quote:

I am sorry, but I don't begrudge our ex-presidents their pension.

I didn't say, or mean to imply, that I begrudged Clinton either his pension or his speaking earnings. I simply stated what they are.

I think I can speak for most of my compatriots when I say that we think that Clinton was a far better President than is "Dubyar". And as for his sexual indiscretions, I personally am baffled as to why anyone apart from the Clintons and Monica, should be the slightest bit concerned. The affair did not, after all, affect his work.

Richard, I fully agree with you regarding your comments about Clinton. However, I don't understand where you got "Dubyar." We Americans who speak American English would never place an "r" at the end. For us, it's "Dubya" for his middle initial "W." As I wrote ages ago in this forum, when Paul McCartney sang "I never SAWR it at all, 'til there was you..." we Americans thought "WHAT did he say???" For us, it was "I never SAW it at all" and we wondered where that final "r" came from. Since then it has been discussed, so I was interested to see that you placed an "r" where I had never seen one before.

quote:

And as for his sexual indiscretions, I personally am baffled as to why anyone apart from the Clintons and Monica, should be the slightest bit concerned. The affair did not, after all, affect his work.

It's sort of like Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson.

I don't see the connection between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson on the one hand and President Clinton on the other hand. Clinton was, after all, married and in office.
However, I agree fully with Richard English regarding Clinton and the scandal. Why would the American public be interested in knowing what he did (and, because of the perverse inquisition led by Kenneth Starr) and even what he did in detail? Isn't it only the involved parties who are involved, actually? I think the American public's fascination with stains provided quite a stain on the public themselves. As it is popular to say in the USA, why doesn't the American public "get a life?" Vicarious thrills say quite a bit about the lack of thrills in the viewer's own life.

quote:

Originally posted by markmywords48:
I don't see the connection between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson on the one hand and President Clinton on the other hand. Clinton was, after all, married and in office.

I don't think the similiarity lies in the details of the scandals, but in the domestic reaction and the bafflement of foreigners. I think a lot of Americans were baffled by the big deal made of Wallis Simpson. She was divorced -- so was Henry VIII. So what if she's American -- the royal family is German. Yet the British found his behavior shocking enough -- even without DNA evidence -- to kick him out of office.

Unless I remember my history wrong, Edward wasn't "kicked out of office" but gave up his right to the crown of his own free will, making his choice between the crown and Mrs. Simpson.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English: sexual indiscretions, I personally am baffled as to why anyone apart from the Clintons and Monica, should be the slightest bit concerned. The affair did not, after all, affect his work.

Baffled you may be, but surely you recognize that Americans aren't the only ones who take an interest in the personal indiscretions of their own public figures. It's a fairly common interest in the UK, from what I've read about -- oh, let's just say Charles-and-Camilla, and David Beckham. No doubt you could name more examples.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English: Clinton, his pension or his speaking earnings. I simply stated what they are.

If you gave the pension figure, I didn't see it.

The annual pension for a former President is currently $175,700 (taxable). The former president is also entitled office staff and space, phone, etc., and that can be rather substantial. (PDF file here.) Clinton, being one of the youngest former presidents we've ever had, is of course likely to receive pension for an unusually long period, so I suppose in that sense he's particularly expensive; but I hardly fault him for it.

quote:

It's sort of like Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson.

Of course, it was the British Government that insisted, not the British public. The reason was that then, as now the Monarch is not allowed to take a divorcee as his queen. This is primarily to do with the Church's restrictions on such relationships. Our Monarch is, after all, the head of the Church of England.

Many people feel that Edward would have made a better King than George, who didn't want the job and was never at ease in it - although he surely did a valiant job in the face of massive difficulties, both personal and political - of which the little spat with Adolph was just one.

quote:

If you gave the pension figure, I didn't see it.

I didn't. It was someone else who gave the likely lifetime figure that Clinton would receive from the US taxpayer. I merely said that I took no sides although I did, orginally, contrast it with the amount that our Monarch receives from the Civil List.

quote:

Baffled you may be, but surely you recognize that Americans aren't the only ones who take an interest in the personal indiscretions of their own public figures.

I am not speaking of people's interest in the sexual indiscretions of famous people, but their concern.

If people wish to hear what Charles and Camilla get up to between the sheets (or elsewhere) then that's their sad decision. But so long as Charles does his job properly then I feel that nobody should be concerned.

So far as US Presidents are concerned, I feel sure that the ready availability of willing sexual partners is one of the perks of the job - which some (or maybe even most) have taken advantage of. Clinton was unfortunate enough to have been found out; other have been luckier.

"Power", as Kissinger said, "Is the ultimate aphrodesiac. I feel sure he, too, can speak from personal experience.

quote:

Originally posted by markmywords48:
Unless I remember my history wrong, Edward wasn't "kicked out of office" but gave up his right to the crown of his own free will, making his choice between the crown and Mrs. Simpson.

But the fact is he was forced to choose. 'Both' wasn't an option.

quote:

Our Monarch is, after all, the head of the Church of England.

My history is a little rusty on this subject, but didn't Henry VIII become head of the Church of England so he could divorce and remarry? I know his wives weren't divorcees themselves, but surely if a divorced monarch can remarry, what's wrong with a monarch marrying a divorcé(e)?

As I said, I'm not sure about the specifics of this subject, but I'm sure I learnt that there's a link between Henry VIII becoming head of the C of E and being allowed to divorce. So the C of E can hardly change its mind now really, especially as Henry VIII's 'patronage' no doubt helped it take power from Catholicism, which ultimately ended up in the UK no longer being religiously ruled by Rome.

Speaking of the C of E, the title which the British Royal family is most proud of was a gift of the Pope: fidei defensor 'defender of the faith'. It was given to Henry VIII for a book he wrote (ghosted by St Sir Thomas More) defending the Catholic Church against its upstart German son, Martin Luther.

Richard, it was I who gave the $6,000,000 figure for Clinton's pension, if he lives a normal life. I found the statistic online.

A Chicago Tribune editorial, "A Kinder, Gentler Fox Hunt," discussed the recent ban on using dogs to hunt fox in England. They quoted the British government as saying that hunting can "seriously compromise the welfare of the fox." That sounds typically British to me!

It is difficult to justify fox-hunting on the grounds of pest control, in the same way as it is difficult to justify the Trooping the Colour ceremony on the grounds of defence. The simple fact is that a love of pageantry is deeply engrained into the British psyche and we revere our old traditions.

Fox hunting is strange because it appeals to our love of pageantry and tradition but it goes against one of our other characteristics - a love of animals. Since the end result of a hunt is often to kill a fox, that is an objective that many animal-lovers dislike and there is hence much opposition to hunting.

However, the present Law is even more of an ass than most since it still allows hunts to gather, to ride with a pack of hounds - and to kill foxes. The only difference is that, instead of allowing the hounds to kill the fox in the way that pack animals always do - by tearing it to bits - the fox must now be shot. Whether that makes much difference as far as the fox is concerned I rather doubt - but I can see it making a difference to the hounds since I can foresee many gunshot accidents.

One thing that has come from this legislation is some very bad PR for the Government. By banning a traditional sport through dubious parliamentary tactics they have upset many who see it as a triumph for Government against democracy. And they have probably increased support for hunting by exposing its ritual and tradition to those who once knew and cared little about it.

But would that be how most Brits would describe the killing of the fox? Here we would just say that the hunting will seriously injure or kill the fox. I like the Brit's description much better!

quote:

"seriously compromise the welfare of the fox."

I think that "polician-speak" not British phraseology.

The problem with "English" English, of course, is that so much of it is German. Court English from the long Hanoverian period took on the short a's, hard h's English of the foreign rulers in an attempt to make them feel at home. Then the Victorians got to it and changed all the grammar and spelling so as to Latinise words that weren't even Latin in origin. No wonder we're all mixed up.

Tinman--thanks for bringing up "herb". For some reason, and I have no idea what, it's one of the most un-crossable of Rubicons. I just can't bring myself to pronounce or hear 'erb with a dropped 'h'. Yet, as you point out, we're perfectly happy to pronounce "hour" as we do. Conclusion: English is a thoroughly decadent language, Esperanto, anyone?

[Note: Sorry - I'm new! I missed the fact that this thread has five pages and not just the first, but I'd still like to contribute. If my interruption seems awkward, I aplogise. And now, back to the fox-hunting...]

Hello and welcome, Quickbeam! Great to see you here

Don't worry about digressing - we do that all the time. Most normal conversations go off at tangents and end up nothing like how they started, and our threads are no different!

Court English from the long Hanoverian period took on the short a's, hard h's English of the foreign rulers in an attempt to make them feel at home.

I have never been convinced by arguments that Court speech influenced language outside of the court. It is a well known linguistic myth that the Castillian lisp was caused by one Spanish monarch who lisped.

Is it: "All these are above" or "All of these are above" or doesn't it matter?

On OEDILF while workshopping one of Richard's limericks, several Americans said that Americans would always use "of." Maybe I have just been influenced by the Brits here, but I don't think I'd have to use "of," though I might. What do you think?

"All these are above" or "All of these are above"

They're both OK for me.

If the metre fits without the of, use that form; if it fits with the of, use it that way. Perhaps common sense is too much to hope from the nitpickers at the OEDILF, however.