What Are You Watching

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Good lord, it happens ALL the time. Not just in period-piece TV. I mean, exactly how many people used to religiously say "Princess Diana," instead of "Diana, the Princess of Wales" or the like? It's endemic.

Nobody EVER says (for example), "Lady Peter" rather than Lady Harriet, amirite?

The mousy spinster called Harriet “Lady Peter” in Busman’s Honeymoon. I’ve not seen Lady Harriet, but I’ve not read any of the non-DLS follow-ons. Someone, a Yank of course, called Peter “Lord Wimsey” in an earlier book, and got the smackdown.

And yes, when I come across it in a book, fiction or non-, they pretty much lose me.

As for Diana, I came around on that one; she was that exception that proved the rule. Everyone used Princess Diana and you’d have come off as having a colossal stick up your arse if you’d insisted on the correct form.

Originally Posted by Hitch

ALTHOUGH, I have to add--if a commoner (man) marries a titled woman, it's not like HE gets renamed with something possessive, though, is it?

So it goes. I can’t bring myself to care about sexism in an archaic and entitled (in every sense) system. A la lanterne with the lot of them. But to the extent the titles still exist, I want them used correctly, dammit!

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

The mousy spinster called Harriet “Lady Peter” in Busman’s Honeymoon. I’ve not seen Lady Harriet, but I’ve not read any of the non-DLS follow-ons. Someone, a Yank of course, called Peter “Lord Wimsey” in an earlier book, and got the smackdown.

Indeed she did. Most folks don't remember that. They do, I think, remember the wine. What was that? Dandelion? Something else? Blackberry? Some godawful concoction, that I do recall.

And yes, when I come across it in a book, fiction or non-, they pretty much lose me.

If it's in first-person, they don't lose me unless the person in question--the narrator--is meant to know what's what. If it's some random American, loose in London and they don't get it right, I assume it's deliberate.

As for Diana, I came around on that one; she was that exception that proved the rule. Everyone used Princess Diana and you’d have come off as having a colossal stick up your arse if you’d insisted on the correct form.

Yabbut, we're not talking about me or you--we're discussing the BBC, et al. One might have thought that they might make the effort to get it right. And bygod, they STILL do it. Read anything today about any member of the Royals (the UK royals, I mean), and it's Prince Harry--although, interestingly, you see a lot of Meghan whatever, Duchess of Sussex. Weird. (I tend to think that the address for Harry and his brother is vestigial, sort of?)

So, presumably, if you're beloved, they butcher your proper address, but they don't, if they can't abide you? LOL.

So it goes. I can’t bring myself to care about sexism in an archaic and entitled (in every sense) system. A la lanterne with the lot of them. But to the extent the titles still exist, I want them used correctly, dammit!

Oh, sure, for historical, no argument. My ponderment is, why is it the way it is today? Why isn't Mr. Whatever Lord Susan? (Sorry, can't resist, really....)

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Not knowing the first thing about these sort of protocols: would it ever have been appropriate for friends and/or intimates to refer to her as "Lady Felicia" in the '50s? I only ask because that's primarily the people she's interacting with on the show. Or would it always be "Lady Montague" or "Felicia" (depending on familiarity and setting)?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not knowing the first thing about these sort of protocols: would it ever have been appropriate for friends and/or intimates to refer to her as "Lady Felicia" in the '50s? I only ask because that's primarily the people she's interacting with on the show. Or would it always be "Lady Montague" or "Felicia" (depending on familiarity and setting)?

If she is titled in her own right, (daughter of so-and-so) she could indeed be Lady Felicia to her intimates. (Or Felicia, to equally-titled peers or superiors). If she married to the title, though, she would be Lady Montague, only. Not Lady Felicia. (or speaking of her indirectly, the Countess of Montague.)

Confusing, right? And most of the methods of address are dependent upon who YOU are, too.

Hitch

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not knowing the first thing about these sort of protocols: would it ever have been appropriate for friends and/or intimates to refer to her as "Lady Felicia" in the '50s? I only ask because that's primarily the people she's interacting with on the show. Or would it always be "Lady Montague" or "Felicia" (depending on familiarity and setting)?

Originally Posted by Hitch

If she is titled in her own right, (daughter of so-and-so) she could indeed be Lady Felicia to her intimates. (Or Felicia, to equally-titled peers or superiors). If she married to the title, though, she would be Lady Montague, only. Not Lady Felicia. (or speaking of her indirectly, the Countess of Montague.)

Confusing, right? And most of the methods of address are dependent upon who YOU are, too.

Hitch

Yep. Lady Felicia is not a familiar form for Lady Montague; it’s two different things.

And then there’s Sid. One’s servant wouldn’t address one as “Lady Felicia” or even “Lady Montague.” He’d address her as “My lady” and refer to her in the third person as “her ladyship”.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yabbut, we're not talking about me or you--we're discussing the BBC, et al. One might have thought that they might make the effort to get it right.

That’s essentially my point. Diana transcended the correct form and since everyone referred to her as Princess Diana, I think you’d have come across an awful ass to insist on PoW and I assume TPTB at the Beeb made that call.

And bygod, they STILL do it. Read anything today about any member of the Royals (the UK royals, I mean), and it's Prince Harry--although, interestingly, you see a lot of Meghan whatever, Duchess of Sussex. Weird. (I tend to think that the address for Harry and his brother is vestigial, sort of?)

Prince Harry, Prince William, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward…. they all have titles that supercede, but the other is still correct and obviously still in use. Prince Philip was another. The issue with Meghan (and Kate) is that they obviously can’t be called princess a la Diana, who was a one-off, so what’s the alternative? Technically, they’re Princess Harry and Princess William, and that’ll never go over. At least DoS and DoC is correct; the one that grates is when they turn it into Duchess Kate or Duchess Camilla, which is not a thing. (And of course Camilla really is the Princess of Wales anyway.)

Oh, sure, for historical, no argument. My ponderment is, why is it the way it is today? Why isn't Mr. Whatever Lord Susan? (Sorry, can't resist, really....)

Once the aristocracy goes probing into and changing its underpinnings, it’s all over for them. And the “equality” argument in that context is risible. The keystones of the aristocracy are tradition and preferment.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

That’s essentially my point. Diana transcended the correct form and since everyone referred to her as Princess Diana, I think you’d have come across an awful ass to insist on PoW and I assume TPTB at the Beeb made that call.

ESPECIALLY an American ass. :-) I freely admit at the time that she was roaming free in the wild, I did on more than one occasion say something like "cough cough Diana, Princess of Wales" around those who PERSISTED in talking about her as if they were her BFFs. ("Princess Diana this," and "Princess Diana that" and on and on and on...). I may have also been especially irritated because her much-vaunted engagement ring just happened to look pretty much exactly like mine. That, trust me, is bloody irritating. ("oh, look, you had a ring made JUST LIKE DIANA'S!" "Uh, no, I had this before I ever heard the name Diana Spencer, but gosh, thanks." Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

I can't speak for all you good folks, but...not that I wanted anything bad to happen to the poor woman, the Gods know, but I was pretty sick of hearing about her, by the time it did.

Prince Harry, Prince William, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward…. they all have titles that supercede, but the other is still correct and obviously still in use. Prince Philip was another. The issue with Meghan (and Kate) is that they obviously can’t be called princess a la Diana, who was a one-off, so what’s the alternative? Technically, they’re Princess Harry and Princess William, and that’ll never go over. At least DoS and DoC is correct; the one that grates is when they turn it into Duchess Kate or Duchess Camilla, which is not a thing. (And of course Camilla really is the Princess of Wales anyway.)

Well, they could call Harry Sussex and William's current duchy is what? Cambridge, right? So, Sussex and Cambridge and their...wives. And presumably, Kate and Camilla would not want to be addressed 'correctly.' I wouldn't want to be called Duchess William, either. Sheesh.

What about something less onerous? Lady Sussex and Lady Cambridge? Meh, probably not. And the actress would probably have a hissy. But it's technically correct.

Once the aristocracy goes probing into and changing its underpinnings, it’s all over for them. And the “equality” argument in that context is risible. The keystones of the aristocracy are tradition and preferment.

Oh, I know. I just...let's face it, ladies, even those of the aristocracy, caught the short end of that stick. Married off like breeding cattle that came with their own semen and all that. (That's a joke.)

It wasn't all that horribly long ago that if a woman had her own inheritance, it STILL belonged to her husband the moment that they wed and if he blew it all at the track (of whatever), well, tough. Honestly, were I a woman in that day and age, I think I should have felt compelled to remain single--out of self-preservation, financially if naught else. It took quite a while for that nonsense to go the way of the Dodo, too.

Hitch

[Rumpelteazer]

I'm watching the first season of Wayward Pines. Which I hadn't seen before. I liked (but not loved) the books.

I'm enjoying it, but I can't remember much from the books. Just three more episodes to go and I'm not sure what to watch next. Maybe the second season of Wynonna Earp.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Rumpelteazer

I'm watching the first season of Wayward Pines. Which I hadn't seen before. I liked (but not loved) the books.

I'm enjoying it, but I can't remember much from the books. Just three more episodes to go and I'm not sure what to watch next. Maybe the second season of Wynonna Earp.

I liked Wynona when it started, but after about...maybe Season 3?--I just lost interest.

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Watching the 3rd season of "For All Mankind" on AppleTV+. Seems to be back on track after a rather lackluster 2nd season, in my opinion.

[Rumpelteazer]

I started with The Thing About Pam, with Renee Zellweger, which is based on the true crime story of Pam Hupp.

I expected something along the lines of many other "based on true story" films and series. But the tone is not what I expected. It isn't serious, I would say the tone is sensational, like a tabloid story, with a voice over like those classic crime dramas. I'm not sure I like it.

[Rumpelteazer]

Tonight I watched two movies:

No Sudden Move. I've had this on my list for a while. But, despite the movie star cast, I was afraid it would disappoint. And it did. It's not a bad movie, I'm very indifferent. It feels like they tried to create a The Usual Suspects kind of movie set in the 1950s. But there's no real tension.

Hospital. A Taiwanese horror movie. I picked it at random, since I was in the mood for Asian horror. Not very good. The idea is good, the execution isn't. The acting isn't very good, the story has inconsistencies and in the end it doesn't answer the important question one of the characters asks: why is the hospital in the state it's in? It was particularly scary (granted, I don't scare easily). At the end they tried a jump scare, I didn't see it coming, but I didn't jump, or scare, let alone both.

[Rumpelteazer]

I just read there's going to be a Death in Paradise spin-off; Beyond Paradise. It's with Kris Marshall (DI Humphrey Goodman) and is set in the UK.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Rumpelteazer

I just read there's going to be a Death in Paradise spin-off; Beyond Paradise. It's with Kris Marshall (DI Humphrey Goodman) and is set in the UK.

Ye Gods, why??????


Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Netflix's limited series "Keep Breathing". It had some interesting moments, but ultimately a bit of a mess in my opinion. They simply bit off more than they could chew in six thirty minute installments.

Seems to be all the rage right now according to Netflix's own Top 10 TV Shows ranking system.