockworkers strike endeared the working class to religion.
But what passes for religion today is an imaginary beast of an aggressively different shape and hue. Hereditary lord bishops could have made good sense only as a restraining force, in a time when the state religion was identical with a robust tradition. That is long, long gone.
I wondered who was responsible for all the Lord Moneybags. Conservatives. ChatGPT:
The Life Peerages Act of 1958 was introduced under the government of Harold Macmillan, who was the Conservative Prime Minister at the time. The Act allowed for the creation of life peerages, with the right to sit in the House of Lords, which previously had been limited largely to hereditary peers. The key figure responsible for introducing and advocating for the Life Peerages Act was R.A. Butler, who was the Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal during that period.
The Act aimed to modernize the House of Lords by allowing individuals with distinguished public service, regardless of noble birth, to participate, and it marked a significant shift in the composition and functioning of the upper chamber of Parliament.
Radcliffe said the pressure came from groups that have clout because they are well-funded from outside Africa. He did not say that they are in effect bribing the African bishops. Lawler insinuates that Radcliffe did suggest that the bishops are taking money from the other groups. He is misrepresenting what Radcliffe wrote.
"It is, I grant, somewhat absurd that Britain is the only country, apart from Iran, to constitutionally enshrine the participation of clerics in the legislative process. And given that only about 2% of the country are actively practicing Anglicans, their spiritual lordships can hardly be said to be speaking for some important national demographic."
"Conservatism" only works if there is something to conserve.
// (who talks at the breakfast table, I ask you?) //
Homo modernus starts talking, loudly, the moment he wakens. Restaurants are deafening. Keyboards are viciously abused.
Thanks for the history primer on the House of Lords, Ed! I appreciate it!
Your description of the breakfast room in a Roman hotel is absolutely horrifying. I, too, would be startled if a strangely dressed couple just parked themselves at my table, but I would be even more offended at someone absconding with my anti-murder juice, I mean, coffee.
I think it is in the Gospel according to St Matthew that if someone takes one's coffee one ought to follow him back to his table and offer one's pastry also.
God save the King.
And save us from the nouveaux riches.
Thanks for a great read, Ed, and for defending both the faith and civilization.
"the apparent unfamiliarity of some with the concept of queueing upsets me deeply"
-Out of the many cultural insights you've written, this may very well be one of the most British.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTartgZ6n9Q
"Still other people appear to think that a hotel dining room operates entirely like a high school cafeteria, and that you’re free to sit at any old table you think looks worth joining."
But, I thought that is generally how Europeans eat out. They even see it as a plus: sit with strangers and get to know them.
Getting to know me is a bad idea and no one should try it. My solution to telephone calls from scammers is to say "I'm glad you've called because I would like to tell you about the good news of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (the scammers from overseas hang up, but one time an American-accented self-described atheist got really offended and talked to me for several minutes. The current harvest season is Democrats. They call me *and* come to my door.) If someone sat at a table with me and I was not at work, we would talk about Jesus or they would leave.
"If someone sat at a table with me and I was not at work, we would talk about Jesus or they would leave."
-I already think it would be fun. Don't threaten me with a good time.
*insert Harry, You Don't Need to Sell It To Me meme*
That's a good one, Bridget. If I accidentally answer a call from a name or number I don't recognize, I always ask for the caller's home number and promise to return the call at my convenience. That usually solves the problem. But I like your solution better.
Maybe not surprising the Labour Party is not rushing to expel the bishops. England and Wales had one of the most religiously devout working classes of any European country in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Labour Party was famously said to be "More Methodist than Marxist" and Pius XI, as related by Cardinal Heenan to Ramsay MacDonald, said that the Pope's objections to Socialism did not apply to British Socialism. Also, Cardinal Manning's intervention in the dockworkers strike endeared the working class to religion.
But what passes for religion today is an imaginary beast of an aggressively different shape and hue. Hereditary lord bishops could have made good sense only as a restraining force, in a time when the state religion was identical with a robust tradition. That is long, long gone.
I would be fascinated to hear Ed's defense of the Lords (the pre-1958 version).
** incomprehensible stodgy British contrarianism **
"Now, here what the writer Phil Lawyer wrote..."
There's a Catholic writer named Phil Lawler, so wondering if there's a typo in the name, or if someone really does have such an unfortunate surname.
Typo.
The Pulp song is good but the William Shatner version is awesome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ainyK6fXku0
Yowza.
I wondered who was responsible for all the Lord Moneybags. Conservatives. ChatGPT:
The Life Peerages Act of 1958 was introduced under the government of Harold Macmillan, who was the Conservative Prime Minister at the time. The Act allowed for the creation of life peerages, with the right to sit in the House of Lords, which previously had been limited largely to hereditary peers. The key figure responsible for introducing and advocating for the Life Peerages Act was R.A. Butler, who was the Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal during that period.
The Act aimed to modernize the House of Lords by allowing individuals with distinguished public service, regardless of noble birth, to participate, and it marked a significant shift in the composition and functioning of the upper chamber of Parliament.
*Phil Lawler.
Lots of good stuff, here, but as an English teacher constantly mortified by my own increasing penchant for typoes....
I don't think the plural of typo has an "e."
I don't think it has a formal spelling, so do as you like. In an article, I'd spell it properly: "typographical errors."
:-)
I almost can’t read the rest, so distracted and dismayed am I at the thought of someone stealing your coffee. That is too much …
Radcliffe said the pressure came from groups that have clout because they are well-funded from outside Africa. He did not say that they are in effect bribing the African bishops. Lawler insinuates that Radcliffe did suggest that the bishops are taking money from the other groups. He is misrepresenting what Radcliffe wrote.
But the real question is whether the original or Lawler's interpretation was what offended Cardinal Ambongo.
Pray for Chinese Catholics.
"It is, I grant, somewhat absurd that Britain is the only country, apart from Iran, to constitutionally enshrine the participation of clerics in the legislative process. And given that only about 2% of the country are actively practicing Anglicans, their spiritual lordships can hardly be said to be speaking for some important national demographic."
"Conservatism" only works if there is something to conserve.