We ate hot dogs (not American, alas, but German), had a little beer then got down to betting. One race had a horse called Living Large that reminded me of my friend Brenda in Mississippi because it's an expression she uses sometimes. My husband said it too -- that the name reminded him of her -- but we laughed and wouldn't bet on that because that's an emotional response and we had scientific evidence (good jockey, ground conditions right for horse, etc.) that meant our picks would be 'dead certs' (Brit expression for sure winners.)
But guess who won that race? Living Large, of course. So much for our science. Race after race went this way until I ran out of cash to use for bets. We decided to just watch the last race and looked at the form to see who my expert pals had picked to win.
"That horse will never win," we said to each other. "None of their other picks have won."
Guess which horse won? Oh yeah, the one the experts picked that we didn't bet on.
Here I am with my American pals when I still had money. I didn't have such a big smile on my face after the races had been run, and all my money was gone. I might as well had entered the racecourse, thrown the money into the sky then left. (But I wouldn't have had any fun losing it then I guess.)
10 comments:
I borrowed my son's plane-spotting binoculars for the night. They are so powerful that I could see people undressing down the road (just kidding).
Did he liberate those binoculars from a German U-Boat captain!?
hehe...those opera glasses are the perfect finishing touch to this story. Could you see more than one horse at a time with those things? And what are those butterflies on your friend's shirts about?
Thanks for all these adventures. I wish sometime you would go visit that manor house that has the gnomonic projection sundial and take some pictures. That sundial is one of a kind, it was made for just that spot and it shows the time everywhere on earth.
After tracking down where that sundial is I realize it is in a place you aren't likely to visit. I thought it was at a private house but it turns out to be at a place called the Hatfield House (not all that far from Reading) which seems like a tourist oriented sort of place. I don't recall you ever going to such a place, so unless Lady Salisbury invites you for tea I guess I'm not likely to get any pictures of that sundial.
A question for Mel.. do the people in England generally understand the peerage system? It is very confusing to me, I don't get it. For instance, what exactly is the Marquess of Salisbury responsible for? Does he get paid for this, or where does all the money for upkeep on places like Hatfield House come from?
The whole political system over there is confusing as well. There is a constitutional monarchy without a monarch (supposedly), four levels of subdivision with the regional level sending members to the European Parliament which has the power to make laws based on what unelected councils decide.
Just how do those peers figure into all this? Are they roughly of the same social class as the king and queen, just not as lucky? On a practical level, what does it mean to be a peer, and does sitting in parliament have any real value?
It seems unlikely that such a complex system could have arisen from a race of pagan warriors and shepherds, just goes to show that truth is stranger than fiction.
Marty said:
"do the people in England generally understand the peerage system?"
I'd say generally no, they don't, but I'm sure most of the inhabitants of this blog do. Anyway, here's the story:
The peerage system dates from William the Conqueror, more or less, when the king divided up the newly conquered island and gave it to his chiefs, while keeping much of it for himself, of course. There was no one to object (who would still be alive after doing so) so one court favourite might have become Earl of Wessex, another Duke of Northumberland etc. This practice continued through the years of absolute monarchy and the king - it was always a man - could in theory take away lordships, but in practice the titles were handed down to their sons.
As the power of the monarch diminished, any new lordships had to be sanctioned by parliament, which was mostly the lords themselves in the early days, but later the Commons became more imporant. For example Arthur Wellesley was granted lands and an exhorbitant sum of money by a grateful nation following the Napoleonic Wars and became Duke of Wellington. Why "Wellington" I don't know.
So originally the holder of the title would have had a duty to keep the serfs in order as the king's representative, but as time went on peerages became rewards for services to the nation with no formal duties. Lords receive no pay other than the daily allowance they get for sitting in the House of Lords plus expenses, but with the older titles there are often lands providing a decent income - the Duke of Westminster, for example, is often cited as the richest man in Britain.
As to their status, a duke is the most important, then marquess, earl and baron. Here's a longer explanation than you probably want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_noble_ranks
As for the "constitutional monarchy" part, Britain is one and of course a monarch is necessary. The Queen is head of state and theoretically has powers of veto and decree, among others, but in practice all powers are delegated to the PM and his government.
I don't understand your point about four levels of subdivision within the regional level. Maybe you can elaborate?
It's simple, you have "toffs" who speak funny and don't appear to work for a living and everyone else.
I think Hatfield House is in Hertfordshire, not near Reading? We visited it years ago.
And, Mel, you are right; American English majors/Anglophiles can probably quote DeBrett's Peerage better than the average Briton!:):) I guess we just love it so much because we don't have anything like that over here.
All we have as "aristocracy" is a clan like the Kennedys, who descended from an ol' bootlegger...
Yes indeed, Hatfield House is in Herts, about 50 miles from here. Maybe that's close in the context of American distances.
Thanks for the explanation Mel. England certainly has a tortured history, it makes you wonder why all the bother.
I read that any location in England could fall under the rule of up to four levels of political entities, one of those being the regional level from which EU MPs are elected- that is what I was referring to. What is the point of local elections and legislatures if EU commisariats can make contrary and supreme laws?
Lady Salisbury seems a genial enough creature with her impressive gardens. She just had a rose named after her in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the Hatfield House.
Trying to figure out this peerage and reading about a little about English history, I now wonder how the English view the American Revolution. If you read the Declaration of Independence and the list of reasons America wante independence, it is a mystery why the king would have wanted to so treat such a valuable asset. It looks like monumental shortsightedness on his part.
Lastly, yes, I was thinking 50 miles is not so great a distance.
A couple of the so-called newspapers here (Express and Mail in particular are aimed at the angry lower middle classes) wage a constant war against Britains membership of the EU. I noticed a headline this morning "EU CHEATS US OUT OF JOBS". If you want to see the worst in British journalistic lies, gossip and general rubbish, look no further than here...
http://www.express.co.uk/home
The only levels of government I know about are local, national and European, which I suppose is similar to local, state and federal in the US, though the balance of the powers is different.
As far as I know, the European Commission can't make laws, only the European Parliament. And of course the decisions of the European Court can force changes in English law in the same way as US Supreme Court decisions affect state laws.
On the American Revolution...interesting that you say:
"If you read the Declaration of Independence and the list of reasons America wante independence, it is a mystery why the king would have wanted to so treat such a valuable asset."
That's speaking only from the rebels' point of view, of course. I wasn't around at the time, but my guess is that the British would probably not have agreed with all the colonials' accusations. Though many of the more enlightened thinkers would have thought that maybe they had some grounds for disgruntlement.
Post a Comment