Quantcast
Channel: "Tweedland" The Gentlemen's club
Viewing all 3455 articles
Browse latest View live

The English Game | VIDEO: Official Trailer | Netflix

$
0
0





From "Downton Abbey" creator and "Gosford Park" writer Julian Fellowes. Based on true events, this 19th century drama follows two footballers on opposite sides of a class divide who changed the game  — and England — forever. The English Game arrives on Netflix March 20.


The English Game is a British historical sports drama television miniseries developed by Julian Fellowes for Netflix about the origins of modern football in England. The six-part series was released on 20 March 2020.

In April 2018, it was announced Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes would write and executive produce his first Netflix series. Birgitte Stærmose and Tim Fywell are directing, Rory Aitken, Eleanor Moran and Ben Pugh of 42 are executive producing, and Ben Vanstone is co-executive producing.

The cast was announced in May 2019 as production began in England, mostly in the North.

The first season epilogue reads: "In 1885 the FA changed their rules to allow professional players. An amateur team never won the FA Cup again. Arthur Kinnaird became President of the FA, serving 33 years until his death in 1923. Fergus Suter and Jimmy Love are recognised as pioneers of the modern game, which now has over four billion fans across the world."

1             "Episode 1"        Birgitte Stærmose           Julian Fellowes, Tony Charles, Oliver Cotton & Ben Vanstone               20 March 2020
Arthur Kinnaird is captain and star player of the Old Etonians, an upper class football team. Their opponents in the 1879 FA Cup Quarter finals are Darwen FC, a working class factory team. James Walsh, the owner of Darwen FC and the associated mill decides to secretly pay two Scottish players, Fergus "Fergie" Suter and James "Jimmy" Love to join his team in a bid to secure the FA Cup (which at the time is exclusively for amateurs). At halftime the Old Etonians lead 5-1, however Darwen recover with a progressive adjustment (spreading out their formation and focusing on passing) to draw 5 all. The Old Etonians, who also happen to be FA Board members, decide that since extra time was not previously agreed to then the Quarterfinal will be replayed instead. The mill has financial issues and townsfolk pitch in to help pay for the trip. The replay is handily won by Old Etonians who focus more on shutting down Suter and Love rather than playing their own game. Darwen FC are greeted positively for their efforts by the town.

2             "Episode 2"        Birgitte Stærmose           Julian Fellowes & Ben Vanstone               20 March 2020
Suter meets with Walsh and persuades him to change some football strategies. Stokes, a team member, goes to Kinnaird’s bank to ask for a loan. Some Darwen mill workers talk about strike as a result of a prior 5 per cent wage cut. The Cotton Guild imposes another 10 per cent wage cut. Darwen workers walk out. The team refuses to train or play in matches while on strike. Suter fails to persuade Walsh to go against the guild. Workers go to the guild to demand a 5 per cent wage cut and fewer hours to help fight the oversupply that has caused the price of goods to fall. The guild refuses. Workers riot. Kinnaird is saved from the riot by Stokes. Against Kinnaird’s wishes, Stokes goes in his place to warn Colonel Jackson (the guild leader) that the mob is coming for him. Police show up and arrest Stokes and kill his dog. Stokes is put on trial and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Kinnaird testifies on behalf of Stokes and saves him from prison and gives him his loan. Walsh agrees to the 5 per cent wage cut and to work five days a week if the team plays their upcoming match. While waiting on the team at the match, Suter is approached by the manager of Blackburn FC and is offered £100 upfront and a £6 weekly wage increase. Suter turns him down as the team arrive to play.

3             "Episode 3"        Birgitte Stærmose           Julian Fellowes & Gabbie Asher 20 March 2020
Suter goes home to Glasgow to visit his poor family and drunken, abusive father who tries to shame Suter for being paid to play. Kinnaird and his wife continue to mourn the loss of her pregnancy six months earlier. Once back in Lancashire, Suter meets with Cartwright, the Blackburn FC manager and accepts his offer but needs a few days to make it right with Jimmy, Walsh and the Darwen team. After practice with the Etonians, teammates talk about the “epidemic” of working-class teams joining the Football Association. While the gentleman scoff at the conditions of the working poor, Kinnaird comes to their defence. The Darwen team are out celebrating Jimmy’s stag party. Mr. Walsh tells Suter that he’s proud of his decision to bring Suter on to the team. Suter thanks him but doesn’t mention the deal with Blackburn. Clearly drunk, Suter gets in a fight with another Blackburn player recently hired from Partick when he compares Suter to his drunken father. The following day, at the match between Darwen and St Luke’s, Suter arrives late and plays terribly. Darwen lose 3-0 and are out of the FA Cup. Suter storms off the pitch. At home, Suter tells Doris about the deal with Blackburn and says that he will tell Jimmy after the wedding. Jimmy practises his vows and Doris overhears. At the wedding, Jimmy tells all that he finally feels like he has a home in Darwen. As Suter begins his best man’s speech, he is interrupted by a teammate who reads a Blackburn ad about Suter joining the team, shocking everyone.

4             "Episode 4"        Tim Fywell          Julian Fellowes & Sam Hoare      20 March 2020
At the Darwen mill, Walsh shames Suter for his choice to leave. Suter tries to persuade Jimmy to come with him. Jimmy refuses, saying that Darwen is his team and his family now. Cartwright shows Suter the new facilities and stands. He shows off new teammates, including Jack Hunter from Sheffield, and tells Suter he is assembling a team of the best players north of Eton. Cartwright asks Walsh for his discretion regarding Suter’s professionalism and offers him £100 for Blackburn to play Darwen the next week in an exhibition match. After being seen talking familiarly with Mr Cartwright (with whom she previously had a child), Martha is fired from her job at the Cotton Master’s club. Mr Cartwright offers her money to help but Martha refuses, saying she needs to find her own way. At the Blackburn v Druids match, Suter struggles to mesh with his new teammates. Hunter is hailed the hero. Suter talks with Jimmy, who calls him a Judas. Suter tells Jimmy that he is trying to get his family away from his father. Suter again asks Jimmy to join Blackburn. Later, Jimmy stands up for Suter against the Darwen team and tells them he is joining Blackburn. On the way to the match between the Old Etonians and Preston, the Etonians discuss how football is becoming a booming business and is no longer just a game. The FA President complains that if it continues, only the richest teams will win and is planning to watch the exhibition match between Darwen and Blackburn to find evidence to expel them from the FA cup. The match between Darwen and Blackburn is rough and Jimmy’s leg is badly broken by a tackle and the blood loss threatens both his life and his leg.

5             "Episode 5"        Tim Fywell          Julian Fellowes & Geoff Bussetil               20 March 2020
Jimmy is told he’ll never play football again. Cartwright tells the Blackburn team that a portion of the match proceeds will go to help Jimmy’s recovery. Cartwright asks Suter how Martha and her daughter are doing after her job loss. After Cartwright tells his wife about the affair, she goes to Martha’s house and offers to care for her daughter, Jenie. Martha refuses. Martha tells Suter about Cartwright and Jenie. Martha goes back to talk with Mrs Cartwright and apologises for the affair with her husband. Suter and Martha kiss. Tommy, the player who hurt Jimmy, visits and to apologise. Suter arrives and tells Jimmy the team will support him financially and they are struggling to replace him. Later, Suter pushes Jimmy in a cart to the pub to cheer him up. Darwen teammates start to reconcile with Suter. Stokes talks about his business success making football kits. Doris asks after a job for Jimmy. Kinnaird has a falling out with his friend over the true reason behind missing the quarter-final match. After some tense discussions with his father about his football career, Kinnaird uses his football contacts to help save a vital investment. Kinnaird debates the merits of paying players with the Etonians. The Lancashire teams band together to beat the elite teams. Mr. Walsh persuades Tommy to join Blackburn to replace Jimmy. Cartwright offers Suter the captainship (and a bonus) if they make it to the final. Mrs Cartwright offers Martha a job at Brockshall and says she can bring Jenie. Two days later the FA Board meets without Kinnaird and discuss expelling Darwen and Blackburn from the cup.

6             "Episode 6"        Tim Fywell          Julian Fellowes & Ben Vanstone               20 March 2020
The FA Board votes to expel Blackburn. Kinnaird is furious. Later Kinnaird has it out with his friends about their betrayal.

Walsh, now the head of the Lancashire FA holds a meeting to figure out how to fight the ban. Suter offers to talk to Kinnaird. Walsh gives Suter a new suit so that he will fit in with the elite. Suter discusses the merits of professional players. Suter argues that the elites banning of professionals is not fair because they are not working all day to put food on the table. They both agree they play for the love of the game. At the Board meeting. Suter argues in favour of letting Blackburn play. The Board stands by their decision to ban Blackburn from the cup. Walsh tells him the Lancashire FA and most other county FAs will withdraw from the FA cup and form a new association. Kinnaird would be the new president. Kinnaird argues that the working-class teams will overwhelm the elite teams unless they include the working class. Kinnaird persuades the Board to let Blackburn play. At the match, the 1883 FA Club Final, the Etonians are playing well but in a very physical way. The score is 0-0 at half-time. One of the Etonian players is injured but they agree to keep playing anyway. Suter scores with a header from Tommy’s pass. In the last moments of the match, Kinnaird scores on a breakaway. The teams agree to extra time. Suter sits out a player to make the match fair and gives the players a rousing pep talk. Suter scores the winning goal. Suter lifts the cup to overwhelming cheers. In 1885, the FA officially allows professional players and an amateur team never wins the cup again. Kinnaird becomes the FA President and serves for 33 years until his death in 1923.




The English Game's few charms lie in the background, not centre stage
 This article is more than 3 months old
Jonathan Wilson

The latest series from Julian Fellowes starts badly and barely improves but it is a reminder football has never stood still

 @jonawils
Sat 4 Apr 2020 20.00 BST


You can see how The English Game must have sounded in conception. It’s the birth of football. It’s toffs against proles, the rivalry of one of the great aristocrats of the early game, Lord Arthur Kinnaird, and the Glaswegian stonemason who was the first great professional, Fergus Suter. It’s about an idea going out into the world and being profoundly changed when it is taken up by the masses.

But Netflix’s new series comes nowhere near what it might have been, and is little more than a mishmash of Downton Abbey stereotypes and trouble-at-mill cliches. The toffs are habitually awful, the banks are always foreclosing, and the proles, salt-of-the-earth brawlers and charmers that they are, can’t help themselves but get everybody unhelpfully pregnant.

And the football? From the moment a minute in when Craig Parkinson, as the self-made mill-owner Walsh, tells Suter: “I’ve seen ’ow you play in Scotland. Your passing game is the future of football,” you know that subtlety, or characters who actually speak like real humans, isn’t what this is about. Still, for those who last saw Parkinson as the AC-12 officer Cottan in Line of Duty, where the plot revolved around the quest for the kingpin H and the implausible possibility that as he took his final breath he tapped out the letter in morse code, it’s something of a relief that here he eschews Hs altogether.


The English Game does improve slightly after a truly dire opening episode, but the interest really lies in themes that are glimpsed almost out of the corner of the eye, shoved to the margins by the heavy-handed central narrative. Suter, for instance, is offered a huge lump sum plus improved wages to leave Darwen and join Blackburn Rovers, which he accepts because he needs the money to rescue his mother and sister from his abusive father. Quite aside from the issue of whether it’s legitimate, without any evidence, to portray an actual person, albeit one who died more than a century ago, as a wife-beater, there’s a more universal question. Why shouldn’t Suter take the better offer? Darwen had paid to lure him from Partick and then they themselves were outbid: once professionalism has been accepted, why should there be a perceived need to give Suter an excuse for moving?

Other than giving one of the principal characters a troubled backstory, what is gained by blurring the central dilemma of professionalism, that without adequate checks money will dominate – something all too apparent in the super-club era – and that the transformation of the game into a job, while beneficial and necessary in opening it up to all, also inevitably erodes to an extent the camaraderie and athletic purity that are so central to the notion of sport as somehow spiritually improving?

It’s a thought that occurs now in discussions about a putative super-league. It’s easy to rail against it, to anticipate the potential tedium of the same super-clubs endlessly grappling with each other, to think of the social damage done to the non-super-clubs cast into permanent semi-irrelevance by exclusion from the main competition, to rage against the victory of capital over community, but there’s always also a thought of how history will view the debate. After 10 or 20 years of a super-league, and the brilliant football it would probably yield, would those arguments come to seem as irrelevant as those that once doubted the European club competitions, or British involvement in the World Cup, or, yes, professionalism and the formation of a league?

In The English Game, the toffs object to the working-class northern teams largely for reasons of status. And perhaps that’s how it was: after all, even leaving overt snobbism aside, it’s understandable that the university-educated teams who had codified the game not two decades earlier (in January 1864, the Football Association comprised eight south-eastern clubs plus Sheffield) would be resistant to an entirely different group of people taking over their game, particularly when they interpreted it in a very different way.

The tactical exposition in The English Game is clunkingly preposterous, but it’s not without substance: the passing game the northern teams came to favour (in part because they were smaller than their better-fed public school counterparts and so would have been seriously disadvantaged if they had no way of manoeuvring the ball away from physical clashes) was very different to the head-on charging practised by the game’s progenitors.

Although the point is not made explicitly in the series, the reason Darwen had to travel to London for their FA Cup quarter-final replay against Old Etonians in 1879 is that it was stipulated that all games from the quarter-finals onwards had to be played in London (the first match was not, as depicted in The English Game, played at Eton, but at Kennington Oval) – a not unreasonable requirement when most of the teams were based in the south-east. It’s notable that by the following season the regulation had been lifted, suggesting at least some flexibility on the part of the FA and a recognition that the geographic make-up of the game was changing.

And it would go on to change, spreading across the world. The English game became the Austrian game, the Hungarian game, the Argentinian game and, particularly, the Uruguayan game. It became everybody’s game, interpreted differently by every culture that embraced it. And that in turn created difficulties – as demonstrated in the tours made by British clubs to South America in the first half of the 20th century, which often became fractious with mutual misunderstanding, laying the ideological foundations for the controversy that would, for instance, overwhelm the 1966 World Cup quarter-final between England and Argentina. One of the fascinations of football is that it is simultaneously intensely local and utterly globalised, with all the tensions that brings.

But don’t expect to see any of that on Netflix, where the toffs drink claret and the proles drink beer (or whisky if they’re Scottish and having a bad time), the bank is forever foreclosing and an implausible number of goals are scored in the few seconds after kick-off. It’s a tremendous opportunity missed.






The 19th century saw the codification of the rules of football at several public schools, with those of Rugby School (first published 1845) and Eton College (first published 1847) being particularly influential, in addition to those of Harrow, Winchester and Shrewsbury. The need for alumni of different public schools to be able to play against each other resulted in several sets of "compromise laws", often known as Cambridge rules, being drawn up at the University of Cambridge between the 1830s and the 1860s.

In the second half of the century, a culture of independent "football clubs" began to thrive, particularly in London and Sheffield, with Sheffield Football Club, founded in 1857, today being recognised as the world's oldest surviving independent football club. The example of Sheffield F.C., which published its first set of laws in 1859, soon led to a proliferation of clubs in and around the city playing "Sheffield rules". Sheffield hosted the world's first multi-team football tournament, the Youdan Cup, in 1867.

In general, each football club, school or university tended to have its own rules, which might differ on such fundamental questions as whether to follow the example of Rugby School by allowing the ball to be carried, with players carrying the ball being allowed to be "hacked" (kicked in the shins) by their opponents. The desire of football clubs for a common code was the impetus behind the foundation of the Football Association (FA) in 1863. Within the FA, there was an acrimonious debate between the "hacking" and "non-hacking" clubs. When the first meetings were held to discuss the FA's laws of football, the "hackers" were in the ascendancy, but the publication of the 1863 set of Cambridge rules (which forbade hacking) enabled the "non-hackers" to prevail and the FA's first Laws of the Game, published in December 1863, banned hacking and carrying the ball. The FA, initially dominated by London-based clubs, saw its influence gradually spread over the country by the success of FA Cup, first contested in the 1871–72 season.

Between 1863 and 1877, the FA and Sheffield rules co-existed, with each code at times influencing the other. Several games were played between Sheffield and London teams, using both sets of rules. After several disputes, the two codes were unified in 1877 when the Sheffield Football Association voted to adopt the FA laws, following the adoption of a compromise throw-in law by the FA. The Sheffield rules had a major influence on how the modern game of football developed. Among other things they introduced into the laws of the game are the concepts of corners, and free kicks for fouls.

International football began when teams representing England and Scotland met in a match at Kennington Oval in south London on 5 March 1870. A total of five games were played between the two teams to 21 February 1872 but they are not recognised as official internationals by FIFA because the Scottish players were all London-based and so not fully representative of Scotland as a nation.

The first official international, Scotland v England, was played on 30 November 1872 at Hamilton Crescent, the West of Scotland Cricket Club's ground in Partick, Glasgow. It was a 0–0 draw watched by 4,000 spectators.[citation needed] On 8 March 1873, England's 4–2 win over Scotland at Kennington Oval was the first-ever victory in international football.

The late nineteenth century was dominated by the growing split between the amateur and professional teams, which was roughly aligned along a North-South divide. Northern clubs were keen to adopt professionalism as workers could not afford to play on an amateur basis, while Southern clubs by the large part stuck by traditional "Corinthian" values of amateurism. Eventually, in 1885 the FA legalized professionalism, and when Aston Villa director William McGregor organised a meeting of representatives of England's leading clubs, this led to the formation of the Football League in 1888. Preston North End were inaugural winners in 1888–89, and were also the first club to complete the double of both winning the league and the FA Cup. Aston Villa repeated the feat in 1896–97.


The Influence of Rugby and Football equipment on PREPPY FASHION / VIDEO: Rugby Ralph Lauren Fall 2008 Collection

$
0
0




Rugby Ralph Lauren was an American clothing brand launched in 2004 under the management of parent company Polo Ralph Lauren, the line has been retired. The brand specialised in Preppy/Rugby inspired lifestyle apparel for male and female clientele ages 16 through 25. Rugby also encompassed Rugby Food & Spirits, a small café modeled after the brand and offering dining inspired by the Rugby theme. Rugby merchandise was available at twelve stores throughout the United States, as well as one in Covent Garden in London, UK. By August, 2008 merchandise was also available online at Rugby.com.

In November 2012, it was announced that Ralph Lauren would be ending the Rugby line by February 2013. On February 5, the Rugby.com website was closed with only links to Ralph Lauren.com remaining.

Rugby Ralph Lauren was a concept created by luxury lifestyle apparel designer, Ralph Lauren. The brand's first location opened at 342 Newbury Street in Boston, Massachusetts on October 23, 2004. Rugby's lower price point and edgier styling catered to a younger shopper than Lauren's other luxury clothing brands. Though the company experimented with logos, most of the clothing either carried a small embroidered rugby player, "R.L.F.C", or a skull and crossbones motif. Similarly, the brand adopted its signature colours of yellow and navy stripes on its shopping bags, tags and other promotional material.

The brand consisted of a line of rugby shirts, polos, jackets, suits, dresses, outerwear and accessories, all with a distressed or embellished flair, as well as RRL signature Rugby Football shirts that could be customized by buying patches in-store. Tying in with the brand name, the staple of the concept was the rugby shirt. Originally, these rugby shirts were created in the school colors in the college towns that the Rugby stores resided. Rugby also had a full book of patches that customers could purchase to personalize their rugby shirt in-store. Typically, there were also multiple luxury items in each line such as leather jackets and blazers.







National Trust to make 1,200 staff redundant / VIDEO:A huge thank you from National Trust

$
0
0



Welcome to our virtual tea party to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the National Trust. We have a special message of thanks from our Director-General, Hilary McGrady and our president His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales, so why not settle down with a cup of tea and even a slice of cake whilst you watch.

National Trust to make 1,200 staff redundant

Charity lost almost £200m after coronavirus lockdown shut its houses, gardens, car parks, shops and cafes

Chiara Giordano

The Independent employs reporters around the world to bring you truly independent journalism. To support us, please consider a contribution.

The National Trust is planning to make 1,200 staff redundant as it looks to save £100m in the wake of coronavirus.

The conservation and heritage charity, which has 5.6 million members, said it had lost almost £200m as a result of the Covid-19 crisis, which forced the closure of all of its houses, gardens, car parks, shops and cafes, and put a stop to holidays and events.

The trust said it had already saved millions of pounds through furloughing staff, drawing on reserves, borrowing and stopping or deferring projects, but still needs to make savings to keep it sustainable in the long term.

It has proposed £100m in annual savings, equivalent to almost a fifth of its yearly expenditure, through changes to operations and cuts to staff and budgets.

Director general Hilary McGrady said the organisation would continue to care for historic sites, and tackle climate change, loss of wildlife and unequal access to nature, beauty and history.

A quarter of furloughed workers could be made redundant in September
Some 1,200 salaried staff face redundancy as part of £60m proposed pay savings – about 13 per cent of the 9,500-strong salaried workforce.

The move, which comes after a decade which saw the National Trust nearly double in size, would bring staffing levels back to what they were in 2016.

The plans also include £8.8m savings by cutting the budget for hourly paid staff such as seasonal workers by a third.

The remaining £40m of savings will be made in areas such as travel, office costs and IT spending, through reductions in marketing and print spending in favour of digital communications, and by renegotiating contracts.

The trust has already announced it is stopping or deferring £124m of projects this year.

The charity said it is refocusing its efforts to protect cultural heritage, with limited cuts to staff caring for houses, gardens and collections.


There will be a shift from a “one-size-fits-all” approach to properties, with reviewed opening hours at some places and in some cases running a pre-booked guided tour system for visits.

The trust said it would continue its ambition, announced in January, to step up action against climate change, cutting emissions to net zero by 2030, planting millions trees and creating green corridors for people and nature.

It plans to restart the strategy in March next year, but Ms McGrady said the organisation would have to be “flexible” in achieving it.

She said: “We are going through one of the biggest crises in living memory.

“All aspects of our home, work and school lives and our finances and communities have been affected, and like so many other organisations the National Trust has been hit very hard.

“The places and things the National Trust cares for are needed now more than ever, as the nation needs to recuperate and recover its spirit and wellbeing.

“It is deeply upsetting to face losing colleagues and we are committed to supporting all of those affected. Sadly, we have no other course of action left open.”

Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, the union for National Trust workers, said the priority was minimising the number of redundancies, maximising voluntary redundancy and getting as good a deal as possible for those who lose their jobs.

He warned: “At the moment there are no plans for National Trust to close whole properties, but they are shutting ‘unprofitable’ shops and cafes and the worry is that it’s only a matter of time.

“Once jobs are lost and assets are closed it is very hard to recover them.

“Access to our cultural heritage should be an essential part of society’s recovery from the pandemic, and the government should be doing everything it can to protect it.”

He said Prospect would be pushing ministers to ensure the rescue package announced for arts, culture and heritage get to where it is needed in a timely manner.

Additional reporting by Press Association

Dress Code for Working at Home ?

$
0
0


'The fun of getting dressed is gone.' As consumers adjust to the pandemic, retailers feel the strain
Yes. Your shoes miss you, too.

July 28, 2020, 1:16 AM CEST / Updated July 28, 2020, 1:18 AM CEST
By Ahiza García-Hodges

"I loved doing my hair and getting ready, picking out a nice pair of pants and a dressy blouse or a dress and heels," said Ashley Krasnoff, who used to go to her Los Angeles-area office every weekday. "With that came jewelry and a watch and picking out a purse."

Now, "I wake up about five minutes before I have to log on," she said. "I usually throw on yoga leggings, a sports bra and a sports tank top. I think once I might have put on jeans."

Krasnoff isn't alone.

Sequestered at home since mid-March, many workers have adopted a new "work uniform" that better suits their new environment. The look involves fewer high-heeled shoes, handbags, suits, ties and coats — and more loungewear and athleisure.

The dress code shift has naturally also led to a change in what consumers are buying.

Brands that sell comfortable and athletic clothing have seen major boosts in sales, but workwear and formal wear companies are bearing the weight of this shift. Sales in those segments dropped dramatically during the pandemic, according to Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail.

Retailers such as Ann Taylor, Men's Wearhouse and Brooks Brothers are feeling this acutely. Ann Taylor filed for bankruptcy protection last week, and Brooks Brothers did so in early July. On Tuesday, Tailored Brands, which owns Men's Wearhouse, announced it would be closing 500 of its store locations.

"No one is shopping them," Saunders said of formal wear brands. "They depend on people going into an office — and no one wears full suits on Zoom meetings."

Ann Taylor and Tailored Brands did not respond to a request for comment. Arthur Wayne, a spokesperson for Brooks Brothers, said that while the company is known for suits, many of its other popular items such as "khakis, polo shirts, sweaters and other sportswear" are "perfect for a more relaxed working environment.”

Most of these types of stores already had issues before the pandemic started because they were a "bit tired" and were struggling to grow and appeal to younger consumers, Saunders said.

But he said even stores such as M.M.LaFleur and Suitsupply, which are popular with that demographic, are taking a big hit during this time.

“Demand is obviously impacted," said Fokke de Jong, CEO and founder of Suitsupply. "There’s uncertainty about how long this pandemic is going to last in the U.S., but luckily we’re not just based there.”

Sarah LaFleur, founder and CEO of M.M.LaFleur, told NBC News, “We’ve had to get creative with the way we market and talk about our clothes throughout the past few months. We’ve needed to reframe our marketing a bit so customers understand our clothing works well for this moment.”

The underlying business model for these brands is "much more robust," said Saunders. "They're suffering from the same issues, but for them it’s a matter of trying to buy their time and wait for things to normalize."

Work style in many industries had already become much more casual, from hoodie-wearing executives at Twitter and Facebook, to suit-and-tie stalwarts such as Goldman Sachs, which last year announced it would allow a less formal dress code.

The pandemic's new level of casual dress could bolster that movement, making buttoned-up formal wear in the office seem as out of date as the typing pool or the switchboard.

"Generally, I think the trend has been a relaxing of business attire — and this probably just expedites that a bit more, within reason," said Andy Shalbrack, who works in finance. When he started in the industry, he used to wear a full suit and tie. Now, such formal wear is mostly only necessary when seeing clients, as a way to show respect.

Now, his new "uniform" involves a lot more shorts — and facial hair.

"It's the one time you can kind of grow out your beard or mustache, since it's all conference calls," Shalbrack said, adding that Zoom video calls are rare in his field.

However, the new casual likely won't hold up once his team returns to the office, he said.

Already there are signs of people buying more formal clothes in countries that are opening back up as coronavirus cases begin to settle at lower levels.

LVMH, the biggest luxury goods company in the world and the owner of brands such as Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Givenchy, has also noticed a turnaround in sales. For the period between April and June, it reported a 37 percent drop in sales within its fashion and leather goods segment and a 52 percent decrease in its watch and jewelry division. But since June there have been “strong signs” of a recovery, the conglomerate said on Monday.

Another area Saunders sees taking a hit from the pandemic is the subscription services segment. He said companies such as Rent the Runway, which rely on consumers renting clothing for work or special occasions, aren't doing well right now.

"There have been a lot of issues there because people are just canceling their subscriptions," Saunders said. "They’re tailored around occasions and working and people needing to look nice, so it’s hard to see how they could come back any time soon."

Krasnoff said she has already noticed changes in her own habits — and to her bottom line.

"The only online shopping I did at the beginning was just to buy more athleisure and comfy clothes to sit around in," she said.

And while she's adjusted to this new lifestyle, she's grateful it's only temporary.

"The fun of getting dressed is gone," Krasnoff said. "But I’m saving a ton on dry cleaning."



When you work from home, every day is (very) casual Friday
By Kelly Murray, CNN

Updated 1350 GMT (2150 HKT) March 23, 2020

(CNN)There is no dress code in the home office.

How disheveled do you look when you're working from home? Do you stay in your pajamas all day? Do you even shower? Or are you one of those people who insists on looking your office-best even while pecking away at your keyboard at home?
As officials try to control the Covid-19 pandemic, millions of white collar workers — normally bound by dress codes and expectations in the office — are trading business trousers for sweat pants, and stiff blazers for that hoodie they would only ever allow their family, roommates or dog to see.
For some work-from-homers, comfort-first attire is a source of shame — a symptom of broken routines and under-motivation. For others, it's ultimate liberation.
After all, fashion in general has become increasingly casual over the past few decades. These days, activewear or "athleisure" is customary weekend wear, even outside the gym.
Plus, formal work environments have become the exception, not the rule — a trend often blamed on millennials in tech startups. Even notoriously buttoned-up Goldman Sachs is adopting a more 'flexible' dress code.
But even in a casual work environment, there's a limit. When going to a job interview, 65% of Americans feel it's important to wear a suit, regardless of how formal the company's dress code is, according to a 2019 survey by Ranstad US.
In the same survey, 50% of respondents say they wear business attire from the waist up and casual clothing from the waist down when they have a video interview.
So, given the uncertainty of the coronavirus pandemic, is it unhealthy for people working from home to just wake up and stumble over to the computer screen in their pajamas?
"If that works for us and we can be in that place to put our energy into work the way it needs to be — to do the job — there's nothing wrong with that at all," Atlanta-based psychologist Erik Fisher told CNN.
On the other hand, the CDC has told people it's important to keep up their routines to ease anxiety during the pandemic.
"It's all about mental preparation," Fisher said. "If this helps somebody to mentally prepare and to go through that habit (of getting dressed), and that's the habit and the structure they've created for themselves, don't change that."
Researchers have long been fascinated with the meaning behind clothing, not only as a way for people to communicate with others, but as a way to shape one's own perception of oneself. One 2015 study found that people who dress up tend to think more creatively.
But that just depends on the individual.
"If you pay attention to staying disciplined, showering as soon as you get up, eating a good breakfast, putting on clothes that make you feel good, you're going to have a good day," said Joey Schweitzer, the founder of the successful motivational YouTube channel Better Ideas and who works from his home near Vancouver, Canada. "You're going to pay more attention to the work that you're doing, and you're going to feel like a functioning member of society."
Some employees fortunate enough to work remotely are even trading casual Fridays for fancy Fridays, donning cocktail or black tie.
"It's nice to build a sense of community and create a reason to make a work day special during such uncertainty," said Laura Anne Cotney, who works with a real estate software company in Athens, Georgia.
Fisher recommended that if a person is working from home in his or her pajamas and feels like they "should" be dressing up, they need to look at where that inner voice is coming from.
"When people feel judged, they often go back to a place of shame and guilt and inadequacy, and that's why I think we have to be able to be our own self-observers," Fisher told CNN.
"All the looks are exact outfits I've worn," said professional illustrator Tyler Feder. "It was so surprising for me to see how many people commented saying they related!  I assumed I was alone in wearing schlubby PJ combos all the time."
"All the looks are exact outfits I've worn," said professional illustrator Tyler Feder. "It was so surprising for me to see how many people commented saying they related! I assumed I was alone in wearing schlubby PJ combos all the time."
"In other words, we're looking for the "right" way to do things," Fisher said. "And if it's not the right way, then it must be wrong, and if it's not the good way, it must be bad. And if it's not the strong way, it must be weak. So, ask yourself, where does that voice come from? And then be able to stop and tell yourself, it's my own internal place of comfort and peace that will find my ability to succeed, not how I look on the outside."

A Night at The Garden / 2017 short documentary film / In 1939 the Nazis Held a Rally at Madison Square Garden | Topic

$
0
0



A Night at The Garden is a 2017 short documentary film about a 1939 Nazi rally that filled Madison Square Garden in New York City. The film was directed by Marshall Curry and was produced by Laura Poitras and Charlotte Cook with Field of Vision. The seven-minute film is composed entirely of archival footage and features a speech from Fritz Julius Kuhn, the leader of the German American Bund, in which anti-Semitic and pro white-Christian sentiments are espoused.

The documentary premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2018 and was nominated for the 91st Academy Awards for Best Documentary Short.

The film uses footage from Monday, February 20, 1939, and opens outside Madison Square Garden with shots of the New York City Police Department reining in anti-Nazi counter-protesters along with a marquee that lists a "pro-American rally" scheduled on that night, above a National Hockey League match and an NCAA Division I college basketball game later in the week. After a procession of flag bearers to a stage decorated with swastika-adorned pennants, U.S. flags, and a portrait of George Washington, a German-accented man leads the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Kuhn steps up to the podium and casually remarks about how he is depicted as a "creature with horns, a cloven hoof, and long tail" by "the Jewish-controlled press." As he begins to outline a program calling for a "socially-just, white, Gentile-controlled United States" and "Gentile-controlled labor unions, free from Jewish Moscow-directed domination," a counter-protester rushes on stage in an attempt to attack Kuhn. He is beaten onstage by the Bund's paramilitaries, and as he is hauled away by the police the footage is slowed to focus on him. The footage ends with a rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" by a German-accented woman, before cutting to a title card noting that the rally occurred when Adolf Hitler was overseeing construction of Nazi Germany's sixth concentration camp and seven months before the German invasion of Poland and the beginning of World War II.

The documentary was produced using footage of the rally originally intended for newsreels that had never been widely issued due to its controversial content. Many film exhibitors avoided footage of Hitler and Nazism due to strongly negative reactions and even disorderly conduct from audiences. News of the Day never released its footage, while RKO-Pathé News quickly withdrew a newsreel incorporating the footage after deeming it "too inflammatory." As a result, the rally was widely forgotten after the end of World War II. After viewing the footage and expressing surprise at the event's obscurity, Curry was inspired to produce the documentary by the rise of the alt-right in the United States and the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The footage was retrieved and edited from the National Archives, the Grinberg Film Library, Streamline Films, and the UCLA Film and Television Archive.




HISTORY DEPT.
When Nazis Filled Madison Square Garden

In 1939, a Bund rally in New York turned violent—and ultimately doomed that era’s American Nazi movement. Could Charlottesville do the same for a new generation of white nationalists?

By GORDON F. SANDER August 23, 2017



Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian, and the son of two German-Jewish emigres. He is the author of The Frank Family That Survived and numerous other books.

Anxious to find precedents for the frightening and ultimately deadly white nationalist, “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, some media outlets have likened the images of the recent mayhem in Virginia to the chilling ones of the German-American Bund rally that filled Madison Square Garden on February 20, 1939, with 22,000 hate-spewing American Nazis.

That rally, the largest such conclave in U.S. history, shocked Americans at the time. They had seen the press accounts and newsreel footage of the Nazis’ massive Nuremburg rallies; they had read about Kristallnacht, the murderous, two-day anti-Semitic pogrom of November 1938, which the Bund—the fast-growing, American version of the German Nazi party, which trumpeted the Nazi philosophy, but with a stars-and-stripes twist—had unabashedly endorsed.

But that was in Europe. This was America. New York City. For Americans wondering whether it could happen here, the Bund rally provided the awful answer.

“22,000 Nazis Hold Rally In Garden,” blared a front-page headline in the New York Times. Inside, photos captured the restless throng of counterprotesters outside the arena and the Bund’s smiling uniformed leaders. “We need be in no doubt as to what the Bund would do to and in this country if it had the opportunity,” the Times opined in an editorial later that week. “It would set up an American Hitler.”

Some 78 years after the Bund rally at Madison Square Garden, a new generation of hectoring troglodytes descended on Charlottesville, Virginia. In 1939, Brown Shirts at Madison Square Garden felt emboldened to seize a Jewish protester who had rushed the podium where the Bund’s German-born leader, Fritz Kuhn, was speaking, and beat him near-senseless. In 2017, members of the so-called alt-right held a torchlight rally in Charlottesville, and the next day, one of those white nationalists went even further and allegedly used his car to mow down anti-Nazi protesters, killing a young woman, Heather Heyer.

Those who have studied the Bund’s rise and fall are alarmed at the historical parallels. “When a large group of young men march through the streets of Charlottesville chanting, ‘Jews will not replace us,’ it’s only steps removed from chanting ‘death to the Jews’ in New York or anywhere else in the 1930s,” says David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “When those young men chant ‘blood and soil,’ it conveys the same meaning as those decades before who chanted ‘blut and boden,’ referring to the Nazi glorification of and link between race and land.”

“I don’t see much of a difference, quite frankly, between the Bund and these groups, in their public presence,” says Arnie Bernstein, the author of Swastika Nation, a history of the German American Bund. “The Bund had its storefronts in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles—today’s groups are also hanging out in the public space, but in this case, they’re on the internet and anyone can access their ‘storefronts,’ or websites, and their philosophy, if you can call it that, is essentially the same.”

For the Bund, the unnerving 1939 Madison Square Garden rally was at once the organization’s high point and—as a result of the shock and revulsion it caused—its death knell. It’s too soon to know exactly what effect Charlottesville—which was smaller, but more violent than the Bund’s 1939 demonstration—will have on white nationalists or how the American public, which is still processing the horrific event, will ultimately respond to it. Will Charlottesville be the beginning of the end of this reborn generation of American Nazis? To foretell where we could be headed, you need to know how the Bund’s version of it all played out 78 years ago—and how this time is different.

***

The rise and fall of the German-American Bund in the late 1930s is essentially the story of the man behind it: Fritz Julius Kuhn.

A German-born veteran of the Bavarian infantry during World War I, Kuhn was an early devotee of Adolf Hitler who emigrated to the United States for economic reasons in 1928 and got a job as a factory worker for Ford. After a few years in the U.S., Kuhn began his political career by becoming an officer with the Friends of New Germany, a Chicago-based, nationwide pro-Nazi group founded in 1933 with the explicit blessing of German deputy führer Rudolf Hess.

At the time, imitation Nazi parties were sprouting up throughout the world, and, at least initially, Hess and Hitler hoped to use them to incorporate new areas, particularly in Europe, into the Greater Reich. But soon, FONG’s low-grade thuggery—coercing American German-language newspapers into running Nazi-sympathetic articles, infiltrating patriotic German-American organizations, and the like—became a nuisance to Berlin, which was still trying to maintain good relations with Washington. In 1935, Hess ordered all German citizens to resign from FONG, and he recalled its leaders to Germany, effectively putting the kibosh to it.

Kuhn, who had just become a U.S. citizen, saw this as his chance to create a more Americanized version of FONG, and he seized it. With his new German-American Bund, Kuhn had a vision of a homegrown Nazi Party that was more than simply a political group, but a way of life—a “Swastika Nation,” as Bernstein calls it.

Although Kuhn dressed his vision in American phraseology and icons—he approvingly called George Washington “the first American fascist”—the Bund was, in fact, a clone of its Teutonic forebear, transposed to U.S. soil. In deference to his Berlin Kamerad, Kuhn gave himself the title of Bundesführer, the national leader. Just as Hitler had his own elite guard, the SS, Kuhn had his, the Ordnungsdienst or OD, who were charged with both protecting him and keeping order at Bund events. Although the OD were forbidden to carry firearms, they did carry blackjacks and truncheons, which they had no compunctions about using on non-fascist heads, as they did at an April 1938 Bund meeting in the Yorkville neighborhood of Manhattan, when seven protesters were injured by members of the OD.

Like the German Nazi Party, the Bund was divided into different districts for the eastern, western and midwestern sections of the country. The Bund also had its own propaganda branch, which published a newspaper as well as the copies of Mein Kampf, Hitler’s testament, which all Bund members were required to buy. Kuhn also oversaw the establishment of a score of gated training and summer camps with Teutonic-sounding names like Camp Siegfried and Camp Nordland in rural areas around the northeast, where his card-carrying volk could be indoctrinated in the American Nazi way, while their dutiful fraulein polished their German cooking skills and their brassard-wearing kinder could engage in singalongs while practicing their fraternal Seig Heils. Every so often, Kuhn would pull up in his motorcade, bless the proceedings and deliver himself of a sulfurous Hitler-style harangue—in English.


In effect, the Bund was its own ethnostate, as today’s neo-Nazis would call it. And it worked: By 1938, two years after its “rebirth,” the group had become a political force to be reckoned with. Its meetings each drew up to several thousand visitors, and its activities were closely followed by the FBI. With the anti-Semitic radio broadcaster the Rev. Charles Coughlin having faded from the national scene following FDR’s landslide second-term win, Kuhn was now the country’s most vocal and best-known ultra-right leader and anti-Semite.

It was just as the führer would have wished. Except that the führer didn’t wish.

One year ahead of the outbreak of World War II, Berlin still hoped for good relations with Washington. The Reich refused to give Kuhn’s organization either financial or verbal support, lest it further alienate the Roosevelt administration, which had already made clear its extreme distaste for the Nazi ideology. Berlin went so far as to forbid German nationals in the United States from joining the German American Bund.

The führer’s brush-off didn’t deter Kuhn and his volk, who continued to sing the Reich’s praises.

Nor did they mind the Kristallnacht of November 1938, the nationwide German pogrom set off by the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jew in Paris, which led to nearly 100 deaths, scores more injuries and the decimation of what remained of German-Jewish life. Comparing the assassination to the attacks on Bund meetings by anti-Nazis—the spiritual predecessors of today’s so-called antifa—its propagandists claimed the Kristallnacht massacre was a justifiable act of retribution. The Bund’s endorsement of the horrific event increased the American public’s hostility toward it, while causing the most prestigious German-American organization, the Steuben Society, to repudiate it.

That didn’t discourage Kuhn either. Now, he decided, as the sea of opprobrium rose around him, was the moment to step into the spotlight and show just how strong the Bund was.

That’s what the Madison Square Garden rally was about. On the surface, the conclave, billed as a “Mass Demonstration for True Americanism,” was supposed to honor George Washington on the occasion of his 207th birthday. But the unprecedented event was really intended to be the German-American Bund’s apotheosis, proof positive to America and the world—as well as Berlin—that the American Nazis were here to stay. “The rally was to be Kuhn’s shining moment, an elaborate pageant and vivid showcase of all he had built in three years,” Bernstein wrote in his 2013 book. “Kuhn’s dream of a Swastika Nation would be on display for the whole world, right in the heart of what the Berlin press called the ‘Semitized metropolis of New York.’”

Although the mass demonstration was intended for Bund members, walk-ins from sympathetic Nazi-minded American citizens also were welcome. Kuhn had big dreams: One of the posters that adorned the hall optimistically declared, “ONE MILLION BUND MEMBERS BY 1940.”

Skeptics wondered whether the bundesführer would be able to fill the massive arena. Any doubts on that score were quickly allayed, as the 20,000 Nazi faithful who had driven or flown in from every corner of Swastika Nation filed into the great hall. Meanwhile, an even larger crowd of counterdemonstrators, eventually estimated at close to 100,000, filled the surrounding midtown Manhattan streets.

New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia and Police Commissioner Lewis Valentine were prepared for both the Nazis and their adversaries, wrapping the Garden with a security cordon of 1,700 policemen—the largest police presence in the city’s history—including a large contingent of mounted officers to keep the two sides apart. LaGuardia, an Episcopalian whose mother was a Jew, loathed the Bund, but he was determined to see to it that the Bundists’ right to freedom of speech would be respected. Americans could judge the poisonous result for themselves.

Inside the Garden, things went pretty much according to Kuhn’s faux-Nuremberg script. As drums rolled, an honor guard of young American Nazis marched in bearing the flags of the U.S. and the Bund, as well as the two fascist powers, Nazi Germany and Italy. One by one, the various officers of the Bund stepped forth to extol America (or their version of it) and condemn the “racial amalgamation” that had putatively taken place since the good old unmongrelized days of George Washington. Anti-Semitism, naturally, was a major theme of the venomous rhetoric that issued forth as the newsreel cameras rolled.


Finally, after being introduced as “the man we love for the enemies he has made,” the jackbooted bundesführer himself stepped up to the microphone to deliver one of his trademark jeremiads, scoring the “slimy conspirators who would change this glorious republic into the inferno of a Bolshevik Paradise” and “the grip of the palsied hand of Communism in our schools, our universities, our very homes.” When he paused, he would be greeted with shouts of “Free America!”—the new Bund greeting that had replaced "Seig Heil!" but with the same intonation and raised arm salute.

According to Kuhn, both the federal government and New York City government were Jewish agents. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose antipathy for Nazism was a matter of record—“Nazism is a cancer,” he said—was actually “Frank D. Rosenfeld.” "Free America!" District Attorney Thomas Dewey was “Thomas Jewey.” "Free America!" Mayor LaGuardia was “Fiorello Lumpen LaGuardia.” "Free America!" And so on.

Of course, Kuhn’s followers had heard it all before. Now it was time for the world to listen. The people would rise up, and as Kuhn’s role model, Joseph Goebbels, the Third Reich’s minister of propaganda put it, the storm would break loose.

The storm was certainly rising, both inside and outside the Garden.

The only alteration to the script took place when, halfway through Kuhn’s speech, a young Jewish counterprotester by the name of Isadore Greenbaum decided that he couldn’t bear Kuhn’s diatribe anymore and spontaneously rushed the podium and attempted to tackle him.

He almost made it. On the newsreel footage of the rally shown in movie theaters throughout the country the following weekend, viewers could see Kuhn’s shocked visage as the Jewish kamikaze shakes the podium. Next, they saw the hapless Greenbaum set upon by a gaggle of furious OD men, who covered him with blows before he was finally rescued by a squadron of New York policemen. It was all over in a moment—but it was a moment that horrified America: a bunch of Nazis beating up a Jew in the middle of Madison Square Garden.

The bundesführer took the interruption in stride. Kuhn proceeded with his speech.

And then it was over, and the thousands of Nazi faithful dutifully exited the arena. As far as the Bund was concerned, the rally was a success—a shining moment for America’s most prominent fascist. But the rally further angered Berlin, which was then preparing to go to war with the Allies—a war Germany still desperately hoped the U.S. would steer clear of.

LaGuardia was proud of the way his city and his police force had handled the Bund’s rally. At the same time, the orgy of hatred at the Garden sealed his determination, along with that of Thomas Dewey, to take down Kuhn, and the Bund along with him, by investigating his suspicious finances (the married Kuhn liked to party and kept a number of mistresses, evidently, at the Bund’s expense).

A subsequent inquiry determined that the free-spending Kuhn had embezzled $14,000 from the organization. The Bund did not wish to have Kuhn prosecuted, because of Führerprinzip, the principle that the leader had absolute power. Nevertheless, with the implicit blessing of the White House, Dewey decided to go ahead and prosecute.

On December 5, 1939, Kuhn was sentenced to two-and-a-half to five years in jail for tax evasion. On December 11, 1941, while he was locked away in Sing Sing prison, Germany declared war on the U.S. Kuhn’s support for a government now actively hostile to America gave the federal government the pretext to revoke his citizenship, which it did on June 1, 1943. Upon Kuhn’s release from prison three weeks later, he was immediately re-arrested as a dangerous enemy agent. While Kuhn was in U.S. custody in Texas, Nazi Germany was destroyed, its quest for global domination permanently halted, and Hitler was dead. Four months after V-E Day, the U.S. deported Kuhn to war-ravaged West Germany. His dreams of a Swastika Nation had been smashed to pieces. He died in Munich in 1951, a broken man, in exile from the country he had sought to “liberate.”

***

To be sure, historical comparisons are, to an extent, folly. For all the similarities between the Bund’s 1939 rally and the white nationalists' Charlottesville demonstration, there are substantial differences.

Fortunately, no one with Fritz Kuhn’s particular demagogic skill set has emerged to lead his neo-Nazi descendants, though there are those attempting to play the part. “I am worried that a Kuhn figure could marshal the disparate alt-right groups,” says Arnie Bernstein, “be it a Richard Spencer, David Duke or someone of that ilk.”

Another difference is while the Bund’s rally and the violence that spilled from it was denounced forcefully by America’s top political leaders, President Donald Trump’s half-hearted condemnation and shocking defense of the Charlottesville mob as including “very fine people” has no antecedent, at least in modern American history. “We have a president blowing dog whistles loud and clear,” says Bernstein. “You never saw that with FDR.”

The Bund’s rally was at once the group’s apex and its death rattle. But it’s only in retrospect that one can make such pronouncements; nobody yet knows exactly what Charlottesville—and Trump’s response to it—will mean for the alt-right. “The striking ambivalence coming out of the White House” could help to galvanize Nazi sympathizers, says David Harris of the American Jewish Committee.

But much as the Bund-generated images of Nazi barbarism and violence drove everyday Americans from apathy 78 years ago, “Charlottesville will also mobilize anti-Nazis to stand up and be counted,” Harris says. Much as the Madison Square Garden rally did on the eve of World War II, says Harris, “I choose to believe the net effect will be to marginalize the ‘blut and boden’ fan base.

Charles Lindbergh and the Rise of 1940s Nazi Sympathizers

$
0
0



Charles Lindbergh and the Rise of 1940s Nazi Sympathizers
Charles Lindbergh may have been known as a legendary pilot, but he had another, more sinister position in American History: as a Nazi sympathizer and spokesperson for the America First Committee. (2:00)

Charles Lindbergh's Real Nazi Ties Are At the Heart of David Simon's The Plot Against America

The new HBO series based on Phillip Roth’s 2004 novel takes place in an alternative history America, but the roots of the story are very real.


BY GABRIELLE BRUNEY
MAR 16, 2020

HBO’s The Plot Against America, a miniseries from The Wire creators David Simon and Ed Burns, adapts Phillip Roth’s 2004 novel of the same name, telling the story of an alternative history United States in which Nazi-sympathizing aviator Charles Lindbergh defeats Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940 presidential election, fueling violent anti-Semitism that upends the lives of American Jews. Though the story is a clear departure from the facts of American history during World War II, much of it is based on real life. The family at the heart of the series, the Levins, are based upon Roth’s own family and childhood in Newark, New Jersey. And though Lindbergh never became president, he remains infamous as one of America’s most prominent Nazi sympathizers. Here’s what you need to know.


Who was Charles Lindbergh?
Lindbergh was born in 1902, to the son of future Minnesota congressman Charles August Lindbergh. As a young man, he became interested in aviation, and trained with the US Army Air Service before becoming an air mail pilot.

In 1919, French-American hotel owner Raymond Orteig announced that he would award $25,000 to the first pilot to make a nonstop flight between New York and Paris. Eight years later, the 25-year-old Lindbergh claimed the prize, flying for 33-and-a-half hours from Long Island, New York, to Paris. British aviators John Alcock and Arthur Brown had become the first pilots to cross the Atlantic in a non-stop flight in 1919, when they flew from Newfoundland to Ireland, but Lindbergh was the first solo pilot to accomplish the feat.

When he landed in Paris, more than 100,000 people arrived to greet him, and the good-looking young pilot instantly became a global celebrity. American president Calvin Coolidge awarded him a Distinguished Flying Cross, while Congress gave him a Medal of Honor. Lindbergh was named Time’s first-ever Person of the Year, and the 25-year-old remained the youngest honoree for more than 90 years, until 16-year-old Greta Thunberg snagged the title in 2019.

He married Anne Morrow, a future author and daughter of a successful businessman, in 1929, and the two eventually had six children. Their eldest, Charles Lindbergh Jr., was born in 1930, but was kidnapped from the family’s New Jersey home in 1932. The toddler’s body was later found in the woods near their home, and his abduction and murder was so widely covered that it became known as one of the crimes of the century. A German immigrant, Richard Hauptman, was eventually convicted of the crime and executed in 1936.


What was his involvement with the Nazis?
Lindbergh was a national hero who had suffered a great and very public tragedy—he’d accumulated about as much goodwill as any celebrity could. But his actions in the years leading to World War II irreparably damaged his reputation.

With Germany building up its military might in the 1930s, the United States government asked Lindbergh, then living in Europe to escape the hounding of the American press, to tour the nation’s flying fleet and report his findings. He was vocal about his admiration for German’s aircraft technology, and, during a 1938 dinner at the home of the US ambassador to Germany, was awarded a medal from Luftwaffe commander Herman Göring on behalf of Adolf Hitler himself. Kristallnacht, which found 7,000 businesses owned by German Jews destroyed while tens of thousands of Jews were taken to concentration camps, was just a few weeks later. Facing pressure to return the medal, Lindbergh refused.



Lindbergh wasn’t shy about his white supremacist and anti-Semitic beliefs. In 1939, he wrote for Reader’s Digest that Americans “can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.” According to him, Hitler “accomplished results (good in addition to bad) which could hardly have been accomplished without some fanaticism.”

His wife was a fan of Hitler, too, writing in a letter home that the dictator was “a very great man, like an inspired religious leader—and as such rather fanatical—but not scheming, not selfish, not greedy for power, but a mystic, a visionary who really wants the best for his country and on the whole has rather a broad view.”

“A few Jews add strength and character to a country, but too many create chaos,” Lindbergh wrote in a 1939 diary entry. “And we are getting too many.”

His father had opposed America’s entry into World War I, and as German aggressions mounted, Lindbergh adopted a similar stance. He became a spokesman for the America First Committee (sound familiar?), which advocated for the US staying out of the European war, and counted among its 800,000 members future Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart and president Gerald Ford. It also included some of the nation’s most prominent anti-Semites, like Lindbergh’s close friend Henry Ford. (When asked what they talked about during Lindbergh’s visits to Ford’s plant, the automaker reportedly replied, “When Charles comes out here, we only discuss the Jews.”) And Lindbergh was one of the organization’s spokesmen.

America First Committee Meeting
In early 1941, Lindbergh testified before Congress in opposition of the Lend-Lease Act, which eventually passed and allowed the US to offer aid to Allied nations. In September of that year, Lindbergh delivered an infamous speech in Des Moines, Iowa. In The Plot Against America, Herman Levin listens to the speech on the radio. In the deeply anti-Semitic speech, Lindbergh blamed American Jews for the tilt towards war. “Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government,” he said. Even by the standards of the day, the remarks were considered outrageous. The Des Moines Register condemned it as being “so intemperate, so unfair, so dangerous in its implications that it cannot but turn many spadefuls in the digging of the grave of his influence in this country.”

The America First Committee disbanded on December 10th, 1941, three days after Pearl Harbor made war truly unavoidable. Lindbergh would fly combat missions as a consultant for Ford’s B-24 manufacturing company, though his effort to rejoin the air force was shut down by FDR. Later, historian Arthur Schlesigner would write of an effort by isolationists to urge Lindbergh to run for president as a Republican opposing FDR in 1940, which inspired Roth to write The Plot Against America.

His reputation permanently tarnished by his Nazi sympathizes, Lindbergh died in Hawaii in 1974. But his affection for Germany survived the war: He fathered seven secret children in the nation during the 1950s and ‘60s by three women that included a pair of sisters.

The Plot Against America / VIDEO: Official Trailer | HBO / SEE ALSO the other two posts below.

$
0
0




 The Plot Against America is an American alternate history drama television miniseries created and written by David Simon and Ed Burns, based on the 2004 novel of the same name by Philip Roth, that premiered on HBO on March 16, 2020.
The Plot Against America imagines "an alternate American history told through the eyes of a working-class Jewish family in Newark, New Jersey, as they watch the political rise of Charles Lindbergh, an aviator-hero and xenophobic populist, who becomes president and turns the nation toward fascism."


No.        Title                       Directed by              Teleplay by         Original air date               U.S. viewers
(millions)

1       "Part 1"       Minkie Spiro      Ed Burns & David Simon               March 16, 2020 0.407
June 1940. Herman is riled by the anti-war rhetoric of populist aviator hero Charles Lindbergh with its anti-Semitic overtones, but does not take the possibility of his running for the Presidency seriously. Herman is offered a promotion, but this would require them to live in Union where they would likely be the only Jews in the neighborhood. Disgusted by the patrons at a German-themed bar in Union, he decides to decline the offer. Alvin is fired from his job at a local Esso service station for stealing; he tells Sandy he took the blame for a friend. He moves out of the house after an argument with Herman. Bess's older sister Evelyn, who looks after their mother, is having an affair with a married man in New York; it soon becomes clear that he has no intention of divorcing his wife. Philip's friend Earl, whose mother has a scandalous reputation, is a corrupting influence on him. Evelyn and Bess meet Rabbi Bengelsdorf, who is sympathetic to Lindbergh's anti-war message; Evelyn is charmed. Alvin secretly stays with a friend whose father runs a candy store. At night, he and two friends wait outside the German bar in Union and beat up two drunk patrons on their way home, calling them fascists.

2      "Part 2"      Minkie Spiro      David Simon & Ed Burns               March 23, 2020 0.395
October 1940. Sandy eagerly attends a speech by Lindbergh, with Evelyn and Bengelsdorf present. Evelyn and Bengelsdorf later enter into a relationship, and Evelyn introduces him to her mother. Bengelsdorf assures Evelyn he will attempt to sway her family to his side politically. With Herman's assistance, Alvin takes a job as a driver for a wealthy man named Abe Steinheim, but quickly grows to find him crass and corrupt. To aid her family financially, Bess takes a retail job at an upper-class store, though she soon becomes unnerved by Lindbergh-supporting customers. Philip continues to learn delinquent behavior from Earl, including theft and following strangers around the city. Speaking at a Lindbergh rally, Bengelsdorf lavishly endorses Lindbergh, with Evelyn by his side. Disgusted by Bengelsdorf and the direction of the country, Alvin quits his job and enlists in the Canadian Army. Lindbergh later wins the election and becomes President.

3      "Part 3"      Minkie Spiro      Ed Burns              March 30, 2020 0.357
May 1941. A few months after Lindbergh's inauguration, anti-Semitic incidents have been rising in the United States. Lindbergh signs a neutrality agreement with Adolf Hitler. He also places Bengelsdorf in charge of a program called "Just Folks," as part of the Office of American Absorption, which temporarily places Jewish boys into rural families to make them "more American"; Evelyn signs up Sandy to participate. Philip begins to have nightmares about Nazis. Meanwhile, Evelyn and Bess's mother's dementia has been worsening. As Bess's concern for her family's safety grows, she places them on a waiting list to potentially emigrate to Canada. The Levins take a trip to Washington, D.C., where they experience anti-Semitism among both citizens and the police. Herman ultimately gives his permission for Sandy to travel to Kentucky as part of Just Folks. Alvin flourishes in Canada's military program, and is recruited by British intelligence to help steal a German radar device. However, he loses his leg in combat.

4      "Part 4"    Thomas Schlamme          David Simon & Reena Rexrode   April 6, 2020               0.420
September 1941. Bess and Evelyn's mother passes away. Herman visits Alvin in the hospital and offers his support, but Alvin has grown aloof and disillusioned. Alvin is questioned by the FBI, after which he is discharged and returns to New Jersey. In synagogue, Sandy gives a presentation espousing Just Folks, after being designated a 'Recruitment Officer' by Evelyn. When Evelyn and Bengelsdorf join the Levins for Shabbat, Herman clashes with Bengelsdorf's views and upbringing, including his father fighting for the Confederacy. After Bengelsdorf proposes an expansion of Just Folks, Anne Morrow Lindbergh invites him and Evelyn to a state dinner with German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (as all other Jewish representatives refused). Evelyn also secures an invitation for Sandy, which enrages Herman and Bess, who refuse to let Sandy attend. He responds by calling his parents "ghetto Jews" and "worse than Hitler". Evelyn dances with the German official at the dinner, which appears later on the newsreels. The FBI, meanwhile, has been tracking Alvin after marking him a potential Communist. Earl leaves town to live with his grandmother after his mother is committed to a psychiatric hospital. Seldon's father dies. Philip, overwhelmed by everything happening around him, happily watches a Lindbergh newsreel, much to Herman's exasperation.

5     "Part 5"   Thomas Schlamme          Ed Burns              April 13, 2020    0.433
April 1942. The Levins are forcibly signed up, by Evelyn, to participate in Homestead 42, Bengelsdorf's Just Folks expansion that relocates entire Jewish families. Bengelsdorf informs Bess that their participation will convince the FBI to take some heat off of Alvin. Philip expresses curiosity and concern about a Ku Klux Klan presence in Kentucky, and angrily asks Evelyn why his neighbor Seldon Wishnow, and Seldon's widowed mother Selma, weren't relocated instead. Misinterpreting this as a desire to be with his friend, Evelyn signs them up as well. Despite FBI threats, Herman intends to sue the OAA, but learns the legal process will take at least a year; instead, he quits his job to avoid the Homestead 42 obligation. Philip is overwhelmed with guilt when he realizes that he was the cause of Seldon's relocation to Kentucky, where he will almost certainly be unhappy. The FBI resumes tailing Alvin. Evelyn and Bengelsdorf marry in an extravagant ceremony unattended by the Levins. Outspoken radio host Walter Winchell escalates his anti-Lindbergh rhetoric; Bengelsdorf quickly gets him fired. Winchell announces a presidential run and Herman attends his rally, but violent Lindbergh supporters attack the attendees as the police stand aside. When Herman returns home bloodied, Bess threatens to leave him and take the children to Canada if he continues his resistance.

6    "Part 6"  Thomas Schlamme          David Simon       April 20, 2020    0.392
September 1942. Violent anti-Semitic incidents escalate and spread throughout the country. Winchell is assassinated in Louisville. At his funeral, New York Mayor Fiorello la Guardia eulogizes him and denounces Lindbergh. In response, Bengelsdorf urges the First Lady to convince Lindbergh to issue a statement, but Lindbergh's speech is short and lacking substance. Billy Murphy, a fellow veteran from the Canadian Army, visits Alvin and introduces him to a British agent who persuades Alvin to join a secretive anti-fascist group that wants to assassinate Lindbergh; Alvin's radar expertise is needed to track Lindbergh's plane, which vanishes soon after. German radio spreads propaganda of a Jewish conspiracy, claims that are taken up by Acting President Wheeler who declares martial law and orders the arrests of prominent Jews including Bengelsdorf. Concerned by reports from Kentucky, Bess attempts to contact Selma but is only able to reach a distraught Seldon, whose mother hasn't returned home. Herman and Sandy drive to Kentucky to pick up Seldon, where they learn Selma has been murdered by the Ku Klux Klan. They encounter more Klan members on the way back to New Jersey. A terrified Evelyn asks Bess for sanctuary, but Bess tells her to leave and never return. The First Lady issues a statement calling for civic peace, the release of the Jewish detainees, and urges Congress to replace Wheeler and call an emergency Presidential election. Bengelsdorf returns to his synagogue, finding his congregation all but gone. His claims that Lindbergh's presidency and subsequent disappearance were the result of a German blackmail operation are met with skepticism from his colleagues. Alvin visits the Levins with his fiancee, but gets into a fistfight with Herman over Alvin's apparent indifference to national events. In November, the emergency election is marred by government disenfranchisement of Roosevelt voters, and the series ends without the results being revealed.





Former Spanish King Juan Carlos 'leaves Spain' amid corruption investiga...

$
0
0
Spain's former king Juan Carlos has left the country amid allegations of corruption. There are reports he is in the Dominican Republic, though no official announcement has been made. Prosecutors have long been investigating Juan Carlos. The longtime monarch is facing accusations he took a kickback from Saudi Arabia when Spanish companies won a contract to build a railway between Mecca and Medina. The King's former lover - Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein - is suspected to have received the bribe money.


Spain's scandal-hit former king Juan Carlos to go into exile / Allegations over offshore funds swirl around Spain's former king / Who is Corinna Larsen, the woman who shakes the Spanish monarchy?

$
0
0


Spain's scandal-hit former king Juan Carlos to go into exile

 

The 82-year-old says he is moving abroad to help son ‘exercise his responsibilities’ as king

 

Sam Jones in Madrid

 @swajones

Mon 3 Aug 2020 18.09 BSTFirst published on Mon 3 Aug 2020 18.07 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/03/spains-scandal-hit-former-king-juan-carlos-to-move-abroad

 

Spain’s former king Juan Carlos is to leave the country and go into exile abroad following a series of damaging allegations about his financial arrangements that have harmed the reputation of the monarchy and embarrassed his son, King Felipe.

 

In March Felipe stripped Juan Carlos of his annual stipend and renounced his own personal inheritance from his father after reports that he was in line to receive millions of euros from a secret offshore fund with ties to Saudi Arabia.

 

Three months later, Spain’s supreme court launched an investigation into the former king’s role in a deal in which a Spanish consortium landed a €6.7bn (£5.9bn) contract to build a high-speed rail line between the Saudi cities of Medina and Mecca.

 

On Monday afternoon the royal house published a letter sent by Juan Carlos to his son saying he would “move away from Spain” in the wake of the “public repercussions that certain past events in my private life are causing”.

 

The 82-year-old king emeritus, as he is now known in Spain, said he had taken the decision to leave the royal palace and the country to help Felipe “exercise his responsibilities” as king.

 

Juan Carlos added: “This is a very emotional decision, but one I take with great serenity. I have been king of Spain for almost 40 years and throughout them all I have always wanted what is best for Spain and the crown.”

 

The letter did not mention where the former king would go, nor when exactly he would leave Spain.

 

A Spanish government source said it “respected” the decision, adding the move showed “the transparency that has always guided King Felipe since he became head of state”.

 

The royal house said Felipe had expressed its “gratitude and respect” for the decision. It also said the current king was keen to stress “the historical importance of his father’s reign” and his service to Spain and to democracy.

 

Juan Carlos played a pivotal role in restoring democracy to Spain following the death of General Francisco Franco in 1975, not least when he stood firm in the face of an attempted military coup in 1981.

 

But in recent years the revelations about his private life and financial affairs have tarnished what was once seen as one of Europe’s model monarchies.

 

Juan Carlos abdicated in favour of Felipe six years ago after a series of scandals including over a controversial elephant-hunting trip to Botswana as Spain was devastated by the financial crisis.

 

Felipe’s decision to cancel his father’s stipend and forego his personal inheritance was viewed as proof of his desire to take firm action and distance himself from the scandals.

 

Spain’s Socialist-led coalition government has rejected calls for a parliamentary inquiry into the king’s finances, but it too has signalled its distance from Juan Carlos.

 

“It’s obvious that collectively Spaniards are hearing some unsettling reports that disturb all of us, and which disturb me too,” the prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, said in July.

 

“But I think there are some things worth mentioning in all this. First, that there are some media that aren’t looking the other way – on the contrary, they’re reporting all this. Second, there’s a justice system that’s taking action. Third – and this is something I’m grateful for – the royal house itself had distanced itself following these disturbing reports.”

 

Sánchez also said the 1978 constitution – under which “the person of the king is inviolable and shall not be held accountable” – needed “to evolve in accordance with the standards and political conduct that society demands”.

 

Swiss prosecutors are looking into a number of accounts held in the country by the former monarch and his alleged associates. It is alleged in documents from the Swiss prosecutors that Juan Carlos received a $100m “donation” from the king of Saudi Arabia that he put in an offshore account in 2008. Four years later he allegedly gifted €65m from the account to his former lover Corinna Larsen.

 

Juan Carlos has said he never told his son he was set to benefit from two offshore funds, but he has made no further comment on the allegations.

 

Allegations over offshore funds swirl around Spain's former king

 

Questions over Juan Carlos’s finances are having an ‘unprecedented impact’ on the country’s monarchy

 

Sam Jones and Giles Tremlett in Madrid

Wed 15 Jul 2020 05.00 BSTLast modified on Wed 15 Jul 2020 05.01 BST

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/15/allegations-over-offshore-funds-swirl-around-spains-former-king#:~:text=Damaging%20allegations%20over%20the%20financial,immunity%2C%20according%20to%20legal%20experts.

Damaging allegations over the financial arrangements of Spain’s former king Juan Carlos have placed the royal family under unprecedented scrutiny but are unlikely to result in current or futures monarchs losing their constitutional immunity, according to legal experts.

 

Juan Carlos abdicated in favour of his son, Felipe, six years ago, renouncing the throne after a series of damaging scandals including in a controversial elephant-hunting trip to Botswana as Spain was devastated by the financial crisis.

 

But allegations of impropriety have continued to follow the former monarch and have hobbled King Felipe’s efforts to move the monarchy out of his father’s shadow.

 

Recent reports in the British, Swiss and Spanish press have increased the pressure on the royal family. In March, Felipe stripped Juan Carlos of his annual stipend and renounced his personal inheritance from his father following reports that he was in line to receive millions of euros from a secret offshore fund with ties to Saudi Arabia.

 

Last month, Spain’s supreme court launched an investigation into the role the former king played in a deal in which a Spanish consortium landed a €6.7bn (£5.9bn) contract to build a high-speed rail line between the Saudi cities Medina and Mecca.

 

The inquiry is intended to “define or discard the criminal relevance of events that occurred after June 2014”, when Juan Carlos abdicated and ceased to enjoy constitutional immunity from prosecution.

 

Meanwhile, Swiss prosecutors are looking into a number of accounts held in the country by the former monarch and his alleged associates.

 

It is alleged in documents from the Swiss prosecutor that Juan Carlos received a $100m “donation” from the king of Saudi Arabia that he put in an offshore account in 2008. Four years later, he allegedly gifted €65m from the account to his former lover, Corinna Larsen.

 

Last week, Spain’s El Confidencial website reported that Juan Carlos withdrew €100,000 a month from the account between 2008 and 2012, and used the money to pay for some of the royal family’s expenses.

 

Juan Carlos has said that he never told his son he was set to benefit from two offshore funds, but has made no further comment on the allegations.

 

Although the Socialist party, which heads Spain’s minority coalition government, has sided with rightwing parties to head off a parliamentary inquiry into the king’s finances, it has been blunt into its assessment of the matter.

 

“It’s obvious that, collectively, Spaniards are hearing some unsettling reports that disturb all of us, and which disturb me, too,” the prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, said last Wednesday.

 

“But I think there are some things worth mentioning in all this. First, that there are some media that aren’t looking the other way – on the contrary, they’re reporting all this. Second, there’s a justice system that’s taking action. Third – and this is something I’m grateful for – the royal house itself had distanced itself following these disturbing reports.”

 

Sánchez also said the 1978 constitution – which stated that “the person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable” – needed “to evolve in accordance with the standards and political conduct that society demands”.

 

Carlos Flores, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Valencia, said that while there had long been “doubts or suspicions” about the former king’s private activities, “what’s happening now with the discovery of all these business dealings is unprecedented”.

 

But he questioned how any efforts to separate private behaviour from the public role would work in practice.

 

“The thing is that the king is the head of state – he’s a symbol of the state – and it’s impossible to distinguish between the public and the private,” said Flores.

 

“The public and the private are intertwined. If the king goes to open a monument and runs over a pedestrian with his car on the way, is that a public or private matter? And if he holds a banquet for the head of a neighbouring country and someone gets food poisoning, is the king responsible publicly or privately?”

 

Flores also said it would be “absurd” to try to change the constitution for the sake of the king’s immunity when there were many more pressing reasons for it to be overhauled.

 

Joaquín Urías, a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Seville, agreed that while the allegations about Juan Carlos’s finances were having an “unprecedented impact” on the monarchy, any revisiting of the Spanish constitution was extremely unlikely given the yawning divisions in the country’s politics.

 

“Right now, changing the constitution is impossible, politically speaking, because of the ideological divisions within the country,” he said.

 

“It’s impossible to imagine political agreement over the king … or over territorial issues, such as Catalonia and the Basque country.”

 

Urías said both the government and current king appeared to be taking a pragmatic line when it came to the former monarch.

 

“I think the government is doing the only thing it can, which is trying to separate King Felipe VI from his father,” he said,

 

“And that’s what the royal house is also doing – I imagine at the suggestion of the government. It’s the most intelligent play for anyone wishing to maintain the system.”

 

Corinna Larsen plans to bring a case in UK courts alleging a continuous campaign of intimidation directed against her by elements of the Spanish state since details of the former king’s finances emerged.

 

Her legal team says she is relieved that proceedings have been opened in Switzerland.

 

I think the government is doing the only thing it can, which is trying to separate King Felipe VI from his father

 

“There has been wide-ranging illegal conduct against her in multiple jurisdictions to cover up the deceitful schemes of powerful figures in Spain,” said her lawyer, Robin Rathmell. “Those same people have attempted to make her the scapegoat for their decades-long improper conduct. She welcomes the opportunity to be heard publicly and for the matter to be properly investigated.”

 

The British historian and Hispanist Paul Preston, who has written biographies of General Franco and Juan Carlos, said Spain’s disenchantment with its former monarch should not detract from the “extremely courageous” role the king played in helping Spain in its transition to democracy.

 

“Whatever one says, one shouldn’t forget the historical legacy,” he said. “As far as things are concerned now – and this is true in a way of all the democracies – with the rise of populism, we’re seeing a dreadful loss of faith in the political elite for the obvious reason that they’re a lot of lying, incompetent bastards … The odd thing is why the disillusion doesn’t go further than it does.”


Spain

After passing through Portugal, Juan Carlos will have traveled to the Dominican Republic

 

The possibility that the king emeritus came to Portugal is being ruled out by the Spanish media, which are increasingly likely to be in the Dominican Republic, after having caught a plane in Porto. Marcelo and the King of Spain discussed in Madrid the question of the future of Juan Carlos.

 

Pedro Bastos Reis and Leonete Botelho August 4, 2020, 9:50 am

https://www.publico.pt/2020/08/04/mundo/noticia/passar-portugal-juan-carlos-tera-viajado-republica-dominicana-1926951

 

Where is the king emeritus of Spain, Juan Carlos, who left the country due to the repercussions of the revelations about his bank accounts in tax havens? Much has been speculated about his whereabouts. Dominican Republic and even Portugal – a thesis that has lost momentum in recent hours – are some of the possible destinations.

 

On Monday night, TVI said Juan Carlos would be in Portugal, at his home in Estoril, Cascais, where he spent part of his childhood during his parents' exile. In Spain, however, the press stresses that the news of Portuguese television does not cite any source.

 

THE PUBLICO knows that the king emeritus of Spain was in Portugal on July 18, a Saturday. The following Monday, the President of the Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, went to Madrid to, on a lightning visit, without entourage, visit the Prado Museum and have lunch with King Filipe VI, at the Zarzuela Palace. The two heads of state – who had met less than a month earlier, on 1 July, at the ceremony that marked the full reopening of the borders between Portugal and Spain in Elvas and Badajoz – then discussed the question of Juan Carlos' future. Contacted by the PUBLIC, the Presidency of the Republic replied to have nothing to say on the matter. The Foreign Office also said there was nothing to report on the matter.

 

The Spanish daily ABC guarantees that the monarch is in the Dominican Republic, where the multimillionaire and friend Pepe Fanjul lives. On this Caribbean island, the Fanjul family, notes El Español, owns half of the region's tourist grounds, which can lead to the monarch having at his disposal a discreet and exclusive place. In addition, in 2014, Juan Carlos took refuge in Casa de Campo, an exclusive resort on the island.

 

ABC adds that Juan Carlos de Madrid's trip to the Dominican Republic took place over the weekend, with the monarch making stops in Sanxenxo, Galicia, and Francisco Sá Carneiro Airport in Porto. La Vanguardia writes that the 82-year-old monarch traveled by car on Monday from Spain to Porto, where he boarded a plane to the Dominican Republic, where he plans to stay a few weeks.

 

Juan Carlos' departure from Spain was announced on Monday, after a letter was released in which the monarch addressed his son, Felipe VI, expressing his "absolute readiness to contribute to facilitating the exercise" of the king's duties.

 

In recent months, the pressure on Juan Carlos has increased substantially. The monarch is being investigated for receiving $100 million from the Saudi king and initially hiding them in a foundation, and then sending the money to former lover Corinna Larsen in a scheme to evade taxes.

 

The pressure under the king emeritus made a dent in the Royal House, precipitating the departure of Juan Carlos from Spain. Close friends of the king, on condition of anonymity, however, told El Mundo that the monarch admits to returning soon to Spain: "He told us, in all normality, that he may return in September," a close friend told the Spanish daily.

 

According to El Español, only five people know the whereabouts of Juan Carlos: King Felipe VI, who had been aware of his father's intentions for several weeks; the President of the Spanish Government, Pedro Sánchez, who coordinates a team of the Civil Guard to protect the king, and who, at the end of the Council of Ministers on Tuesday, is expected to speak; the former head of the Spanish secret services, Félix Sanz Roldán, close to the monarch; the lawyer, Javier Sánchez Junco; and the head of the Royal House, Jaime Alfonsín, appointed by Philip VI to negotiate with the king emeritus.

 

The same Spanish newspaper also advances with some of the possible destinations for Juan Carlos. In addition to the increasingly likely Dominican Republic, El Español admits the possibility of king emeritus going to Geneva, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Miami in the United States.

 

tp.ocilbup@sier.ordep

tp.ocilbup@ohletobl





Who is Corinna Larsen, the woman who shakes the Spanish monarchy?

 

Her name jumped into the spotlight after Juan Carlos fell during an elephant hunt in Botswana in 2012. That same year, the monarch transferred almost 65 million euros to an account in the name of the alleged mistress.

 

DN

04 August 2020 — 13:02

https://www.dn.pt/mundo/quem-e-corinna-larsen-a-mulher-que-abala-a-monarquia-espanhola-12494438.html

 

Spanish King Emeritus Juan Carlos left Spain in the middle of an investigation into an alleged $100 million commission he received from the Saudis that passed through tax havens until he reached, in part, the account of his alleged mistress, German businesswoman Corinna Larsen. Who is the woman who is calling the monarchy into question?

 

Corinna Larsen met Juan Carlos in 2004 during a hunt in La Garganta (owned by the Duke of Westminster in Ciudad Real), according to El País. She then also used her married name, Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, although she was already separated from her second husband, German Prince Casimir (her first husband was British businessman Philip Adkins). She would only lose her nickname and title as a princess when she remarried in 2019 to a 28-year-old model.

 

Daughter of Danish Finn Bönnig Larsen (who was European director of the Brazilian airline Varig) and German Ingrid Sauerland, she studied International Relations in Geneva and moved to Paris at the age of 21. In his youth, he vacationed in Marbella. He speaks five languages. She lived in Monaco, where I work as an advisor to Prince Albert and his wife, Charlene.

 

Corinna was 39 when she met Juan Carlos (married since 1962 to Sofia) and worked as a manager for an arms company, Boss and Company, which organized luxury hunts. After meeting the king, then 66, he founded Apollonia Associates, a company that "advises corporate and institutional clients on cross-border transactions", and also began working as an assistant to Juan Carlos.

 

She is the one who organizes, at the king's request, The Philip and Letizia's honeymoon in Cambodia, Fiji and California and has also sought work for Infanta Cristina's husband, Iñaki Urdangarin, at the Laureus Foundation, but this refusal -- since 2018 that he has been serving prison time for embezzlement and influence peddling and Corinna's name came up during the trial.

 

Rumors of Juan Carlos' extramatrimonial relationship with Corinna (who has a daughter from his first marriage and a son from the latter) came to public attention in 2012 after the monarch fell during an elephant hunt in Botswana, having to undergo emergency hip surgery on his return to Madrid.

 

On the trip, equally controversial for showing the king's life of luxury when the Spaniards lived in crisis, was also Corinna, her first husband and youngest son (photographed alongside Juan Carlos and the elephant he killed). It was not the first time they had traveled together, and Corinna was repeatedly photographed with the king.

 

He returns to the spotlight because of recordings of conversations with former policeman José Manuel Villarejo, currently in custody, where he reveals that Juan Carlos has accounts in Switzerland on behalf of iron foreheads and that he received million-dollar commissions for business with Spanish companies. And also, already this year, for having received almost 65 million euros that says that the monarch transferred to him for "gratitude and love".

 

The money will be part of the commission the monarch will have received from the Saudis because of the deal to build a high-speed train line between Mecca and Medina, in charge of a Spanish consortium. A deal that Swiss and Spanish are investigating, with Corinna -- who after the end of her relationship with the monarch claimed to have been the target of persecution by the Spanish secret -- accused of money laundering.


Spain puzzles over ex-King Juan Carlos's whereabouts - BBC News

$
0
0
There is intense speculation in the Spanish media about the whereabouts of embattled ex-King Juan Carlos, after his shock announcement on Monday that he was leaving the country.

The 82-year-old, who is targeted by a corruption probe, announced the move in a letter posted on the royal website.

It gave no details about his destination, but some reports suggest he has gone to the Dominican Republic.

Juan Carlos said he would be available if prosecutors needed to speak to him.

In June, Spain's Supreme Court opened an investigation into his alleged involvement in a high-speed rail contract in Saudi Arabia.


US suit retailer files for bankruptcy as joggers and polo shirts take over

$
0
0


 US suit retailer files for bankruptcy as joggers and polo shirts take over

 

Tailored Brands, owner of Men’s Wearhouse and JoS. A. Bank, hit by Covid-19 lockdown-driven shifts in workwear

 

Priya Elan Deputy fashion editor

Tue 4 Aug 2020 20.18 BSTLast modified on Wed 5 Aug 2020 04.36 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/04/us-suit-retailer-files-for-bankruptcy-as-joggers-and-polo-shirts-take-over

 

US company Tailored Brands, which controls Men’s Wearhouse and JoS. A. Bank, has become the latest mens suit specialists to file for bankruptcy in the US as office workers stay home during the pandemic.

 

The company, which operated about 1,400 stores and employed 1,800 workers, filed for Chapter 11 protection in Houston, Texas.

 

CEO Dinesh Lathi said: “The unprecedented impact of Covid-19 requires us to further adapt and evolve. Reaching an agreement with our lenders represents a critical milestone toward our goal of becoming a stronger company that has the financial and operational flexibility to compete and win in the rapidly evolving retail environment.”

 

The coronavirus has kept millions of office workers at home and out of shops that sell suits. In June, Tailored Brands reported that net sales had fallen by 60% in the previous three months, compared with the same period last year. As well as Men’s Wearhouse and JoS. A. Bank, J. Crew and Brooks Brothers have both declared bankruptcy in the last few months.

 

UK stores have also seen a decline in suit sales. In May Marks & Spencer boss Steve Rowe told the Guardian: “We are barely selling any suits and the number of ties I could probably count on one hand.”

 

It’s a similar story in Japan where brands such as Aoyama Trading have pivoted away from suits towards casual shirts and facemasks. Even before the pandemic, factors such as the “cool biz” campaign in the summer to save energy by raising air-conditioning thermostats have pushed corporate Japan towards a more casual look.

 

While corporate dress codes have been gradually relaxing over the past decade, the current crisis has accelerated the demise of the traditional suit and radically shifted attitudes towards workwear. Instead of formal workwear there has been a rise in comfortable and practical work from home staples such as joggers and “Zoom shirts” (smart shirts only worn for Zoom work calls).

 

Tara Drury, senior fashion and retail analyst at data marketing company Edited, said: “Many tailoring-focused brands started promoting ‘business-on-top’ looks as video calls became the norm, featuring dress shirts paired with relaxed trousers and smart joggers. While this did help push sales for smarter shirting, retailers shifted focus to polo shirts (which is) the new smart-casual alternative.”

 

The blurring of office wear and homewear can be seen in the latest data from Lyst.co.uk, which charts the most searched for clothing items on the internet: searches for the functional Birkenstocks increased by 225%.

 

Drury said she believed the “dress down Friday” look would become the new normal, with an office look compromising of “smart joggers or drawstring trousers paired with a stretch blazer or knitted polo shirt”.

PODCAST Hadley Freeman on the future of the royals

$
0
0

 

PODCAST

Hadley Freeman on the future of the royals

https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2020/aug/07/hadley-freeman-on-the-future-of-the-royals

 

Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman discusses the fallout from the publication of Finding Freedom, a biography of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and the latest allegations surrounding Prince Andrew

Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman tells Rachel Humphreys why 2020 is not shaping up to be a great year for the royals. It began with the bombshell announcement that the Sussexes - Prince Harry and his wife Meghan - were stepping back as senior royals, and later saw them relocate to Los Angeles. Last month, extracts from a biography, Finding Freedom, chronicled what the authors claim has been a deepening rift between Prince Harry, Meghan and Buckingham Palace.

Hadley also discusses Prince Andrew. He ended 2019 by stepping back from public duties after his disastrous Newsnight interview where he discussed his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The arrest of Epstein’s close friend Ghislaine Maxwell in July has put Prince Andrew’s name back in the headlines. This month the FBI has said it has been passed information from a witness claiming to have seen the Duke of York at Tramp nightclub, the evening he claims he was at Pizza Express in Woking.

Prince Harry hits out at social media for creating 'crisis of hate'

$
0
0

 


 

Prince Harry hits out at social media for creating 'crisis of hate'

 

Duke of Sussex urges advertisers to demand companies do more to curb hate speech online

 

Alex Hern

 @alexhern

Fri 7 Aug 2020 12.02 BSTFirst published on Fri 7 Aug 2020 11.54 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/07/prince-harry-hits-out-at-social-media-for-creating-crisis-of-hate

 

Prince Harry has hit out at social media companies for creating a “crisis of hate” and called for “meaningful digital reform” after an unprecedented advertiser boycott of Facebook.

 

In an opinion piece for the US business magazine Fast Company, the Duke of Sussex revealed that he and his wife, Meghan, had begun campaigning for change in social media “a little over four weeks ago”.

 

Their personal campaign came at the same time as the launch of the Stop Hate for Profit campaign, which persuaded a number of major advertisers, first in the US and later globally, to pull their spending on Facebook and Instagram in protest against the lax enforcement of hate speech policies.

 

“Some may ask why a change campaign would take aim at online advertising,” the prince wrote. “Well, many of us love and enjoy social media. It’s a seemingly free resource for connecting, sharing and organising. But it’s not actually free; the cost is high.

 

“Every time you click they learn more about you. Our information, private data and unknown habits are traded on for advertising space and dollars. The price we’re all paying is much higher than it appears. Whereas normally we’re the consumer buying a product, in this ever-changing digital world, we are the product.”

 

The opinion piece stops short of naming specific companies, although the Stop Hate for Profit campaign, which is explicitly cited, was targeted directly at Facebook.

 

It is also slim on specific proposals for change. “There is huge value,” the Queen’s grandson wrote, “in advertisers sitting at the table with advocacy leaders, with policy leaders, with civil society leaders, in search of solutions that strengthen the digital community while protecting its free and open nature.”

 

Harry calls on advertisers “to use their leverage, including through their advertising dollars, to demand change from the very places that give a safe haven and vehicle of propagation to hate and division”. But the prince does not specifically push for advertisers to continue supporting the Stop Hate for Profit campaign, which expanded to cover the UK and Europe last week.

 

Since they stepped back from their duties as members of the British royal family, Harry and Meghan Windsor have both been campaigning against online hate speech, although this is the strongest intervention from either to date.

 

Imran Ahmed, the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which is coordinating the Stop Hate For Profit campaign in the UK and Europe, said: “Social media gives bigots the opportunity to spread hate and misinformation to an audience of millions for free. In this coronavirus pandemic, especially when it comes to a potential life-saving vaccine, the whole world has been made painfully aware that lies cost lives.

 

“Social media users have in the past been ignored by social media companies because they are the product, not the customers. Our data, our thoughts and our sentiments are packaged and sold to their real customers, the advertisers.

 

“That’s why the Duke of Sussex is so right to highlight the unique capacity and moral duty advertisers have to force platforms to do something about the bigotry and dangerous misinformation. Companies that want to play their part can send a message by pausing or reducing their advertising on Facebook until they take credible action.”

Perry Mason: Conversation with Robert Downey Jr. and Matthew Rhys (Inter...

The Perry Mason style and look /VIDEO: PERRY MASON Official Trailer (2020) Crime, HBO Series

$
0
0

Perry Mason is an American period drama television series based on the character of the same name created by Erle Stanley Gardner which premiered on June 21, 2020, on HBO. The series was developed and written by Rolin Jones and Ron Fitzgerald and stars Matthew Rhys in the title role. In July 2020, the series was renewed for a second season.

The series focuses on the origin story of famed defense lawyer Perry Mason. In 1932, Los Angeles is prospering while the rest of the U.S. is recovering from the grip of the Great Depression. Down-and-out private investigator Perry Mason is struggling with his trauma from The Great War and being divorced. He's hired for a sensational child kidnapping trial and his investigation portends major consequences for Mason, his client, and the city itself.

On August 15, 2016, it was reported that HBO was developing a drama series based on the Perry Mason stories written by Erle Stanley Gardner. The production was expected to be written by Nic Pizzolatto who was also set to executive produce alongside Robert Downey Jr. and Joe Horacek. Production companies involved with the series were slated to consist of Team Downey. On August 25, 2017, it was announced that Pizzolatto had dropped out of the production in order to focus on the third season of True Detective and that he was being replaced as the project's writer by Rolin Jones and Ron Fitzgerald.

 On January 14, 2019, it was announced that HBO had given the production an order as a limited series. It was further announced that Jones, Fitzgerald, Susan Downey, and Amanda Burrell would serve as additional executive producers, that Matthew Rhys would serve as a producer, and that the production was in the process of hiring a director. Jones and Fitzgerald serve as showrunners for the series as well. In March, Tim Van Patten was announced as director and executive producer. On July 22, 2020, it was revealed HBO had decided to turn Perry Mason into a regular series, renewing it for a second season.

 Casting

Alongside the initial development announcement, it was confirmed that Robert Downey Jr. would star as the titular Perry Mason. On July 25, 2018, it was reported that Downey had dropped out of the role due to his feature film schedule and that a search for his replacement was ongoing.[18] On January 14, 2019, it was announced that Matthew Rhys had been cast to replace Downey. Tatiana Maslany joined in April. John Lithgow was added to the cast in May. In June, Chris Chalk and Shea Whigham were cast in lead roles, with Nate Corddry, Veronica Falcón, Jefferson Mays, Gayle Rankin and Lili Taylor set in recurring roles. Juliet Rylance, Andrew Howard, Eric Lange, Robert Patrick and Stephen Root joined in July. Justin Kirk would be added in October.



Costume designer Emma Potter.

Inside the Costume Design of HBO's 'Perry Mason': "There's So Much Wear and Tear and Life"

8:45 AM PDT 7/3/2020 by Degen Pener

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a-look-behind-scenes-at-costumes-hbos-perry-mason-1301153

 

Courtesy of WarnerMedia

Matthew Rhys in 'Perry Mason'.

 

Costume designer Emma Potter talks about the fascinating sources she relied on to bring the characters of the Depression-era miniseries, starring Matthew Rhys, to life.

On HBO’s new miniseries Perry Mason, wildly contrasting aspects of 1930s Los Angeles are spotlighted by differences in costume. “With the Great Depression happening and also with the movie industry happening, there was this strange juxtaposition in the city,” says Emma Potter, costume designer of the series, which stars Matthew Rhys as the famed private investigator. “We capture all of that, from a New Year’s Eve gala in a Hollywood studio to seeing people with nothing who migrating to the city from other states looking for work.”

 

Potter says that in her work on the show, which airs its finale Aug. 9, she above all wanted to “avoid a glossed-over or stylized feel from a costume standpoint.” To do that, she relied on original photography and documentation to get a sense of what people really looked like, including the book Quick Watson, The Camera — Seventy-five years of News Photography, edited by Delmar Watson, which documents the work of the Watsons, a family of photographers in Los Angeles. And from looking at shots by photographers like Dorothea Lange, she saw that, for many people of that era, “the clothing becomes like a second skin. There’s so much wear and tear and life on the garments. You saw how much life was on them and how much it had worn people away. They aged a lot faster and they were just more weathered. We were trying to find these real people. That was the driving force of the whole design process.”

 

For the wardrobe of lead character Perry Mason, Potter leaned into that idea of wear and tear. “Mason looks like he just rolled out of bed. He’s very worn in and broken down and fraying,” says the designer, who put considerable effort into getting one particular garment, his jacket, just right. “We had this idea that we wanted him to have this kind of jacket that’s almost like a piece of armor, that he can kind of disappear within.” Potter looked at photographs from the era to decide on the proper silhouette, then started sourcing vintage jackets for Rhys to try on.

 

“It was important for Matthew and I to start from a place of vintage clothing even though we would have to build something for him. To put something old and worn on was an organic way to find this character that was so disheveled,” she says. Eventually she settled on a brown leather jacket for Mason and made up to seven versions of it, some with cigarette burns and buttons that have unraveled. “We had a great ageing and dyeing team who came in and spent a really long time breaking down the garments.” She also notes Mason’s habit of acquiring clothes from unusual places. “He’s just going around and scrounging up stuff. So nothing has to fit him right. Nothing has to make any sense. His clothing might not fit as properly as other people’s garments. It might actually be a bit big for him but he’s comfortable in it and he can move around in it.”

 

While Potter stresses that Mason “is who he is,” for most of the other main characters, there are interesting differences between how they present themselves publicly and how they are when they are alone. “When they are in their own homes, they are very different people. All of them have these other aspects of their lives,” says Potter (who was the costume designer on season three of HBO’s True Detective.)

 

That’s especially the case with Sister Alice, played by Tatiana Maslany, who is loosely based on the evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson. In her public role at her church, “she has this stage presence,” says Potter. “She almost kind of feels like a leading lady. She’s this celebrity icon who people are gravitating towards. She’s a real spectacle. So something I enjoyed learning was that the actual Sister Aimee had her gowns made by people who were designing costumes for films.”  In the series, Sister Alice’s gowns are “very glamorous silken gowns with this pearlescent quality in red, white and blue or gold and and silver. She is very glossy,” says Potter.

 

But when Sister Alice is at home, “she’s a different character,” says Potter. “I don’t want to give too much of that away, but the version of her that is at home or backstage, who’s not in her performance clothing, is a completely different look. It’s that juxtaposition of the character’s public and private sides that is always so compelling for me.”

 

For the character of Paul Drake, a beat cop, played by Chris Chalk, the costume designer consulted the book Defender of the Angels, A Black Policeman in Old Los Angeles, published in 1969, written by Jess Kimbrough about his experiences in the early decades of the last century. “[Kimbrough] wasn’t the first Black police officer. LAPD had Black officers starting in the late 1800s and the numbers increased as the city grew. He was however the first to write an account on his time,” says Potter.

 

On the show, Drake is fastidious about his appearance. “Chris and I worked really closely on figuring out what it means when he’s in his police uniform. He probably keeps himself a little neater, a little more polished than the other officers around there. He pushed himself a little bit harder,” she says. When he’s not working, one of Drake’s signature pieces is a brown knit pea coat. “It’s another favorite piece in how strong and unusual it is,” says Potter, who consulted Bette Yarbrough Cox’s book Central Avenue: Its Rise and Fall, 1890-c1950: Including the Musical Renaissance of Black Los Angeles and looked at images of what musicians wore when playing at the Dunbar Hotel’s night, a center of the jazz scene in L.A. “I remember [executive producer and director] Tim Van Patten posing a question of what does Paul wear to church or out for a date with his wife and that spurred the whole creative process for me.  He was so good at inspiring the design process in a really organic way.”

 

To put together Perry Mason’s costumes, Potter relied on a variety of sources, working closely with Western Costume Company as well as other costume shops such as Palace Costume, MPCC and American. She built many pieces in-house and collaborated with makers such as Serj Custom Tailoring for men’s suiting, Bill Hargate Costumes (for Sister Alice’s gowns) and Anto for men’s shirting. Himel Brothers made Rhys' leather jackets.

 

But she didn’t want to go overboard and create wardrobes that were too extensive for the era. “It’s not a time period when everyone has a lot of clothing,” she says, pointing for example to the character of legal secretary Della Street, played by Juliet Rylance. “It was really important for us for certain characters such as Della to have a pretty small, concise closet and to repeat the clothing, to make sure that every time she steps out of the door she doesn’t have a different outfit. Someone like Della is going to really take care of her garments and you see the mends or repair work she would have done.”



Edward Green Dress Shoes - Popular Models and Styles

$
0
0

Edward Green is known for making some of the finest leather dress shoes in the world. In this video, Kirby Allison takes a look inside the Edward Green flagship boutique on Jermyn Street in London. Step inside the Jermyn Street shop with us and learn about popular models and styles and finally look at Edward Green's Top Drawer collection, which are some of the finest ready-to-wear shoes made in the world.

https://www.edwardgreen.com/

 




Edward Green is an English shoemaker founded in 1890. Edward Green is based in Northampton, England. The level of handwork involved in production is very high and only around 250 pairs of shoes are completed a week.

In 1890, Edward Green began to make hand-crafted shoes for gentlemen in a small factory in Northampton.

The company was sold in 1977 by Green’s nephew, Michael Green to an American leather entrepreneur, Marley Hodgson, but financial problems continued and it was sold for a single British pound to another bespoke shoemaker, John Hlustik, an expert at finishing who is often credited with making brown shoes acceptable to British gentlemen. Upon Hlustik’s death in 2000, the company was willed to his partner, Hilary Freeman.

During the 1930s, Edward Green was one of the largest manufacturers of officers' boots for the British Army. Their shoes have also been selected by such clients as the Duke of Windsor, Ernest Hemingway and Cole Porter.

Edward Green shoes are available from their own shops in Jermyn Street in London and on the Boulevard St Germain in Paris, as well as stores around the world such as Double Monk in Melbourne, Isetan in Japan, Matches in Wimbledon Village, Saks Fifth Avenue in New York City and Unipair in Seoul, .

 

MR EDWARD GREEN

Edward Green was a man with a singular passion for shoes.

Starting in the industry as a twelve-year-old apprentice, Edward was driven by an ambition to make a better class of shoe. He established his own workshop in Northampton in 1890, gathering around him the town’s most illustrious craftsmen, each an expert in their respective field, and sourced the best materials for them to work with.

“Excellence without compromise,” was his promise and soon his name became associated with the finest English Goodyear Welted footwear, gracing style icons from Ernest Hemingway to Edward, the Duke of Windsor.

Sartorial ‘images’ of my direct ancestors

$
0
0

By JEEVES / ANTÓNIO SÉRGIO ROSA DE CARVALHO / “ Tweedland” 

My father in his youth with his beloved dog “ Nero” / Ericeira / Portugal

My Mother in her youth 

My Father studying violin with his Belgian Music Teacher . My Father went to study music later in the Music Conservatory of Lisbon and became later a known composer and Maestro. He wrote music scores for films and Theater, conducted famous Big Bands and Orchestras, worked in the National Radio and wrote famous ‘ fados’  for Amália Rodrigues.

Two photographs of my grandfather.


My Grandparents 

My Father directing a orchestra on a film set


 My father composing on the piano and directing a Big Band 

Montecito: the super-wealthy enclave Harry and Meghan now call home / Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Buy $14.7 Million Montecito Compound

$
0
0

 

Montecito: the super-wealthy enclave Harry and Meghan now call home

 

Duke and Duchess of Sussex should feel right at home in this part of California, where the rich and famous can live a quiet life

 

Andrew Gumbel

Fri 14 Aug 2020 12.30 BSTLast modified on Fri 14 Aug 2020 16.01 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/14/prince-harry-meghan-montecito-california-duke-duchess-sussex

 

There are moments, as you make the 90-minute drive up the coast from Los Angeles to Montecito, where Prince Harry and Meghan have set up their new home, when you can almost imagine you are heading into an unspoilt wilderness.

 

The mini-malls, car dealerships and fast-food joints give way, first, to jagged mountainscapes and plunging canyons. Then, after another stretch of asphalt and commercial activity where the mountains meet the Pacific, comes a deliriously unspoiled stretch of coastline, with pristine beaches to the left and the foothills of the Los Padres national forest to the right.

 

Then comes Montecito. It is indubitably a retreat, not a town in any recognisable sense but a cluster of narrow lanes that wind up from the coast through lush stands of eucalyptus and juniper towards a popular hot spring in the hills. It has a petrol station but no chain stores – only a couple of small commercial strips known as the Upper and Lower Village.

 

What it does have is an extraordinary concentration of wealth and celebrity. This is home to Oprah Winfrey (she calls her sprawling estate “The Promised Land”), Ellen DeGeneres, Ariana Grande, Gwyneth Paltrow and a broad sprinkling of the US’s super-rich whose multimillion-dollar estates stud the hillsides and, occasionally, raise local eyebrows because of their sheer, unabashed extravagance.

 

In 1966, the crime writer Ross Macdonald observed that among Montecito’s “mock-rustic shops” residents “play at being simple villagers the way the courtiers of Versailles pretended to be peasants”. In short, it is a place where an errant blueblood can feel right at home – while at the same time being assured of the peace it appears he craves.

 

It came as no surprise to Montecitans, or to residents of its big-sister city next door, Santa Barbara, to learn this week that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been in their midst unnoticed for more than a month. In those hills, you could be holed up in a $15m (£11.5m) mansion – as theirs is believed to be – for years on end and nobody but your servants would ever know.

 

The spread that local real-estate experts say the couple has bought includes nine bedrooms, 12 bathrooms, a guest house, a teahouse, a tennis court, a swimming pool and a custom-made climbing frame for the children. Known as “Chateau at Riven Rock”, it is accessible only along a gated private driveway whose sign warns passersby to stay well away unless they have permission to pass.

 

This stretch of the southern California coast attracts no lack of superlatives. In 1928, Charlie Chaplin called Montecito the “cream of the coast” and gathered a group of investors to establish the Montecito Inn, the anchor around which the rest of the community sprang up. TC Boyle, who probably qualifies as being on the shabbier end of Montecito’s 9,000 residents despite being a celebrated, bestselling author, wrote recently how he valued the proximity to nature and the “semi-rural ambience”.

 

“We have no sidewalks here,” he said. “If we want sidewalks, we can take the five-minute drive into Santa Barbara … But we don’t want sidewalks. We want nature, we want dirt, trees, flowers.”

 

There is, of course, a darker side – the noir behind the sunshine. All those wealthy homeowners cling jealously to what they have and are unafraid to use their money and their power to stare down anyone – local elected officials or local newspaper columnists, usually – who dares to suggest they should make room for more affordable housing, or are consuming more than their fair share of California’s desperately short water supply.

 

Fifteen years ago, the actor Rob Lowe raised eyebrows when he not only strong-armed the community into agreeing to a vast expansion of his hillside palace but threatened his neighbours with restraining orders when they trimmed back ficus trees on his property line because they interfered with the ocean view. Lowe also went to war against the local paper when, in covering the controversy, it made the relatively uncontroversial decision to publish his address. The publisher took Lowe’s side, and the editorial team melted down shortly after.

 

At the time, Lowe was part of something called the Homeowners Defense Fund, whose mission – essentially, to keep out poorer people – was boosted by a $1,000-per-person cocktail party hosted by Carol Burnett, Bo Derek and Tab Hunter, among others. (Lowe eventually left the group and sold his property in 2017.)

 

With clout like that, the community has easily resisted calls to merge with Santa Barbara and remains ruggedly independent. To silence the critics about its water consumption, Montecito cut a deal last month to pay for half of a $72m desalination plant in Santa Barbara; in exchange, Santa Barbara agreed to sell Montecito all the water it wants for the next 50 years.

 

All the money in the world, though, cannot alter the fact that foothill communities in California are at the mercy of occasionally terrifying natural forces. In the winter of 2017-18, wildfires scorched and denuded the Santa Ynez mountains above the town and primed the slopes for devastating mudslides once the rains came. Mud and sludge came racing down the canyons in the dead of night, destroying houses, starting a gas fire, and killing more than 20 people.

 

As Macdonald observed in his Montecito-set novel, Black Money: “Almost anything can happen here. Almost everything has.”

 



 Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Buy $14.7 Million Montecito Compound

 

By James McClain

https://variety.com/2020/dirt/heirs-heiresses/meghan-markle-prince-harry-buy-14-7-million-montecito-compound-1234733871/

 

SELLER: Sergey Grishin

LOCATION: Montecito, Calif.

PRICE: $14.7 million

SIZE: 18,671 square feet, 9 bedrooms, 16 bathrooms

 

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have gone exceptionally grand with their California starter house, purchasing a $14.65 million estate in the heart of posh Montecito, the seaside Santa Barbara County enclave that is famously home to a slew of Hollywood heavyweights.

 

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’ names do not appear on grant deeds related to the property — records show the estate quietly sold in mid-June to a mysterious trust with a deliberately opaque name, though the trust happens to share a mailing address with the offices of Meghan Markle’s longtime Hollywood business manager.

 

Public documents also reveal the buyers secured a $9.5 million mortgage to acquire the 7.4-acre compound, which is securely tucked away on a private, gated street. Despite the unquestionably hefty pricetag, it could be argued Meghan and Harry scored the property at a discount of sorts — the seller, low-profile Russian businessman Sergey Grishin, acquired the estate in 2009 for $25.3 million and had attempted to sell it many times over the past decade before finally accepting a $10 million-plus financial loss.

 

 Built in 2003, the Mediterranean-style main house includes a trove of beige and off-white decor, plus a library, gym, separate wet and dry saunas, an elevator, arcade, game room and home theater. There’s also a detached guesthouse with two bedrooms and bathrooms; altogether, the estate boasts nearly 19,000 square feet of living space with a total of 9 bedrooms and a whopping 16 bathrooms.

 

Dated listings note that the property additionally offers a “tea house,” a “children’s cottage,” and exceptionally beautiful manicured grounds that boast tiered rose gardens, century-old olive trees, and tall Italian cypress trees that likely cost a small fortune to maintain. A full-size tennis court, lap-lane swimming pool, and a notably elaborate built-in children’s playset are among the numerous other outdoor amenities.

 

Meghan and Harry, who first moved stateside in early 2020, previously resided in a fortified compound owned by Tyler Perry, whom they met through mutual friend Oprah Winfrey.

 

Montecito may be located a full two hours northwest of downtown L.A. by car, but celebrities have flocked to the area in recent years — the neighborhood’s laid-back and mostly paparazzi-free atmosphere provides a welcome retreat from the hectic hustle of Hollywood and its surrounding environs. Current area residents include Gwyneth Paltrow, Ellen DeGeneres, Ariana Grande, and — perhaps most famously — Oprah Winfrey herself, whose nearly 70-acre “Promised Land” compound qualifies as one of Southern California’s most lavish estates.



Montecito (Spanish for "little mount") is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Santa Barbara County, California, located east of the City of Santa Barbara. The population was 8,965 at the 2010 census.

 

Montecito occupies the eastern portion of the coastal plain south of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Parts of the community are built on the lower foothills of the range. Montecito, however, does not include areas such as Coast Village Road, which are usually considered part of Montecito but are actually within the city limits of Santa Barbara. Notable roads spanning Montecito include East Valley Road, Mountain Drive, and Sycamore Canyon Road, all of which form part of State Route 192. In addition, the U.S. 101 Freeway runs along the south end of town, connecting it with other cities in Santa Barbara County and the rest of Southern California.

 

The site of present-day Montecito, along with the entire south coast of Santa Barbara County, was inhabited for over 10,000 years by the Chumash Indians. The Spanish arrived in the 18th century but left the region largely unsettled while they built the Presidio and Mission Santa Barbara farther west.

 

In the middle of the 19th century, the area was known as a haven for bandits and highway robbers, who hid in the oak groves and canyons, preying on traffic on the coastal route between the towns that developed around the missions. By the end of the 1860s, the bandit gangs were gone, and Italian settlers arrived. Finding an area reminiscent of Italy, they built farms and gardens similar to those they had left behind. Around the end of the 19th century, wealthy tourists from the eastern and midwestern United States began to buy land in the area. It was near enough to Santa Barbara for essential services while still being secluded. Desirable weather and several nearby hot springs offered the promise of comfortable, healthy living, in addition to the availability of affordable land.

 

The Montecito Hot Springs Hotel was built near the largest of the springs, in a canyon north of the town center and directly south of Montecito Peak, in Hot Springs Canyon. The hotel burned down in 1920; it was replaced a few years later by the smaller Hot Springs Club.

 

The architect George Washington Smith is noted particularly for his residences around Montecito, and for popularizing the Spanish Colonial Revival style in early 20th century America, as is Lutah Maria Riggs, who started as a draftsman in Smith's firm, rose to partner, and later started her own firm.

 

Montecito was evacuated five times in four months between December 2017 and March 2018 because of weather-related events, which included the Thomas Fire, the 2018 Southern California mudflows, and flooding related to the Pineapple Express.The mudflows resulted in 20 reported deaths; 28 others were injured, and at least four people were reported missing.


Bankrupt Brooks Brothers Finds a Buyer // A Day After Their Successful Bid for Brooks Brothers, ABG and Mall Giant Simon Acquire Lucky Brand

$
0
0



Bankrupt Brooks Brothers Finds a Buyer

 

The retailer is seeking court approval of a $325 million sale to a group backed by the mall owner Simon Property Group and Authentic Brands Group, a licensing firm.

 

Sapna Maheshwari

By Sapna Maheshwari

Aug. 12, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/business/brooks-brothers-sale-authentic-brands.html

 

Brooks Brothers, the venerable retailer that was founded in 1818 and filed for bankruptcy last month, said it would be sold to Simon Property Group, the biggest mall operator in the United States, and Authentic Brands Group, a licensing firm.

 

The $325 million offer for Brooks Brothers, up from a $305 million bid last month from the same suitors, is subject to court approval this week, the companies said in a statement late on Tuesday. The buyers committed to continue operating at least 125 Brooks Brothers retail locations. Before the pandemic, the company operated 424 retail and outlet stores globally, including 236 in the United States, according to court documents.

 

The offer for Brooks Brothers came from an entity known as the SPARC Group, a joint venture between Simon Property and Authentic Brands Group. The mall owner and A.B.G. have teamed up on deals to buy other bankrupt retailers in recent years, including the teen chain Aéropostale and the fast-fashion behemoth Forever 21. SPARC has also bid on Lucky Brand, the denim company that filed for bankruptcy last month. A.B.G. is known for acquiring the intellectual property of brands like Barneys New York and Sports Illustrated, then licensing their names to other companies and earning royalties from related products.

 

The coronavirus outbreak has toppled several storied retail brands, especially those focused on apparel, as many stores were forced to temporarily close and demand for new clothing dropped in a remote, less social environment. Chains including J.C. Penney, J. Crew, Neiman Marcus and the owner of Ann Taylor and Loft have filed for bankruptcy protection since May, struggling with lost sales and heavy debt loads. Most say they plan to re-emerge with fewer stores.

 

Brooks Brothers, based in New York, is the oldest apparel brand in continuous operation in the United States, and has a rare and storied reputation. It has dressed all but four presidents dating to James Madison, has been worn by Clark Gable and Andy Warhol and is the official clothier of the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra. Abraham Lincoln was wearing a Brooks Brothers coat the night he was assassinated.

 

It was revived in the past two decades by the Italian industrialist Claudio Del Vecchio, who bought it in 2001. The retailer started to slip in recent years, battered by the rise of more casual workplace attire and the shift to online retail, prompting a search for new buyers or investors. Brooks Brothers said in court documents that since April 2019, its business had been marketed to more than 90 potential investors around the world. The retailer said that its revenue exceeded $991 million for the fiscal year that ended 2019, with about one-fifth of that coming from its North America e-commerce business.

 

The pandemic dealt a new and unexpected blow to Brooks Brothers, given its pricey, formal merchandise and reliance on physical retail. Not only were its stores temporarily closed, but so were the offices of many of its customers. Proms, weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs and other special occasions fell off calendars. On Zoom, sweatpants cannot be distinguished from tailored dress pants.

 

The level of distress at Brooks Brothers came into sharper focus this year when the company prepared to close its three U.S. factories, in Massachusetts, New York and North Carolina, forgoing its “Made in America” calling card, and announcing plans to lay off nearly 700 employees. Like many retailers, it furloughed most of its staff — it had roughly 4,000 employees before the pandemic — and cut the salaries of corporate workers. Before filing for bankruptcy, it had already decided to close 51 Brooks Brothers stores in the United States.

 

If it is approved, the acquisition by the SPARC Group will have proceeded remarkably quickly, given that Brooks Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection on July 8.

 

On an earnings call this week, David Simon, the chief executive of Simon Property, outlined several benefits to the acquisitions of bankrupt retailers through SPARC, which he referred to as a 50-50 joint venture with A.B.G. He said that it was acquiring inventory at or below cost, buying any intellectual property at “attractive values,” cutting the overhead costs of purchased companies and able to reject certain leases.

 

He disputed the notion that Simon Property was “buying into these retailers to pay us rent,” saying that the company believed in the brands and thought they could make money. He also noted that the venture was saving jobs at places like Brooks Brothers.

 

“That’s what we should talk about,” he said on the call. “We’re doing our fair share for trying to keep this world as normal as we can.”

 

Elaine Yu contributed reporting.



A Day After Their Successful Bid for Brooks Brothers, ABG and Mall Giant Simon Acquire Lucky Brand

Samantha McDonald

August 14, 2020, 4:31 PM GMT

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/day-successful-bid-brooks-brothers-143108902.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pdnktc3R5bGUuY29tL2Jyb29rcy1zZWxscy1zb3V0aHdpY2stY29tcGFueS1zYWxlLWdvZXMtYmVmb3JlLWp1ZGdlLmh0bWw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFDEiT3tWqBPZhqz2G4lwiW0P8gj29IJWA7L2xOg5zZpVbUSo66hjObG4GNyOUOg9iUcjGhRy3GiPnpeWge_lPON3wlibOpV-dVC06jD0K8DPMBKMNXn6t2pgCeIce_CoK2FiPLaQ81ma3XXuWiNCPlX0zjg3B7ixwqwdVq5t3tL

 

Last night, Authentic Brands Group LLC and mall giant Simon Property Group Inc. — in a venture known as SPARC Group LLC — announced that they were set to become the core licensee and operating partner for the denim maker. A judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware on Wednesday approved the purchase, which was worth $140.1 million in cash and other components.

 

Through their partnership, ABG and Simon will oversee all of Lucky Brand’s sourcing, product design and product development, as well as operate its entire fleet of brick-and-mortar stores and e-commerce business. The group aims to work with the brand’s landlords to keep key North America stores — of which it currently has more than 175 — open. It also seeks to further drive distribution across e-commerce, department stores and other marketplaces in the region, plus Latin America, Europe and Asia. (Its wares can be found in chains like Macy’s and Nordstrom.)

 

“We are pleased to welcome this iconic heritage denim brand to ABG,” ABG founder, chairman and CEO Jamie Salter said in a statement. “Lucky Brand’s DNA resonates strongly with today’s youth, and we see tremendous opportunity to unlock its value in key territories around the world. With ABG’s social media expertise and content development capabilities, we are ready to hit the ground running and expand quickly into new categories and markets.” (According to Salter, the acquisition would boost the value of ABG’s portfolio to more than $13 billion in annual global retail sales.)

 

Lucky Brand went bankrupt in early July due to a heavy debt burden caused by recent challenges stemming from the coronavirus pandemic. At the time, interim CEO Matthew Kaness said that filing for Chapter 11 protection was the “best course of action to optimize the operations and secure the brand’s long-term success.”

 

The court approval of Lucky Brand’s sale came the same day that ABG and America’s largest mall owner emerged as the winning bidders in bankrupt Brooks Brothers’ competitive sale process. SPARC had increased its offer to $325 million for the “vast majority” of the menswear retailer’s global business operations as a going concern, as well as its intellectual property portfolio. As part of the agreement, the group plans to preserve the Brooks Brothers brand and continue operating at least 125 of the chain’s stores.


A message from His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales.

$
0
0

Prince Charles has said Australians are made of “tough stuff” in a recorded message of support for people facing a resurgence of coronavirus in Victoria.

Charles said the second wave would have “heartbreaking consequences” for so many, but that the state would emerge stronger than ever.

 

Melbourne, the state’s capital, has been in lockdown for more than a month, with strict measures now in place, including a night-time curfew.

Victoria still has more than 7,000 active Covid-19 cases and remains Australia’s worst concern.

 

He said:

 

I just wanted to say, on behalf of my wife and myself, that you are so much in our special thoughts at what I can well imagine is a tremendously testing and frustrating time, and that we care deeply for what you are having to go through. I’ve always felt a special fondness for Victoria, having spent six very happy months there at school 54 years ago and having had a chance to explore various parts of the state. From being able to live among you, and then to have the good fortune to revisit your marvellous state on many occasions, I know that Victorians, like all Australians, are tenacious, and resilient, or indeed, as you might say in Australia, made of tough stuff.”

 

He praised their “seemingly unceasing capacity for good humour in the face of great hardship” but said “this capacity has been solely tested this year”. Describing it as a tremendously difficult time for Australia after the bushfires and then the Covid-19 outbreak, the prince added:

 

“I can only imagine just how incredibly hard it must be for you all that, having had such early success in combating the virus, you now find yourselves in the midst of this second wave with all its heartbreaking consequences for so many people’s lives, livelihoods and businesses. Having experienced this dreadful coronavirus myself, my heart goes out to all those currently battling the disease, those caring for them either at home or in your first-class healthcare system, and those who have so tragically lost their loved ones.”

 

Charles, 71, recovered after suffering a mild form of the virus in March and has described how he lost his sense of taste and smell.

He added in the video message:

 

All I can say, however inadequate this may seem under such unprecedented circumstances, is that these difficult, often soul-destroying days will surely pass. And we have no doubt that Victoria will emerge stronger than ever.”


Viewing all 3455 articles
Browse latest View live


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