Quantcast
Channel: "Tweedland" The Gentlemen's club
Viewing all 3414 articles
Browse latest View live

Kind Hearts and Coronets ?

$
0
0
Lord of all he surveys: Edward Richard Lambton the 7th Earl of Durham with wife Marina in 2011.
 The blue-blood family feud that would make Jeremy Kyle blush: Their father quit as a  minister after being caught with a prostitute. Now, four of Lord Lambton's children are battling over his millions - and this week it turned REALLY dirty
By GUY ADAMS

PUBLISHED: 22:46 GMT, 24 May 2013 in The Daily Mail / http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330655/Their-father-quit-defence-minister-caught-prostitute-Now-Lord-Lambton-s-children-locked-bitter-battle-millions--week-turned-REALLY-dirty.html

 Surely it is a sign of the times that Edward Richard Lambton, who as the 7th Earl of Durham is one of Britain’s loftiest aristocrats, should chronicle his daily life via Facebook.
 Here, the blue-blooded 51-year-old, who calls himself ‘Ned,’ offers his circle of upmarket ‘friends’ a glimpse at his rarefied existence.
 In one corner of the site, you’ll see his striking property Lambton Castle, the faux-Norman family seat in County Durham built by ancestor John Lambton, a Victorian statesman.
 In another, you can see nearby Biddick Hall, a ten-bedroom Queen Anne house, surrounded by a 7,000-acre estate, where Ned was partly raised, and which he now rents out for weddings and corporate jollies.
 Friends can watch videos of Ned, who also owns a motor yacht called Lone Wolf, playing guitar in his band, Pearl TN, in a studio near his apartment in Kensington. They can also, if they so desire, ponder pictures of Ned’s third wife Marina Hanbury, a former model 22 years his junior.
 She can be seen variously showing off their bonny 18-month-old daughter, Lady Stella, beaming at her wedding to Ned in 2011, and posing in lace underwear, in the couple’s bedroom, later that year.
 But the most striking images of his recent life were surely taken at the Villa Cetinale, his magnificent 12-bedroom pile in rural Tuscany. The vast property, with its marble floors, four-poster beds, and sweeping staircases, was purchased by Ned’s late father, Antony, in the Seventies.
 It became famous as the bolthole to which Antony, the former Tory minister better known as Lord Lambton, fled after being forced to resign in 1973, when he was photographed in bed with two dominatrix prostitutes.
 Last year, Ned invited Vanity Fair magazine, and its photographer, to tour the palatial Villa Cetinale, which is set in 165 acres of gardens and where his recent house guests included those paragons of virtue Kate Moss and Jade Jagger.
 Many of their photos captured the 17th-century baroque property’s priceless collection of art, and antiquities, along with its rambling gardens and olive groves. But some had an edgier feel.

Notorious: Lord Lambton at the Villa Cetinale, the magnificent 12-bedroom pile in rural Tuscany.
 . One particularly striking picture, for example, showed Ned in chinos and a panama hat relaxing on a sun lounger alongside not one, but two topless socialites — one blonde; the other brunette.
 To the casual observer of these images, it would be fair to assume the playboy Earl, whose inherited personal fortune — including his estates — has been estimated at £180 million, enjoys a carefree life.
 But reality is rarely quite as simple as it may first appear — especially in the turbo-charged world of our aristocratic elite.
 Indeed, a rather closer examination of Ned’s online activity provides clues about the stupendously ugly controversy which has lately enveloped the House of Lambton.
 You get an immediate whiff of it by perusing the Earl’s Facebook ‘friends’. There are 323, including an array of prominent toffs — from Petronella Wyatt to the notorious former jailbird and drug addict James, the Marquess of Blandford.
 But not one of these ‘friends’ has the surname Lambton.
 You get another clue from Ned’s ‘profile picture’ on the social network. Recently, it was updated to an image of a volcano,  surrounded by mushroom clouds. Before that, it showed Ned, in  martial arts clothes, preparing to deliver a karate chop.
 Both images are grimly appropriate. For Ned is currently a man at war. And, as the absence of Lambtons from his friend circle suggests, his opponents are among his closest relatives.
 Last week, it emerged that the Earl had recently served a writ at the High Court in London against three of his five elder sisters.
 It was the latest development in an unseemly dispute that stretches back to 2006, when Ned’s father died in Italy, at the age of 84.
 The death allowed Ned to inherit the Earldom of Durham. He also became the beneficiary of a vast property portfolio, which is largely controlled, apparently for tax purposes, by overseas trusts.
 Controversy was soon to break out, however, over his father’s will, which valued his remaining estate at £12 million. It stipulated that all of this money would be left to Ned. Not one of the five sisters was to receive a penny.
 Though in keeping with the English tradition of primogeniture, under which first born sons inherit everything, those terms are at odds with Italy’s Napoleonic law, which dictates that assets must be evenly split between siblings.
 The three sisters, Beatrix, Lucinda (known as Lucy), and Anne, say they were led to believe that Ned would voluntarily offer them a small portion of their father’s estate.
 But it wasn’t forthcoming. They are therefore now attempting to sue for a slice of the £12 million pot, which was largely comprised of paintings by the neo-classical artist Josef Zoffany.
 The sisters argue that since Antony had lived in Italy with his mistress for two decades — and been resident there, for tax purposes, until the time he died — his will ought to be subject to Italian law.
 Indeed, in his will — a copy of which has been obtained by this newspaper — Antony declared himself to be ‘domiciled, resident, and ordinarily resident in Italy’.

Family Lambton: Baby Ned with his mother Lady Belinda known as Bindy Lambton and sisters
 After receiving Ned’s writ, the sisters said in a statement that he ‘has always thrown his toys out of the pram. The only difference this time is that the toys are his own family. It’s just terribly sad.’
 None of them will now speak further about the Downton Abbey-style dispute, saying they do not wish to jeopardise proceedings.
 ‘My lips are sealed,’ says Lady Lucinda, the 70-year-old TV personality and architectural commentator, when I call.
 But no such concerns trouble Lucinda’s husband Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, the former newspaper editor.
 ‘It’s a very sad business,’ he tells me. ‘It has broken up the family, and it is poisoning our lives. Ned has been entirely irrational and completely selfish. His treatment of his sisters has been highly insensitive.’
 Sir Peregrine, 89, denies that the sisters are motivated by greed, or an irrational jealousy of their younger brother. He says they’re seeking a small portion of his estate, equating to roughly £1 million each.
  ‘A million sounds like a lot, but it’s nothing to him,’ he adds. ‘He wouldn’t have to sell off the castle or anything. He’s very rich, and they’re not asking for something he couldn’t easily provide. But Ned just doesn’t like being told what to do.’
 And if the Earl fails to relinquish the cash, Sir Peregrine claims that the sisters will be left almost penniless. ‘This isn’t a case about greed, but necessity,’ he says.
 ‘I mean, Lucy hasn’t got a bean. She’s worked all her life in TV, and she’s 70 now. I’ve got my own children, so when I die she will be left pretty hard up.’
 Some of the money has already been promised by Lucinda to her grandson to pay for him to attend boarding school. Because the cash has yet to materialise, the child’s school was recently informed that he cannot attend.
 ‘It was rather embarrassing,’ adds Sir Peregrine.
 The other two sisters — Anne, 58, is an actress and Beatrix, 63, is a widow — are for their part ‘extremely hard up’, he says.
 ‘They really have very little. They were never sent to university, or allowed to learn how to earn a living. It’s terribly sad.’
 Sir Peregrine argues that aristocratic tradition gives Ned a moral duty to provide for siblings. ‘We just assumed that he would do something for them, in good time. But of course he never has. So it has come to this.’
 Ned, for his part, appears to believe otherwise.
 ‘Lord Lambton’s will left everything at his death in 2006 to his only son, having already provided for his other children,’ his lawyers said this week.
 ‘Three of Lord Durham’s five sisters are now claiming under Italian law a share of everything that Lord Lambton ever owned, even assets that were no longer owned by him at his death.’
 The lawyers claim a recent agreement to settle the dispute ‘fell apart’ at the last minute. ‘Lord Durham made a proposal.
 Unfortunately his sisters’ lawyer sought to include a term in the wording of the agreement, which can’t be agreed,’ the lawyers say. ‘An offer in excess of this sum remains on the table.’
 A friend of Ned, meanwhile, tells me he believes the sisters were ‘looked after’ during their father’s lifetime, and are now being ‘greedy’.
 ‘The simple fact is that you just can’t keep estates like this together if everything gets divided equally. The money, the capital, has to go with them, otherwise they won’t remain a going concern for the next generation. That’s why we have primogeniture.
 ‘Tony knew this. He was a very generous man, and a very rich man. He gave Lucinda her home, for example, which is now worth a million or two. And he certainly helped Beatrix, so don’t go thinking they got nothing.’
 Whoever you believe, the coming legal dispute is certainly shaping to be a deeply unpleasant.
 Indeed, Sir Peregrine says that during the course of the dispute Ned — whose parents were famously promiscuous — has already gone so far as to suggest that the sisters might not be Lord Lambton’s biological daughters.
 ‘That was completely below the belt,’ he adds. ‘And of course Ned’s paternity is just as chancy as theirs. When you look at the dates, the only child who was unquestionably [Lord Lambton’s] is Lucy, actually. The others are all in question.’
 Presumably his rationale is that Lucy was conceived at the beginning of her parents’ marriage, before they both slipped into a life of casual adultery.
 Should things continue to escalate, it is by no means impossible that the Earl of Durham and his sisters could be forced to submit to paternity tests.
 So how did a family which supposedly occupies the highest echelons of polite society become embroiled in a dispute headed for the sort of denouement you might expect from the Jeremy Kyle show?

Lord Lambton with Belinda Ned and Isabella, in the grounds of their home at Biddick Hall, County Durham in 1973
 Lord (Antony) Lambton is probably to blame. Tall, dark, handsome, and stupendously rich, he became a Tory MP in 1951 and was seen as a rising political star.
 But he failed to practise the conservatism he preached, was serially unfaithful to wife Bindy, visited prostitutes regularly and took drugs.
 In 1973, when he was a junior defence minister in Edward Heath’s government, the News of the World obtained photographs of him in bed with dominatrix Norma Levy and another woman, smoking cannabis.
 After being exposed as her client, Lambton promptly resigned. In a TV interview with Robin Day, he said he enjoyed visiting prostitutes because ‘people sometimes like variety’. In a debriefing with MI5, Lambton added that he had turned to debauchery because of the ‘futility’ of his day job  in government.
 Soon afterwards, he was fined £300 for possessing cannabis and amphetamines, and fled to Italy, where he took up residence at the Villa Centinale with a mistress, Claire Ward, who had been 1954’s debutante of the year.
 For the ensuing decades, until his death, she and Lambton held court at the villa, where he was dubbed the ‘King of Chiantishire’ and famed for hosting drug-fuelled parties.
 It was a legendarily debauched existence.
 One former lover of his from the era claimed that Lambton would pay black male prostitutes to sleep with her, while he watched. Countless others spoke of his relentless libido.
 Petronella Wyatt has claimed that he attempted to seduce her, while she was a teenager, by exposing himself.
 House guests over the years included everyone from the Rolling Stones to Princess Margaret and Prince Charles. In later years, Tony and Cherie Blair also paid a visit.
 Meanwhile, Lambton’s wife Bindy — who died in 2003 — remained in the UK, with their son Ned, who was 11 at the time of the Norma Levy scandal and went on to be unhappily educated at Eton.
 It is hardly surprising, given these circumstances, that the current Earl’s adult life would follow an unorthodox course.
 Though he’s never had what you might call a day job, Ned did play guitar with a rock band called the Frozen Turkeys in the Eighties.
 In 1983, he married Christabel McEwen, the mother of his eldest son, Fred, who is now a left-leaning environmental activist.
 They split up in the mid-Nineties — she moved swiftly on to the TV personality Jools Holland — after which Ned took up with second wife Catherine Fitzgerald, who is now the other half of actor Dominic West.
 In 2000, Ned moved to a mud hut on a beach in the Philippines, saying he wanted ‘to indulge all my Robinson Crusoe, Tarzan fantasies’ and, shortly afterwards, fathered a daughter called Molly, by then-girlfriend Jennie Guy, an Irish artist.
 He wooed third wife Marina, an old family friend, by sending her a Facebook message declaring: ‘I know I am way too old for you but I love you.’
 This privileged, if unstructured existence is said by Sir Peregrine to be at the root of the current family rift.
 ‘Ned has never been crossed in his life before, a life of complete self-indulgence,’ he says.
 ‘This is the first time he’s been questioned by anyone in his life. And, as someone who shares his father’s wilfulness, he seems to find that a very disagreeable experience.’
 The dispute has been hugely upsetting for Ned’s two other sisters Rose and Isabella (who is financially secure having married the wealthy landowner Sir Philip Naylor-Leyland).
 Both sides in this legal dispute have not spoken for over a year, including at family weddings and funerals, where according to Sir Peregrine ‘we now sit on opposite sides of a large church’.
 Of course, the longer things continue, the more both sides will pay to lawyers. The three sisters say the source of their legal funds is a ‘private matter’, though I understand that their costs are being underwritten by a wealthy acquaintance of the family who has a property near Villa Cetinale and is not fond of the Earl.
 Ned, meanwhile, has deep pockets, meaning that the dispute could yet continue for years.
 ‘If he really wanted to settle this, he could do it tomorrow,’ adds Sir Peregrine, wearily.
 ‘We all could. But, sadly, he’s left us no choice but to pursue this until it brings a result.’

Lord Lambton was forced to resign in 1973, when he was photographed in bed with two dominatrix prostitutes

Ned Lambton with first bride Christobel on their wedding day in 1983. The couple divorced in 1995


OH, TO BE IN ITALY . . . Lord of the manor Ned Lambton and his wife, Marina (with back to camera), sunbathe at the Villa Cetinale with houseguests, from left: British actress Lily Robinson and French model Leah De Wavrin. Left, a maid transports a flower arrangement through
the gardens.

 The Luck of The Lambtons

In the wake of the 1973 sex scandal that ended his political career, Antony, Lord Lambton, fled to Tuscany, where he turned the 17th-century Villa Cetinale into a shabby-chic Shangri-la for his aristocratic pals. Six years after Lambton’s death, his son, Ned, the seventh Earl of Durham, has completed a dazzling restoration, James Reginato reports, despite some Downton Abbey-worthy family drama

By James ReginatoPhotographs by Jonathan Becker
In Vanity Fair / November 2012 / http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2012/11/ned-lambton-villa-cetinale-restoration

 Constructed in 1680 and situated on some of the most breathtaking acreage in Tuscany, Villa Cetinale may be the world’s most delightful haunted house. According to legend, the builder of the property, Cardinal Flavio Chigi—a nephew of Pope Alexander VII’s—murdered a rival, as princes of the church were inclined to do in those days. Some believe the ghost of the vanquished cleric has rattled around Cetinale ever since. Nevertheless, the magnificent 12-bedroom Baroque villa, designed by Bernini’s great pupil Carlo Fontana, has endured as “one of the celebrated pleasure-houses of its day,” as Edith Wharton noted in her 1904 study, Italian Villas and Their Gardens.
In May, Cetinale’s latest chapter began, after Edward Richard Lambton, the seventh Earl of Durham, known as Ned, moved in following a five-year renovation. Still, there seems to be a remaining specter or two to deal with, beginning with Ned’s father, Antony, who died on December 30, 2006, at the age of 84.
As anyone over a certain age in Britain remembers, the late Lord Lambton resigned abruptly in 1973 from Prime Minister Edward Heath’s Cabinet, where he had been a junior defense minister, after being photographed in bed with two prostitutes and a joint in his mouth. The tryst, in a Maida Vale flat, had been captured on a hidden camera rigged by the News of the World. In the annals of great English political sex scandals, the episode ranks just under the Profumo affair.
Tony, as the longtime Tory M.P. was called by friends, gave up his political career and went into a grand exile in Italy. In a Lord Marchmain moment, he left his wife and their six children in Lambton Park, their enormous estate in County Durham, in the Northeast of England, and acquired the fabulous but then disheveled Villa Cetinale, near Siena, which was still owned by the Chigi family. For nearly three decades, Lambton held court here, with his mistress, Claire Ward. Highly charming at one moment and lacerating the next, he reigned as the “King of Chiantishire,” as he was dubbed, and entertained the likes of Prince Charles and Tony Blair. “When you were invited to Cetinale, you felt like you had really arrived,” recollects an English grandee.
Upon his father’s death, Ned inherited the earldom and became the beneficiary of his father’s entire estate, which included 7,000 acres in England. In accordance with the English practice of primogeniture, his five elder siblings—females all—were bypassed.
Six years later, Ned has just completed an arduous renovation that has restored the villa to its glory. Nonetheless, a bit of drama continues to hover over Cetinale. Some of it is of a happy nature. Fifty-one-year-old, twice-divorced Ned—who has a 27-year-old son by his first wife and an 11-year-old daughter with a former girlfriend—surprised his social circle in March 2010 when he announced his engagement to a longtime family friend, the very lovely Marina Hanbury, who is 20 years his junior. The couple married 10 months later and then welcomed a daughter, Lady Stella, last October.
On the less joyful side, Ned recently stopped speaking to at least a few of his five sisters—Lady Lucinda, Lady Beatrix, Lady Anne, Lady Isabella, and Lady Rose—after the first three threatened legal action against him in a twist that sounds like a Downton Abbey plotline. Because Tony lived so long in Italy, they contend they are entitled to shares of his estate under the Napoleonic Code, the revised version of ancient Roman law, upon which Italian law is still based. Furthermore, Ned’s niece Rose Bowdrey, 39 (Beatrix’s daughter), who had been managing Cetinale for him, made what has been described as a stormy departure around the time she began spending time with 52-year-old Domitilla Getty, wife of Mark Getty (co-founder of Getty Images). The Gettys, who have three children and who occupied a nearby hamlet, which they had restored, separated after nearly 30 years of marriage by late 2010, according to reports in the British press.
Needless to say, there has been plenty of chatter in Tuscany, and beyond, regarding recent events Up at the Villa.
‘It’s the vibe-iest house in the world,” Lord Johnson Somerset tells me over drinks by the pool. Somerset, the bon-vivant youngest son of the Duke of Beaufort and a music producer for Bryan Ferry, is part of a merry weekend house party of close friends who have come from England to help Ned inaugurate the newly renovated villa this past May. Like most members of this group, Somerset was also a guest here in the old days.
Marina, who is cradling in her arms the angelic-looking Stella, came here first as a baby herself, brought by her parents, Emma and Timmy Hanbury, scion of an old brewery family, who are here for the weekend, too. Even before they met each other, both Timmy and Emma came to Cetinale, as they were Lambton-family friends. Emma was a frequent visitor in the late 70s when she was the girlfriend of Jasper Guinness, who lived nearby. Cetinale itself has just been redecorated by Camilla Guinness, who was Jasper’s wife from 1985 until his death, last year.
Over lunch in the garden, near a magnificent avenue of towering cypress trees on the 165-acre property, Emma talks about Cetinale then and now: “When I first came here, I was blown away by its beauty. But Tony and Claire lived here in a very unflash way. It was incredibly nice and relaxed, but, let’s just say … by the pool you had a couple of rickety chairs and towels thrown around. Ned has preserved the history of the house, but now it’s like a five-star hotel.”
The Cetinale veterans at the table all agree, too, how vastly the food has improved, thanks to the first-rate chef Ned just hired, who blends classic Italian cuisine with Asian influences. Though reminiscing about the English nursery-school fare served in the old days seems to amuse everybody—when Prince Charles came to lunch, he was served fish pie, reportedly frozen, from Marks & Spencer.
“It was disgusting,” Ned recalls of Cetinale’s former cuisine. “Mrs. Ward, instead of hiring a chef, had these Australian girls on their gap years do the cooking,” he explains. “I wasn’t here when Prince Charles visited, but he went to Gordonstoun, where the food is horrid, so it must have reminded him of his childhood. He may have liked it.”
Alean, lanky fellow with handsome features, Ned Lambton has a wonderfully dry English sense of humor. And he is refreshingly honest about the class he comes from. “I can’t claim that I worked,” he tells me that evening over drinks in a vaulted-ceilinged salon.
“We’ve always lived in County Durham,” he says. “Some people look down on me because the Earldom of Durham was only created in 1833.” The first earl, he recounts, was John George Lambton, a radical Whig statesman who served as ambassador to Russia and governor-general of Canada.
“I loathed Eton,” he continues. “My father hated Harrow, so he sent me to Eton. His father had hated Eton, so he sent him to Harrow. How much nicer it would be to stay home, under the loving roof of your mother and father … ” This last sentence he delivers with faux wistfulness.
Which brings the conversation to his father’s scandal, which exploded when Ned was 11. “It was on the front pages of the newspapers. They kept them away from me, so I didn’t know what was going on. But one day the school matron took me in her room. I remember her explaining it to me. She didn’t explain it very well.
“She said, ‘Your father went to see a woman.’ She didn’t explain what kind of woman or what he did with her. I was mystified. I later found out what ‘went to see’ means. When it was explained it was about sex, I understood it better, but this vital fact was kept from me.”
As the scandal raged and school holidays arrived, Ned’s parents took him and his sisters to a private island in the Bahamas. “We hid out there until it had died down,” Ned recalls. “Then everybody forgot about it—except for the fucking Daily Mail. They mention it again and again, to this day. Can’t bear the Daily Mail.”
In the 33 years between when the scandal broke and Lord Lambton’s death, not once did he discuss the matter with his son. “He never mentioned it. He knew we knew about it. That was enough. I don’t know what we would have discussed. As far as my father was concerned, he got caught, he resigned, and that was the end of the story.”
In an interview he once gave to a British journalist, Lambton was unrepentant. Pressed to explain his actions, he replied, “People sometimes like variety. I think it’s as simple as that.”
(Norma Levy, one of the prostitutes he had patronized, was then reputed to be London’s most sought-after dominatrix, with a client list said to include Stavros Niarchos, the Shah of Iran, the 11th Duke of Devonshire, and John Paul Getty. In 2007, Levy gave an interview—to the Daily Mail, natch—in which she recalled some of those clients’ proclivities. According to Levy, Getty would have her lie down in an open coffin and he would then just stare at her for an hour.)
Today, Ned looks at the scandal philosophically. “If it hadn’t happened, he wouldn’t have resigned and moved to Italy and we wouldn’t be sitting here now. So thank you, Norma Levy, prostitute.”
In the ensuing decades, Lord Lambton would occasionally come home to County Durham and rejoin his family for Christmases, or to take part in shoots on his estates. He remained married to Ned’s mother, Belinda, who was called Bindy, until her death, in 2003. “She was what is politely known as an eccentric,” explains Ned. “My mother lived in a sort of make-believe world where everything was ideal. We knew it wasn’t, but since she thought it was we didn’t suggest otherwise, because we knew it was futile. Her fantasies were frustrating if you didn’t go along.”But Bindy was not so blithe as to allow her teenage son to go off to Italy to stay with her husband and his mistress. “Because he was living with Mrs. Ward, she wouldn’t allow me to come here. I didn’t come until I was about 16, and even then I had to make things up, like saying I was going to France. But then I started coming here regularly and fell in love with it.”
Needless to say, Lambton was not particularly hands-on as a parent. An early, rare effort to mold Ned was not a success. “After I left Eton, my father told me he had a friend in Argentina. So I was sent to Argentina to become a man. Didn’t work.”
Back in England, a brief career playing the electric guitar in an acid-rock band he formed called the Frozen Turkeys followed. “We played the Marquee club once, which for a band is supposed to be a step on the ladder to making it, which we certainly didn’t. It was great fun, but I’m glad it’s over,” he says. (Currently he plays acoustic guitar in a country-music band, Pearl, TN, which has just released a debut album, Leave Me Alone.)
In 1997 he stood for Parliament, in Jimmy Goldsmith’s Referendum Party. The run, in his father’s old constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed, was quixotic. “I knew I wasn’t going to get elected, but that was part of the attraction of doing it,” he says. “I wouldn’t have wanted to be an M.P., but it was fascinating to go knocking on people’s doors up there.”
In 2000 he moved to a remote beach in the Philippines, where he lived for about six years in a grass-roofed house he had built. “People ask me, ‘Why the Philippines?’ If I showed you one picture of the spot I lived, you would understand. I was able to indulge all my Robinson Crusoe, Tarzan fantasies.”
But it wasn’t all playtime. Through a dish antenna he installed at the domicile, he communicated constantly with the manager of the family estates. By then, Tony had ceded most responsibilities to his son. Notwithstanding Ned’s self-effacing statements, running big properties such as these is serious work.
The seventh Earl of Durham’s agreeable manner extends to his former wives and girlfriends. “We are all still very good friends,” he says. In 1995 he ended his 12-year marriage to Christabel McEwen, granddaughter of a Scottish baronet who is the mother of his heir, Frederick, Viscount Lambton, and married Catherine FitzGerald, daughter of the 29th Knight of Glin, a union that lasted seven years. Through a short relationship with Jennie Guy, an Irish artist, he has a daughter, Molly, 11, who lives with her mother in Dublin.
Attempting to break the family cycle of public-school misery, Ned sent Fred to the liberal Bedales School. But then a friend persuaded Fred to transfer to the more traditional Stowe. “He absolutely hated it,” says Ned. “One day he rang me up and said, ‘I’ve run away from school. I’m at the Savoy hotel.’ I thought it showed a bit of style that he checked in there.”
Lambton says he is proud of his son’s post-collegiate work as an environmental activist, but had concerns about an occupational hazard. “He kept getting arrested,” Ned recounts (protesting airport expansions, etc.).
In late 2009, Ned’s life was transformed. It started with a dream, near, of all places, Seattle, where he was preparing to embark on a voyage across the Pacific on the Lone Wolf, his Nordhavn long-range motorboat. “I had this dream that Marina and I were married. We were in love and blissfully happy.” Then he woke up in his rented house. “I’ve known Marina forever. But I never thought I would end up with her. There is a 20-year age gap,” he explains. Hanbury, who had worked as a model and also was a parliamentary assistant, came to Cetinale nearly every summer of her adolescence on holidays with her parents.
But that morning, Ned contacted Marina via Facebook and confessed his dream to her. “I know I am way too old for you but I love you,” he explained to her.
A day later, he was amazed by the reply. “I told him I’d loved him since I was 18,”Marina recounts to me. “I’d always had a crush on him, but I felt it was unrealistic. I never thought anything would happen. But we met up for dinner in London, and three weeks later we were engaged.” The pair married in a London register office in January 2011. “We both felt so sure,” says Ned. “And it has turned out great. We are very happy and compatible. And as Marina has pointed out to me, I can’t afford another divorce,” he says with a laugh. Ned and Marina kept their romance quiet in its first months, however, which made the announcement of their engagement a happy surprise for most friends and family. But the gossip mill was soon distracted by the new friendship between Ned’s niece Rose, who is known as Ro-Ro, and Domitilla Getty. “When Ned and Marina got together we were like, wow,” says a family friend. “But then Domitilla and Ro-Ro got together, and it was WOW. Domitilla and Ro-Ro trumped Ned and Marina.” (Around the same time, there had been another momentous match in the Hanbury family, when Marina’s younger sister, Rose, married David Rocksavage, the seventh Marquess of Cholmondeley, who is the Queen’s Lord Great Chamberlain and lives at Houghton Hall, one of England’s greatest stately homes.)
Restoring Cetinale was a daunting task. While Ned’s father and Mrs. Ward had done a spectacular job restoring the garden, which is considered one of the most beautiful in Italy, they had done little more than spruce up the ancient building itself. So it fell to Ned to replace the roof, as well as the plumbing, wiring, heating, and so forth.
For interior decoration, he turned to London-based Camilla Guinness. “My main aim was to alter the villa as little as possible. Barring [extensive] damage by dog pee to all the curtains and gilded table legs, and a shortage of bathrooms, it was pretty perfect the way it was,” Guinness says. “The real challenge was to make sure things weren’t over-restored and to try to keep the patina of walls and furniture.”
“What Camilla has done is amazing,” says Marina, the Countess of Durham, “but the house has still got all its charm and magic.”
It remains to be seen, however, if the potential legal challenge introduced by the Lambton sisterhood will alter Cetinale’s future. Ned does not appear to be particularly worried. “My father was an Englishman, and it’s an English will,” he says. The lawyers who wrote the document for his parent knew what they were doing, he reveals. Estate planners—and screenwriters—take note: “Cetinale is not legally owned by me, but by the trustees of a company set up by my father, Cetinale, Ltd., based in New Zealand,” he explains. “I am a beneficiary of this trust and run the company on its behalf.
“Why they are threatening to sue now, when I got on with them for 50 years, I don’t know,” says Ned. “But whatever the court decides—if it comes to that … ” he says, his voice trailing off. “My lawyer told me it might take 20 years, so I will let you know in 20 years. But if [my sisters] want to pay lawyers it’s not for me to stop them.”
Four months later, however, a thaw in the frost seemed to be setting in. On September 15, Ned e-mailed to report that lines of communication with his siblings were open, “so perhaps the whole sorry mess can be sorted out.” A day earlier, an attorney representing the sisters called to tell me his clients were hoping to resolve the situation “by diplomatic means.” He added, however, that the ladies “are quite resolute” in the goal.
According to a longtime family friend, what blame there is lies with the siblings’ late father: “It’s Tony’s fault. He failed to make provisions for them.” (“Them” is meant to apply as well to Claire Ward, who was also left out of Lord Lambton’s will and departed Cetinale immediately after he died. She lives in Hampshire today.)
But, of course, the situation is owed to England’s custom of primogeniture.
For wisdom on this practice, I recall a conversation I had a few years ago with someone who knows its consequences as well as anyone—Deborah, the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. In 2007, following the death of her husband, the 11th Duke of Devonshire, she had to vacate her 297-room home, Chatsworth, after 50-some years. “It’s deeply unfair and very wise,” she sums up about primogeniture. “We were all brought up with the idea of it, so no good grumbling about it. That’s just how it ’tis.”
Her experiences on the Continent, seeing the fruits of the Napoleonic Code, never persuaded her to alter her opinion. “The old ladies and everyone all live in a heap together I cannot imagine anything more conducive to family rows,” she says. And those big houses are practically empty, too, “as every child has had a go at the furniture and the pictures.”
But, on the basis of a weekend at Cetinale, it would appear that there is little more conducive to happiness than possession of a fabulous Tuscan villa. At the end of a long, excellent dinner, the table having gone through countless bottles of Brunello, Somerset has everyone in stitches as he recounts tales of his gaffes when the Queen weekended at Badminton House, his family’s fabled estate in Gloucestershire. Then ghost stories are traded, and the conversation turns to Cetinale’s resident spirit.
“I did feel something sneaking around my bed once,” Marina recalls.
“It must have been my father,” says Ned, roaring with laughter.

LEFT, FROM THE DAILY MAIL/REX USA (LORD LAMBTON); RIGHT, BY NICK ROGERS/DAILY MAIL/REX USA (LEVY).
LORDS HAVE MERCY Lord Lambton at his home in County Durham, 1974. Right, prostitute Norma Levy.

May 1973 Daily Mirror and Evening Standard coverage of the Lord Lambton call-girl scandal.


 VILLA CETINALI ...

Lambton Castle, the faux-Norman family seat in County Durham 

 Biddick Hall, a ten-bedroom Queen Anne house, surrounded by a 7,000-acre estate .


Pages from the Goncourt Journals ...

$
0
0


Succès de scandale
Their novels might be unreadable and forgotten, but the Goncourt brothers' journals - to which they confided all their thwarted ambition, literary gossip and backbiting - are a delight, discovers Geoff Dyer
Geoff Dyer
The Guardian, Saturday 9 December 2006

Among many other things the Journal is a vast archive of anxiety and thwarted ambition. The brothers Goncourt began keeping it on what was, for them, a momentous occasion: the publication, on December 2 1851, of their first novel. Unfortunately, it was also a momentous day for France: Napoleon III seized power in a coup d'état. With the city under martial law their eagerly- anticipated debut made almost no impact. So the Journal became a repository of all the woes and disappointed hopes suffered in their "hard and horrible struggle against anonymity": critical indignities, lack of sales, the perfidy of reviewers, the unmerited success of friends (some of whom, like Zola, were celebrated for techniques the Goncourts claimed to have pioneered).

As happens, lack of success only increased the brothers' sense of neglected worth. "It is impossible to read a page by them," André Gide confided in his journal, "where that good opinion they have of themselves does not burst out from between the lines." He was referring to their novels (now almost entirely forgotten) but this sense of wounded self-esteem greatly increases the pleasure of the Journal for which they are remembered. "Oh, if one of Dostoevsky's novels, whose black melancholy is regarded with such indulgent admiration, were signed with the name of Goncourt, what a slating it would get all along the line." That's in 1888; by 1890 the tone is of comic resignation (there is much comedy in these pages) as Edmond realises that he has devoted the whole of his life "to a special sort of literature: the sort that brings one trouble".

It's not just the brothers themselves; their friends are constantly sniping about each other's success or bemoaning the lack of their own. Zola, "whose name echoes round the world", is particularly "hard to please." Permanently "dissatisfied with the enormity of his good fortune", he is "unhappier than the most abject of failures".

An abundance of famous names renders the most banal entries compelling. "A ring at the door. It was Flaubert." "Baudelaire was at the table next to ours." Even people who make only a cameo appearance are fixed with a precision to match that of the recently invented camera. The glimpse of Baudelaire continues: "He was without a cravat, his shirt open at the neck and his head shaved, just as if he were going to be guillotined."

Unlike photographs, these verbal pictures develop and change over time, according to fluctuations in the fortunes and health of the people concerned and their shifting relationships with the authors of the Journal. Part of the ambition behind the project was to show the Goncourts' acquaintances - many of whom happened to be the great writers of the age - "as they really are, in a dressing-gown and slippers". At one point a fellow guest is shocked by Flaubert's "gross, intemperate unbuttoning of his nature" but the reader is grateful that the Goncourts were on hand to witness such things, even when - especially when - the conversation among these men of letters becomes - as it often did - "filthy and depraved."

Among all the talk of fornication, hookers, venereal disease and drunkenness there is some literary discussion too, and not just about "the special aptitude of writers suffering from constipation and diarrhoea". On first hearing Flaubert read from Salammbo the brothers are disappointed to discover that he "sees the Orient, and what is more the Orient of antiquity, in the guise of an Algerian bazaar. Some of his effects are childish, others ridiculous ... [T]here is nothing more wearisome than the everlasting descriptions, the button-by-button portrayal of the characters, the miniature-like representation of every costume." The brothers are often vehement participants in debate - blasphemously insisting that "Hugo has more talent than Homer" - but much of the time they are eager flies on a wall, conscious of the privilege of witnessing a master like Flaubert as he illuminates what, to him, is truly shocking about the author of Justine: "there isn't a single tree in Sade, or a single animal."

By the time they meet the author of Madame Bovary he is already a celebrated writer, already "Flaubert". Others, like the "strange painter Degas", enter inconspicuously with none of the aura subsequently bestowed upon them by fame. When they first encounter their "admirer and pupil Zola" he strikes them as a "worn-out Normalien, at once sturdy and puny" but with "a vibrant note of pungent determination and furious energy".

Many people come strolling through the Journal but one young man who went on to distinguish himself in the world of letters does not appear to merit so much as a mention. When Henry James met Edmond ("and his dirty little companions") in 1885 he was struck by "something perverse & disagreeable" about him. Expanding on this in an interminable review of the Journal, James is baffled by the way that the "weakness" of these "furious névrosés" "appears to them a source of glory or even of dolorous general interest". The fact that they do not appear anything like so sickly or neurotic to us is proof of a sort that the Goncourts were right: their malaise was indeed proof of their modernity. The self-styled "John-the-Baptists of modern neurosis" prided themselves on being "the first to write about the nerves".

The atmosphere of metaphysical sickness is clearly related to the dark shadow cast by actual physical illness. In 1861 the death of their friend Henri Murger had prompted an agonised reflection on mortality. The unnamed illness that killed Murger was mysterious and rare; syphilis was so pervasive that in 1877 Maupassant, initially, was "proud" to have caught "the magnificent pox. At last!" By then Edmond had had seven years to mourn the utterly unmagnificent death, also from syphilis, of his beloved brother. Jules's passing made Edmond "curse and abominate literature" to such an extent that, after describing with clinical precision and agonising detail the gradual collapse of his brother's physical and mental capacities, he decided to abandon the Journal.

The habit of daily transcription was not so easy to break, however, and Edmond soon returned to the task. With the Franco-Prussian war, the siege of Paris, and the commune, history comes crashing in on the daily accounts of visits, incidental observations and reflections. The entries from the post-Jules period are as varied, fascinating, compelling and odd as anything that has gone before. (I am particularly fond of the passage describing "the mania for fighting" which so takes hold of Drumont that "Nature is nothing for him now but a setting for affairs of honour. When he took the lease on his house at Soisy, he exclaimed: 'Ah, now there's a real garden for a pistol duel.'") But these later sections are interesting in two additional and complicating ways.

As early as 1867 the brothers had reflected on the transience of all pleasures: "Everything is unique, nothing happens more than once in a lifetime. The physical pleasure which a certain woman gave you at a certain moment, the exquisite dish which you ate on a certain day - you will never meet either again. Nothing is repeated, and everything is unparalleled." Naturally, this affirmation of the unrepeatable uniqueness of all experience - especially once his brother is no longer there to share, record and analyse it with Edmond - encourages recollection and reverie. As Edmond ages so he becomes more and more absorbed by memory.

The second factor in the distinctive quality of the latter parts of the Journal derives from the fact that in 1886-7, after much reluctance, Edmund begins publishing them. As a consequence the diaries from that date onwards have to come to terms with how the earlier ones have been received - both by the critics and by the people mentioned, described or quoted in them. The Journal, in other words, starts being about itself.

Plenty of people felt embarrassed, upset, outraged or betrayed by the Goncourts' record of things they had said or had said about them. This is part of the Journal's charm and value. Christopher Isherwood, when he finished reading them, on July 5 1940, was in no doubt as to their importance in this regard: "Here, gossip achieves the epigrammatic significance of poetry. To keep such a diary is to render a real service to the future." This realisation may well have been an incentive to persist with his diaries which have since acquired a similar value of their own. Or, to put it another way, it is as if the Journal, which caused people to discuss - and thereby add to - their content, continues to prompt the same reaction and so, in a sense, are still being incrementally extended by a constantly expanding cast of characters, readers and contributors, from the 19th century to Gide, Isherwood, Vidal and beyond.

Obviously, the Goncourts' Journal has been a wonderful resource for historians and biographers alike, but not everyone has concurred with the verdict of Proust's narrator in Time Regained: "Goncourt knew how to listen, just as he knew how to see." Coming as it does from a work in which fiction and fact are famously and intimately entwined, this character reference is itself unreliable and inadmissible. Certainly it is contested by a conversation recorded by Gide in a journal entry from January 1902: "'According to what I have been able to verify,' says Jacques Blanche, 'nothing is less true than their journals.'" Claiming to remember perfectly certain conversations which the Goncourts had falsified Blanche flatly contradicts Proust: "I assure you, Gide, that they didn't know how to listen."

Blanche rants on, furnishing more and more examples, only to have the rug pulled from beneath his feet by the author of The Counterfeiters. "'But', I say, 'the words that he puts into the mouths of various people, however false they may be according to you, are almost never uninteresting. Watch out, for the more you reduce his stature as a stenographer, the greater you make him as a writer, as a creator.'"

We only have Gide's word that he had the last word in this exchange way but it reminds us that what we are dealing with here is not simply a resource but a compendious work of literature. "A book is never a masterpiece," the brothers declare in 1864. "It becomes one." The process of becoming is inevitably more awkward for a journal - which did not even set out to be a book; its imperfections and indiscretions, its lack of artistic and thematic organisation - all the things, in fact, that make it a pleasure to read - militate against its ever becoming one. But while Sainte-Beuve - a major player in these pages - believed his notebooks to be "the lowest drawer of the writing desk" the Goncourts' Journal has come to deserve a place in the highest.


· Pages from the Goncourt Journals has just been reissued by New York Review of Books Classics.


Masters of Indiscretion
Book Review
Pages from the Goncourt Journals
by Edmond de Goncourt and Jules de Goncourt
In every generation, one city emerges as the capital of the republic of letters. This is not necessarily the place where the best writing is being done: Masterpieces are just as likely to come from Jane Austen's Hampshire parsonage as from Dr. Johnson's London coffeehouse. It is, rather, a symbolic homeland of the imagination, a metropolis that sets the terms of critical judgment and literary debate. Such capitals are inevitably temporary, passing away as history and chance assemble other geniuses in other places. But long after they disappear, they retain a peculiar power to seduce the imagination. How many readers have wished they could talk with Goethe and Schiller at Weimar, or go to Greenwich Village parties with Hart Crane and Edmund Wilson?

Of all the cities that have served as literature's capital, none is more famous or infamous than the Paris of the Second Empire; and no writers deserve more credit for its legend than the Goncourt brothers. Edmond de Goncourt, born in 1822, and his younger brother Jules, born in 1830, formed a partnership that is possibly unique in literary history. Not only did they write all their books together, they did not spend more than a day apart in their adult lives, until they were finally parted by Jules's death in 1870.

The Goncourts wrote prolifically in every genre, but they never had the kind of success they so desperately wanted. They were less admired than Flaubert, though they shared his devotion to style, and less popular than Zola, though they pioneered the techniques of naturalism. Their plays flopped, while Alexandre Dumas got rich from "La Dame aux Camélias." Their works on history and art were overlooked, as Hippolyte Taine and Ernest Renan became intellectual demigods. By the time he reached his 60s, Edmond was frantic to do something, anything, to secure his reputation: "My constant preoccupation," he wrote, "is to save the name of Goncourt from oblivion in the future by every sort of survival: survival through works of literature, survival through foundations, survival through the application of my monogram to all the objets d'art which have belonged to my brother and myself."

As it turned out, however, it was none of these things that rescued the Goncourts from "oblivion." It was, rather, their Journals — the scandalous, vain, vengeful, brutally honest diaries in which the two brothers, and then Edmond alone, wrote the secret history of their age. Starting in 1851, the year their first novel was published, and ending just twelve days before Edmond's death in 1896, the Goncourt Journals helped to immortalize their period as well as their authors. If we are still fascinated by the literary life of Paris in the late 19th century — not just the books but the personalities, the rivalries and friendships, the piquant combination of idealism and brutishness — we have the Goncourts to thank.

Both the idealism and the brutishness are on full display in "Pages from the Goncourt Journals" (New York Review Books, 434 pages, $16.95), a one-volume selection edited by the late scholar and translator Robert Baldick. This edition, which first appeared in 1962,is the latest of many delightful books brought back into print by New York Review Books, whose imprimatur has become a reliable guarantee of reading pleasure. In this case, the pleasure is decidedly of the guilty variety.

The Goncourts belonged to a world where poets mingled with princesses, politicians, and prostitutes, and they faithfully reported gossip from all levels of society, the more lurid the better. Indeed, the most representative sentence in the Journals may be the one that begins the entry for September 25, 1886: "This morning in the garden we talked about copulation." It was a subject that never got boring. A friend of a friend had a mistress who claimed to have slept with Kaiser Wilhelm II: "She had orders to wait for him naked, stark naked except for a pair of long black gloves coming up above her elbows; he came to her similarly naked, with his arms tied together ... and after looking at her for a moment, hurled himself upon her, throwing her onto the floor and taking his pleasure with her in a bestial frenzy."

Swinburne, the English poet, would entertain visitors with "a collection of obscene photographs ... all life-size and all of male subjects." Zola had a second family that he hid from his wife; Turgenev lost his virginity to one of his serfs at the age of 12. Robert de Montesquiou, the aesthete who was the original of Proust's Charlus, had his first love affair "with a female ventriloquist who, while Montesquiou was straining to achieve his climax, would imitate the drunken voice of a pimp, threatening the aristocratic client."

Many of these stories seem to fall into the category of "too good to check." But they provide a sense of what conversation must have been like at the famous "diners de Magny," named after the Paris restaurant where the Goncourts, Sainte-Beuve, Gautier, and other writers gathered. It was the world's most illustrious locker-room, where lechery was ennobled by worldweary romanticism: "Debauchery," the Goncourts wrote in 1861,"is perhaps an act of despair in the face of infinity."

But the Goncourts' Paris was also an intellectual boxing ring, where no one was ever allowed to forget his place in the standings: whose book had sold best, who had gotten a bad review, whose play was booed on opening night. "Coming away from a violent discussion at Magny's," the Goncourts write (using the first person singular, as always),"my heart pounding in my breast, my throat and tongue parched, I feel convinced that every political argument boils down to this: ‘I am better than you are,' every literary argument to this: ‘I have more taste than you,' every argument about art to this: ‘I have better eyes than you,' every argument about music to this: ‘I have a finer ear than you.'"

The Goncourts, to their unending frustration, usually wound up at the bottom of the totem pole. They never had the success they thought they deserved, and over the years they became less and less able to tolerate the successes of their friends. It is true that their career was dogged by exceptionally bad luck. The first entry in the journal was made on December 2, 1851, the day the brothers' first novel was published — and also, it so happened, the day that Napoleon III overthrew the Republic and took power as Emperor. As a result, the novel was completely ignored — "a symphony of words and ideas in the midst of that scramble for office," as the brothers ruefully put it.

The Goncourts' next big chance came in 1865, when their groundbreakingly realistic play "Henriette Maréchal" was performed at the Théâtre Français. But once again politics interfered, as protesters drowned the opening-night performance in "a tempest of hisses," angered by the playwrights' friendship with the emperor's cousin. Jules died without ever enjoying a great success, and Edmond spent the rest of his life seething at younger, more talented writers like Zola and Maupassant. The last third of the journal alternates between self-pity ("I am condemned to being attacked and repudiated until the day I die") and jealous digs at friends: "Maupassant's success with loose society women is an indication of their vulgarity," Edmond writes in 1893, "for never have I seen a man of the world with such a red face, such common features, or such a peasant build."

Many writers think things like this about their rivals, but few have dared to record them for posterity. The Goncourts' very shamelessness, their refusal or inability to censor their discreditable thoughts, is what makes their journals so absorbing — as Edmond himself knew full well. In his last years, he began to publish the early volumes of the journals, to the fury of certain friends who found old embarrassments dredged up in print. But he refused to be intimidated: "Monsieur Renan calls me an ‘indiscreet individual,'"Edmond told an interviewer in 1890. "I accept the reproach and I am not ashamed of it... For ever since the world began, the only memoirs of any interest have been written by ‘indiscreet individuals.'" The measure of the Goncourts' indiscretion is that their journals are still so interesting, more than a hundred years later.

akirsch@nysun.com


Ray - Ban ...

$
0
0


 Ray-Ban is an American brand of sunglasses founded in 1937 by Bausch & Lomb. They were introduced for the United States Army Air Corps. In 1999, Bausch & Lomb sold the brand to the Italian Luxottica Group for a reported $640 million.
Ray-Bans were first created in 1936. Some years earlier, Lieutenant John A. Macready (an American test pilot) returned from a balloon flight, complained that the sun had permanently damaged his eyes, and contacted Bausch & Lomb asking them to create sunglasses that would provide protection and also look sophisticated. On May 7, 1937, Bausch & Lomb took out the patent, and the Aviator was made available to the public. The prototype, known as Anti-Glare, had a frame weighing 150 grams. They were made of gold-plated metal with green lenses made of mineral glass to filter out infrared and ultraviolet rays. Pilots in the United States Army Air Corps immediately adopted the sunglasses. The army wanted sunglasses that would protect the soldiers' eyes from harmful light while maintaining a stylish look. The Ray-Ban Aviator became a well-known style of sunglasses when General Douglas MacArthur landed on the beach in the Philippines in World War II, and photographers snapped several pictures of him wearing them. Ray-Bans were quickly seen outside the army. They quickly gained popularity through other wars and even made a debut in the movies In 1952, Ray-Ban created another style, the Ray-Ban Wayfarer, this time with plastic frames, which became popular soon after its release. By 1962, Ray-Ban started to create impact-resistant lenses. It was not until ten years later when the United States of America made impact-resistant eye wear mandatory through the FDA regulation. Wayfarer sunglasses were seen on movie stars, TV stars, and musicians. Ray-Ban still remains a top designer in the sunglasses industry with its constant changes of color, frames, and lenses.


 Aviator sunglasses are a style of sunglasses that were developed by Bausch & Lomb and branded as Ray-Ban. They are characterised by dark, often reflective lenses having an area two or three times the area of the eyeball, and very thin metal frames with double or triple bridge and bayonet earpieces or flexible cable temples that hook behind the ears. The original design featured G-15 tempered glass lenses, i.e., neutral gray, transmitting 20% of incoming light. The large lenses are not flat but slightly convex. The design attempts to cover the entire range of the human eye and prevent as much light as possible from entering the eye from any angle.
Aviator sunglasses, or "pilot's glasses", were originally developed in 1936 by Ray-Ban for pilots to protect their eyes while flying. Aviators were given their name due to their original intention of protecting aviator's eyes. Ray-Ban began selling the glasses to the public a year after they were developed.
The Aviator became a well-known style of sunglasses when General Douglas MacArthur landed on the beach in the Philippines in World War II. Newspaper photographers snapped several pictures of him wearing them. The style was also issued to and found popularity with the French Army.
Aviator sunglasses became fashionable in the 1960s, but their popularity would increase following pop culture references by Paul McCartney,[3] Ringo Starr,[3] Freddie Mercury, and later use by celebrities in films like Top Gun, where Tom Cruise, Val Kilmer, and Anthony Edwards sported them (sales of the brand rose 40% in the 7 months following the release of the film).






Ray-Ban Wayfarer sunglasses have been manufactured by Ray-Ban since 1956, when their design was a revolutionary break from the metal eyewear of the past. Wayfarers enjoyed early popularity in the 1950s and 1960s. Though the sunglasses had faded from the limelight by the 1970s, a lucrative 1982 product placement deal brought Wayfarers to their height of popularity. Since the mid-2000s, the sunglasses have been enjoying a revival.
Wayfarers are sometimes cited as the best-selling design of sunglasses in history (although Ray-Ban Aviators have also been credited with this achievement) and have been called a classic of modern design  and one of the most enduring fashion icons of the 20th century.
Wayfarers were designed in 1952 by American optical designer Raymond Stegeman, who procured dozens of patents for Bausch and Lomb, Ray-Ban's parent company at that time. The design was a radically new shape, "a mid-century classic to rival Eames chairs and Cadillac tail fins." According to design critic Stephen Bayley, the "distinctive trapezoidal frame spoke a non-verbal language that hinted at unstable dangerousness, but one nicely tempered by the sturdy arms which, according to the advertising, gave the frames a 'masculine look.'" Despite this assessment, celebrities throughout the 1950s and 60s, both male and female, such as Marilyn Monroe, Kim Novak, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan and Andy Warhol all famously sported the sunglasses, some actually donning clone styles of them. John Lennon notably wore Wayfarers in the mid-1960s, prior to his fondness for teashades. John F. Kennedy frequently wore Wayfarer-style sunglasses in public.
Ray Ban Wayfarers, which took advantage of new plastic molding technology, marked the transition between a period of eyewear made from thin metal frames to an era of plastic eyewear. 


Terragni, La Sala "O", Mostra della Rivoluzione fascista, Roma 1932 (te...

Casa Del Fascio (House of Fascism)

Italian Modernism and Fascism , A very ambiguous relationship.

$
0
0

The Exhibition of the Fascist Revolution (Mostra della Rivoluzione Fascista) was a show held in Rome at the Palazzo delle Esposizioni from 1932 to 1934. Opened by Mussolini on 28 October 1932, it had 4 million visitors.
Its director and designer was Dino Alfieri, with the cooperation of Luigi Freddi and Cipriano Efisio Oppo. Seen as a great success, it was repeated in 1937 and 1942, though these two repeats did not have the same public success.
Telling the evolution of Italian history from 1914 to the March on Rome, it was never conceived as an objective representation of the facts or as being solely based on the exhibiting of historic documents, but as a work of Fascist propaganda to influence and involve the audience emotionally. For this reason not only historians were called in to assist in the exhibition, but also exponents of various artistic currents of the era, such as Mario Sironi, Enrico Prampolini, Gerardo Dottori, Adalberto Libera and Giuseppe Terragni.


"The relationship between the thought and architecture of Italian Rationalists and the new Fascist state is commonly presented as a battle between revolutionary modernism and a reactionary regime. Most historians have ignored the ardent Fascism of the best architects, while others simply avoid the issue altogether and study the buildings as stylistic phenomena. This attitude in part derives from a post-war desire to extricate the best architects and their architecture from a thoroughly discredited political system. Consequently, the architects' own words about their architecture and their ideas about Fascist culture and the purposes for which their state-funded buildings were designed are ignored. Historians acknowledge that the Modern Movement in other European nations encompassed social programs, but Italian architecture of the inter-war period has been strangely exempt from discussion on this level. Despite years of heated polemics and debates during the 20s, Rationalists, traditionalists, and moderates in Italy reached a consensus on political and social objectives. The Fascist state claimed to offer revolutionary social programs, and the various architectural factions merely argued about the appropriate forms within which to house these programs. This article discusses the differences between the various groups of architects, examines the work and writings of some leading Rationalists with particular reference to Fascist notions of hierarchy, order, and collective action, and discusses the ways in which Rationalist architecture celebrated Fascism. It also offers an explanation for the fact that Modern Movement architecture received substantial state support in Italy as it did from no other major power in the decade before World War II."
In Diane Yvonne Ghirardo / Italian Architects and Fascist Politics : An Evaluation of the Rationalist’s Role in Regime Building
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 



“In 1928, Terragni joined the Fascist Party.  Some historians, being uncomfortable with this have chosen to ignore it, or dismiss it as being merely an opportunistic ploy to get commissions.  However, Terragni’s writings, coupled with the fact that he was a man of principles, betrays him –  he was a Fascist.  Incredibly, he was also a deeply religious man; although it would perhaps be taking it too far to infer that his devotion to both the Catholic Church and the Fascist Party, inspired him (or at least allowed him) to strike a balance between the traditional, and the avant-garde; faith and reason.
Gruppo 7 announced themselves upon their graduation from the Milan Polytechnic in 1926 and consisted of Sebastiano Larco, Guido Frette, Carlo Enrico Rava, Adalberto Libera, Luigi Figini, Gino Pollini, and Giuseppe Terragni.  The date which Gruppo 7 published their first manifesto (December 1926) in Rassegna Italiana is noteworthy, for in the summer of 1926, Italian architecture had received a damning appraisal in the Swiss journal Das Werk:
 Today’s Italian architecture has not yet been touched by the major movements and discussions of the rest of Europe.
Perhaps the late unification of Italy as a nation had kept Italian architecture behind in its development, but Gruppo 7 saw their late arrival as an opportunity to give the most mature, definitive character to the new style.  Thus they would be able to reassert the traditional Italian primacy in the Arts.”

Text and images in middleton van jonker / http://middletonvanjonker.com/category/giuseppe-terragni-italian-rationalism/

"Fascism is a house of glass into which all can look."
(…)Located to the rear of the Duomo, the Casa del Fascio was designed as a house of glass; a physical realization of a modern architecture, but also as a symbolic statement about the supposed nature of Fascism, recalling Mussolini’s doctrine:
Fascism is a house of glass into which all can look.
Terragni took this metaphor literally, and applied it to justify structural honesty, and constructional clarity.  Terragni employs extensive glazing; the meeting room overlooks the central atrium through a glass wall, whilst the glass wall on the front façade opens up to the crowds.  This integration of the exterior had already been seen in Hannes Meyer’s submission to the League of Nations, and in Le Corbusier’s submission for the Palace of Soviet’s. The building as an honorific space is clad throughout in Bolicino marble, important to Terragni for its symbolic meaning, conveying the status of the Casa Del Fascio as a monumental building (in importance rather than size). The use of marble came in the aftermath of Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion, where Mies showed how the rich beauty of polished stone could be complimented by modern materials.  Terragni may also have sought inspiration from the Barcelona Pavilion, in his use of a slight elevation of the base, ‘piano rialzato’, establishing the monumental status for the whole structure. The spatial aesthetic is grounded in the exposed reinforced concrete frame.  Terragni did not create this skeleton in order to hide it; the frame occupies the forefront plane.
 The Casa del Fascio presents a complex rhythmical layering of partial walls, openings, and frames in which clear glass, glass block, polished stone, and filtered light, as well as direct views to the exterior, form a total architectural organism whose gridding carries straight through the structure while undergoing transformations of patterns that leave no two facades the same.
 Etlin
Terragni does not depart from the grid, or the rigours of rectilinear geometries, employing the golden section.  Material is removed from the half-cube to create layers, emphasised by the marble returns, and deep-set glass. The plan, arranged around a central (covered) courtyard, is almost Palladian, whilst the empty frame at the entrance is the modern equivalent of a portico or colonnade.  The Classical qualities are masked by the four facades with variations of fenestrations integrated into the frame system, representing modern construction, but nonetheless the building is Classical in nature.To the extent that an interest in proportion, massing, regularity of groundplan, and cubical massing are Classical ideas, Terragni – like Le Corbusier or Mies – was a Classical architect.
 Schumacher
There is also another important reference that the Casa del Fascio relies upon.  As well as the grand tradition of the Renaissance palazzo, Terragni pays homage to the modest tradition of the vernacular.  The non-bilateral symmetry, and the loggia bears a striking resemblance to an Italian farmhouse. The building is the result of rigorous Rationalism, but grounded in references to the past.  We must read between the lines of the Rationalist’s rhetoric, and be aware of their conservative audience, and their need to receive approval from the authorities.  We must also be aware of their other audience; the previously mocking architects of Northern Europe, and the rhetoric that the Rationalists employed for their benefit, following the lead of Mies, Gropious and Corb."

Text and images in middleton van jonker / http://middletonvanjonker.com/category/giuseppe-terragni-italian-rationalism/





English Ecentrics / Edith Sitwell.

$
0
0

Slightly Foxed

Edith Sitwell and the English Eccentrics


By Guest
Tuesday April 26, 2011 / http://thedabbler.co.uk/2011/04/edith-sitwell-and-the-english-eccentrics/

Our friends at Slightly Foxed (the real readers’ quarterly – buy a subscription now!) have once again kindly allowed The Dabbler to dip into its rich archives. We have handpicked this gem for you — originally entitled A Splendid Attitude to Death – from the Spring 2010 edition, in which author Christopher Robbins looks at Edith Sitwell’s English Eccentrics.

‘Eccentricity’, wrote Edith Sitwell, ‘exists particularly in the English, and partly, I think, because of that peculiar and satisfactory knowledge of infallibility that is the hallmark and birthright of the British nation.’ Ah, those were the days. And just in case this unfashionable declaration of tribal perfection fails to establish Dame Edith’s unabashed élitism, she adds: ‘Eccentricity is not, as dull people would have us believe, a form of madness. It is often a kind of innocent pride, and the man of genius and the aristocrat are frequently regarded as eccentrics because genius and aristocrat are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd.’
The non-English and the dull, and those of us who lack noble blood or whose genius is yet to be acknowledged, might feel inclined to give Miss Sitwell’s book English Eccentrics (1933) a miss. That would be a pity. This strange holdall of human curiosities is as eccentric in style and form as its theme, and is not at all restricted to arrogant aristos and dotty men of genius. Quite a number of the eccentrics are not even English.
No writer could ever have been more suited to her subject. Edith Sitwell was certainly aristocratic, but born of such unloving parents that from an early age extreme eccentricity became a refuge. Her mother was self-obsessed, a spendthrift and a hysteric. Her father was a miser who cared only for his sons. When his daughter had gained an international reputation as a poet he still maintained that ‘Edith made a great mistake in not going in for lawn tennis.’
In defence, Dame Edith developed a regal and intimidating presence, touchy and grand, but behind the formidable pose was an unloved child with an inferiority complex. Far from being indifferent to the opinion of others, she was hypersensitive to criticism of both her poetry and her looks, and lived in terror of revealing her vulnerable and shy nature. Most of the eccentrics in her book are similarly damaged human goods, retreating into modes of behaviour designed to hold the world at bay.
Edith took eccentricity seriously. She saw it not as a flamboyant display of personality or idiosyncrasy of mind but rather as an instinctive rebellion against the quotidian coupled with an inability to adapt to the world’s norms: ‘Some rigid, and even splendid attitude to Death, some exaggeration of the attitudes common to Life’.
English Eccentrics is laced with sadness and there is a chill to the wit. The elaborate prose is hung with cobwebs, the structure formless and even repetitive, as the author meanders among the strange and often tragic lives of her characters. A modern reader might wish for a severe editor to prune the more tangential ruminations, but such an oddity of a book would crumble and collapse without its antique charm.
The author’s own eccentricity was first of all visual. Dame Edith was an eyeful. Picasso described her face as ‘a real collector’s piece’, while her figure was said to resemble ‘a crane on a platform, ornithological or mechanical’. Cecil Beaton wrote that she was ‘a tall, graceful scarecrow, with the white hands of a medieval saint’. Virginia Woolf found her ‘lonely, ghostlike and angular . . . all is very tapering and pointed, the nose running on like a mole’. There was no getting around the nose: Lytton Strachey described it as longer than an anteater’s. Dame Edith herself said, ‘I have always found it has got in the way.’
And then there were the clothes. Edith dressed in black velvet and bought rich upholstery material for her dresses – a favourite was one of earth-coloured brocade embroidered with gold lions and unicorns. Over time the outfits grew more and more extreme: plush velvets and black satins, exotic silk turbans, heavy gold ornaments and a collection of aquamarine rings the size of ice cubes. Friends wondered how she managed to lift her powder-white porcelain hands from her lap. There were other aspects to Sitwell’s eccentricity. A lifelong hypochondriac, she opened letters with gloves, fearing infection. She also played the role of the Bohemian poet beyond the point of parody. In the stage performance Façade (1922) she declaimed a series of abstract poems through a megaphone protruding from a huge head painted on a curtain that concealed both the author and a seven-piece jazz band. As a saxophone wailed a modernistic syncopation by William Walton, the cut-glass tones of Dame Edith’s voice could be heard reciting ‘Lily O’Grady, /Silly and shady’.
All types are represented in the eccentrics she chose for her book. There are scholars – like the learned professor of Greek at Cambridge who settled intellectual debate with a poker, and once carried a young woman around his rooms in his teeth. There are pious pirates – such as the captain who captured a clergyman and demanded only that he conduct religious services for his crew and make rum punch. And then there are those displaying the ‘splendid attitude to Death’.
One of these was a wealthy tanner named Jemmy Hirst. In his youth, he had invested in his own coffin which he used as a drinks cabinet throughout his long life. When he died aged 90, Jemmy’s corpse finally replaced the bottles of liquor, and eight widows were paid half a crown each to act as pall-bearers (the will called for old maids, but a sufficiency could not be found).
One protest against Death is simply to live on and on, like Old Tom Parr, who died in 1635 at the purported age of 152. He seems to have passed an uneventful life until the age of 80 when he first married, after which he became something of a rake. He was obliged at 105 to do public penance for philandering, wrapped in a white sheet at the church door. He remarried at 120 and in due course his wife presented him with a child.
In the eighteenth century a fashion developed among members of the land-owning class to acquire ornamental hermits for their parks. ‘Nothing, it was felt, could give such delight to the eye, as the spectacle of an aged person with a long grey beard, and a goatish rough robe, doddering among the disadvantages and pleasures of Nature.’ The most celebrated hermit of all, Lord Rokeby – born in 1712 – was not only ornamental but also amphibious. After a visit to a French spa he became addicted to bathing. In time his lordship rarely left his bath. He erected a small hut on the sands at Hythe for easy access to the sea, where he would remain among the waves until he fainted. He died in 1800 at the age of 88, wrinkled like a prune from a lifetime of submersion.
Squire Jack Mytton, born in 1796, was addicted to stronger stuff. Left rich but fatherless when he was 2, he was said by the age of 10 to be ‘A Pickle of the first order’. As a young man he was soon drinking eight bottles of port a day, and graduated over time to almost as many of brandy. He rode as hard and fast as he drank and took terrible falls from his horses, and all manner of spills in the vehicles they drew. When a passenger unwisely remarked that he had never been upset in a gig, the squire turned on him in outrage: ‘What, never upset in a gig?’ And promptly overturned the gig they were riding in to give his friend the experience.
Once, when suffering from hiccups, Mytton decided to frighten himself out of the attack by setting fire to his nightshirt. He was immediately enveloped in flames. After the servants had put him out, the singed squire reeled triumphantly into bed, exclaiming, ‘The hiccup is gone, by God!’
My own favourite among Sitwell’s eccentrics is the celebrated Amateur of the Drama, Robert Coates – variously known as Curricle, Diamond or Romeo Coates. He became famous in his day as a theatrical phenomenon – the world’s worst actor. The name ‘Curricle’ was given to him on account of the magnificent chariot in which he drove around London. This wondrous conveyance was shaped as a scallop shell, painted a deep blue, luxuriously upholstered, and drawn by two superb white horses. The owner’s heraldic device, a life-size cockerel with outspread wings, was attached to the front bearing the motto, ‘While I live, I’ll crow.’
Born in Antigua in 1772, Coates came from a wealthy family that owned slave plantations. He was in his late thirties when he gave his first performance in England, at Bath, in Romeo and Juliet, a play he modestly suggested he had greatly improved. He appeared before his audience dressed in a spangled cloak of sky-blue silk, crimson pantaloons, and white hat trimmed with feathers and adorned with diamonds, which also sparkled on his knees and shoe buckles. As Sitwell writes, ‘In his hands tragedy lost all her gloom.’ Indeed in Richmond, Romeo’s death scene caused a group of young men to laugh so hard they had to be carried into the open air to receive medical attention.
When Coates’ fame reached its zenith more than a thousand people were turned away from the box office at the Haymarket Theatre, in London’s West End, and fans besieged the stage door in their hundreds. The audiences at these productions were lively bordering on violent, and behaved as if they were in a bear-baiting pit. There was constant whistling, shouting and catcalls, as well as full-throated barnyard sounds of ‘cock-a-doodle-doo’ in homage to the actor’s crest. Death scenes were particularly popular and the Gifted Amateur was often obliged to perform encores in which he died again and again.
Although Dame Edith has great sympathy for most of her eccentrics, she has nothing but contempt for the misers: ‘Unpleasant forms of vegetation, so sapless, so untouched by the sun’. Like ‘Lady Lewson’ of Clerkenwell, who never washed for fear of disease and smeared herself with hog’s lard against the cold rather than light a fire. ‘This strange unique trumpery, at the age of 87, cut two new teeth, which were a source of pride to her.’ Many of the misers lived to a great age, possibly because they could not distinguish between life and death. ‘Skeletons they were since youth; skeletons they remained.’
In time Dame Edith’s own eccentricity overwhelmed her reputation as a poet, and fear of being treated as a circus act even made her cancel a lecture tour to America. ‘They’ll want me to deliver my lecture like a trick cyclist, cycling round and round the platform balanced on my nose with my feet in the air.’ Her lifelong inferiority complex combined with ever-increasing megalomania led inevitably to paranoia. She came to believe that her face made her the most hated woman in England. It was not all paranoia, for she had been attacked by a coterie of powerful critics all her life, was forever locked in feuds with fellow artists, and received numerous malicious and abusive letters from the general public.
In old age, Dame Edith grew fat from drink and misery. Virginia Woolf described her as resembling an ivory elephant: ‘Majestic, monumental . . . an old empress’. She began to identify with Elizabeth I, and grew convinced that she was the queen’s reincarnation, although the figure she most resembled was that of a remote and virginal abbess. She died according to the code of her class, not wanting to make a fuss – her own splendid attitude to Death. Her last words were, ‘I’m afraid I’m being an awful nuisance.’

Edith Sitwell: Avant Garde Poet, English Genius by Richard Greene – review


If Edith Sitwell was a pioneering modernist genius, as this definitive new biography suggests, her gift was not so much for poetry as for an outsider life well lived

Rachel Cooke
The Observer, Sunday 27 February 2011 / http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/27/edith-sitwell-english-genius-richard-greene-review

A woman who is born with a nose so beaky she may use it to spear cocktail olives, and a brow so high it surely could not house anything other than a scarily massive brain, must make a sartorial decision early on in life and stick to it. The choice is as follows. Either she can dress meekly in twin sets and beige stockings and attempt to disappear. Or she can embrace her oddities and rush headlong towards the door marked Fancy Dress Department.
Edith Sitwell took the second approach. A human scythe bedecked with yards of brocade, elaborate turbans and unlikely jewellery, she made an extraordinary sight: "a high altar on the move", according to Elizabeth Bowen. Once seen – in the newspaper, on television, or glimpsed for real in the sepulchral corridors of her haunted ancestral home, Renishaw Hall – she was never forgotten. Today, long after most of us ceased reading her poetry, a small crowd is regularly to be found standing before her image at the National Portrait Gallery (she was painted by Wyndham Lewis and Roger Fry, and photographed by Cecil Beaton), and at the V&A people still stare, dumbfounded, at her rings: aquamarines the size of puddles, hunks of amber as big as a cottage loaves.
Richard Greene, Sitwell's latest biographer, makes relatively little of her striking appearance. He wants us to take her seriously as a poet, and so provides no hint of a shopping trip, no whiff of the contents of her dressing table. This is a pity, for her costumes speak volumes about life as a 20th-century female poet: the sheer courage involved. Contemporary critics accused her of overambition; might she not, they wondered, be better off limiting herself to a smaller canvas? Sitwell, though, was convinced that modesty was death for the woman poet. "There was no one to point the way," she told Stephen Spender in 1946, at the peak of her success. "I had to learn everything – learn, amongst other things, not to be timid." Her clothes, then, were a weapon in the war against timidity – and in this sense are as much a part of Sitwell's brand of modernism as her fondness for reciting poetry through an upturned traffic cone. (I'm joking: the piece of equipment in question, used to such effect in Facade, a cycle of poems set to music by William Walton, was in fact a Sengerphone, made of compressed grass.)
Then again, Sitwell was in need of armour long before she knew she wanted to be a writer. A neglected child and, by modern standards, an abused one, her parents, Sir George and Lady Ida (George was the fourth baronet Sitwell), were distant and, in the case of Ida, feckless (in 1915, when Edith was in her 20s, Lady Ida stood trial for fraud and, having been convicted, served a short prison sentence). Their daughter was a mystery to them and, possibly, a shock, being curved of spine and crooked of nose (Ida was famously beautiful). Their cruelty began with their refusal formally to educate their daughter (Sir George read Tennyson's "The Princess" and promptly decided that university made girls "unwomanly"), and ended with their decision to straighten both her spine and nose with the aid of metal braces ("my Bastille", Edith called her back brace). Later, during her coming out, Edith asked a man at dinner whether he preferred Brahms or Mozart, and was hastily withdrawn from the circuit. When she left home – she lived for many years with her old governess, Helen Rootham, though they were not lovers – George paid her rent, but meagrely. He seemed not to mind that while he languished in fine houses in Yorkshire (Renishaw is near Sheffield) and Italy, his daughter inhabited shabby rooms in grubby parts of London and Paris. No wonder Sitwell was so close to her writer brothers, Sacheverell and, in particular, the repulsively selfish Osbert.
Her writing life began around 1912, when she was 25. Poetry slipped into the space previously occupied by music, though another spur seems to have been other people. The extent of Sitwell's acquaintance is astonishing: her address book, if ever she was in possession of such a bourgeois item, would read now like a roll call of early 20th-century artistic life. Sickert, Walton, Yeats, Joyce, Eliot, Woolf: she knew them all. With her Saturday-night salons, and her editorship of the journal Wheels, Sitwell established herself as an enemy of the old (specifically of the Georgian poets) and a cheerleader of the new; her own work, especially Facade, first performed in 1923, reinforced this impression. It wasn't long before her peers were swooning at her feet. She had her enemies, among them FR Leavis, and Noël Coward, who lampooned the Sitwells as the Swiss Family Whittlebot and considered her poetry to be "gibberish". But Yeats gave her 18 pages in his Oxford Book of Modern Verse; and on the publication of her Collected Poems in 1957, Cyril Connolly suggested that her work would one day be deemed to outclass that of Eliot and Auden.
Yet who, now, reads her? Sitwell died in 1964, a paranoid alcoholic, albeit one who had lived long enough to appear on This Is Your Life. Greene, as you would expect, makes great claims for her poetry, blaming its neglect on her class (the upper-class woman as dilettante), her gender (he is sensitive to the misogyny of critics such as Geoffrey Grigson), and the austerity of a new generation of poets (Larkin, Kingsley Amis) allergic both to symbolism and complexity.
But is he right to do so? No. Her best poems – those inspired by the Blitz – are marvellously rhythmic, and you see why Yeats likened her to John Webster, though perhaps in this instance her indelible visage worked on him rather more strongly than her verse (TS Eliot's line about "the skull beneath the skin" could as easily have been written for Sitwell, as for Webster). But for most readers, including this one, Sitwell has all the opacity of Eliot without any of his chilling immediacy and power.
This is not to say that I think Greene has wasted his time. Sitwell is important: a modernist pioneer; a glorious example of the outsider life well led; a passionate champion of other writers (she was Wilfred Owen's first editor); a chastening example of the way literary fame can vanish almost overnight. His book contains so much that is new – Greene has had access to Sitwell's vast correspondence with the painter Pavel Tchelitchew, with whom she had an unreciprocated, non-physical love affair – and will no doubt be considered definitive.
But still, there is a want of feeling in the biographer for his subject. For a better sense of Sitwell's place in the peculiar tapestry of British avant-garde life – and for an account of Renishaw's importance in that unlikely spurt of creativity – try instead the tremendous Romantic Moderns by Alexandra Harris. As for poor old Edith, I still wonder about her shoes, her lipstick. Couldn't someone at BBC4 turn her life into a film? Oh, to hear the swish and clank of the approach of that remarkable dame in all her finery.


Edith Sitwell, 1959. An extraordinary sight, she was described by Elizabeth Bowen as ‘a high altar on the move’. Photograph: Jane Bown for the Observer.


Edith Sitwell, eccentric genius

A new biography of the avant garde poet Edith Sitwell is applauded by her great-nephew William Sitwell

By William Sitwell9:00AM GMT 11 Mar 2011 / The Telegraph / http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/biographyandmemoirreviews/8373893/Edith-Sitwell-eccentric-genius.html

It was a wet, wintry night on London’s South Bank that I first got to know my great-aunt Edith properly.
She had died in 1964, some years before I was born. But then, waiting in the wings of the Purcell Room, I breathed in deeply before taking to the stage to recite her Façade series of poems.
Set to music by William Walton, the poems are said, not sung, in precise time to the music. Some of the lines must be proclaimed at breakneck speed, and as I worked my way through the colourful, exotic language, the assonances and dissonances, I could almost feel her spirit conjuring up the figures of Sir Beelzebub and Black Mrs Behemoth, not to mention the satyrs, nymphs and others who appear.
She wrote this early white rap in the 1920s, finessing it over the next 40 years, and it demonstrates her extraordinary, dextrous touch with the English language, and her musical abilities.
More used to the comforts of an office, or better still a table in a restaurant – I work as a magazine editor and food critic – learning Façade had taken me on a year-long journey into the mind and life of Edith Sitwell. I had met some of her last surviving contemporaries, critics and champions of her work.
Now an even fuller picture of her emerges in the detailed, moving and often hilarious new book about her by the Canadian professor of English Richard Greene. The first biography of her for 30 years, using a wealth of previously unseen letters, it paints an extraordinary picture of childhood suffering, courageous writing and unrequited love. Greene makes an impassioned plea that 'It is time to look again at Edith Sitwell.’
She was born in 1887 to parents who could not have had less in common. Her mother, Lady Ida – daughter of the Earl of Londesborough; beautiful, gregarious and pleasure-loving – contrasted with her father, Sir George, in turn austere and solitary.
'The poor creature,’ Edith later wrote of her barely educated, then 17-year-old mother, 'married against her will into a kind of slave-bondage.’
Winters and spring were spent in Scarborough, where the family had a house near the seafront. The characters she saw there – minstrels, pierrots, contortionists – echo in her Façade poems, as do the elegant, empty-headed people who wandered at the seaside. Her poem Valse begins:
'Daisy and Lily,
Lazy and silly,
Walk by the shore of the wan grassy sea…’
The family then decamped for summer and autumn to Renishaw Hall, a gothic house on the edge of Chesterfield built by the Sitwells in the early 17th century when they had made a fortune as the world’s largest producers of nails (now lived in by my first cousin Alexandra Hayward and her family).
It was another location that shaped Edith’s poetry and she recalled it as 'dark and forgotten… like an unopened 17th-century first edition in a library’. There, Lady Ida would start her day, as the biographer Sarah Bradford describes, '[lying] late in bed in a bedroom heavy with the scent of discarded gardenias and tuberoses, reading French novels, newspapers or letters, or playing patience on a flat-folding leather card-tray.’
Meanwhile Sir George would be cooped up in his study, smoking strong Egyptian cigarettes and pondering on his writing and thoughts. His literary output ranged between the eclectic and the bizarre: The Introduction of the Peacock into Western Gardens, Rotherham Under Cromwell, Modern Modifications on Leaden Jewellery in the Middle Ages and his seminal A Short History of the Fork – an epic tome that competes for brilliance with the results of his analysis for curing insomnia entitled The Twenty-Seven Postures of Sir George R Sitwell.
He installed a notice at Renishaw that read: 'I must ask anyone entering the house never to contradict me in any way, as it interferes with the functioning of the gastric juices and prevents my sleeping at night.’
Sir George’s approach to procreation was equally eccentric. In order to achieve the finest result he would read a worthy tome before declaring, 'Ida, I am ready.’ He saw his sons as being a vital extension of his personality, events to enhance the Sitwell line, and it never occurred to him that his first-born might be a girl. Thus, as Edith recalled, 'I was unpopular with my parents from the moment of my birth.’
Her arrival deepened the rift between her parents; when her brothers, Osbert and then Sacheverell, were born, with much fanfare, she was relegated to a back place in the nursery and was put, as she wrote, 'in disgrace for being a female’.
She had more affection for her maternal grandfather, although he died in 1900 after contracting pneumonia from a parrot. And while she was entertained by her mother’s relations, who had a penchant for practical jokes – tethering hens under people’s beds and hiding live lobsters between the sheets – she was repulsed by their obsession with shooting. Memories of gamekeepers releasing rabbits from sacks to be shot or beaten with sticks made her a life-long campaigner against blood sports.
The remoteness and eccentric behaviour of her father and the increasingly sick and drunken rages of her mother stayed with Edith for the rest of her life. Years later she wrote to Osbert of her 'terrible childhood and… appalling home. I don’t believe there is another family in England who have had parents like ours.’
In my search to speak to surviving contemporaries I came across Lady Natasha Spender (who died last October aged 91), the widow of the writer Stephen, who in the study of her north London home revealed the extraordinary extent of Edith’s suffering.
'She was frightened of her parents, who were so belligerent and remote,’ she recalled. 'They gave her absolute hell and would punish her. She would go out for a walk and come in quietly through a side door, and the butler would lock her in the silver pantry until he thought it safe for her to emerge. It was like benign protective custody.’
The children bonded instead with the servants, in particular with Henry Moat, 'an enormous purple man like a benevolent hippopotamus,’ Edith wrote. Born to a family of whalers in Whitby, he had 18 brothers, one sister and a tame seal. He worked for the family for 43 years, although he was sacked and then cajoled back frequently, and as butler became almost inseparable from Sir George.
Described by Richard Greene as the 'Sancho Panza to Sir George’s Don Quixote’, he would explode his master’s more outlandish schemes.
'Henry,’ Sir George once called to his butler, 'I’ve a new idea. Knife handles should always be made of condensed milk.’
'Yes, Sir George,’ Moat replied, 'but what if the cat gets at them?’
Edith continued into her teens, hiding from governesses and, by her account, reading and learning poetry in secret while her father, worried about her posture, engaged an orthopaedic manufacturer who designed a torturous – albeit laced – iron spinal apparatus. This she was forced to wear along with a terrifying nose-truss to improve her profile.
So obsessed was Sir George with her nose that when he commissioned the artist John Singer Sargent to paint the family in 1900 he made a point of asking the painter to portray its deviations in correct detail.
Sargent was so appalled at this request that if you look closely at the painting you can see he painted Edith’s nose as a fine, straight specimen while adding a distinct crook to that of her father. Indeed the painting portrays Edith as more assertive and confident than she actually was. Dressed in scarlet, she commands attention from the canvas.
It was at a point in her life when 'finishing’ was the norm, or 'finishing off’ as Edith put it. She was taught what she described as 'the heavy art of light conversation’. The lessons came to nothing and, aged 17, seated next to a politician and huntsman, she asked him if he preferred Bach to Mozart and was, she recalled, hastily 'withdrawn from circulation’.
Undeterred, she was attracted to the arts and spent hours transcribing poetry before being encouraged to write by a cousin, Joan Wake. With the outbreak of war and the shelling by German warships of the Sitwells’ house in Scarborough, Edith moved to London, her mind set on a life as a writer, renting a flat in a poor but lively spot in Bayswater.
But if she thought she could escape her family, she was wrong, as they were suddenly engulfed in scandal. Having got into tremendous debt about which she was afraid to tell her husband, Lady Ida became tangled up with unscrupulous moneylenders. Sir George, determined to do the 'right’ thing and see the culprits get their comeuppance, refused to deal with the matter out of court and the affair was resolved in the Old Bailey. The shocking end to the story being that in 1915 Lady Ida found herself convicted of fraud and sent to Holloway prison for three months.
'How did it feel when your mother went to prison?’ Stephen Spender once asked Edith.
'Not altogether pleasant,’ she replied. 'Because, you see, in those days one did not go to prison.’
The sentence was such a shock that no one remembered to tell Sacheverell, my grandfather. And so one weekend while studying at Eton, he saw on the front page of the Sunday Express that his mother had been jailed.
Perhaps the events galvanised Edith. Shortly after, her first poem – written on notepaper from Courtenhall, the family home of Joan Wake – was published in the Daily Mirror. Soon she had paid to have five poems published, and although a slight volume at only 10 pages, it was reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement in glowing terms: 'Sitwell does not describe, she lives in her verse.’
Her name spread and before long she started hosting literary salons, something that was to last for many decades. She published a regular anthology of poetry called Wheels, in which she promoted the talents of the likes of Aldous Huxley and Wilfred Owen. And she fell in love.
This first unconsummated affair was with a Chilean artist, Alvaro de Guevara, whose brother, Richard Greene notes, had gone mad, stabbed himself and then leapt to his death from a house in South Kensington, clutching an umbrella as a parachute. Edith claimed they been engaged until she was warned that he suffered from a serious venereal disease.
It’s an idea that the writer Harold Acton dismissed, saying rather cruelly that Edith was a 'sex-starved spinster all her life. She desperately needed someone to take her to bed, but I’m sure that no one ever did. Certainly if it did happen, which I doubt, he was an extremely courageous gentleman… dear Edith wasn’t exactly what you might call cuddly.’
Aged 70, she wept to her secretary Elizabeth Salter that she had never had a passionate relationship, but it is impossible, unnecessary even, to know. Or as one biographer put it: 'Edith was returned unopened.’
While her reputation as a poet gained in stature, she embarked on the more controversial and avant garde project of Façade. Osbert had suggested that a friend of Sacheverell’s from Oxford called William Walton, an as-yet-unknown organ scholar from Oldham, set some of her poems to music. (He may also have given her some rhythms to work with.) With a small orchestra of some seven musicians, the first public performance at the Aeolian Hall in London, with Edith reciting through a Sengerphone (an early megaphone), was, as she recalled in her autobiography, 'anything but peaceful. Never, I should think, was a larger and more imposing shower of brickbats hurled at any new work.’
The critics were savage. 'Drivel they paid to hear’ was one headline. Another paper remarked, 'Last night at the Aeolian Hall, through a megaphone we heard Edith bawl.’ As Osbert later commented, 'For several weeks subsequently we were obliged to go about London feeling as if we had committed a murder.’
Noël Coward, who had ostentatiously walked out during the performance, now parodied the Sitwells in a West End show called London Calling that featured the 'Swiss Family Whittlebot’. Edith was furious, almost relishing the rage she felt.
Coward apologised many years later and gave Edith a large sofa, the comfort of which I can attest to, having snoozed peacefully on it on many Sunday afternoons at the family home, Weston Hall in Northamptonshire, where my mother, Susanna, still lives.
Similarly, the Sitwells never forgave DH Lawrence, whose Lady Chatterley’s Lover, they were convinced, was drawn on them. Fiction-writing Clifford Chatterley’s estate resembled Renishaw, his aunt was like Lady Ida, a sister Emma like Edith, and the crippled and unsexed Clifford a portrait of Osbert.
Acutely sensitive to criticism, Edith devoured reviews of her work and then attempted to devour anyone who had the temerity to criticise her.
'All the Pipsqueakery are after me in full squeak,’ she said of hostile reviewers. While ensconced in the uncharacteristic surroundings of Hollywood in the 1950s writing a screenplay for Columbia, she was teased by the gossip columnist Hedda Hopper. On hearing of an outbreak of rabies in Los Angeles Edith said, 'I was told on good authority that this was due to the fact that Miss Hedda Hopper had pursued the dogs and succeeded in biting them.’
When Anthony Hartley criticised her in The Spectator she cabled the editor: 'Please have Anthony Hartley stuffed and put in a glass case at my expense.’
In the 1950s, to guard against cranks and unwanted company, Osbert and Edith compiled a form that would judge the lunacy of prospective visitors. Among other questions, it requested the 'Age, sex and weight of your wife’ and asked, 'Has any relative of yours ever been confined in a mental home?’ (With the supplementary question, 'If not, why not?’)
As Edith approached middle age so each publication saw more success. Of her Collected Poems one reviewer wrote, 'There are human chords, which remain and echo in the memory when other sounds have ebbed away.’ Fanfare for Elizabeth, her account of Elizabeth I, with whom she felt she shared many characteristics as well as a birthday, sold 19,000 in the first three weeks of publication.
Yet a melancholy pervades most of her work. She never gained real happiness, and the many letters – published in Greene’s book for the first time – to the other love of her life, the Russian painter Pavel Tchelitchew, are almost mournful in tone. Yet they also reveal her rare talent for language. Writing, for example, to Tchelitchew, with no anticipation of a wider audience, she talks of the peace she had found on the coast of Catalonia: 'The sea is just opposite my window, and makes a noise like the sound of a Bible being opened, and quantities of pages being turned over all at once.’ In spite of her success she remained poor and in old age had to sell her manuscripts to clear her overdraft.
Looking through cupboards and wardrobes at Weston Hall, I come across examples of her clothes. Long flowing robes, gowns, turbans and other headgear, and huge colourful rings that adorned her long fingers. She was, as the writer Elizabeth Bowen once commented, 'like an altar on the move’. In an interview on the celebrated BBC Face to Face series of interviews, she sits in haughty splendour, doubtless terrifying the meek interviewer John Freeman and secretly – I suspect – loving every minute of it, speaking of her dress sense. 'I can’t wear fashionable clothes,’ she opines. 'If I walked round in coats and skirts people would doubt the existence of the Almighty.’
Having inherited her collection of books from a dark attic at Weston Hall, I now have them on shelves in our library at home. I peruse the titles that inspired her: anthologies of poetry, travel guides, detective fiction and much more, not to mention her own works. There is the bravely anti-war and haunting Still Falls the Rain that dwells magnificently on the tragedy of air raids during the Blitz, literary works on the likes of Alexander Pope, her novel I Live Under a Black Sun, and her popular cornucopia English Eccentrics.
And in a collection of poems by the Welsh poet Brenda Chamberlain, I spot Edith’s own scrawl. 'God almighty,’ she writes on one page, her voice almost coming to life in my hands, 'what platitudinous pretentious rubbish.’
She is buried in the next village, the headstone adorned with the hands of a mother and child by Henry Moore. Behind her grave the countryside sweeps away peacefully into the distance. Engraved are the words from The Wind of Early Spring:

'The past and present are as one –
Accordant and discordant,
Youth and age,
And death and birth.
For out of one came all –
From all comes one.’
It’s surely time to look again at Edith Sitwell.

 Avant Garde Poet, English Genius – Edith Sitwell’ by Richard Greene.


The house that time forgot.

$
0
0
The house that time forgot: Hundreds of antiques discovered in country mansion where little has changed in 100 years
Auctioneers discovered a treasure trove of antiques inside The Hermitage
They discovered wine from 1914 and Champagne from 1919
Also discovered family photographs spanning almost 100 years
Contents of the house will be auctioned in 1,500 lots
By ANTHONY BOND

Antiques: Items untouched for almost 100 years were discovered amongst the 28 rooms in 18th Century mansion The Hermitage in Hexham, Northumberland
 Thousands of people have driven past this mansion over the years and looked at its impressive exterior.
But few could have imagined the secrets which the 18th Century building holds inside.
The mansion, called The Hermitage, in Northumberland, has been described as the house 'that time forgot'.
When auctioneers entered the home recently they discovered a treasure trove of antiques dating back 100 years.
Wine from 1914 was discovered along with Champagne from 1919. They also discovered a copy of a 1938  magazine as well as family photographs spanning almost 100 years.
Andrew McCoull, managing director of Newcastle based auction house Anderson & Garland, said: 'Time had stood still and the house took on the qualities of a museum. It was a once-in-a-career experience.
'The Hermitage must be one of Hexham's most important and certainly the most hidden home. Thousands will have driven past its entrance, totally oblivious of this fine mansion house.
'The children's toys in the nursery had been left intact. There were christening gowns and rattles sent from London, and charts kept by the children's nanny.
'In the cellars were unopened Champagne bottles from 1919, some in their original tissue paper and packing cases, and 1914 wine.
'Cosmetics and pharmaceutical items, from the 1920s and 1940s, crowded the medicine cupboard. There were diaries and household accounts giving insights into a bygone age of servants, while fishing and hunting records spoke of house parties.
'Clothes, including military uniforms, were hanging up as if they had just been taken off.
'In the library there was a copy of a 1938 edition of The Field magazine in the rack and there were family photographs spanning almost 100 years.

Secrets: The cellars of the house included unopened Champagne bottles from 1919, some in their original tissue paper, and wine from 1914
 'In the main bedroom there were wash bowl sets and rooms had wallpaper from the 1920s and 1930s.'
The house had been let by owners the Allgood family in 1922 to Brigadier General Hubert Horatio Morant, who had married Isabella Helen Coppin Straker in 1914.
Their three children, Doreen Shirley, who died earlier this year, Alice Bettine, who died in 2008, and Major John Locke Straker, who passed away in 1971, all remained unmarried.
The contents of the house on the edge of Hexham, described by Mr McCoull as a 'treasure trove', will be auctioned in 1,500 lots at Anderson & Garland's Newcastle base from June 18-21.
Stored away were also Brigadier General Morant's diaries and letters to his wife from the First World War.
'What was striking was the enormity of it all, the sheer quantity of memorabilia and ephemera which would normally have been thrown out and which told how a family in the inter-war years lived, and what they did,' said Mr McCoull.

Impressive: Thousands of people would have driven past this stunning house over the years, but few could have guessed about its treasures inside
 'The Hermitage is a rare survival of a house on a grand scale where the Morant family lived for 90 years and threw little away.
'Items no longer required were neatly wrapped in newspaper, tied with string and stored in the extensive attics. The contents offer us a rare glimpse of life in the inter-war period.
'Only once in a career are you fortunate enough to see a home such as this which has been inhabited but - highly unusually - also left alone to this extent.
'With the sheer scale of the property, the family's possessions could be stored in different cupboards, rooms, lofts and buildings and little was ever disposed of.
'As such, stepping into The Hermitage has been like stepping back in time. The sisters were characters and involved in the community.'
Simon Morant, a cousin of the family, said: 'Following the death of Brigadier General Morant and his wife, their son and two daughters stayed at the property until they also died.
'I knew the two Miss Morants, Doreen and Bettine, and had the opportunity to go around the property. That said, even I was not aware to what extent their goods and belongings had accumulated.
'We have taken some of the more poignant things from the estate, including letters from 1840 between my family and theirs, but we very much hope that the remainder of the belongings go somewhere where they will be appreciated.'


For sale: The contents of the house on the edge of Hexham, described as a 'treasure trove' will be auctioned in 1,500 lots in Newcastle

Ancient: Pharmaceutical items from the 1920s crowded this medicine cupboard

Hidden: This now empty 18th Century building had become a time capsule. This image shows the inside of one of the rooms


Persol - Made By Hand

Bouge Blog | Persol: A Work of Art

PERSOL ...

$
0
0

Persol is an Italian luxury eyewear company specializing in sunglasses. The name is derived from "per il sole," which, in Italian, means "for the sun." Formed in 1917 by Giuseppe Ratti, Persol originally catered to pilots and sports drivers. Presently, the company is famous for its durable sports sunglasses. Its trademark is the silver arrow (often referred to as the "Supreme Arrow"), and several of the company's glasses feature this symbol.
Persol was a heavy influence in the production of sunglasses. The company developed the first flexible stem. This flexible stem system is known as the patented Meflecto system and was one of the first spring hinges ever developed for eyewear. Persol was introduced to the United States in 1962. Its first boutique opened on Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles in 1991. It is currently owned by the Luxottica group. Currently all "plastic" Persol eyewear is hand crafted in Italy using cellulose acetate, a hypoallergenic material derived from cotton.
Steve McQueen popularized two Persol models: the 714 folding sunglasses and closely styled 649. He wore a special pair of 714's with blue lenses inThe Thomas Crown Affair and was often photographed wearing the 649 model. Persol models 2244-S and 2720-S were both worn by Daniel Craig in the James Bond film Casino Royale. Pierce Brosnan wore Persol model 2672-S as James Bond in the film Die Another Day and then Persol model 2720-S in Mamma Mia! Don Johnson wore a Persol 69218 during Season Three of Miami Vice.
Persol sunglasses have also been used in other movies, Bill Murray can be seen wearing them in both Lost in Translation and Broken Flowers. One of the most iconic images of Persol sunglasses can be seen in the movie Divorce Italian Style where Marcello Mastroianni wears a pair of black 649s; Mastroianni also has a pair of Persol sunglasses on in almost every scene in the movie La Dolce Vita. In addition Nicolas Cage wears them in Lord of War. Robert Culp, as Kelly Robinson, in the iconic I Spy TV series in the 1960s sported Persols 2656S in many episodes. InMission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol Tom Cruise can be seen wearing a 2978 model. In Entourage Season 7 premiere Ari Gold played by Jeremy Piven wears Persol 2958S. Stephen Dorff can be seen wearing them in Sofia Coppola's Somewhere_(film). Ryan Gosling and Patrick Dempsey have been spotted wearing the PO2994S.



Turin 1917, Giuseppe Ratti, photographer and owner of Berry Opticians, began an adventure destined to lead to international success. Indeed, it was in a small courtyard in Via Caboto that he began to make technically advanced glasses, designed to satisfy the demands of pilots and sports drivers who required comfort, protection and optimum vision.

Subsequent development of the Protector model, guided by an intuition and determination to create truly revolutionary sunglasses in terms of quality and ease of wearing, led to the creation of the Persol trademark (Persol from “per il sole” meaning “for the sun”, highlighting their function of protection against the sun’s rays).

The extraordinary characteristics of this innovative product were its neat design, crystal lenses (the pride of Persol), the Silver Arrow (both a functional detail and unmistakable decorative element) and the Meflecto patent, a system studied to make the stems flexible and offer maximum comfort.

The late 1930s saw the introduction of the Meflecto system, the world’s first flexible stem that is still today a distinctive feature of the Persol brand. The stem’s flexibility derives from the introduction of nylon or metal cylinders intersected by a stainless steel core providing absolute comfort and adaptability to any face.

This period also marked the creation of Persol Victor Flex, an application of the Meflecto concept. A real fountain of technology, the glasses were equipped with a flexible bridge (the "3-notch bridge", still used today in model 649) that creates a comfortable curve and improves fitting. A further internal metal reinforcement is applied to the stems of new models to allow their adjustment both in length and curving.

This period also marked the birth of the Silver Arrow, Persol’s unmistakable symbol: a hinge decorated with an arrow on the stem, inspired by the swords of ancient warriors. This innovation, born of Ratti’s intuition, was immediately patented in several countries.

Various versions of the arrow followed until development and technical and design adjustments led to the “Supreme” arrow, that still today distinguishes the Persol trademark. As both a functional detail and decorative element, the arrow soon brought Persol international recognition (and copying) of its very particular style.

Model 649, built for tram drivers in Turin who needed large glasses to protect their eyes against the air and dust, was created in 1957. The novelty of its design made it a very successful pair of glasses, copied over the years by many competitors, and in 1961 they entered into legend when Marcello Mastroianni wore them in the film “Divorce Italian Style”.

Protected by several patents and registered trademarks, model 649 (still today of great relevance and present in collections) represents the symbol par excellence of Persol design. Thanks to its particularity, in a 1994 French book entitled “Qualità: scènes d'objets à l'italienne" it was included among the objects most representative of the Italian creative genius of yesterday and today.


In the 1960s Persol became a source of real pride for Italian industry. Production was extended to work goggles - the Labor model were protective goggles for welding, with specific filters for various uses. It was a highly researched and specialized line, holding over 35 international patents, that took the Persol brand name to the top of the world’s eyewear industry.

1962 was the year in which the United States market was conquered (though Persol had already been supplying NASA with the “four-lens” model).

At that time Persol glasses were more and more often being worn by top personalities of the period, not only pilots and sportsmen but also film and television stars such as Greta Garbo and Steve McQueen, who chose Persol both on the set and in everyday life.

The 1980s extended the considerable attention that Persol had always paid to technological innovation and care for its products. Indeed, it took part in several expeditions to test its lenses at high altitudes and in the desert, verifying their performance in extreme conditions, and to experiment with the use of innovative materials.
http://www.persol.com/International/ 

Niki Feijen ... A Very Special Photographer ...

$
0
0
“ I was born in 1977 in Eindhoven, located in the south of The Netherlands. Although it’s not my profession, I’ve been experimenting with photography ever since I was a kid. After a diversity of photography directions (Landscapes, Sports, Concerts), I discovered Urbex photography.
Urbex, short for Urban Exploring is according to Wikipedia: The examination of the normally unseen or off-limits parts of urban areas or industrial facilities. So basically visiting and photographing abandoned buildings, tunnels, industry, castles etc. Most of my shots are HDR shots, short for High Dynamic Range. HDR is perfect for low light locations but it has to be subtle. Besides Urbex, I have this crazy stairs addiction. I can spend hours underneath a staircase just to take that one awesome shot. A stairwell or an atmospheric urbex shot can turn into something very special, almost a piece of art. That’s the exactly what I want to show people; the beauty of decay, the Art of Urbex. “ ~ Niki Feijen


Family life frozen in time: Eerie images of the abandoned farm houses where even the beds are still made
Photographer Niki Feijen specialises in urban exploration; capturing boarded-up buildings and decaying farm houses
Images reveal furniture and clothes that remain in decaying homes where owners have long since departed
By KERRY MCDERMOTT
PUBLISHED: 09:07 GMT, 30 April 2013 | UPDATED: 06:57 GMT, 1 May 2013


From the pile of books in the bedside cabinet to the neatly folded duvet, this bedroom looks almost ready for its owner to turn in for the night.
Aside, that is, from the peeling walls, patches of damp, and the thick layer of filth shrouding everything in the room.
The eerie photograph is part of a series by Dutch photographer Niki Feijen, who has captured furniture, ornaments and clothes frozen in time in homes where the owners have long since departed.

The photographer specialises in urban exploration; going beyond 'do not enter' signs to document boarded-up houses and dilapidated buildings across western Europe.

His Disciple of Decay series features abandoned family homes that must once have been filled with conversation and laughter, but now house only the crumbling belongings of their former occupants.
One picture shows a bedroom that remains almost exactly as it was left, from the paintings hanging on the walls, to a television on a chest of drawers and a lace covering on the dressing table.
Another reveals a darkened living room with ornaments lining a sideboard, and a pair of shoes resting on the floor in front of an empty armchair.

Other images capture buildings in far worse states of repair, from the crumbling ceiling in a once-grand piano room, to a rotting table and chairs in an abandoned farmhouse.

Empty: The bed is still covered by a neatly folded duvet in this abandoned farm house - but it's unlikely anybody would want to sleep in it


Frozen in time: The occupants of this abandoned farm house are long gone, but their belongings remain; from the paintings hanging on the walls to the neatly made bed

Remains of a life: An old-fashioned baby carriage stands before a smeared window in an empty building that once housed a young family

Forlorn: A pair of shoes sit in front of an empty armchair and ornaments remain above the fireplace in this abandoned home

Religious: Layers of blankets remain on the bed in the empty farmhouse, which is still surrounded by crosses and statues of Jesus belonging to its former owner

Faded grandeur: Dutch photographer Niki Feijen specialises in urban exploration; capturing the abandoned and decaying buildings that lie behind 'do not enter' signs

Remnants of family life: A table and chairs discovered inside what was once the dining room of this now dilapidated farmhouse in western Europe
Grand: The photographer captured the soaring glass ceiling and detailed brickwork of this vast abandoned building


Ghostly: This eerie photograph captures the dusty pews and peeling walls inside a boarded up church

Disused: Ignore the dust, dirt and peeling walls, and this room is almost ready for a family to sit down to a cup of tea

Old-fashioned: Many of the buildings captured in the series are dotted with items left behind by their former owners

Mould: Beds feature heavily in the Disciple of Decay series, as do religious pictures and crosses

Ready to move in: Aside from the slightly peeling walls, this still-grand room is in almost perfect condition

Crumbling: Mr Feijen, 35, who has been experimenting with photography since he was a child, said he also has an obsession with taking pictures of staircases

Well-loved: A dusty toy doll sits in a decaying leather armchair in front of a stained glass window

Former splendour: Sunlight beaming through holes in the roof highlights the faded grandeur of this dilapidated building

Princess ...

$
0
0

Princess Pushy: The Fabulous Life of Princess Michael of Kent.

By Elizabeth Kerri Mahon / http://scandalouswoman.blogspot.nl/2008/08/princess-pushy-fabulous-life-of.html

She's tall, blonde and striking, married to a handsome prince, a member of The Royal Family. She's also haughty, gaffe (she once complained "The English distrust foreigners, they think the wogs begin at Calais") prone, and been linked to other men. Princess Anne dubbed her 'Princess Pushy' and the Queen once remarked mischievously to her husband's uncle, Lord Mountbatten 'that she sounds a bit grand to us.' Also known amongst the Royal Family as "Our Val" for Valkryie, Princess Margaret's son was said when asked what he would wish on his worst enemy, 'Dinner with Princess Michael of Kent.' The media have dubbed her the "Rent-a-Kents," for their habit of turning up at the opening of an envelope.
Who is this woman that has provoked such a sharp reaction in both the establishment and the media? How did the wife of a minor royal become such a lighting rod for bad behavior in a family where Prince Charles's youngest son once wore the uniform of a Nazi to a costume party (apparently he had no idea why that was such a no-no. And they say that Americans no nothing about history!), and the Duchess of York was caught getting her toes sucked by her financial advisor?
 If you go to Princess Michael of Kent's web-site, you can trace her ancestry all the way back to Diane de Poitiers, along with Catherine the Great, Marie Antoinette and William the Conqueror. Quite a family for the former Marie Christine von Reibnitz or to be accurate Baroness Marie Christine Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz as she was born on January 15, 1945 in Carlsbad which is now part of the Czech Republic. Her mother was an Austro-Hungarian Countess, and her father Baron Gunther Hubertus von Reibnitz.
 Her parents split up and her father moved to Mozambique while her mother decamped to Australia with Marie Christine and her younger brother Friedrich, where she ran a hair salon (makes one wonder where Princess Michael picked up her Eurotrash accent!). While growing up in Sydney, the future Princess Michael attended Catholic schools. After graduation, she headed off to Africa to finally get reacquainted with her long absent father. Marie Christine made her way to London where she did a course at the Victoria and Albert Museum and worked as an interior decorator. "Deep down inside me I always hear my mother's words: 900 years of breeding must be worth something."
 She met her first husband, banker and Old Etonian, Thomas Troubridge, the younger brother of baronet Sir Peter Troubridge at a boar hunt of all places in Germany. They were married in 1971 and seperated two years later, although they didn't divorce until 1977. The marriage was later annulled in 1978 for undisclosed reasons but Marie-Christine was not allowed communion until she remarried in a Catholic ceremony which she and Prince Michael eventually did in 1983.
 In the meantime, Marie Christine met her future second husband, Prince Michael of Kent while hunting (sense a theme?). "I was struck by this tall Austrian lady. I remember we had a long talk about the history of art while sitting in a hut eating sausages,' he has remarked. Her first impression was a little different. 'I just thought he was the funniest man I'd ever met. ' According to Princess Michael, they were friends first given that she was married, and Prince Michael was in another relationship. The prince would 'accidentally' run into her during early-morning rides in Richmond Park before he went to work at the Ministry of Defence. She would flatter his ego and spoil him which none of his English girlfriends had thought to do.
 It was apparently that wily old matchmaker Lord Mountbatten who got them together by telling both Prince Michael and Marie Christine that the other was really keen on them, which then sparked their mutual interest. "One day Lord Mountbatten said to Michael, 'By the way, what are you going to do about that young woman?' He answered, 'Why should I do anything?' 'She's madly in love with you', came the reply. Then I too saw Lord Mountbatten and he said: 'What are you going to do about that young man? He's madly in love with you.' For all we knew, he believed it. I don't know but from then on we began to look at each other a little differently."
They married in June 30, 1978 in a civil ceremony in Vienna. Prince Michael had to give up his place in the succession since due to the Act of Succession of 1701 (at the time he was 15th in line for the throne), as no member of the Royal family can marry a Catholic and keep their place in the line of succession (their children Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella were raised Anglican, and thus are still in the line of succession, although way down on the list, 31 and 32 respectively). Princess Michael has been quite vocal about how in the dark ages the attitude is, "They can marry a Moonie, A Seven-Day Adventist, a Scientologist, A Muslim. " (Okay, I have to agree with her on this one. If the heir to the throne can marry a divorcee that he had a thirty year affair with, I think they can bend and get rid of that Roman Catholic clause.)
Since then, Princess Michael has put her court shoes in her mouth more often than not. She attributes it to the fact that at 6ft tall in her stocking feet, she's hard to miss. Others put it down to her sense of entitlement. One of the first blows was the revelation that Princess Michael of Kent's father had not only been a member of the Nazi party but had also been in the SS, where he held the rank of Sturmbannfuhrer or "Assault Unit Leader" during the Second World War, although she produced papers that proved that he had actually been expelled from the party in 1944 (one wonders what he did to get the Nazi's to kick him out!)
Then there were the charges of plagiarism on her first two books Crowned in a Far Country, and Cupid and the King, which Princess Michael claims wasn't her fault but the fault of one of her researchers who didn't properly right down where the offending passages came from. In another interview, she allegedly claimed that she had more royal blood in her vieins than any person to marry into the royal family since Prince Philip. She's also a cat lover, in a family that adores dogs, particularly corgis. When she once complained about a cat being mauled by a corgi, she was promptly put in her place.
 Her most famous moment stuffing those size 11's in her mouth came in 2004 while dining at Da Silvano, a restaurant much favored by celebrities in Greenwich Village. Objecting to the noise level at a table of black diners near hers, she first slammed her hand down on their table and allegedly told them to "Get back to the colonies," as she and her party were moved to another table. One of the women at the table, Nicole Young confronted the Princess about her remark. Prince Michael is reported to have replied "I did not say 'back to the colonies' - I said 'you should remember the colonies.' Back in the days of the colonies there were rules that were very good. You think about it. Just think about it." The New York Post reported that the diners thought that the remark was racist. She subsequently denied the charge. Her later explanation was that she had merely told one of her fellow dinner companions that she would be glad to go back to the colonies in order to escape the noise. In another article, she complained that she couldn't possibly be racist because she had once darkened her skin and pretended to be half-caste while traveling through Africa after a visit to her father.
 In September 2005, she was caught on tape complaining about the Royal Family after a News of the World reporter pretendedto be a sheik, gained her confidence while pretending to be a buyer for her home Nether Lypiatt. In her defense, she wasn't the first royal to be caught out this way, Prince Edward's wife, Sophie Wessex too fell into the trapin 2001, which ended her PR career. While most of Princess Michael of Kent's revelations were pretty harmless (calling Princess Diana a 'nasty' and 'bitter' woman, who had been married merely as a 'womb'), it was her defense of Prince Harry for wearing the Swastika that really raised eyebrows. "But I believe that if he had been wearing the Hammer and Sickle there wouldn't have been so much fuss made." Recently Princess Michael has gone on record talking about how much smarter her children are then the other royals, having better education and a better degree than Prince William (Lord Frederick went to Oxford while Lady Ella graduated from Brown).
 Princess Michael has a reputation for being someone who cultivates people who can and are willing to be generous in order to have a royal at their table (hence the nickname 'Rent-A-Kents'). She once convinced British Airways to lay on a special plane to ferry her from Manchester airport to London for a private engagement! She has also accepted gifts like a 150,000 pound building plot in Antigua from tycoon Peter de Savary and a 115,000 racehorse from another admirer. Since she and her husband receive no funds from the civil list, they are forced to actually work for a living. Prince Michael has his own consultancy business, and is fluent in several languages with a particular flair for Russian, which is appropriate for someone related to the Romanov's. He also holds several paid directorships with companies in the City. Princess Michael recently took a job as President of Partridge Fine Art, a gallery in New Bond Street. She has also given lectures around the world on various subjects related to her three books, however after her remarks at Da Silvano, there were fewer invites from the lucrative American market. Although they have no official duties, Princess Michael clearly likes to look and travel in royal style. She admits to having had botox which doesn't come cheap.
 "I live in the 18th century in my mind," she once told an interviewer. "I see my whole life as a cultivation of taste. " Ah yes, when Royalty lived in splendid palaces, before a little thing called the French revolution! Unfortunately for the Kents, times are different. They were given a grace and favor apartment in Kensington Palace when they married (at various times royals from Princess Diana to Princess Margaret have lived at the Palace). However, in recent years, the public have complained about the fact that the Kents were paying only 67 pounds a week for the flat. The Queen stepped in and agreed to pay 10,000 pounds a month until 2010 by which time the Kents have to find another place to live. They've also had to sell their Cotswolds country estate Nether Lypiatt because of the upkeep, they received almost $11MM for the house.
 Rumors about Princess Michael of Kent's marriage to Prince Michael started almost as soon as they were married. In 1985, she was seen leaving the apartment of Texas oil millionaire J. Ward Hunt wearing a rather tragic red wig, and there were rumors of her canoodling in a New York movie theater with Senator John Warner, ex-husband of Elizabeth Taylor. In 2006, she was seen holding hands, kissing, and taking romantic gondola rides with a Russian millionaire Mikhail Kravchenko, who the media were happy to report was 21 years younger, while on a trip to Venice, where they stayed in adjoining $4,000 a night rooms at the 5-star Hotel Cipriani. Princess Michael's explanation was that she holds hands and kisses all her friends, and that they were discussing business.
 Until recently, it was assumed that Princess Michael of Kent wore the pants in the family and Prince Michael was just her mild-mannered hen-pecked hubby (shades of Sunny and Tsar Nicholas II who Prince Michael resembles). "She doesn't henpeck him, she lion-claws him," said a close friend. But it appears that still waters run deep. Recently, in the press, he was seen around town with an attractive blonde named Marianne Krex who is 30 years his junior. They even attended the ballet together with Marianne hiding her face from the cameras with her jacket. This isn't the first time that Prince Michael has been seen with a female friend. The ballet dancer Bryony Brind and historian Leonie Frieda are just two of the women he's been seen with without Princess Michael of Kent. Apparently Prince Michael is a regular at Julie's restaurant and bar where he takes many female 'friends. Lucy Weber, an American artist, is shopping around her memoirs, alleging that she and Prince Michael had an affair for 8 years. The artist kept a diary about her lover with such entries as "He loves sex pure, unadulterated. He thinks about it quite a bit during his working hours - loves white suspenders, beige or tan. His sexual senses are keen and he has a vivid imagination." Princess Michael went on the offense immediately, stating that her husband was not having an affair and that it was her idea for him to take Marianne Krex to the ballet. She also labels Lucy Weber as a fantasist.
 If it is true, then the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Prince Michael's father, the Duke of Kent, cut a wide swathe through society in the 1920's before his marraige to Princess Marina of Greece. He was alleged to have had affairs with everyone from the black singer Florence Mills to a 19 year affair with Noel Coward, there were even rumors of an illegitimate child, possibly Michael Canfield, Lee Radizwill's first husband. There were also rumors that he was addicted to drugs, cocaine and heroine, and that his cousin, the Prince of Wales used tough love to get him off. Prince Michael's mother, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, was no slouch in the lover department either, having had affairs (allegedly) with the conductor Sir Malcolm Sargent and the black society pianist Leslie Hutchinson. Prince Michael's niece Lady Helen Taylor was once known by the horrible nickname 'Melons' due to her ample cleavage, and was considered a bit of a party girl during the 1980's. Even Prince Michael's son, Lord Frederick has admitted dabbling in drugs at college.
 Of course, it is possible that Prince and Princess Michael are innocent of any infidelity, that the friendships are simply what they say they are. After 30 years of marriage this past June, it is clear that they have come to some kind of understanding and contentment. Whatever the truth, it is clear that Princess Michael likes the perks and privileges that come from being a member of the Royal family, no matter how minor.
 Perhaps Princess Michael herself says it best. "They will always have to have a bad girl in the family..but I'm not going to have sleepless nights worrying about what the good citizens of Newcastle are thinking about me."



 Controversies. ( Wikipedia)

 The media claim she once declared to an American fashion magazine that she had "more royal blood in her veins than any person to marry into the royal family since Prince Philip". She is also reported to have said she was "probably the first tall person to marry into the clan" (also true if males are discounted; Princess Michael stands about six feet (1.83 m) tall). The Queen reportedly has referred to her as "Our Val", a reference to the warrior-like Valkyries, and – sarcastically – as "a bit too grand for" the rest of the royal family.
In May 2004 she was in the news when a group of black diners in a New York restaurant alleged that the Princess had told them to "get back to the colonies" when complaining about their noise – an accusation she denied, though it made headlines around the world. Her account of the story was that she remarked to one of her fellow dinner guests that she would be glad to go back to the colonies in order to escape her noisy neighbours. She later described her accusers as a "group of rappers". This was untrue; the group consisted of an investment banker, a music mogul, a reporter, a television fashion correspondent, and a lawyer.
In February 2005 she gave a series of interviews to promote her book, in one of which she claimed that Britons should be more concerned about the bloodlines of their children, and claimed that the British media were "excited" by Prince Harry's decision to wear a swastika for a fancy dress party because "of the ownership structure" of the British press. She claimed that the press would not have been so concerned had he worn a hammer and sickle, which "stands for Stalin and gulag and pogrom and devastation".
In September 2005, she appeared in the news again, after the News of the World reporter Mazher Mahmood apparently gained her confidence and claimed that she made a number of intemperate remarks, including calling Diana, Princess of Wales, "bitter" and "nasty".
On hearing that the research of Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth seems to indicate that rank among female baboons is hereditary, the Princess said, "I always knew that when people who aren’t like us claim that hereditary rank is not part of human nature, they must be wrong. Now you’ve given me evolutionary proof!"


Mikhail Kravchenko, Russian tycoon friend of Princess Michael of Kent, shot dead in Moscow
A long-standing friend of Princess Michael of Kent was found shot dead in a Moscow suburb yesterday morning.

The royal was said to be "very distressed" last night after the Russian tycoon Mikhail Kravchenko was found in a pool of blood beside his Mercedes in an apparent contract killing.
Police said the killing appeared to be carried out by two professional gunmen who knew his whereabouts.
The 46–year–old furniture company tycoon was said to have been driving at around 2am just yards from a home in the suburb of Peredelkino that he had built for his parents, when he was overtaken and the road blocked.
He was then shot five times in the body before being dragged from his car and shot in the head. There was speculation over whether his death may have been linked to a business dispute.
A source reportedly said: "We cannot rule out the common scenario for such shootings – a debt he couldn't repay or a dispute over the ownership of a company or property."
Simon Astaire, a spokesman for the Kents, told a newspaper: "Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are very distressed to hear of this tragedy."
Mr Kravchencko was pictured holding hands with the princess, 67, during a holiday in Venice six years ago. The princess spoke about their relationship in an interview with Hello! magazine.
She said: "The true nature of our relationship is that it is a very good friendship. I hold hands with all my friends. I don't think that's being intimate at all. I'm a very tactile person – I do it all the time."
Mr Kravchenko also denied claims of an affair, saying: "We (the princess and I) have just normal human relations. We are friends."


Support: Russian exile Boris Berezovsky said there was nothing underhand in the money he had given.

So why did a controversial Russian oligarch give Queen's cousin Prince Michael £320,000 through offshore companies?
The 56 payments, worth between £5,000 and £15,000, were made between 2002 and 2008
Money channeled through a private firm run by Prince Michael's Old Etonian private secretary
By SAM GREENHILL


The Queen’s cousin Prince Michael of Kent has been secretly receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds from Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky.
Dozens of payments worth at least £320,000 from the exiled tycoon  were channelled through offshore companies.
Prince Michael is already known for accepting charity from the Queen who started paying the rent at Kensington Palace when MPs wanted to evict him and Princess Michael of Kent.
But now the royal, dubbed the ‘pauper prince’, faces questions about whether he has offered anything in return for the billionaire Russian’s money.
His spokesman yesterday said ‘absolutely not’, adding: ‘Mr Berezovsky has known the prince since the early 1990s and has a high regard for the prince’s work. He therefore chose to be supportive over a period which ended some years ago.’
A friend of the oligarch suggested he simply wanted to be a part of high society, and his friendship with Prince Michael gave him coveted access.
Mr Berezovsky was a key figure in the Kremlin before falling out with Vladimir Putin and seeking asylum in Britain 12 years ago. He became friends with Prince Michael – a distant cousin of the last tsar, Nicholas II – and the pair have frequently dined together at Kensington Palace.
High Court papers reveal that a fund controlled by the Russian made 56 payments worth between £5,000 and £15,000 to a company run by Prince Michael’s private secretary.
The money was paid every two to three weeks between 2002 and 2008.
Mr Berezovsky told The Sunday Times: ‘There is nothing underhand or improper about the financial assistance I have given Prince Michael. It is a matter between friends.’
Yesterday sources close to the prince said the money was used to pay for ‘his staff, his office and his private secretary’.
Although a member of the Royal Family, Prince Michael does not receive money from the public purse, and his money worries have been previously well publicised.
His wife – nicknamed ‘Princess Pushy’ by the rest of the Royal Family – once said she would ‘go anywhere for a hot meal’. In 2000, two years before the first payment from Mr Berezovsky, the prince’s consultancy firm Cantium Services was reported to have had debts of £200,000.
The financial support from Mr Berezovsky went to Bulmer Investments, a private firm run by private secretary Nicholas Chance, an Old Etonian. The oligarch made his fortune during the Russian state privatisation programme in the 1990s.
A Moscow court convicted him in 2007 in his absence of embezzling £4.4million and branded him a member of an ‘organised crime group’. But Mr Berezovsky has dismissed the ruling as farce trumped up by his enemies in the Kremlin. The Russian government has tried and failed to extradite him to Moscow.
Simon Astaire, the prince’s spokesman, said the royal was ‘absolutely not’ giving anything in return for the money, which he claimed funded ‘cultural and charitable activities’.
He said: ‘The way this arrangement was processed is a private matter, but suffice to say that it was conducted properly and, for example, all appropriate tax was paid.’
The first payment to the prince in 2002 coincided with criticism from an MPs committee about the £69 a week rent the prince paid for his Kensington Palace home. The Queen later stepped in with a personal subsidy of £100,000 a year to pay a market rent.
Prince and Princess Michael had to sell their eight bedroom mansion in Gloucestershire in 2006 for £5.75million to cut their costs. They have faced claims they used their titles to get free trips and boost their income, earning them the nickname ‘Rent-a-Kents’. In 2010 it emerged taxpayers were footing a £250,000-a-year bill for armed police protection for the royal couple, even though they carry out no official duties.
Prince Michael is allowed to take up to three officers with him on his numerous business trips to foreign destinations such as Moscow and China. Princess Michael has long had expensive tastes, and spends a fortune on fine antiques and paintings. She also found herself exposed by a reporter from the now-defunct News of the World as being available at around £25,000 for appearances such as opening a shopping centre in Dubai.
Details of the payments by Mr Berezovsky come ahead of a case in which the Russian is suing the family of a former  partner in a £2billion battle. He is pursuing the widow of Badri Patarkatsishvili, a Georgian tycoon who died in 2008.
The case follows Mr Berezovsky’s high profile £3.5billion legal action against fellow Russian Roman Abramovich. Judgment in his case against the Chelsea FC owner has yet to be handed down.


Princess Michael 'told black diners to go back to colonies'

By Marcus Warren in New York12:05AM BST 27 May 2004/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1462995/Princess-Michael-told-black-diners-to-go-back-to-colonies.html

 Princess Michael of Kent was accused last night of insulting a party of black diners at a smart New York restaurant with a racist slur, allegedly telling them to "go back to the colonies".
The reported outburst made the controversial member of the Royal Family a hate figure in the city, where she was depicted as a jumped-up aristocrat offending American ideals of equality and racial harmony.
"Royal Bigot", screamed a tabloid, describing the incident as "Pushy Princess Rage" and labelling her the House of Windsor's "equivalent to trailer trash".
Her spokesman denied that she made the remarks but not before they had passed into local lore.
"She needs help," said Merv Matheson, a Wall Street banker who claimed to have felt the whiplash of the princess's tongue. "She has a problem and that problem is racism."
Another member of the group, AJ Callaway, a television reporter, said he had no idea who the woman arguing with them was. "I thought she was just a crazy woman. I still think she's a crazy woman," he said.
The row centred on the princess's confrontation with a group of five black guests at an adjoining table at Da Silvano, where she was with two friends on Monday evening.
She is alleged to have said "Enough already!" and slammed her palm down on their table, apparently disturbed by their behaviour. "You need to quiet down."
The restaurant's owner, Silvano Marchetto, offered to move the princess's party to a separate room. But before she switched tables she is alleged to have leant over to the group, supposedly pumping her fist, and said: "You need to go back to the colonies."
"That she would make a comment like that. I was fuming," said Nicole Young, a PR consultant, one of the targets of the alleged snub.
Miss Young later demanded an explanation. The princess is supposed to have replied: "I did not say 'back to the colonies', I said you 'should remember the colonies'. Back in the days of the colonies there were rules that were very good."
"You think about it," she reportedly told Miss Young. "Just think about it."
According to the princess's spokesman, Simon Astaire, the clash was provoked by the loud behaviour and swearing of the table of five.
Born of German nobility, Princess Michael once famously accused the British of being racist. "I will never become British even if I live here the rest of my life," she said during an interview in the mid-1980s. "The English distrust foreigners."
If she hoped that her latest alleged remarks would pass unnoticed, she picked the wrong restaurant. A New York institution, Da Silvano is a favourite haunt of such grandes dames as Anna Wintour, the editor of US Vogue, and Nicole Kidman.
Celebrities are scattered through the room at lunch and dinner, sampling a Tuscan menu that yesterday included delicacies such as carre' di renna (rack of elk) and anatra muta (vertically roasted duck).
Mr Marchetto, whose restaurant celebrates its 30th birthday next year, later apologised to the black diners for the princess's behaviour.

"The phrase was trying to be funny but it wasn't so funny, maybe," he said. "If someone told me to go back to Italy, I would be offended, too."

Diana Trailer 2013 Naomi Watts - Princess Diana Movie - Official [HD]

$
0
0
Princess Diana Trailer 2013 - Official movie trailer in HD - starring Naomi Watts, Naveen Andrews, Douglas Hodge, Juliet Stevenson - directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel - the last two years of Princess Diana's life: her campaign against land mines and her relationship with surgeon Dr Hasnat Khan.


"Diana" movie hits theaters September 20, 2013.

From the director of the Academy Award-nominated Downfall, Oliver Hirschbiegel and writer Stephen Jeffreys ("The Libertine") , the film stars two time Academy Award-nominee Naomi Watts ("The Impossible," "J. Edgar," "21 Grams," "Mulholland Drive") and Naveen Andrews ("LOST," "The English Patient"). Currently in post-production, the romantic story explores the last two years of beloved Princess Diana's life and her relationship with heart surgeon Dr. Hasnat Khan. The film is produced by Ecosse Films' Robert Bernstein and Douglas Rae. Diana trailer 2013 is presented in full HD 1080p high resolution.

DIANA 2013 Movie
Genre: Biography, Drama
Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Starring: Naomi Watts, Naveen Andrews, Douglas Hodge, Juliet Stevenson


Diana official movie trailer courtesy eOne.
Streaming Trailer is your daily dose of new movies. Our passionate team of producers brings to you the best of officially licensed movie trailers, clips and featurettes.
Tags: "diana trailer" "diana 2013 trailer" "princess diana trailer 2013" "diana 2013 trailer official" diana trailer 2013 official hd 2012 movie "diana trailer 2013" "diana 2013" new "diana trailer naomi watts" "diana movie" "naomi watts" "naveen andrews" "oliver hirschbiegel" "douglas hodge" naomi watts naveen andrews oliver hirschbiegel douglas hodge "movie trailer" "film trailer" "official trailer" "trailer 2013" movies trailers film films today week month year teaser "teaser trailer" "2013 trailer" "trailer official" "trailer hd" "princess diana" princess "hasnat khan" hasnat khan "princess diana movie trailer" "princess diana movie"


Boss Women: Anna Wintour (2000)


"The September Issue" - Official Trailer [HQ HD]

Remembering the Anna Wintour / The Devil Wears Prada / The September Issue ... question.

$
0
0


The Cameras Zoom In on Fashion’s Empress
By MANOHLA DARGIS

“The September Issue,” a documentary about the creation of a single, very fat issue of American Vogue in a far-off gilded age (i.e., 2007), has little to say about fashion, the real ins and outs of publishing or the inner workings and demons of the magazine’s notoriously demanding meanie-in-chief, Anna Wintour. Rather, this entertaining, glib movie is about the maintenance of a brand that Ms. Wintour has brilliantly cultivated since she assumed her place at the top of the editorial masthead in 1988 and which the documentary’s director, R. J. Cutler, has helped polish with a take so flattering he might as well work there.
To judge from the flurries of behind-the-scenes evidence, however, if Mr. Cutler did work for the exacting Ms. Wintour he would still be doing reshoots. Shot on digital with an eye for sumptuous color by Bob Richman and briskly edited by Azin Samari, the 88-minute movie opens with Ms. Wintour explaining that “there is something about fashion that can make people very nervous.” Certainly she unnerves her staff, as you soon see from all the huddled bodies and popping eyes. Even the more self-possessed, like Candy Pratts Price, seem in the grip of awe. Is Ms. Wintour the “high priestess” of the magazine, an off-camera voice asks. “I would say pope,” Ms. Price says with a queasy smile.

Many will grasp this distinction, having already watched supplicants kiss the ring in the 2006 film “The Devil Wears Prada,” with Meryl Streep as a thinly disguised, fictionalized and Americanized version of Ms. Wintour. Etched in acid and often hilarious, the performance, while not wholly modeled on Ms. Wintour, helped humanize her public profile, lessening the sting of the original book, a roman à clef by one of her former assistants, Lauren Weisberger. The documentary continues this humanization largely by showing Ms. Wintour very hard at work, rather lonely and sensitive about her British family’s low opinion of fashion. She’s a poor little rich girl swaddled in fur and iced to the bone.

She’s also pretty funny, perhaps at times accidentally so. Much of the movie’s pleasure comes from the utter ease with which Ms. Wintour plays the Red Queen of fashion and orders off with their heads (and even tummies). In the case of the British actress Sienna Miller, the cover girl for the September 2007 issue, which gives the movie its structure and hook, the head in question receives the 21st-century version of a severing: it’s Photoshopped to unreal perfection. However lovely, Ms. Miller proves a problematic Vogue ideal for the editors, many of whose own faces are somewhat surprisingly scored with wrinkles. It’s a mark of how pitiless Ms. Wintour can come across that you end up feeling a bit sorry for Ms. Miller.

In truth Ms. Wintour was just doing her job. Yes, there’s cruelty here, but of the most attenuated kind: she says no, employees tremble. The strongest, like the flame-haired Grace Coddington, the magazine’s longtime creative director and the documentary’s hugely diverting stealth star, seem to have figured out how to survive with their dignity intact. Most of the truly ugly stuff in fashion — the models starving themselves, the exploited Chinese workers cranking out couture fakes and the animals inhumanely slaughtered for their fur — remains unnoted in “The September Issue,” much as it often does in Vogue. And while the movie shuns any overt discussion of money, it includes an instructive scene of Ms. Wintour playing the coquette with one of the magazine’s important advertisers.

Of course it really is all about money. Despite being crammed with glossy images of beautiful, weird, unattractive, ridiculous and prohibitively expensive clothes and accessories, Vogue isn’t about fashion: it’s about stoking the desire for those clothes and accessories. It’s about the creation of lust and the transformation of wants into needs. Almost everything in this temple of consumption, including its lavish layouts and the celebrities who now most often adorn its covers, hinges on stuff for sale. Some of that stuff comes with a price tag, but some of it is more ephemeral because Vogue is also in the aspiration business. Mr. Cutler doesn’t notice or doesn’t care about any of that, which makes his movie as facile as it is fun.

Given this, it’s no surprise that Ms. Wintour is doing her part to flog the documentary: she gave a party in its honor and recently appeared on David Letterman’s show, with and without her signature sunglasses, her glazed stare and tight smile firmly in place. The movie affords you many opportunities to marvel at the parsimony of that smile and wonder if she’s as bored as she looks, even while waiting for an agitated Stefano Pilati, the creative director at Yves Saint Laurent, to show his newest collection.

“That’s pretty,” she says, in a voice so drained of affect it’s a wonder he doesn’t commit seppuku with his scissors. You feel bad for Mr. Pilati, but it’s Ms. Wintour’s hauteur that makes you laugh and keeps you willingly at her side.

“The September Issue” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Some understandably nasty words.

The September Issue

Opens on Friday in Manhattan.


Directed by R. J. Cutler; director of photography, Bob Richman; edited by Azin Samari; music by Craig Richey; produced by Mr. Cutler, Eliza Hindmarch and Sadia Shepard; released by Roadside Attractions. Running time: 1 hour 28 minutes.








Think the boss in The Devil Wears Prada was a total monster? Well she was even scarier in real life
By LINA DAS


She was the girl who wrote the book which became the film. She had Anne Hathaway playing her, Meryl Streep playing her tyrannical boss, and a world aghast at the, let's face it, sheer ghastliness of what life was really like in the fickle world of fashion magazines.
If revenge is sweet, then for Lauren Weisberger it was a double spoonful as her debut novel catapulted into the New York Times' bestseller list, was translated into 27 different languages and sold to 31 countries, before the film adaptation went on to gross more than $300 million worldwide.
The Devil Wears Prada was the story of a young girl, fresh out of university, working in New York as an assistant to a fashion magazine editor who possessed a frosty leadership style.
When she wrote it, Lauren had just left her job after 11 months as an assistant to American Vogue editor Anna Wintour, who possesses such a frosty leadership style she is known as Nuclear Wintour.
Seven years on and Lauren still looks a touch shell-shocked by the commotion she caused. 'I don't think anyone can ever be prepared for that level of attention,' she says.
'I was just excited that someone wanted to publish the book and that I could tell my family they could actually buy it in a store. But for it to sell and have it made into a film, too, was a complete whirlwind for which I wasn't prepared.'
Tall with coltish limbs and long blonde hair, 33-year-old Lauren does not physically resemble the darkly beautiful Hathaway. But wearing the tiniest trace of makeup, she looks like she's just stepped out of a Gap advert.
She plonks herself down at the table in the cool but not-too-cool Pastis restaurant in New York's Meatpacking District, looking most definitely not a part of the high-gloss Devil Wears Prada world.
Her jeans and sweater have been selected on the basis of comfort rather than label and the only vestige of the high fashion world she briefly inhabited comes in the shape of the Chanel sunglasses perched on her head.
She corrects the assumption that Hathaway was playing her  -  'she was playing Andy, the character in my book'  -  but the parallels between Lauren's tenure on Vogue (in 1999 and 2000) and Andy's stint on the fictional Runway magazine are too delicious to ignore.
In The Devil Wears Prada, Andy Sachs, a smalltown girl, lands a job as PA to Miranda Priestly (played by Streep).
Miranda  -  the stick-thin, steak-eating editor of top-selling New York fashion magazine Runway  -  is by turns capricious, thoughtlessly cruel, wildly extravagant and demanding, dismissing minions not with a 'Thank you' but with an abrupt: 'That's all.'
So terrifying is she that no one will ride in the lift with her and she issues impossible demands to her brow-beaten (though immaculately attired) staff.
As her new assistant, Andy forms a friendship of sorts with Miranda's senior assistant Emily (played by Emily Blunt) and though her job is fraught (the endless latte runs to Starbucks in high heels; the constant worrying about her weight when compared to the sylph-like beauties who populate the office), Andy also benefits from the perks of the job such as taking her pick of the designer clothes in Runway's heaving fashion cupboard.
When Emily gets sick, it is Andy whom Miranda commandeers to accompany her to the prestigious Paris fashion shows. But after realising that the more she has blended into Runway's world the further she has moved away from her real life, in particular her boyfriend, Andy gives up her job and, in that highly American fashion, becomes true to herself once more.
Though Lauren has over the years remained tight-lipped about her time working at Vogue for Anna Wintour (stick-thin, steak-eating and with a nickname like Nuclear Wintour, probably not the chummiest of bosses to work for), today she is in a more relaxed mode.
'It wasn't a one-to-one portrayal [of Wintour],' she says. 'But of course my time at Vogue informed the book, there's no denying that.'
Lauren, like Andy, would never have dreamed of getting in the lift with her boss, and though terribly slim, she still felt dumpy next to her pin-thin Vogue colleagues, saying: 'I knew I was tall and thin, but I was short and fat there.'
Where she differed from Andy was that she 'never got to raid the closet because I never had time, although the other girls did and they wore the most fabulous things to parties. And I never went to Paris. French Vogue provided Anna with assistants when she was over there.
'And unlike Andy I couldn' t force myself to wear high heels. It was expected of me, but I ran all day, all over the office, up and down the building 1,000 times and to Starbucks six times a day, so there was no way I could manage even a 2in heel.
I wore these horrible, black platform boots with a thick rubber sole because there was no choice. And even though for a couple of weeks I made the boot-to-high-heels switch under my desk, I just had to forget it in the end. She would stare at them in disgust and it was a stare that conveyed her displeasure pretty clearly.'
The 'she', in this instance, is pretty self-explanatory.
'People have said it was "boss betrayal", but that wasn't what it was. I worked there for a year and it was a hell of a year  -  crazy, exciting and hard.
'I left the job to work for a travel magazine and took a writing class at night. I'd had this crazy work experience which not a lot of people had had, so I wanted to write all the stuff down that was in my head. I hadn't even intended for it to be a book.
'When it was published, people kept saying "It's so brave of you to write this", but it wasn't bravery  -  it was stupidity and complete naivety. I didn't think anyone would read it, let alone have an opinion on it. Had I known about all the fuss that would ensue, I would have been paralysed. But people attributed things to the book that I hadn't intended.'
Still, her tenure at Vogue certainly provided Lauren with ample writing material. 'The strangest thing about my time there? Wow, how can I pick?' she grins.
' How they believed it was acceptable to show their midriff in the workplace and how they'd come in to work wearing leather trousers, stiletto heels and furry tops [Lauren, it must be said, hails from rural Pennsylvania].
'They wore the most outrageous outfits and even though they all
looked fabulous in them, it was hard to think of any other corporation where that would have been acceptable. They'd go to the filing cabinet dripping in jewels and even though I was there for almost a year, that aspect of the job continued to amaze me.'
Was there ever any comeback from Wintour or her people?
'No, not a thing. But what sent the biggest message of all was that silence. The book was getting so much hype and so much publicity, but not a single Conde Nast publication [Vogue is published by Conde Nast] mentioned a word  -  not my name, the title, anything, and that pretty much told me where they stood on that.'
So popular was The Devil Wears Prada that when The September Issue  -  a film documentary following the real goings-on at American Vogue  -  was released last year, many believed that Anna Wintour had only agreed to be the subject of the film in order to mitigate the reputation she had acquired since Devil.
The September Issue showed Wintour opening her doors and  -  shocker!  -  smiling. 'And it was a surprise to me, too, when I saw the movie,' says Lauren, 'because I did not see those things when I was there.
'I went to see it with my husband and it was amazing how much everything looked the same, even though I hadn't worked there for years. Anna's office looked the same and the people were the same  -  so much so that I started getting cold sweats from the flashbacks! I was shaking by the time I left the cinema!'
She says the book's success gave her the opportunity to write full time. Her new novel, Last Night At Chateau Marmont, out this week, is an equally zippy read.
It follows the fortunes of a young couple whose lives change when the husband, for years a struggling musician, hits the big time, leaving his wife to cope not only with the change in dynamic of their relationship, but also with the emergence of an incriminating photo featuring her husband and a young girl.
It is a dynamic Lauren is unfamiliar with personally (she has been married to playwright Mike Cohen for two years and they are expecting their first child in December): 'But I'm an avid reader of gossip magazines and I've always wondered what it feels like for the spouse in that kind of relationship, when they themselves aren't famous.'
The 'civilian' in the relationship must get quizzed constantly about their spouse in much the same way Lauren is constantly asked about The Devil Wears Prada, 'but I can't be anything but flattered by that,' she adds graciously.
'The movie brought it to a new level and even though as a writer you're not supposed to like how they interpret your story on film, I loved it and thought it was spot-on.
Anne Hathaway was just wonderful and Meryl Streep, well, what can you say? I hadn't envisaged her originally  - not that I had envisaged anyone for the role  -  but she was as good as it gets.'
Lauren even got to film a teeny cameo in The Devil Wears Prada as the nanny to Miranda's twins  -  a cameo she admits now she is 'hard-pressed to locate after several viewings'. 'But I was on set all the time during the making of the film and they were very inclusive,' she says, 'even giving me a chair with my name on it. It was such a once-in-a-lifetime thing and so removed from my normal life.
'I'm the type of person who watches American Idol in my pyjamas. This kind of thing doesn't happen to me.'
Before the film was released, Lauren and Anna Wintour attended the same preview screening, 'I was blissfully unaware until people told me afterwards. Honestly though, I do not exist in her world.
'We don't travel in the same circles, we don't run into each other and she would not be able to pick me out from a crowd of three. And I'm very, very comfortable with that.'
And what would Lauren say to Wintour should they ever bump into one another? She smiles slowly and says nothing. What more, quite frankly, needs to be said?



Art imitates life: The parallels between Lauren's tenure on Vogue (in 1999 and 2000) and Andy's stint on the fictional Runway magazine are too delicious to ignore


Nuclear: Lauren spent 11 months as an assistant to American Vogue editor Anna Wintour







The September Issue: Anna Wintour unmasked in The 'real' Devil Wear's Prada
Fearsome American Vogue editor, Anna 'Nuclear' Wintour allowed director RJ Cutler unprecedented access to film what really happens at the world's top fashion magazine.
Truth, it is sometimes said, is stranger than fiction. When it comes to Anna Wintour, the fearsome editor-in- chief of American Vogue, that is most certainly the case. Does anyone remember The Devil Wears Prada, the movie adaptation of the novel about life at a New York fashion magazine, in which Meryl Streep played the despotic editor who reduced her staff to jelly, tears and occasionally, nervous breakdowns? Written by Wintour's former assistant Lauren Weisberger, everybody thought it was based on her old boss, who has been at the helm of the magazine since 1988. But nobody really believed that it was a true depiction of her. Surely Wintour - or Nuclear Wintour, as she is often referred to - wasn't that bad? Surely Streep's character was just a gross Hollywood exaggeration?
It would seem not. For Wintour, 59, has taken the unusual step of letting cameras film a documentary about the magazine the New York Times once described as being "to our era what the idea of God was, in Voltaire's famous parlance, to his: if it didn't exist, we would have to invent it."
The result is The September Issue, a riveting and brilliant film that makes The Devil Wears Prada look like an episode of The Care Bears. The cameras follow British-born Wintour and her army of editors for much of 2007, as they create the biggest edition of the fashion year (the September issue, which that year had 840 pages, an incredible 727 of which were adverts).
Until this week, when it premiered at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, only a handful of fashion insiders had been allowed to watch the 88-minute film. They had all been sworn to secrecy. For months the internet has been awash with speculation about the documentary, which earned director RJ Cutler a grand jury nomination at this year's Sundance festival. The excitement surrounding it was enough for me to travel all the way to Scotland to watch it.
It follows Wintour around the shows - she famously once got Milan fashion week moved to fit into her schedule - and proves that she doesn't just run a magazine: she runs all of fashion. When she meets the head designer at Yves Saint Laurent - a man we must presume to be reasonably powerful - she is disparaging enough of his collection for him to become flustered and rethink it; she has no qualms in asking Prada to "re-interpet" some of their designs. She does all of this in her trademark giant dark sunglasses, precision-bobbed hair and Chanel suit, a look that has not changed for years. Wintour may influence fashion, but she clearly considers herself to be above it.
Anna - or Ahhnna, as her staff refer to her - does not talk very much. There are only a few occasions when she speaks directly to camera; her permanent poker face says more about her than she ever could (tellingly she admits in her trans-atlantic drawl that she admired her father, Charles, a former editor of the London Evening Standard, because he was "inscrutable").
She throws out a shoot that cost $50,000 because she doesn't like it. When a stylist asks why the pictures of a model in a rubber outfit have been removed from a story about "texture", the art director replies that for Anna, rubber is not a texture. Another staff member picks out a jacket from a rail and wonders out loud if her boss would like it, before thinking better of it. "No, of course she won't. It's black. I could get fired for that."
Meanwhile, the magazine's publisher, Thomas Florio, when asked about Wintour's steeliness, has this to say: "She's just not accessible to people she doesn't need to be accessible to. She isn't warm, because she's busy."
"It's like belonging to a church," says Candy Pratts Price, who runs the Vogue website.
"And Anna is the High Priestess?" asks the director.
"I would say she is more like the Pope."
Despite Wintour's all dominating presence in the Vogue offices, she is surrounded by a cast of colourful characters. There is Andre Leon Talley, her editor-at-large, a portly man who plays tennis in top-to-toe Louis Vuitton and complains of "a famine of beauty". Then there is Grace Coddington, a former model who also hails from the UK and started at the magazine the same day as Anna and is now her number two. With wild red hair and not a scrap of make-up on her face, Coddington could not be more different to Wintour. Their relationship is intriguing. Coddington is perhaps the only person who stands up to Wintour (staff members really do scatter out of her way, and when one designer meets her, his hands are shaking) and Wintour clearly respects her for that. At the end of the film, the editor-in-chief reluctantly concedes that she could not live without Coddington.
The September Issue must be the only film in which Sienna Miller is reduced to a bit part. As a Hollywood A-lister and the magazine's cover girl, you might think that the staff of Vogue would treat her with the appropriate reverence, but instead Wintour complains that her hair is "lacklustre", that she is too "toothy" and that you can see her fillings in the pictures. Even Mario Testino, one of the world's most famous fashion photographers, is not spared the wrath of Wintour. When his photographs of Miller in Rome arrive, she is not impressed by the selection. "Where are the shots of her outside the Colosseum?" Wintour asks.
"Mario didn't like the Colosseum," says an assistant, and you half expect Wintour to demand that it is rebuilt.
So how on earth did director RJ Cutler get Wintour to agree to be filmed? "This will come as a shock to you," says Cutler, "but all I had to do was ask." Cutler produced The War Room, the 1993 documentary about Bill Clinton's presidential campaign. Who was more frightening? Neither, he says. Did she like it? "I think it would be fair to say that she would have made a different film to the one I did." Did she meddle? "Of course she did - she's Anna Wintour. But at Sundance she said 'I made many suggestions to RJ - but let's face it, it's his film.' I respect her for that."
They are still in touch. "She is astounding really," continues Cutler. "She is like an historical figure that walks amongst us. I always explain her this way: you can make a film without Steven Spielberg's blessing, you can produce some software without Bill Gates' blessing, but you can't get into fashion without Anna Wintour's blessing."
Some have suggested that this may be Wintour's last year as Editor-in-Chief at American Vogue; the September Issue would certainly serve as a supreme act of self-commemoration. But, for a documentary about fashion, there is a surprising poignancy to it. On the surface Wintour may seem ice cool, but her demeanour is underpinned by a deep insecurity. She says that "people are frightened of fashion - because it scares them they put it down. They mock it because they are not part of it." Her siblings all have serious jobs - one of her brothers is the political editor of the Guardian - and she thinks that "they are very amused by what I do." She looks pretty grim-faced as she says this.
Wintour has never struck me as the kind of person who would seek acceptance from anyone - she leads, everyone follows - and yet here we see her desperately craving acceptance from her family. It is sad; touching even. At one point we meet her charming daughter Bee, who wants to go into Law, despite her mother's keenness that she should become an editor. "Some of the people in there [the Vogue office] act as if fashion is life," says Bee to the camera at one point. "And I know that it is really fun, and amusing. But there are other things out there."
Deep down, her mother would most probably agree.

The Secret World of Haute Couture. - BBC Documentary

The Secret World of Haute Couture BBC Four.

$
0
0

The Secret World of Haute Couture BBC Four
Margy Kinmonth meets millionaire customers and world-famous designers as she explores the anachronistic but little-explained pocket of the fashion industry known as haute couture.



Ascot Style Guide

Viewing all 3414 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>