View allAll Photos Tagged Executor

Laísa Santos Sampaio, irmã da vítima Maria dos Espírito Santo. Laísa continua recebendo ameaças de morte frequentes.

 

Julgamento do assassinato dos ativistas José Cláudio e Maria dos Espírito Santo, que foram mortos em março de 2011 em Nova Ipixuna. O resultado do júri, que aconteceu nos dias 03 e 04 de abril, foi a condenação dos executores Alberto Lopes e Lindonjonson Silva, e absolvição de José Rodrigues, acusado de ser o mandante do crime. A ação provocou revolta nos familiares e movimentos agrários que acompanhavam o caso em vigília no Fórum de Marabá (PA).

 

(CC BY-SA) NINJA

Todas as imagens estão sob licença Creative Commons 3.0 e podem ser utilizadas livremente desde que disponibilizadas nas mesmas condições com o uso do código acima. Imagens em alta resolução estão disponíveis através de requerimento no email fotografia@foradoeixo.org.br

It’s been since 2018 when I first built the Simplethinker Desk-Scale Millennium Falcon.

 

Just like last year with LEGO’s Executor and mine, when they released the Starship Collection Millennium Falcon, I decided mine needed some TLC, including borrowing some parts and techniques from the official one. I’m keeping it the same style so it’s different than most Falcons, but I’m still really proud of how it looks.

 

What do you think?

Started by for Henry, 1st Lord Marney and Lord Privy Seal, who died in 1523 and continued by his son John who died in 1525, leaving no male heirs to continue the work

 

John’s daughters became wards of the Duke of Norfolk, who eventually sold the house to Sir Brian Tuke, Treasurer to the Royal Household and Governor of the King’s Posts.

 

In 1667 Nicholas Corsellis bought the estate who gave it to his old headmaster, the Rev. William Drake. They lived here for 6 generations, until the tower was sold by Mathew Corsellis’ executors in 1835 to Quintin Dick, MP for Maldon.

 

The buildings suffered damage from the Great Earthquake of 1884 but they were restored. In 1901 stockbroker Walter de Zoete bought the house and modernisation it. It was then sold to Dr and Mrs Campbell who sold to the Charrington family, the current owners in 1959.

 

Berry Belyeu of the Talbot Co., Georgia Belyeus. I'm not a direct descendant of him, but of his brother Colson.

 

Talbot County, GA Wills Volume A, 1827 - 1856

29 Apr 1854 L W & T of BERRY BELLYEU of Talbot Co, weak in body. To my beloved wife Caroline and my children, Wesley Freeman, Berry Ellison, John Brazeldam, Osborn Sims, Daniel Collendon, Mary Ann Eliza and James Harvey, my whole estate of all description, consisting of 300 acres in Talbot Co and 10 slaves: Enoch, Bob, Henry, Ambrose, Eli, Amy, Susy. Milly, Mary & Sarah, one horse, 5 mules, stock, sheep, 1 road wagon, 1 pleasure carriage & harness, etc. All my property should be kept together until the children arrive at age 21 or my daughters marry, if earlier than that. My wife to receive an equal portion with my children. Executors: beloved wife Caroline and worth friend, Frederick J. H. Terry. Signed: Berry Bellyeu Wit: Simeon Deloach, A. Sanderson, Elijah Wells Caroline Bellyeu qualified as executrix 5 June 1854 before Marion Bethune, Ordinary. Rec: 8 June 1854, pgs 339-341

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Jan. 17, 2023) U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen give a presentation to Fabien Cousteau, executor and founder of Proteus Ocean Group (POG), and members of his team on their capstone project. The midshipmen are working with Proteus as part of their final capstone project. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jordyn Diomede)

HEY, A LITTLE CAT CAN DREAM, CAN'T HE?

 

Going through my cat photographs now that both

Sirocco and Montana are no longer alive, makes me feel a bit like the executor of their digital estate....

 

I'm finding a large number of especially neat piccys that I shall post as time goes by.

 

Rocky was always game to be photographed; he was a real Rock-star!

 

I like to fancy that when we washed these curtains that the cheetahs would run....

 

Draft Will of George Burges, 28 Hardres Street, Ramsgate, Kent dated 22nd March 1861.

 

Executors: Rev’d Henry Richards Luard, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge and Charles Thomas Hill of 51, Beaumont Square, Mile End, London.

 

Beneficiaries: Wife Jane Burges, daughters, Maria Burges, Anne Burges, infant, Fanny Burges, infant.

 

Property: 28 Hardres Street, Ramsgate, 2, St. Augustine Place, Ramsgate.

 

The Montefiore Windmill is a landmark windmill in Jerusalem. Designed as a flour mill, it was built in 1857 on a slope opposite the western city walls of Jerusalem, where three years later the new Jewish neighbourhood of Mishkenot Sha'ananim was erected, both by the efforts of British Jewish banker and philanthropist Moses Montefiore. Jerusalem at the time was part of Ottoman-ruled Palestine. Today the windmill serves as a small museum dedicated to the achievements of Montefiore. It was restored in 2012 with a new cap and sails in the style of the originals. The mill can turn in the wind.

 

History

Ottoman era

The windmill and the neighbourhood of Mishkenot Sha'ananim were both funded by the British Jewish banker and philanthropist Moses Montefiore, who devoted his life to promoting industry, education and health in the Land of Israel. Montefiore built the windmill with funding from the estate of an American Jew, Judah Touro, who appointed Montefiore executor of his will. Montefiore mentions the windmill in his diaries (1875), noting that he had built it 18 years earlier on the estate of Kerem-Moshe-ve-Yehoodit (lit. "the orchard of Moses and Judith"), and that it had since been joined by two other windmills nearby, owned by Greeks. The project, bearing the hallmarks of nineteenth-century artisan revival, aimed to promote productive enterprise in the yishuv.

 

The mill was designed by Messrs Holman Brothers, the Canterbury, Kent millwrights. The stone for the tower was quarried locally. The tower walls were 3 feet (0.91 m) thick at the base and almost 50 feet (15.24 m) high. Parts were shipped to Jaffa, where there were no suitable facilities for landing the heavy machinery. Transport of the machinery to Jerusalem had to be carried out by camel. In its original form, the mill had a Kentish-style cap and four patent sails. It was turned to face into the wind by a fantail. The mill drove two pairs of millstones, flour dressers, wheat cleaners and other machinery.

 

The construction of the mill was part of a broader program to enable the Jews of Palestine to become self-supporting. Montefiore also built a printing press and a textile factory, and helped to finance several agricultural colonies. He attempted to acquire land for Jewish cultivation, but was hampered by Ottoman restrictions on land sale to non-Muslims.

 

On the night of 1 January 1873, Aaron Hershler was standing guard at the windmill, when a group of Arab Muslims from Silwan attempted to rob his family's home in Mishkenot Sha'ananim, the first Jewish neighborhood outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Hershler took chase and was shot 12 times. He died in the hospital on 5 January and was buried on the Mount of Olives. Seventy-five years after his death, Hershler was recognized by the Israel Defense Forces as the first "national martyr" in the Jewish-Arab conflict. He is one of approximately three dozen Jews killed during Ottoman-ruled Palestine, who are commemorated as part of Israeli's annual Yom Hazikaron memorial day.

 

The mill was not a success due to a lack of wind. Wind conditions in Jerusalem could not guarantee its continued operation. There were probably no more than 20 days a year with strong enough breezes. Another reason for the mill's failure was technological. The machinery was designed for soft European wheat, which required less wind power than the local wheat. Nevertheless, the mill operated for nearly two decades until the first steam-powered mill was completed in Jerusalem in 1878. In the late 19th century the mill became neglected and abandoned.

 

British Mandate

It was not until the 1930s that the mill was cosmetically restored by British Mandate authorities together with the Pro-Jerusalem Society. During this restoration decorative, non-functional fixed sails were placed at the top of the structure.

 

1947–48 civil war

During the 1948 blockade of Jerusalem the Jewish Haganah fighters built an observation post at the top of the tower. In an attempt to impede their activities, the British authorities ordered the windmill be blown up in an operation mockingly dubbed by the population "Operation Don Quixote." By chance however, the unit tasked with destroying the windmill happened to be from Ramsgate, home to Montefiore's long-time residence. When the soldiers observed the name of their hometown next to Montefiore's on a plaque displayed on the building, they "re-interpreted" their orders and blew up only the observation post at the top of the tower, rather than the entire structure.

 

State of Israel

Over the years the building's condition had deteriorated again and following the reunification of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War another cosmetic restoration was carried out, as part of which a decorative bronze cap was added to the structure.

 

Restoration

In 2012 the mill was completely restored to full working order using the original 1850s plans (which were located in the British Library) as a guide. The restoration was part of Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations.

 

A Dutch organisation, "Christians for Israel" (Dutch: Stichting Christenen voor Israël) promoted the scheme. A model of Stelling Minnis windmill, built by Tom Holman, was taken to the Netherlands to raise funds for the restoration. None of the original machinery survives. Millwright Willem Dijkstra rebuilt the floors, sails, cap and machinery in his workshop in Sloten in cooperation with Dutch construction company Lont and British millwright Vincent Pargeter. The windshaft was cast and machined at Sanders IJzergieterij en Machinefabriek B.V. (Sanders’ foundry and machines factory) in Goor. The parts were then shipped to Israel and reassembled on site. Dijkstra, his family and employee temporarily moved to Israel to help with the restoration. The cap and sails were lifted into place on July 25, 2012, and the mill was turning for the first time again on August 6. The first bag of flour was ground in May 2013.

 

Anecdotes

Two anecdotes about the windmill appear in a 1933 book, which refers to it as the Jaffa Gate Mill. The first is that there was much opposition from among the local millers to the windmill, who looked upon it with the evil eye and sent their head man to curse it. Predictions were made that the mill would be washed away during the rainy season; after it survived intact, it was declared to be the work of Satan. The second is that the Arabs developed a taste for the lubricating oil on the bearings and would lick them, prompting fear the mill would burn down from the resulting friction. The solution was said to be placing a leg of pork in the oil barrel, whereafter the Arabs lost a taste for the oil.

 

Montefiore carriage

In a glassed-in room at the windmill is a replica of the famous carriage Sir Moses Montefiore used in his travels. The original carriage was brought to Palestine in 1906 by Boris Schatz, the founder of the Bezalel Academy of Art, but was destroyed in a fire in 1986. The carriage was part of the collection of the Bezalel Museum which became the basis of the Israel Museum.

 

Jerusalem is an ancient city in West Asia, on a plateau in the Judaean Mountains between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. It is one of the oldest cities in the world, and is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital; Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there, and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power. Neither claim, however, is widely recognized internationally.

 

Throughout its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, captured and recaptured 44 times, and attacked 52 times. The part of Jerusalem called the City of David shows first signs of settlement in the 4th millennium BCE, in the shape of encampments of nomadic shepherds. During the Canaanite period (14th century BCE), Jerusalem was named as Urusalim on ancient Egyptian tablets, probably meaning "City of Shalem" after a Canaanite deity. During the Israelite period, significant construction activity in Jerusalem began in the 10th century BCE (Iron Age II), and by the 9th century BCE, the city had developed into the religious and administrative centre of the Kingdom of Judah. In 1538, the city walls were rebuilt for a last time around Jerusalem under Suleiman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire. Today those walls define the Old City, which since the 19th century has been divided into four quarters – the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim quarters. The Old City became a World Heritage Site in 1981, and is on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Since 1860, Jerusalem has grown far beyond the Old City's boundaries. In 2022, Jerusalem had a population of some 971,800 residents, of which almost 60% were Jews and almost 40% Palestinians. In 2020, the population was 951,100, of which Jews comprised 570,100 (59.9%), Muslims 353,800 (37.2%), Christians 16,300 (1.7%), and 10,800 unclassified (1.1%).

 

According to the Hebrew Bible, King David conquered the city from the Jebusites and established it as the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel, and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple. Modern scholars argue that Jews branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture through the development of a distinct monolatrous—and later monotheistic—religion centred on El/Yahweh. These foundational events, straddling the dawn of the 1st millennium BCE, assumed central symbolic importance for the Jewish people. The sobriquet of holy city (Hebrew: עיר הקודש, romanized: 'Ir ha-Qodesh) was probably attached to Jerusalem in post-exilic times. The holiness of Jerusalem in Christianity, conserved in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which Christians adopted as their own "Old Testament", was reinforced by the New Testament account of Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection there. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city, after Mecca and Medina. The city was the first qibla, the standard direction for Muslim prayers (salah), and in Islamic tradition, Muhammad made his Night Journey there in 621, ascending to heaven where he speaks to God, according to the Quran. As a result, despite having an area of only 0.9 km2 (3⁄8 sq mi), the Old City is home to many sites of seminal religious importance, among them the Temple Mount with its Western Wall, Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

 

Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, West Jerusalem was among the areas captured and later annexed by Israel while East Jerusalem, including the Old City, was captured and later annexed by Jordan. Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory.[note 6] One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital. All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister (Beit Aghion) and President (Beit HaNassi), and the Supreme Court. The international community rejects the annexation as illegal and regards East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel.

 

Etymology

The name "Jerusalem" is variously etymologized to mean "foundation (Semitic yry' 'to found, to lay a cornerstone') of the pagan god Shalem"; the god Shalem was thus the original tutelary deity of the Bronze Age city.

 

Shalim or Shalem was the name of the god of dusk in the Canaanite religion, whose name is based on the same root S-L-M from which the Hebrew word for "peace" is derived (Shalom in Hebrew, cognate with Arabic Salam). The name thus offered itself to etymologizations such as "The City of Peace", "Abode of Peace", "Dwelling of Peace" ("founded in safety"), or "Vision of Peace" in some Christian authors.

 

The ending -ayim indicates the dual, thus leading to the suggestion that the name Yerushalayim refers to the fact that the city initially sat on two hills.

 

Ancient Egyptian sources

The Execration Texts of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 19th century BCE), which refer to a city called rwšꜣlmm or ꜣwšꜣmm, variously transcribed as Rušalimum, or Urušalimum, may indicate Jerusalem. Alternatively, the Amarna letters of Abdi-Heba (1330s BCE), which reference an Úrušalim, may be the earliest mention of the city.

 

Hebrew Bible and Jewish sources

The form Yerushalem or Yerushalayim first appears in the Bible, in the Book of Joshua. According to a Midrash, the name is a combination of two names united by God, Yireh ("the abiding place", the name given by Abraham to the place where he planned to sacrifice his son) and Shalem ("Place of Peace", the name given by high priest Shem).

 

Oldest written mention of Jerusalem

One of the earliest extra-biblical Hebrew writing of the word Jerusalem is dated to the sixth or seventh century BCE and was discovered in Khirbet Beit Lei near Beit Guvrin in 1961. The inscription states: "I am Yahweh thy God, I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem", or as other scholars suggest: "Yahweh is the God of the whole earth. The mountains of Judah belong to him, to the God of Jerusalem". An older example on papyrus is known from the previous century.

 

In extra-biblical inscriptions, the earliest known example of the -ayim ending was discovered on a column about 3 km west of ancient Jerusalem, dated to the first century BCE.

 

Jebus, Zion, City of David

An ancient settlement of Jerusalem, founded as early as the Bronze Age on the hill above the Gihon Spring, was, according to the Bible, named Jebus. Called the "Fortress of Zion" (metsudat Zion), it was renamed as the "City of David", and was known by this name in antiquity. Another name, "Zion", initially referred to a distinct part of the city, but later came to signify the city as a whole, and afterwards to represent the whole biblical Land of Israel.

 

Greek, Roman and Byzantine names

In Greek and Latin, the city's name was transliterated Hierosolyma (Greek: Ἱεροσόλυμα; in Greek hieròs, ἱερός, means holy), although the city was renamed Aelia Capitolina for part of the Roman period of its history.

 

Salem

The Aramaic Apocryphon of Genesis of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 22:13) equates Jerusalem with the earlier "Salem" (שלם), said to be the kingdom of Melchizedek in Genesis 14. Other early Hebrew sources, early Christian renderings of the verse and targumim, however, put Salem in Northern Israel near Shechem (Sichem), now Nablus, a city of some importance in early sacred Hebrew writing. Possibly the redactor of the Apocryphon of Genesis wanted to dissociate Melchizedek from the area of Shechem, which at the time was in possession of the Samaritans. However that may be, later Rabbinic sources also equate Salem with Jerusalem, mainly to link Melchizedek to later Temple traditions.

 

Arabic names

In Arabic, Jerusalem is most commonly known as القُدس, transliterated as al-Quds and meaning "the holy" or "the holy sanctuary", cognate with Hebrew: הקדש, romanized: ha-qodesh. The name is possibly a shortened form of مدينة القُدس Madīnat al-Quds "city of the holy sanctuary" after the Hebrew nickname with the same meaning, Ir ha-Qodesh (עיר הקדש). The ق (Q) is pronounced either with a voiceless uvular plosive (/q/), as in Classical Arabic, or with a glottal stop (ʔ) as in Levantine Arabic. Official Israeli government policy mandates that أُورُشَلِيمَ, transliterated as Ūrušalīm, which is the name frequently used in Christian translations of the Bible into Arabic, be used as the Arabic language name for the city in conjunction with القُدس, giving أُورُشَلِيمَ-القُدس, Ūrušalīm-al-Quds. Palestinian Arab families who hail from this city are often called "Qudsi" (قُدسي) or "Maqdasi" (مقدسي), while Palestinian Muslim Jerusalemites may use these terms as a demonym.

 

Given the city's central position in both Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and Palestinian nationalism, the selectivity required to summarize some 5,000 years of inhabited history is often influenced by ideological bias or background. Israeli or Jewish nationalists claim a right to the city based on Jewish indigeneity to the land, particularly their origins in and descent from the Israelites, for whom Jerusalem is their capital, and their yearning for return. In contrast, Palestinian nationalists claim the right to the city based on modern Palestinians' longstanding presence and descent from many different peoples who have settled or lived in the region over the centuries. Both sides claim the history of the city has been politicized by the other in order to strengthen their relative claims to the city, and that this is borne out by the different focuses the different writers place on the various events and eras in the city's history.

 

Prehistory

The first archaeological evidence of human presence in the area comes in the form of flints dated to between 6000 and 7000 years ago, with ceramic remains appearing during the Chalcolithic period, and the first signs of permanent settlement appearing in the Early Bronze Age in 3000–2800 BCE.

 

Bronze and Iron Ages

The earliest evidence of city fortifications appear in the Mid to Late Bronze Age and could date to around the 18th century BCE. By around 1550–1200 BCE, Jerusalem was the capital of an Egyptian vassal city-state, a modest settlement governing a few outlying villages and pastoral areas, with a small Egyptian garrison and ruled by appointees such as king Abdi-Heba. At the time of Seti I (r. 1290–1279 BCE) and Ramesses II (r. 1279–1213 BCE), major construction took place as prosperity increased. The city's inhabitants at this time were Canaanites, who are believed by scholars to have evolved into the Israelites via the development of a distinct Yahweh-centric monotheistic belief system.

 

Archaeological remains from the ancient Israelite period include the Siloam Tunnel, an aqueduct built by Judahite king Hezekiah and once containing an ancient Hebrew inscription, known as the Siloam Inscription; the so-called Broad Wall, a defensive fortification built in the 8th century BCE, also by Hezekiah; the Silwan necropolis (9th–7th c. BCE) with the Monolith of Silwan and the Tomb of the Royal Steward, which were decorated with monumental Hebrew inscriptions; and the so-called Israelite Tower, remnants of ancient fortifications, built from large, sturdy rocks with carved cornerstones. A huge water reservoir dating from this period was discovered in 2012 near Robinson's Arch, indicating the existence of a densely built-up quarter across the area west of the Temple Mount during the Kingdom of Judah.

 

When the Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, Jerusalem was strengthened by a great influx of refugees from the northern kingdom. When Hezekiah ruled, Jerusalem had no fewer than 25,000 inhabitants and covered 25 acres (10 hectares).

 

In 587–586 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire conquered Jerusalem after a prolonged siege, and then systematically destroyed the city, including Solomon's Temple. The Kingdom of Judah was abolished and many were exiled to Babylon. These events mark the end of the First Temple period.

 

Biblical account

This period, when Canaan formed part of the Egyptian empire, corresponds in biblical accounts to Joshua's invasion, but almost all scholars agree that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value for early Israel.

 

In the Bible, Jerusalem is defined as lying within territory allocated to the tribe of Benjamin though still inhabited by Jebusites. David is said to have conquered these in the siege of Jebus, and transferred his capital from Hebron to Jerusalem which then became the capital of a United Kingdom of Israel, and one of its several religious centres. The choice was perhaps dictated by the fact that Jerusalem did not form part of Israel's tribal system, and was thus suited to serve as the centre of its confederation. Opinion is divided over whether the so-called Large Stone Structure and the nearby Stepped Stone Structure may be identified with King David's palace, or dates to a later period.

 

According to the Bible, King David reigned for 40 years and was succeeded by his son Solomon, who built the Holy Temple on Mount Moriah. Solomon's Temple (later known as the First Temple), went on to play a pivotal role in Jewish religion as the repository of the Ark of the Covenant. On Solomon's death, ten of the northern tribes of Israel broke with the United Monarchy to form their own nation, with its kings, prophets, priests, traditions relating to religion, capitals and temples in northern Israel. The southern tribes, together with the Aaronid priesthood, remained in Jerusalem, with the city becoming the capital of the Kingdom of Judah.

 

Classical antiquity

In 538 BCE, the Achaemenid King Cyrus the Great invited the Jews of Babylon to return to Judah to rebuild the Temple. Construction of the Second Temple was completed in 516 BCE, during the reign of Darius the Great, 70 years after the destruction of the First Temple.

 

Sometime soon after 485 BCE Jerusalem was besieged, conquered and largely destroyed by a coalition of neighbouring states. In about 445 BCE, King Artaxerxes I of Persia issued a decree allowing the city (including its walls) to be rebuilt. Jerusalem resumed its role as capital of Judah and centre of Jewish worship.

 

Many Jewish tombs from the Second Temple period have been unearthed in Jerusalem. One example, discovered north of the Old City, contains human remains in a 1st-century CE ossuary decorated with the Aramaic inscription "Simon the Temple Builder". The Tomb of Abba, also located north of the Old City, bears an Aramaic inscription with Paleo-Hebrew letters reading: "I, Abba, son of the priest Eleaz(ar), son of Aaron the high (priest), Abba, the oppressed and the persecuted, who was born in Jerusalem, and went into exile into Babylonia and brought (back to Jerusalem) Mattathi(ah), son of Jud(ah), and buried him in a cave which I bought by deed." The Tomb of Benei Hezir located in Kidron Valley is decorated by monumental Doric columns and Hebrew inscription, identifying it as the burial site of Second Temple priests. The Tombs of the Sanhedrin, an underground complex of 63 rock-cut tombs, is located in a public park in the northern Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sanhedria. These tombs, probably reserved for members of the Sanhedrin and inscribed by ancient Hebrew and Aramaic writings, are dated to between 100 BCE and 100 CE.

 

When Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire, Jerusalem and Judea came under Macedonian control, eventually falling to the Ptolemaic dynasty under Ptolemy I. In 198 BCE, Ptolemy V Epiphanes lost Jerusalem and Judea to the Seleucids under Antiochus III. The Seleucid attempt to recast Jerusalem as a Hellenized city-state came to a head in 168 BCE with the successful Maccabean revolt of Mattathias and his five sons against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and their establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom in 152 BCE with Jerusalem as its capital.

 

In 63 BCE, Pompey the Great intervened in a struggle for the Hasmonean throne and captured Jerusalem, extending the influence of the Roman Republic over Judea. Following a short invasion by Parthians, backing the rival Hasmonean rulers, Judea became a scene of struggle between pro-Roman and pro-Parthian forces, eventually leading to the emergence of an Edomite named Herod. As Rome became stronger, it installed Herod as a client king of the Jews. Herod the Great, as he was known, devoted himself to developing and beautifying the city. He built walls, towers and palaces, and expanded the Temple Mount, buttressing the courtyard with blocks of stone weighing up to 100 tons. Under Herod, the area of the Temple Mount doubled in size. Shortly after Herod's death, in 6 CE Judea came under direct Roman rule as the Iudaea Province, although the Herodian dynasty through Agrippa II remained client kings of neighbouring territories until 96 CE.

 

Roman rule over Jerusalem and Judea was challenged in the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), which ended with a Roman victory. Early on, the city was devastated by a brutal civil war between several Jewish factions fighting for control of the city. In 70 CE, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple. The contemporary Jewish historian Josephus wrote that the city "was so thoroughly razed to the ground by those that demolished it to its foundations, that nothing was left that could ever persuade visitors that it had once been a place of habitation." Of the 600,000 (Tacitus) or 1,000,000 (Josephus) Jews of Jerusalem, all of them either died of starvation, were killed or were sold into slavery. Roman rule was again challenged during the Bar Kokhba revolt, beginning in 132 CE and suppressed by the Romans in 135 CE. More recent research indicates that the Romans had founded Aelia Capitolina before the outbreak of the revolt, and found no evidence for Bar Kokhba ever managing to hold the city.

 

Jerusalem reached a peak in size and population at the end of the Second Temple Period, when the city covered two km2 (3⁄4 sq mi) and had a population of 200,000.

 

Late Antiquity

Following the Bar Kokhba revolt, Emperor Hadrian combined Iudaea Province with neighbouring provinces under the new name of Syria Palaestina, replacing the name of Judea. The city was renamed Aelia Capitolina, and rebuilt it in the style of a typical Roman town. Jews were prohibited from entering the city on pain of death, except for one day each year, during the holiday of Tisha B'Av. Taken together, these measures (which also affected Jewish Christians) essentially "secularized" the city. Historical sources and archaeological evidence indicate that the rebuilt city was now inhabited by veterans of the Roman military and immigrants from the western parts of the empire.

 

The ban against Jews was maintained until the 7th century, though Christians would soon be granted an exemption: during the 4th century, the Roman emperor Constantine I ordered the construction of Christian holy sites in the city, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Burial remains from the Byzantine period are exclusively Christian, suggesting that the population of Jerusalem in Byzantine times probably consisted only of Christians.

 

Jerusalem.

In the 5th century, the eastern continuation of the Roman Empire, ruled from the recently renamed Constantinople, maintained control of the city. Within the span of a few decades, Jerusalem shifted from Byzantine to Persian rule, then back to Roman-Byzantine dominion. Following Sassanid Khosrau II's early 7th century push through Syria, his generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin attacked Jerusalem (Persian: Dej Houdkh) aided by the Jews of Palaestina Prima, who had risen up against the Byzantines.

 

In the Siege of Jerusalem of 614, after 21 days of relentless siege warfare, Jerusalem was captured. Byzantine chronicles relate that the Sassanids and Jews slaughtered tens of thousands of Christians in the city, many at the Mamilla Pool, and destroyed their monuments and churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This episode has been the subject of much debate between historians. The conquered city would remain in Sassanid hands for some fifteen years until the Byzantine emperor Heraclius reconquered it in 629.

 

Middle Ages

After the Muslim conquest of the Levant, Byzantine Jerusalem was taken by Umar ibn al-Khattab in 638 CE. Among the first Muslims, it was referred to as Madinat bayt al-Maqdis ("City of the Temple"), a name restricted to the Temple Mount. The rest of the city "was called Iliya, reflecting the Roman name given the city following the destruction of 70 CE: Aelia Capitolina". Later the Temple Mount became known as al-Haram al-Sharif, "The Noble Sanctuary", while the city around it became known as Bayt al-Maqdis, and later still, al-Quds al-Sharif "The Holy, Noble". The Islamization of Jerusalem began in the first year A.H. (623 CE), when Muslims were instructed to face the city while performing their daily prostrations and, according to Muslim religious tradition, Muhammad's night journey and ascension to heaven took place. After 13 years, the direction of prayer was changed to Mecca. In 638 CE the Islamic Caliphate extended its dominion to Jerusalem. With the Muslim conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city. The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Christian Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule. Christian-Arab tradition records that, when led to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one of the holiest sites for Christians, the caliph Umar refused to pray in the church so that Muslims would not request conversion of the church to a mosque. He prayed outside the church, where the Mosque of Umar (Omar) stands to this day, opposite the entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. According to the Gaullic bishop Arculf, who lived in Jerusalem from 679 to 688, the Mosque of Umar was a rectangular wooden structure built over ruins which could accommodate 3,000 worshipers.

 

When the Arab armies under Umar went to Bayt Al-Maqdes in 637 CE, they searched for the site of al-masjid al-aqsa, "the farthest place of prayer/mosque", that was mentioned in the Quran and Hadith according to Islamic beliefs. Contemporary Arabic and Hebrew sources say the site was full of rubbish, and that Arabs and Jews cleaned it. The Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik commissioned the construction of a shrine on the Temple Mount, now known as the Dome of the Rock, in the late 7th century. Two of the city's most-distinguished Arab citizens of the 10th-century were Al-Muqaddasi, the geographer, and Al-Tamimi, the physician. Al-Muqaddasi writes that Abd al-Malik built the edifice on the Temple Mount in order to compete in grandeur with Jerusalem's monumental churches.

 

Over the next four hundred years, Jerusalem's prominence diminished as Arab powers in the region vied for control of the city. Jerusalem was captured in 1073 by the Seljuk Turkish commander Atsız. After Atsız was killed, the Seljuk prince Tutush I granted the city to Artuk Bey, another Seljuk commander. After Artuk's death in 1091 his sons Sökmen and Ilghazi governed in the city up to 1098 when the Fatimids recaptured the city.

 

A messianic Karaite movement to gather in Jerusalem took place at the turn of the millennium, leading to a "Golden Age" of Karaite scholarship there, which was only terminated by the Crusades.

 

Crusader/Ayyubid period

In 1099, the Fatimid ruler expelled the native Christian population before Jerusalem was besieged by the soldiers of the First Crusade. After taking the solidly defended city by assault, the Crusaders massacred most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants, and made it the capital of their Kingdom of Jerusalem. The city, which had been virtually emptied, was recolonized by a variegated inflow of Greeks, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Egyptians, Nestorians, Maronites, Jacobite Miaphysites, Copts and others, to block the return of the surviving Muslims and Jews. The north-eastern quarter was repopulated with Eastern Christians from the Transjordan. As a result, by 1099 Jerusalem's population had climbed back to some 30,000.

 

In 1187, the city was wrested from the Crusaders by Saladin who permitted Jews and Muslims to return and settle in the city. Under the terms of surrender, once ransomed, 60,000 Franks were expelled. The Eastern Christian populace was permitted to stay. Under the Ayyubid dynasty of Saladin, a period of huge investment began in the construction of houses, markets, public baths, and pilgrim hostels as well as the establishment of religious endowments. However, for most of the 13th century, Jerusalem declined to the status of a village due to city's fall of strategic value and Ayyubid internecine struggles.

 

From 1229 to 1244, Jerusalem peacefully reverted to Christian control as a result of a 1229 treaty agreed between the crusading Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and al-Kamil, the Ayyubid sultan of Egypt, that ended the Sixth Crusade. The Ayyubids retained control of the Muslim holy places, and Arab sources suggest that Frederick was not permitted to restore Jerusalem's fortifications.

 

In 1244, Jerusalem was sacked by the Khwarezmian Tatars, who decimated the city's Christian population and drove out the Jews. The Khwarezmian Tatars were driven out by the Ayyubids in 1247.

 

Mamluk period

From 1260 to 1516/17, Jerusalem was ruled by the Mamluks. In the wider region and until around 1300, many clashes occurred between the Mamluks on one side, and the crusaders and the Mongols, on the other side. The area also suffered from many earthquakes and black plague. When Nachmanides visited in 1267 he found only two Jewish families, in a population of 2,000, 300 of whom were Christians, in the city. The well-known and far-traveled lexicographer Fairuzabadi (1329–1414) spent ten years in Jerusalem.

 

The 13th to 15th centuries was a period of frequent building activity in the city, as evidenced by the 90 remaining structures from this time. The city was also a significant site of Mamluk architectural patronage. The types of structures built included madrasas, libraries, hospitals, caravanserais, fountains (or sabils), and public baths. Much of the building activity was concentrated around the edges of the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif. Old gates to the Haram lost importance and new gates were built, while significant parts of the northern and western porticoes along the edge of the Temple Mount plaza were built or rebuilt in this period. Tankiz, the Mamluk amir in charge of Syria during the reign of al-Nasir Muhammad, built a new market called Suq al-Qattatin (Cotton Market) in 1336–7, along with the gate known as Bab al-Qattanin (Cotton Gate), which gave access to the Temple Mount from this market. The late Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Qaytbay also took interest in the city. He commissioned the building of the Madrasa al-Ashrafiyya, completed in 1482, and the nearby Sabil of Qaytbay, built shortly after in 1482; both were located on the Temple Mount. Qaytbay's monuments were the last major Mamluk constructions in the city.

 

Modern era

In 1517, Jerusalem and its environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who generally remained in control until 1917.[180] Jerusalem enjoyed a prosperous period of renewal and peace under Suleiman the Magnificent—including the rebuilding of magnificent walls around the Old City. Throughout much of Ottoman rule, Jerusalem remained a provincial, if religiously important centre, and did not straddle the main trade route between Damascus and Cairo. The English reference book Modern history or the present state of all nations, written in 1744, stated that "Jerusalem is still reckoned the capital city of Palestine, though much fallen from its ancient grandeaur".

 

The Ottomans brought many innovations: modern postal systems run by the various consulates and regular stagecoach and carriage services were among the first signs of modernization in the city. In the mid 19th century, the Ottomans constructed the first paved road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, and by 1892 the railroad had reached the city.

 

With the annexation of Jerusalem by Muhammad Ali of Egypt in 1831, foreign missions and consulates began to establish a foothold in the city. In 1836, Ibrahim Pasha allowed Jerusalem's Jewish residents to restore four major synagogues, among them the Hurva. In the countrywide Peasants' Revolt, Qasim al-Ahmad led his forces from Nablus and attacked Jerusalem, aided by the Abu Ghosh clan, and entered the city on 31 May 1834. The Christians and Jews of Jerusalem were subjected to attacks. Ibrahim's Egyptian army routed Qasim's forces in Jerusalem the following month.

 

Ottoman rule was reinstated in 1840, but many Egyptian Muslims remained in Jerusalem and Jews from Algiers and North Africa began to settle in the city in growing numbers. In the 1840s and 1850s, the international powers began a tug-of-war in Palestine as they sought to extend their protection over the region's religious minorities, a struggle carried out mainly through consular representatives in Jerusalem. According to the Prussian consul, the population in 1845 was 16,410, with 7,120 Jews, 5,000 Muslims, 3,390 Christians, 800 Turkish soldiers and 100 Europeans. The volume of Christian pilgrims increased under the Ottomans, doubling the city's population around Easter time.

 

In the 1860s, new neighbourhoods began to develop outside the Old City walls to house pilgrims and relieve the intense overcrowding and poor sanitation inside the city. The Russian Compound and Mishkenot Sha'ananim were founded in 1860, followed by many others that included Mahane Israel (1868), Nahalat Shiv'a (1869), German Colony (1872), Beit David (1873), Mea Shearim (1874), Shimon HaZadiq (1876), Beit Ya'aqov (1877), Abu Tor (1880s), American-Swedish Colony (1882), Yemin Moshe (1891), and Mamilla, Wadi al-Joz around the turn of the century. In 1867 an American Missionary reports an estimated population of Jerusalem of 'above' 15,000, with 4,000 to 5,000 Jews and 6,000 Muslims. Every year there were 5,000 to 6,000 Russian Christian Pilgrims. In 1872 Jerusalem became the centre of a special administrative district, independent of the Syria Vilayet and under the direct authority of Istanbul called the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem.

 

The great number of Christian orphans resulting from the 1860 civil war in Mount Lebanon and the Damascus massacre led in the same year to the opening of the German Protestant Syrian Orphanage, better known as the Schneller Orphanage after its founder. Until the 1880s there were no formal Jewish orphanages in Jerusalem, as families generally took care of each other. In 1881 the Diskin Orphanage was founded in Jerusalem with the arrival of Jewish children orphaned by a Russian pogrom. Other orphanages founded in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 20th century were Zion Blumenthal Orphanage (1900) and General Israel Orphan's Home for Girls (1902).

Referência Elogiosa consignada ao deixar o Comando da AD5.

 

Por ter sido designado para frequenta a escola superior de guerra deixa o Comando da AD/5 o Exmo Gen Bda IGNÁCIO JÓSE VERISSIMO. A permanência dês te ilustre e digno camarada nesta Região Militar, durante mais de um ano, serviu para pôr em evidência mais uma vêz suas comprovadas qualidades de chefe, dedicado desde cedo a todos os problemas da segurança nacional e da instrução do exército e que, por sua cultura, por atitudes retas e por notável “savoir favore” , impor-se à admiração de seus camaradas e da sociedade civil.

Independente de sua atuação privativa de comandante de arma, o Gen VERISSIMO foi, como já se assinalou, eficiente e consciencioso Cooperador deste Comando, que nele sempre teve um amigo, um conselheiro um executor vigilante da orientação adotada no quadro geral da vida da 5ª Região Militar.

Este Comando com os seus louvores e agradecimentos pela maneira por que o Gen VERISSIMO desempenhou sua função augura-lhe o melhor êxito no curso que vai empreender, consolidando os pontos de vista com que tem encarrado os problemas da segurança e da sobrevivências da Nação

Certificate of Identity of Joseph Springall for Norwich Union and Life Insurance Society signed by Robert Reyner, Wymondham, Norfolk 7th August 1919.

 

Joseph Springall born 1835, Swanton Morley, Norfolk was the son of Charles and Ann Springall. A Builder and Contractor he was married twice. On 9th August 1857 he married Maria Milk at Swanton Morley. Following her death he then married Alice Mary Dennis on 4th August 1884 at St John, Upper Holloway, Islington. Joseph Springall died 6th December 1918.

 

Robert Violet Reyner born circa 1860, Litcham, Norfolk was a House Painter. The 1911 census shows him living at 18 Standard Road, Great Yarmouth with wife Edith Jane, nee Bowgen, Reyner and family.

 

Letter to Joseph Springall, of Swanton Morley, East Dereham, Norfolk, receipt for £20 Deposit of £270 paid for Property belonging to Mrs Esther Williams. Letter from Jesse Larwood, Gressenhall, East Dereham Executor of late Daynes Williams. 21st June 1901

 

Joseph Springall born 1836, Swanton Morley, son of Charles Springall and Ann Hammond, A Builder and Contractor the 1911 census shows him living at Greengate, Swanton Morley, East Dereham with his second wife Alice Mary Dennis.

Esther Wright born1851, Hockering, Norfolk, was the daughter of William Wright and Mary Ann Walpole. She married Daynes Williams in 1877 at East Dereham. Daynes died in 1899.

 

The 1891 census shows them living at Commercial Road, East Dereham

 

Letter to Joseph Springall, of Swanton Morley, East Dereham, Norfolk, naming the tenants and rent of Property consisting of 10 Cottages and the Old Chapel belonging to Mrs Ester Williams, widow of Daynes Williams for £300. Letter from Jesse Larwood, Gressenhall, East Dereham Executor of late Daynes Williams. Dated 28th May 1901.

 

Joseph Springall born 1836, Swanton Morley, son of Charles Springall and Ann Hammond, A Builder and Contractor the 1911 census shows him living at Greengate, Swanton Morley, East Dereham with his second wife Alice Mary Dennis.

Esther Wright born1851, Hockering, Norfolk, was the daughter of William Wright and Mary Ann Walpole. She married Daynes Williams in 1877 at East Dereham. Daynes died in 1899.

 

The 1891 census shows them living at Commercial Road, East Dereham

 

Dados periciais foram definitivos na acusação dos executores do crime, a partir de um gorro com fios de cabelo deixado na cena do crime.

 

Julgamento do assassinato dos ativistas José Cláudio e Maria dos Espírito Santo, que foram mortos em março de 2011 em Nova Ipixuna. O resultado do júri, que aconteceu nos dias 03 e 04 de abril, foi a condenação dos executores Alberto Lopes e Lindonjonson Silva, e absolvição de José Rodrigues, acusado de ser o mandante do crime. A ação provocou revolta nos familiares e movimentos agrários que acompanhavam o caso em vigília no Fórum de Marabá (PA).

 

(CC BY-SA) NINJA

Todas as imagens estão sob licença Creative Commons 3.0 e podem ser utilizadas livremente desde que disponibilizadas nas mesmas condições com o uso do código acima. Imagens em alta resolução estão disponíveis através de requerimento no email fotografia@foradoeixo.org.br

 

The Albion press invented in 1820 by Richard W. Cope an assistant of George Clymer.

Mr Cope died in 1828. This spring operated example was made in about 1830 by J & J Barrett, executors of Copes estate, by Mr John Hopkinson, Richard Copes' factory manager.

 

On eBay at the moment

ebayUK-2013May

Portrait of a Gentleman

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: c. 1770-1773

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 128 × 102 cm (50⅜ × 40 3/16 in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Collection

•Accession Number: 1940.1.11

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: Joseph Wright, British, 1734-1797

 

Provenance

 

William Curzon [1836-1916], Lockington Hall, Derbyshire; purchased 1916, at the dispersal of the Curzon estate, by Mrs. Claire Marion Cox, London, as Richard, Earl Howe, by John Singleton Copley; consigned 1932 by Mrs. Cox to (The Hackett Galleries, New York); returned to Mrs. Cox and later consigned to (Mrs. Chambers Wood, New York), who sold it 1932 to (M. Knoedler & Co., New York);[1] purchased May 1936 by The A.W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust, Pittsburgh; gift 1940 to NGA.

 

[1]Knoedler’s records give the early provenance (letter from Elizabeth Clare to NGA curator William Campbell, 5 November 1963, in NGA curatorial files). Clare quotes a letter from Mrs. Cox to Mrs. Wood, undated but presumably 1932, in which Mrs. Cox states that the 1916 dispersal “was a hurried executors’ sale and few persons attended it.”

 

Associated Names

 

•Cox, Claire Marion, Mrs.

•Curzon, William

•Hackett Galleries, The

•Knoedler & Company, M.

•Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust, The A.W.

•Wood, Chambers, Mrs.

 

Exhibition History

 

•1932—Inaugural exhibition, Museum of the City of New York, 1932, no catalogue, as by Copley.

•1933—The Opening Exhibition, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1933, no. 1, as by Copley.

 

Technical Summary

 

The medium-to-heavyweight canvas is twill woven; it has been lined. The ground is off-white, thinly applied. The painting is mostly executed in thin, opaque layers; the costume is rendered in thicker paint applied in small strokes, the furry texture of the lapels being created by means of a stiff white paint covered with a transparent blue glaze; there is a low impasto in the leaves and highlights. The background is extensively abraded, but otherwise there is minimal paint loss. The moderately thick natural resin varnish has discolored yellow to a moderate degree.

 

Bibliography

 

•1941—Preliminary Catalogue of Paintings and Sculpture. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941: 43, no. 497, as Richard, Earl Howe by John Singleton Copley.

•1942—Book of Illustrations. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1942: 249, repro. 7, as Richard, Earl Howe by John Singleton Copley.

•1949—Paintings and Sculpture from the Mellon Collection. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1949 (reprinted 1953 and 1958): 130, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe, by John Singleton Copley.

•1965—Summary Catalogue of European Paintings and Sculpture. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1965: 140, as Richard, Earl Howe.

•1968—European Paintings and Sculpture, Illustrations. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1968: 127, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe.

•1968—Nicolson, Benedict. Joseph Wright of Derby: Painter of Light. 2 vols. London, 1968: 1:36, 207; 2:pl. 90.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 166, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1975—European Paintings: An Illustrated Summary Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1975: 376, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: no. 530, color repro.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 307, as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1985—European Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1985: 439, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1992—Hayes, John. British Paintings of the Sixteenth through Nineteenth Centuries. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1992: 342-344, repro. 343.

  

From British Paintings of the Sixteenth through Nineteenth Centuries:

 

1940.1.11 (497)

 

Portrait of a Gentleman

 

•c.1770-1773

•Oil on canvas, 128 × 102 (50⅜ × 40⅛)

•Andrew W. Mellon Collection

 

Technical Notes

 

The medium-to-heavyweight canvas is twill woven; it has been lined. The ground is off-white, thinly applied. The painting is mostly executed in thin, opaque layers; the costume is rendered in thicker paint applied in small strokes, the furry texture of the lapels being created by means of a stiff white paint covered with a transparent blue glaze; there is a low impasto in the leaves and highlights. The background is extensively abraded, but otherwise there is minimal paint loss. The moderately thick natural resin varnish has discolored yellow to a moderate degree.

 

Provenance

 

William Curzon [1836-1916], Lockington Hall, Derbyshire. Purchased 1916, at the dispersal of the Curzon estate, by Mrs. Claire Marion Cox, London, as Richard, Earl Howe, by John Singleton Copley; consigned by Mrs. Cox 1932 to (Hackett Galleries), New York; returned to Mrs. Cox and later consigned to (Mrs. Chambers Wood), New York, who sold it 1932 to (M. Knoedler & Co.), New York,1 from whom it was purchased May 1936 by The A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust, Pittsburgh.

 

Exhibitions

 

Inaugural exhibition, Museum of the City of New York, 1932, no cat., as by Copley. The Opening Exhibition, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1933, no. 1, as by Copley.

 

The traditional identification of the sitter as Admiral Earl Howe (1726-1799), plausible solely on account of a Curzon provenance,2 is now discounted.3 The sitter is not portrayed in naval uniform, and, unlike Howe, he has a cleft chin. He is elegantly dressed, with a felt hat and a waistcoat lined with pale blue velvet.

 

The traditional attribution to Copley (whose style in the 17608 had affinities with that of Wright) was first corrected in 1965 by Charles Buckley, with the support of Benedict Nicolson.4 The use of an unconventional pose, the delight in materials—notably the furry lapels and the soft leather gloves—the contrived lighting, and the rocky background with trailing vines are all characteristic of Wright’s style. Nicolson described the portrait as a typical work of the early 17705, the period immediately preceding the artist’s Italian years (1773-1775).5 The doublebreasted waistcoat with large pointed lapels worn by the sitter was characteristic of fashion in the 1760s.

 

A version, rather inferior in quality and differing slightly in the arrangement of the background but identical in pose, costume, and lighting, was formerly owned by Captain R. T. Hinckes, of Foxley, Herefordshire. This portrait was then attributed to Zoffany and identified as representing the Marquis de Rinneau, sometime French ambassador in London.6

 

Notes

 

1.Knoedler’s records give the early provenance (Elizabeth Clare to William P. Campbell, 5 November 1963, in NGA curatorial files). Clare quotes a letter from Mrs. Cox to Mrs. Wood, undated but presumably 1932, in which she states that the 1916 dispersal “was a hurried executors’ sale and few persons attended it.”

2.Lord Howe’s eldest daughter, who became Baroness Howe after her father’s death (there were no sons), married in 1787 the Hon. Penn Assheton Curzon. Their son, Richard, who succeeded his paternal grandfather as Viscount Curzon of Penn, took the name of Howe after that of Curzon and in 1821 became the ist Earl Howe of the second creation. The portrait was said to have come from the collection of Baroness Howe, but this cannot be verified.

3.Nicolson 1968; 1 : 207.

4.William P. Campbell, memorandum, 14 June 1965, noting Buckley’s verbal opinions, in NGA curatorial files. The portrait was catalogued as Wright by Campbell in NGA 1970, 166, and by Wilmerding in NGA 1980,307.

5.Nicolson 1968 (see biography), i: 207; compare, for example, the portrait of Sir George Cooke in Kansas City of about 1770-1771 (Nicolson 1968, 2: pl. 86).

6.Hinckes sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 16 April 1937, no. 132, bought in. The evidence for this identification is unknown. No other portraits of anyone named Rinneau seem to be extant, so that the identification cannot be substantiated visually. Moreover, no one bearing the name of Rinneau, or a name remotely similar to it, is listed as ambassador, minister, or chargé d’affaires in London at any time in the eighteenth century (the official list was kindly communicated to me by Anne Lewis-Loubignac, French Embassy, London).

 

References

 

•1968—Nicolson 1968, 1: 36,207;2: pi. 90.

•1970—NGA 1970:166, repro. 167.

•1976—Walker 1976: no. 530, color repro.

•1980—NGA 1980: 307.

Brasília, 10/12/2014 - O secretário da Sesep, Tiago Falcão, modera o painel Relatos de executores de políticas públicas. Foto: Ana Nascimento/MDS

Portrait of a Gentleman

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: c. 1770-1773

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 128 × 102 cm (50⅜ × 40 3/16 in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Collection

•Accession Number: 1940.1.11

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: Joseph Wright, British, 1734-1797

 

Provenance

 

William Curzon [1836-1916], Lockington Hall, Derbyshire; purchased 1916, at the dispersal of the Curzon estate, by Mrs. Claire Marion Cox, London, as Richard, Earl Howe, by John Singleton Copley; consigned 1932 by Mrs. Cox to (The Hackett Galleries, New York); returned to Mrs. Cox and later consigned to (Mrs. Chambers Wood, New York), who sold it 1932 to (M. Knoedler & Co., New York);[1] purchased May 1936 by The A.W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust, Pittsburgh; gift 1940 to NGA.

 

[1]Knoedler’s records give the early provenance (letter from Elizabeth Clare to NGA curator William Campbell, 5 November 1963, in NGA curatorial files). Clare quotes a letter from Mrs. Cox to Mrs. Wood, undated but presumably 1932, in which Mrs. Cox states that the 1916 dispersal “was a hurried executors’ sale and few persons attended it.”

 

Associated Names

 

•Cox, Claire Marion, Mrs.

•Curzon, William

•Hackett Galleries, The

•Knoedler & Company, M.

•Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust, The A.W.

•Wood, Chambers, Mrs.

 

Exhibition History

 

•1932—Inaugural exhibition, Museum of the City of New York, 1932, no catalogue, as by Copley.

•1933—The Opening Exhibition, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1933, no. 1, as by Copley.

 

Technical Summary

 

The medium-to-heavyweight canvas is twill woven; it has been lined. The ground is off-white, thinly applied. The painting is mostly executed in thin, opaque layers; the costume is rendered in thicker paint applied in small strokes, the furry texture of the lapels being created by means of a stiff white paint covered with a transparent blue glaze; there is a low impasto in the leaves and highlights. The background is extensively abraded, but otherwise there is minimal paint loss. The moderately thick natural resin varnish has discolored yellow to a moderate degree.

 

Bibliography

 

•1941—Preliminary Catalogue of Paintings and Sculpture. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941: 43, no. 497, as Richard, Earl Howe by John Singleton Copley.

•1942—Book of Illustrations. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1942: 249, repro. 7, as Richard, Earl Howe by John Singleton Copley.

•1949—Paintings and Sculpture from the Mellon Collection. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1949 (reprinted 1953 and 1958): 130, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe, by John Singleton Copley.

•1965—Summary Catalogue of European Paintings and Sculpture. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1965: 140, as Richard, Earl Howe.

•1968—European Paintings and Sculpture, Illustrations. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1968: 127, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe.

•1968—Nicolson, Benedict. Joseph Wright of Derby: Painter of Light. 2 vols. London, 1968: 1:36, 207; 2:pl. 90.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 166, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1975—European Paintings: An Illustrated Summary Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1975: 376, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: no. 530, color repro.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 307, as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1985—European Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1985: 439, repro., as Richard, Earl Howe (?).

•1992—Hayes, John. British Paintings of the Sixteenth through Nineteenth Centuries. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1992: 342-344, repro. 343.

  

From British Paintings of the Sixteenth through Nineteenth Centuries:

 

1940.1.11 (497)

 

Portrait of a Gentleman

 

•c.1770-1773

•Oil on canvas, 128 × 102 (50⅜ × 40⅛)

•Andrew W. Mellon Collection

 

Technical Notes

 

The medium-to-heavyweight canvas is twill woven; it has been lined. The ground is off-white, thinly applied. The painting is mostly executed in thin, opaque layers; the costume is rendered in thicker paint applied in small strokes, the furry texture of the lapels being created by means of a stiff white paint covered with a transparent blue glaze; there is a low impasto in the leaves and highlights. The background is extensively abraded, but otherwise there is minimal paint loss. The moderately thick natural resin varnish has discolored yellow to a moderate degree.

 

Provenance

 

William Curzon [1836-1916], Lockington Hall, Derbyshire. Purchased 1916, at the dispersal of the Curzon estate, by Mrs. Claire Marion Cox, London, as Richard, Earl Howe, by John Singleton Copley; consigned by Mrs. Cox 1932 to (Hackett Galleries), New York; returned to Mrs. Cox and later consigned to (Mrs. Chambers Wood), New York, who sold it 1932 to (M. Knoedler & Co.), New York,1 from whom it was purchased May 1936 by The A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust, Pittsburgh.

 

Exhibitions

 

Inaugural exhibition, Museum of the City of New York, 1932, no cat., as by Copley. The Opening Exhibition, Museum of Fine Arts, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1933, no. 1, as by Copley.

 

The traditional identification of the sitter as Admiral Earl Howe (1726-1799), plausible solely on account of a Curzon provenance,2 is now discounted.3 The sitter is not portrayed in naval uniform, and, unlike Howe, he has a cleft chin. He is elegantly dressed, with a felt hat and a waistcoat lined with pale blue velvet.

 

The traditional attribution to Copley (whose style in the 17608 had affinities with that of Wright) was first corrected in 1965 by Charles Buckley, with the support of Benedict Nicolson.4 The use of an unconventional pose, the delight in materials—notably the furry lapels and the soft leather gloves—the contrived lighting, and the rocky background with trailing vines are all characteristic of Wright’s style. Nicolson described the portrait as a typical work of the early 17705, the period immediately preceding the artist’s Italian years (1773-1775).5 The doublebreasted waistcoat with large pointed lapels worn by the sitter was characteristic of fashion in the 1760s.

 

A version, rather inferior in quality and differing slightly in the arrangement of the background but identical in pose, costume, and lighting, was formerly owned by Captain R. T. Hinckes, of Foxley, Herefordshire. This portrait was then attributed to Zoffany and identified as representing the Marquis de Rinneau, sometime French ambassador in London.6

 

Notes

 

1.Knoedler’s records give the early provenance (Elizabeth Clare to William P. Campbell, 5 November 1963, in NGA curatorial files). Clare quotes a letter from Mrs. Cox to Mrs. Wood, undated but presumably 1932, in which she states that the 1916 dispersal “was a hurried executors’ sale and few persons attended it.”

2.Lord Howe’s eldest daughter, who became Baroness Howe after her father’s death (there were no sons), married in 1787 the Hon. Penn Assheton Curzon. Their son, Richard, who succeeded his paternal grandfather as Viscount Curzon of Penn, took the name of Howe after that of Curzon and in 1821 became the ist Earl Howe of the second creation. The portrait was said to have come from the collection of Baroness Howe, but this cannot be verified.

3.Nicolson 1968; 1 : 207.

4.William P. Campbell, memorandum, 14 June 1965, noting Buckley’s verbal opinions, in NGA curatorial files. The portrait was catalogued as Wright by Campbell in NGA 1970, 166, and by Wilmerding in NGA 1980,307.

5.Nicolson 1968 (see biography), i: 207; compare, for example, the portrait of Sir George Cooke in Kansas City of about 1770-1771 (Nicolson 1968, 2: pl. 86).

6.Hinckes sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 16 April 1937, no. 132, bought in. The evidence for this identification is unknown. No other portraits of anyone named Rinneau seem to be extant, so that the identification cannot be substantiated visually. Moreover, no one bearing the name of Rinneau, or a name remotely similar to it, is listed as ambassador, minister, or chargé d’affaires in London at any time in the eighteenth century (the official list was kindly communicated to me by Anne Lewis-Loubignac, French Embassy, London).

 

References

 

•1968—Nicolson 1968, 1: 36,207;2: pi. 90.

•1970—NGA 1970:166, repro. 167.

•1976—Walker 1976: no. 530, color repro.

•1980—NGA 1980: 307.

Montagu Arms:

Quarterly: 1st and 4th, Argent three Lozenges conjoined in fess Gules within a Bordure Sable (Montagu); 2nd and 3rd, Or an Eagle displayed Vert beaked and membered Gules (Monthermer)

Crest:

A Griffin's Head couped wings expanded Or gorged with a Collar Argent charged with three Lozenges Gules

Supporters:

Dexter: an heraldic Antelope Or armed tufted and hoofed Argent; Sinister: a Griffin Or gorged with a Collar as in the Crest

Motto:

Disponendo Me, Non Mutando Me (By disposing of me, not by changing me)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Charles [Montagu], 4th Earl of Manchester later 1st Duke of Manchester, PC

1st son of Robert [Montagu], 3rd Earl of Manchester, by his wife Anne Yelverton, only dau. of Sir Christopher Yelverton, 1st Bt., of Easton Manduit, co. Northampton

born

c. 1662

mar.

19 Feb 1690 Hon Doddington Greville (b. 20 Feb 1671/2; d. 6 Feb 1720/1), 2nd dau. and cohrss. of Robert [Greville], 4th Baron Brooke, by his wife Anne Dodington, dau. and hrss. of John Dodington, of Breamore, co. Hampshire

children

1. Lord William Montagu, later 2nd Duke of Manchester

2. Lord Robert Montagu, later 3rd Duke of Manchester

1. Lady Charlotte Montagu (dsps. 14 Sep 1759), mar. 11 Jun 1724 Pattee [Byng], 2nd Viscount Torrington, and had issue

2. Lady Doddington Montagu (b. c.1694; d. 8 Jan 1774)

died

20 Jan 1721/2

created

28 Apr 1719 Duke of Manchester

suc. by

son

note

suc. his father 14 Mar 1682/83 as 4th Earl of Manchester; Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard 1688/9-1702; Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire 1689-1721/2; Lord Great Chamberlain 1694; Privy Councillor 1698, 1702 and 1714; Ambassador to Venice 1697-98 and 1706-08 and to Paris 1699-1701; High Steward of the University of Cambridge 1697-1721/2; Secretary of State for the South 1702; a Lord of the Bedchamber 1714-21/2

 

William [Montagu], 2nd Duke of Manchester

born

Apr 1700

mar.

16 Apr 1723 Lady Isabella Montagu (mar. (2) 1743 Edward [Hussey later Hussey-Montagu], 1st Earl of Beaulieu; d. 20 Dec 1786), 1st dau. and cohrss. of John [Montagu], 2nd Duke of Montagu, by his wife Lady Mary Churchill, 4th dau. and cohrss. of John [Churchill], 1st Duke of Marlborough

died

s.p. 21 Oct 1739

suc. by

brother

note

a Lord of the Bedchamber (Whig) 1722-39; Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire 1722-39; Knight of the Bath 1725; Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard 1737-39

 

Robert [Montagu], 3rd Duke of Manchester

born

c. 1710

mar.

3 Apr 1735 Harriet Dunch (d. 25 Feb 1755), dau. and cohrss. of Edmund Dunch, of Little Wittenham, co. Berkshire, by his wife Elizabeth Godfrey, dau. of Col Charles Godfrey by his wife Arabella Churchill, sister of John [Churchill], 1st Duke of Marlborough, and dau.of Sir Winston Churchill, Comptroller of the Board of Green Cloth

children

1. Lord George Montagu, later 4th Duke of Manchester

2. Lord Charles Greville Montagu, Governor of South Carolina 1766-73 (b. 1741; d. 3 Feb 1784; bur. at Halifax, Nova Scotia), mar. 20 Sep 1765 Elizabeth Bulmer, dau. of James Bulmer, and had issue

1. Lady Caroline Montagu (d. 1818), mar. 1775 Charles Herbert, son of Hon William Herbert, 2nd son of Thomas [Herbert], 8th Earl of Pembroke

2. Lady Louisa Montagu

died

10 May 1762

suc. by

son

note

Member of Parliament (Whig) for Huntingdonshire 1734-39; Vice-Chamberlain to the Queen Consort 1735-37; a Lord of the Bedchamber 1739-61; Lord Chamberlain to the Queen Consort 1761-62

 

George [Montagu], 4th Duke of Manchester, PC

born

6 Apr 1737

mar.

23 Oct 1762 Elizabeth Dashwood (b. c.1740; d. 26 Jun 1832), 1st dau. of Sir James Dashwood, 2nd Bt. MP, of Kirtlington Park, co. Oxford, by his wife Elizabeth Spencer, dau. and cohrss. of Edward Spencer, of Rendlesham, co.Suffolk

children

1. Lord George Montagu, styled Viscount Mandeville (b. 11 Nov 1763; dvp. 23 Feb 1772)

2. Lord William Montagu, later 5th Duke of Manchester

3. Lord Frederick Montagu (b. 8 Nov 1774; d. 4 Oct 1827)

1. Lady Caroline Maria Montagu (b. 10 Aug 1770; d. 24 Mar 1827), mar. 24 Jul 1790 as his second wife James [Graham], 3rd Duke of Montrose, and had issue

2. Lady Anna Maria Montagu (d. 12 Apr 1796)

3. Lady Emily Montagu, Housekeeper of Hampton Court Palace (d. 21 Apr 1838)

died

2 Sep 1788

suc. by

son

note

Member of Parliament (Whig) for Huntingdonshire 1761-62; Collector of Subsidies in the Port of London 1762; a Lord of the Bedchamber 1762-70; Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire 1762-88; Grand Master of Freemasons 1777-82; Privy Councillor 1782; Lord Chamberlain of the Household 1782-83; Ambassador to Paris 1783

 

William [Montagu], 5th Duke of Manchester

born

21 Oct 1771

mar.

7 Oct 1793 Lady Susan Gordon (b. 2 Feb 1774; d. 26 Aug 1828), sister and cohrss. of George [Gordon], 5th Duke of Gordon, and 3rd dau. of Alexander [Gordon], 4th Duke of Gordon, by his first wife Jane Maxwell, dau. of Sir William Maxwell of Monreith, 3rd Bt.

children

1. Lord George Montagu, later 6th Duke of Manchester

2. Lord William Francis Montagu (b. 5 Aug 1800; d. 30 Mar 1842), mar. Apr 1830 Emily Dupr (mar. (2) 7 Dec 1844 Dr Richard Tonson Evanson; d. 5 Dec 1848), dau. of James Dupr, of Wilton Park, co. Buckingham, and had issue

1. Lady Jane Montagu (d. 27 Sep 1815)

2. Lady Elizabeth Montagu (d. 9 Jan 1857), mar. 10 Aug 1819 Maj Gen Thomas Steele (d. 8 May 1845)

3. Lady Susan Montagu (b. 18 Sep 1797; d. 5 Mar 1870), mar. 28 Mar 1816 George [Hay], 8th Marquess of Tweeddale, and had issue

4. Lady Georgiana Frederica Montagu (d. 30 Jul 1892), mar. 11 Oct 1823 Evan Baillie of Dochfour (d. Apr 1883), and had issue

5. Lady Caroline Catherine Montagu (d. 10 Sep 1892), mar. 13 Feb 1828 John Hales Calcraft MP, of Rempston Hall, co. Dorset (d. 13 Mar 1880), and had issue

6. Lady Emily Montagu (d. 2 Feb 1827)

died

18 Mar 1843

suc. by

son

note

Lord Lieutenant of Huntingdonshire 1793-1841; Governor of Jamaica 1808-27; Postmaster General 1827-30

 

George [Montagu], 6th Duke of Manchester

born

9 Jul 1799

mar. (1)

8 Oct 1822 Millicent Sparrow (b. 25 Jan 1798; d. 21 Nov 1848), only surv. child of Brig Gen Robert Bernard Sparrow, of Brampton Park, co. Huntingdon, by his wife Lady Olive Acheson, 1st dau. of Arthur [Acheson], 1st Earl of Gosford

children by first wife:

1. Lord William Drogo Montagu, later 7th Duke of Manchester

2. Rt Hon Lord Robert Montagu MP, Member of Parliament for Huntingdonshire 1859-74 and for Westmeath 1874-80 (b. 24 Jan 1825; d. 6 May 1902), mar. (1) 12 Feb 1850 Ellen Mary Cromie (b. 1825; d. 11 Jul 1857), only child and hrss. of John Cromie, of Cromore, co. Antrim, and (2) 18 Oct 1862 Elizabeth Catherine Wade (b. 15 May 1839; d. 29 Dec 1908), dau. of William Wade, of Holton, co. Suffolk, and had issue by both his wives

3. Lord Frederick Montagu (b. 5 Oct 1828; d. 29 Oct 1854)

1. Lady Olivia Montagu (b. 18 Jul 1830; d. 15 Feb 1922), mar. 29 Jan 1850 Charles Augustus [Bennet], 6th Earl of Tankerville, and had issue

mar. (2)

20 Aug 1850 Harriet Sydney Dobbs (b. 4 Dec 1834; mar. (2) 16 Dec 1858 Sir Stevenson Arthur Blackwood KCB, Secretary to the General Post Office; d. 30 May 1907), 5th dau. of Conway Richard Dobbs, of Castle Dobbs, co. Antrim, by his wife Charlotte Maria Sinclair, dau. and cohrss. of William Sinclair, of Fort William, co. Antrim

children by second wife:

4. Lieut Lord George Francis Montagu (b. 18 Jan 1855; d. 12 Mar 1882)

2. Lady Sydney Charlotte Montagu (b. 14 Oct 1851; d. 21 Sep 1932), mar. 14 Aug 1873 Algernon Hawkins Thomond [Keith-Falconer], 9th Earl of Kintore, and had issue

died

18 Aug 1855

suc. by

son by first wife

note

Member of Parliament (Tory) for Huntingdonshire 1726-37; Deputy Lieutenant of co. Armagh

 

William Drogo [Montagu], 7th Duke of Manchester, KP

born

15 Oct 1823

mar.

22 Jul 1852 Countess Louisa Frederica Augusta von Alten, Mistress of the Robes 1858-59 (b. 15 Jan 1832; mar. (2) 16 Aug 1892 Spencer Compton [Cavendish], 8th Duke of Devonshire; d. 15 Jul 1911; bur. at Edensor, co. Derby), dau. of Count Charles Francis Victor von Alten, of Hanover, by his wife Hermine de Schminke

children:

1. Lord George Victor Drogo Montagu, later 8th Duke of Manchester

2. Lt Col Lord Charles William Augustus Montagu CVO KGStJ (b. 23 Nov 1860; dsp. 10 Nov 1939), mar. 4 Dec 1930 Hon Mildred Cecilia Harriet Meux (b. 27 Feb 1869; widow of (1) Hon Henry Arthur Cadogan, styled Viscount Chelsea, 2nd son and heir ap. by his first wife of George Henry [Cadogan], 5th Earl Cadogan, and (2) Admiral of the Fleet Hon Sir Hedworth Lambton later Meux GCB KCVO, 2nd son of John George [Lambton], 3rd Earl of Durham; d. 17 Sep 1942), 3rd dau. of Henry Gerald [Sturt], 1st Baron Alington, by his wife and cousin Lady Augusta Bingham, 1st dau. of George Charles [Bingham], 3rd Earl of Lucan

1. Lady Mary Louisa Elizabeth Montagu OBE (b. 27 Dec 1854; d. 10 Feb 1934), mar. (1) 10 Dec 1873 William Alexander Louis Stephen [Hamilton], 12th Duke of Hamilton, and (2) 20 Jul 1897 Robert Carnaby Forster, of Easton Park, Wickham Market, co. Suffolk (d. 23 Jun 1925), and had issue by her first husband

2. Lady Louisa Augusta Beatrice Montagu DBE DGStJ, Lady of the Bedchamber to HM Queen Alexandra (b. 17 Jan 1856; d. 3 Mar 1944), mar. 10 Aug 1876 her second cousin Archibald Brabazon Sparrow [Acheson], 4th Earl of Gosford, and had issue

3. Lady Alice Maude Olivia Montagu DGStJ, Extra Lady of the Bedchamber to HM Queen Alexandra (b. 15 Aug 1862; d. 23 Jul 1957), mar. 5 Jan 1889 Edward George Villiers [Stanley], 17th Earl of Derby, and had issue

died

22 Mar 1890

suc. by

son

note

Member of Parliament (Conservative) for Bewdley 1847-52 and for Huntingdonshire 1852-55; a Lord of the Bedchamber to the Prince Consort 1852; Knight of St Patrick 1877

 

George Victor Drogo [Montagu], 8th Duke of Manchester

born

17 Jun 1853

mar.

22 May 1876 Consuelo Yznaga del Valle (b. 1858; d. 20 Nov 1909), dau. of Don Antonio Yznaga del Valle, of Ravenswood, Louisiana, USA, and Cuba

children:

1. Lord William Angus Drogo Montagu, later 9th Duke of Manchester

1. Lady Jacqueline Mary Alva Montagu (d. 15 Mar 1895)

2. Lady Alice Eleanor Louise Montagu (d. 10 Jan 1900)

died

18 Aug 1892

suc. by

son

note

Member of Parliament (Conservative) for Huntingdonshire 1877-80

 

William Angus Drogo [Montagu], 9th Duke of Manchester

born

3 Mar 1877

mar. (1)

14 Nov 1900 (div. 1931) Helena Zillerman (b. c.1878; mar. (2) 23 Nov 1937 Arthur George [Keith], 10th Earl of Kintore; d. 15 Dec 1971), only dau. of Eugene Zimmerman, of Cincinnati, USA, by his wife ..... Evans

children by first wife:

1. Lord Alexander George Francis Drogo Montagu, later 10th Duke of Manchester

2. Lord Edward Eugene Fernando Montagu (b. 26 Jul 1906; d. 4 May 1954), mar. (1) 10 Aug 1929 (div. 1937) Norah Macfarlane Potter, dau. of Albert Edward Potter, (2) 28 Aug 1937 (div. 1947) Dorothy Vera Peters, (3) 1947 Martha Bowen (d. 1951), (4) Aug 1952 Baroness Cora Kellie, and (5) 28 Sep 1953 Roberta Herold Joughlin, of Los Angeles, USA (b. c. 1964), and had issue by his first wife

1. Lady Mary Alice Montagu (b. 26 Oct 1901; d. 9 Oct 1962), m. 1949 Fendall Littlepage Gregory, of Cuernavaca, Mexico

2. Lady Ellen Millicent Louise Montagu (b. 5 Jan 1908; d. 2 Aug 1948), mar. (1) 1936 (div. 1944) Herman Martin Hofer, 2nd son of John Jacob Hofer, of Zurich, Switzerland, and (2) 30 Aug 1945 Maj John Norman Shairp, son of Col Alexander Shairp CMG

mar. (2)

17 Dec 1931 Kathleen Dawes (d. 28 Mar 1966), dau. of W H Dawes

died

9 Feb 1947

suc. by

son by first wife

note

Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard 1906-07; Privy Councillor 1906

 

Alexander George Francis Drogo [Montagu], 10th Duke of Manchester, OBE

born

2 Oct 1902

mar. (1)

5 May 1927 Nell Vere Stead (d. 2 Sep 1966), dau. of Sydney Vere Stead, of Melbourne, Australia

children by first wife:

1. Lord Sidney Arthur Robin George Drogo Montagu, later 11th Duke of Manchester

2. Lord Angus Charles Drogo Montagu, later 12th Duke of Manchester

mar. (2)

7 Feb 1969 Elizabeth Crocker (former wife of W. W. Crocker), dau. of Samuel Clyde Fullerton, of Miami, USA

died

23 Nov 1977

suc. by

son by first wife

 

Sidney Arthur Robin George Drogo [Montagu], 11th Duke of Manchester

born

5 Feb 1929

mar. (1)

5 Feb 1955 (div. 1978) Adrienne Valerie Christie (d. 1988), 1st dau. of John Kenneth Christie, of Sedgefield, South Africa

mar. (2)

25 Aug 1978 Andrea Kent (former wife of (1) Maj Stuart Whitehead AFC, and (2) G J W Kent; d. 21 Jan 1996), dau. of Lt Col Cecil Alexander Joss MC, of Johannesburg, South Africa

died

s.p. 3 Jun 1985

suc. by

brother

 

Angus Charles Drogo [Montagu], 12th Duke of Manchester

born

9 Oct 1938

mar. (1)

22 Nov 1961 (div. 1970) Mary Eveleen McClure, dau. of Walter Gillespie McClure, of Geelong, Australia

children by first wife:

1. Lord Alexander Charles David Drogo Montagu, later 13th Duke of Manchester

2. Lord Kimble Montagu, heir presumptive to the Dukedom of Manchester (b. Oct 1964), mar. 1997 Sally Elizabeth Nurse, and has issue

1. Lady Emma Montagu (b. Sep 1965), mar. 2001 Lance Hodgkinson

mar. (2)

1971 (div. 1985) Diane Pauline Plimsaul, dau. of Arthur Plimsaul, of Wimborne, co. Dorset

mar. (3)

27 Jan 1989 (div. 1998) Ann-Louise Bird (former wife of ..... Bird), dau. of Dr Alfred Butler Taylor, of Crawthorne, co. York

mar. (4)

22 Apr 2000 (div. 2001) Biba Hiller (d. 11 Oct 2003)

died

25 Jul 2002

suc. by

son by first wife

 

Alexander Charles David Drogo [Montagu], 13th Duke of Manchester

born

11 Dec 1962

mar. (1)

1984 (div. 1996) Marion Stoner

mar. (2)

6 May 1993 (div. 2006) Wendy Dawn Buford, dau. of Michael Buford, of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, USA

children by second wife

1. Lord Alexander Michael Charles David Francis George Edward William Kimble Drogo Montagu, probably not in succession to the Dukedom of Manchester (b. 13 May 1993)

1. Lady Ashley Faith Maxine Nell Montagu (b. 16 Jun 1999)

mar. (3)

21 Sep 2007 Laura Smith, dau. of Marvin Smith, of Laguna Beach, California, USA

 

Although the 13th Duke's second marriage was bigamous, i.e. his first marriage had not been dissolved when he married his second wife, following an application by the Trustees of the family settlements, the High Court ruled in 2011 that the Duke's two children by his second wife were legitimate and therefore were entitled to benefit from the Manchester settled estate. Mr Justice Floyd said that there was "absolutely no doubt that at the relevant times Wendy reasonably believed that the marriage was valid" and the laws of Australia, California and England all allowed the children of bigamous marriages to be treated as legitimate (see Green & Mitson v. Montagu and others [2011] EWHC 1856 (Ch), [2011] WTLR 1341).

 

Lord Alexander Montagu is probably not in succession to the Dukedom of Manchester as he was born before his father had divorced his first wife. The heir presumptive to the Dukedom of Manchester would seem to be Lord Kimble Montagu, second son of the 12th Duke of Manchester and younger brother of the present Duke, although this would have to be carefully considered, probably by the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords, on the death of the 13th Duke.

 

Last updated 31 Aug 2015

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Titles:

13th Duke of Manchester

(Great Britain, let. pat. 28 Apr 1719)

16th Earl of Manchester

(England, let. pat. 5 Feb 1626)

16th Viscount Mandeville

(England, let. pat. 19 Dec 1620)

16th Baron Montagu of Kimbolton, of Kimbolton in the County of Huntingdon

(England, let. pat. 19 Dec 1620)

 

Addresses:

c/o British Consulate-General, 11766 Wiltshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90025-6538, USA

 

Best address to contact:

The Duke and Duchess of Manchester.

220 Newport Center Drive, suite .#11 Newport Beach, California 92660, USA

 

Draft Will of George Burges, 28 Hardres Street, Ramsgate, Kent dated 22nd March 1861.

 

Executors: Rev’d Henry Richards Luard, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge and Charles Thomas Hill of 51, Beaumont Square, Mile End, London.

 

Beneficiaries: Wife Jane Burges, daughters, Maria Burges, Anne Burges, infant, Fanny Burges, infant.

 

Property: 28 Hardres Street, Ramsgate, 2, St. Augustine Place, Ramsgate.

 

This sculpture, erected by the Rotary Club of West Kowloon, has no name in roman characters on the base, so I don't know the name, or the sculptor. Seen on the west side of Nathan Road near the Tsim Sha Tsui MRT station in Kowloon, Hong Kong. Taken by a Nikon D610 at ISO 400 with a Nikkor 35-135mm ƒ 3.5-4.5 AF lens. (at 54)

 

If an artistic executor of the sculptor, (or the sculptor him/herself...) has any copyright objections to this photo, Flickr-mail the poster stating that you are such an executor, state the objection(s), and it will be taken down...

 

While you are contacting the poster anyway, please tell him the name of the sculptor...

 

I also caught this lady checking her point-n'-shoot camera. (Probably another tourist, just like the photographer / poster!)

10221 Super Star Destroyer (Star Wars)

 

Ages 16+. 3,152 pieces.

US $399.99 CA $499.99 DE 399.99 € UK 349.99 £

The Super Star Destroyer Executor has arrived! This jaw-dropping vessel served as command ship at the Battle of Endor and as the personal flagship of Darth Vader in the classic Star Wars movies. With its classic dagger-shaped design, the Executor is among the largest and most powerful vessels in the Star Wars galaxy. With over 3,000 pieces, measuring nearly 50" (124.5 cm) long and weighing nearly 8 pounds (3.5 kg), every aspect of this fantastic LEGO® Star Wars™ model impresses. Includes 4 minifigures: Darth Vader, Admiral Piett, Dengar, Bossk and IG-88.

Includes 4 minifigures: Darth Vader, Admiral Piett, Dengar and Bossk!

Also includes IG-88 figure!

Features over 3,000 pieces!

Measures nearly 50 inches (124.5 cm) long and weighs nearly 8 pounds (3.5kg)!

Includes display stand and data sheet label!

Center section lifts off to reveal command center!

  

The Super Star Destroyer is on sale from September 1, 2011

Le Cariatidi sono sei statue originali che sostenevano il tetto del portico delle Korai del Tempio di Eretteo nell'Acropoli di Atene. La eleganza del panneggio, l'incedere della gamba danno una sensazione incredibile di movimento. di leggerezza e di bellezza. Progetto di Fidia, architetto esecutore Filokles, anno 421 AC. Conservate nel Museo dell'Acropoli ad Atene. Six marble statues that bear the roof of the korai loggia of the Erecteus temple in the Acropolis of Athens. They are the original samples and are stored in the Museum of Acropolis in Athens. The elegance of the tunics, the movement of the bodies rend these statues as living persons. Project by Phydias, executor architect Phylokles, built on 421 BC.

   

Annie Zunz Ward

  

Wards named Annie Zunz can be found in several hospitals in London, but who was she? Annie Zunz was the Irish wife of a German iron merchant, Siegfried Rudolf Zunz, who had come to London from Frankfurt-am-Main in 1860 to make his fortune. The couple were married for 22 years, but were childless, and when Annie died in 1896 her husband was inconsolable. He died a broken man just three years after his wife.

  

Siegfried decided that after his death his fortune was to be used to perpetuate the memory of his beloved Annie. In his will he instructed his executors and trustees to give £25,000 (about £1.9 million today) to a London hospital to build and maintain forever a ward named “The Annie Zunz ward”, and that a life-sized photograph of Annie was to be hung in that ward. The surplus of his estate was to be given to other London hospitals to support Annie Zunz wards.

  

The lucky hospital to get the £25,000 was St. Mary’s Paddington, which was given the money to complete the Clarence Wing in Praed Street. Other London hospitals began to apply to the Zunz trustees for the rest of the estate, which was valued at £115,200 (£8.9 million at to-day’s prices).Great Ormond Street approached the trustees in 1910 for a donation, and received £3,000 (£210,000) to name the small isolation ward after Annie Zunz. Three years later the hospital asked the trustees if they would agree to increasing their donations if the hospital named one of the general wards “The Annie Zunz ward”. The trustees did not immediately agree, but, after Great Ormond Street had renamed the large Alice ward “Annie Zunz”, they did step up their payments.

  

Nine years later the Annie Zunz trustees asked the hospital to record their generosity by putting up a plaque in the ward, and suggested that the wording should be similar to that in the Annie Zunz ward at the Royal Free Hospital. Great Ormond Street contacted the Royal Free Hospital (which at that time was in Grays Inn Road) and the Middlesex Hospital, which also had a ward dedicated to Annie Zunz. The plaque at the Royal Free read:

  

“By the terms of the Will of Siegfried Rudolph Zunz Merchant of the City of London. His Trustees have made a grant of the sum of £10,000 to this Hospital in memory of Annie Zunz - The best of wives whose whole life was spent in helping and aiding others - 1901”

  

The Middlesex Hospital’s plaque was similarly worded, but Great Ormond Street decided that, as they had not received quite as much money as the other hospitals (and £1,000 less than the Evelina Children’s Hospital), the plaque here would be less fulsome in its praise of either Rudolf or his perfect wife. The GOS inscription simply stated:

  

“By the terms of the Will of Siegfried Rudolph Zunz - Merchant of the City of London - his Trustees made a grant of the sum of £3,000 in 1910 for the naming of this Ward and have since contributed towards its maintenance.”

  

The Royal Free, Bart’s, King’s College Hospital, the Bolingbroke and the Royal London all have Annie Zunz wards. Ironically, she has not been remembered by St. Mary’s, the biggest single beneficiary of her husband’s fortune. The £25,000 that had been given to the hospital to complete the Clarence Wing was not enough to ensure that the wards were opened. In 1909 some of the Annie Zunz wards were handed over to the Inoculation Department, and by the 1920s, the Annie Zunz wards became part of the maternity department.

   

 

Draft Will of George Burges, 28 Hardres Street, Ramsgate, Kent dated 22nd March 1861.

 

Executors: Rev’d Henry Richards Luard, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge and Charles Thomas Hill of 51, Beaumont Square, Mile End, London.

 

Beneficiaries: Wife Jane Burges, daughters, Maria Burges, Anne Burges, infant, Fanny Burges, infant.

 

Property: 28 Hardres Street, Ramsgate, 2, St. Augustine Place, Ramsgate.

 

Draft Will of William Hudson, Ramsgate, Hotel Keeper and Spirit Merchant, dated 22nd December 1860. This Will was later revoked by another Will dated 13 September, 1862.

 

Executors: Nephews, George Hudson and William Hudson sons of his deceased brother George Hudson.

 

Beneficiaries: his sister Mary Hudson, sister Jane Wills, Children of his deceased brother George Hudson.

 

Properties included the Bull and George Hotel, Property at 76 the High Street in the occupation of Richard Thomas Hunter.

 

Monument erected c1630 by Sir Simon Leach 1567-1637 & 2nd wife Katherine Turberville - His children kneel below except for his heir Walter who kneels behind opposite his wife Sarah Napier - From Sir Simon Leach's will it appears he erected this monument in memory of his second wife Katherine who had predeceased him. He appointed one of his sons, Nicholas, and A.Y. . . to be his executors. The will was proved on April 8th 1637, and in 1651 administration was granted to his grandson, Simon Leach.

"Here lye the bodyes of Sr. Simon Leach Knight, Son of Symon Leach of Credition Blacksmith And of ye lady Catherine Leach his wife, Daughter of Nicholas Turbeville of Credition, Esq Whose true affection in Religious wedlock caused there desire to make there bed together in the dust".

"Bowed down by the fate of my wife I am going to her tomb, her partner in life, in death I will be her comrade"."L'o a third generation follows yet second was he to non distinguished for his discretion distinguished also for his talent."

 

Simon was the son of Symon Leach a blacksmith of Crediton by Elizabeth daughter of John Rowe of Crediton

He was Sheriff of Devon in 1625 and knighted at Ford Abbey, Axminster the same year - he died "deeply regretted June 29th AD 1660"

He m1 Elizabeth, daughter of Walter Burrough of Exeter

Children

1. "Sir Walter Leach 1636 www.flickr.com/gp/52219527@N00/K985G4 Soldier Son and Heir of Simon Leach Soldier.predeceased him" "Stay dear Father my sands have run now quickly in order that I may be able to be the bearer of your prayers." He m Sarah www.flickr.com/gp/52219527@N00/5h4t70 daughter of Sir Robert Napier, 1st Bart of Luton Hoo by Mary daughter of John Robinson. Their son Simon became heir to his grandfather.

2. Simon died young

 

He m2 Katherine daughter of Nicholas Turberville of Crediton

Children - 3 sons and 4 daughters

1. NIcholas of Newton St Petrock m Grace daughter of Roger Mallock and Anne daughter of Simon Snow of Exeter

2. George m1 Margaret .... m2 Bevill Prideaux

3. Simon dsp 1637

1. Katherine 1666 m1 Thomas Giffard of Halsbury m2 Robert Burrington of West Sandford

2. Elizabeth m John Cowling rector of Cadeleigh

3. Rebecah m John Davie

4. Anne m John Martin of Middle Temple

 

Sir Simon was succeeded by his grandson "Simon Leach son and heir of Walter Leach a zealous supporter of King Charles ii. when in exile, died deeply regretted June 25th A.D. 1660".

Simon then aged 5 later m Bridget daughter of Sir Bevil Grenville of Kilkhampton www.flickr.com/gp/52219527@N00/aYr6Na en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bevil_Grenville#mediaviewer/File:Be... killed whilst commanding the royalist side at the battler of Lansdowne in 1643. He died aged 28, leaving 2 children, his heir "Sir Simon Leach Knight of the Bath son of Simon Leach Esq.1708" and a daughter, Bridget Berners 1708 at Wiggenhill St Mary flic.kr/p/21Jf8Fs - His widow Bridget Grenville www.flickr.com/gp/52219527@N00/1K5d5K m2 Sir Thomas Higgons,

 

www.wissensdrang.com/stabb049.htm

 

. - Church of St Bartholomew, Cadeleigh Devon

  

SERAGOTES COURT NYC AND GROSOVER SQUARE

  

Accounts.

SURROGATE'S COURT,

County Of New York.

In the Matter

of

the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Harry B. Hollins,John L. Cadwalader and Frederick Ogden Beach, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of CONSUELO, DOWAGER

Duchess Of Manchester, deceased.

14

Extract from Account of Proceedings,

Verified 20th May, 1912.

SCHEDULE II.

Statement of other fuets affecting the administration of the Estate.

The testatrix up to the time of her marriage, had been an American citizen, residing in New York, but by reason of her marriage became a British subject and a resident of London, England. At the time of her death the larger part ofher estate was located in New York and elsewhere in the United States, and with reference to that property she provided for a separate administration by the executors now accounting herein and by them in their

15 17

18 Extracts from American Executors' Accounts

capacities are trustees. The remaining property is under administration by the general executors and trustees under a grant of probate in England.

Death duties or taxes on all the property of the estate, including that in America, have been levied in England, the place of domicile of the testatrix, but these taxes have not been entirely collected owing to the fact that the payment would occasion a deficiency of assets under the control of the executors in England unless recourse were had to jewelry, personal belongings located in England, and the family residence in London. The duties so imposed are of three-fold character, denominated respectively Estate, Legacy and Settlement Estate Duties, and with regard to the property under the control and administration by the executors accounting herein the amount levied aggregated the sum of £71,700. All these duties are levied on rights ofsuccession enjoyed by the legatees under the will by the law of England. Nevertheless, the bulk of the estate of the testatrix is under the control of the executors appointed by this court, and is to remain under administration by them on distribution to them as trustees. The general executors who were appointed in England have ascertained that after using all available personal securities and cash under their control in paying the duties charged on both classes of property—viz., on the American estate and general estate—there will be a deficit of £20,000 or thereabouts, unless recourse be had to personal belongings, jewelry, pictures and heirlooms of the testatrix, which in large part were specifically bequeathed, the family residence in London, which is a leasehold and which is located at Number #5 Grosvenor Square, London and the contents of said residence.

In a suit brought in the High Court of Justice

[ocr errors]

20

Extracts from American Executors' Accounts 19

in England, Chancery Division, by the general executors against the Duke andDuchess of Manchester and their children and other persons interested in the estate, to determine a number of questions affecting the administration of the estate, and among them the question whether the general executors were liable to pay death duties in England on the American assets, a judgment was rendered to the effect that the death duties in England hereinabove referred to were properly payable by the general executors upon the entire estate, including the American assets. Such further proceedings Mere taken under that judgment that an order was made therein, dated February 20, 1912, charging such death duties upon the estate, and intimating that any sums of money sent by the American executors to England might be impounded for the payment ofsuch death duties as were charged by reason of succession under the will to the American assets, whatever the purpose of such payments or to whomever made.

The executors of the estate in England have urged that the American executors should remit to 21 them sufficient amounts of capital to supply such deficit and thereby avoid the necessity of a sale of the personal heirlooms and belongings, and the family residence in London, as there are ample assets under the control of the American executors.

An order was therefore made on the 28th day of March, 1912, in the said suit hereinbefore referred to by which it was directed that unless the American executors should remit to the general executors the sum of £20,000 within a certain time specified, the executors in England should proceed to a sale of the leasehold No. 5 Orosvenor Square. It has been urged that such payment would subserve the orderly administration of the estate and the in22 Extracts fromAmerican Executors' Accounts

terests of the family, and, besides, remove a reason for adverse action and litigation in impounding the income which the American executors remit to the family of the testatrix and annuitants in England.

The accounting executors have been of the opinion, should the court so order, that in the decree to be entered settling these accounts there should be some provision authorizing and directing the ac„„ counting executors to remit to Viscount Duncannon and Thomas Rawle, as general executors of the will ofthe testatrix, the sum of £20,000, or thereabouts, with which to pay such deficit of

£20,000.

* * » »

Extracts from Supplemental Account of

Proceedings Verified July 15, 1912.

SCHEDULE C 1.

[ocr errors]

Payments from capital for crpcimcs of administration.

June 7, 1912—Voucher No. 1.

Remitted Vise o u n t Duncannon and

Thomas Rawle Trustees, by draft on

London, £20,000 at 4.8720 exchange.. $97,440.00

(Reing amount advanced to meet de-

ficit in English Death Duties on

American assets.)

» * * *

HARRY II. HOLLINS,

JOHN L. CADWALADER,

FREDERICK OGDEN REACH,

Executors.

*******

Extract from Supplemental Account of Proceedings 25

SCHEDULE H.

Statement of other facts affecting the administration of the Estate.

Since the prior accounting it was found that the premises No. 5 Grosvenor Square, London, were likely to be sold, unless the money was advanced by the American executors to meet the English Death Duties, as set forth in Schedule H of such prior accounting. The American executors, there- 26 fore, made the said payment of £20,000 which is shown in Schedule C 1 of this account, and thereupon an order was duly entered in the suit referred to in such prior account staying the sale of the said residence property.

1- DECLARAÇÃO CONJUNTA DO MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E DO MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE PÚBLICA DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA SOBRE DESENVOLVIMENTO TECNOLÓGICO E INOVAÇÃO EM SAÚDE

2- MEMORANDO DE ENTENDIMENTO ENTRE O MINISTÉRIO DO DESENVOLVIMENTO, INDÚSTRIA E COMÉRCIO EXTERIOR DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O MINISTÉRIO DO COMÉRCIO EXTERNO E DO INVESTIMENTO ESTRANGEIRO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

3- ACORDO SOBRE SERVIÇOS AÉREOS ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

4- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E

O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “TRANSFERENCIA DE METODOLOGIA PARA O CONTROLE GENÉTICO DE PRAGAS EMERGENTES E DA QUALIDADE NUTRITIVA E FUNCIONAL NO TOMATE E NO PIMENTÃO – FASE III”

5- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E

O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “FORTALECIMENTO DA ODONTOLOGIA NO BRASIL E EM CUBA - FASE III”

6- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “LIMITES PERMISSÍVEIS DE METAIS PESADOS NA AGRICULTURA CUBANA: TRANSFERÊNCIA E ADEQUAÇÃO DA LEGISLAÇÃO BRASILEIRA - FASE II”

7- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “FORTALECIMENTO DA ORGANIZAÇÃO DA PESQUISA CLÍNICA SOBRE CÂNCER”

8- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “INTERCÂMBIO DE EXPERIÊNCIAS E DESENVOLVIMENTO DE CAPACIDADES TÉCNICAS EM CONTROLE BIOLÓGICO DE PRAGAS AGRÍCOLAS ENTRE BRASIL E CUBA – FASE II”

9- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “FORTALECIMENTO INSTITUCIONAL DO CENTRO DE TECNOLOGIA E QUALIDADE DO MINISTÉRIO DA INDÚSTRIA SIDEROMECÂNICA DE CUBA – FASE III: CAPACITAÇÃO EM IMPLEMENTAÇÃO ASSISTIDA , ENSAIOS DE SUFICIÊNCIA E CALIBRAÇÃO DE INSTRUMENTOS DE METROLOGIA INDUSTRIAL”

10- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “APOIO TÉCNICO PARA A EXPANSÃO E CONSOLIDAÇÃO DA REDE CUBANA DE BANCOS DE LEITE HUMANO”

11- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “IMPLEMENTAÇÃO FÍSICA DO BANCO DE DADOS GEOLÓGICOS DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA”

12- AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “ESTABELECIMENTO DE SUBSTÂNCIAS DE REFERÊNCIA PARA O CONTROLE DA QUALIDADE DOS MEDICAMENTOS”

  

AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “LIMITES PERMISSÍVEIS DE METAIS PESADOS NA AGRICULTURA CUBANA: TRANSFERÊNCIA E ADEQUAÇÃO DA LEGISLAÇÃO BRASILEIRA - FASE II”

 

O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil

 

e

 

O Governo da República de Cuba (doravante denominados “Partes”),

 

Considerando que suas relações de cooperação têm sido fortalecidas e amparadas pelo Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987;

 

Considerando o desejo comum de promover a cooperação para o desenvolvimento; e

 

Considerando que a cooperação técnica na área de agricultura se reveste de especial interesse para as Partes,

 

Ajustam o seguinte:

 

Artigo I

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar visa à implementação do projeto “Limites Permissíveis de Metais Pesados na Agricultura Cubana: transferência e adequação da legislação brasileira – Fase II”, doravante denominado “Projeto”, cuja finalidade é contribuir com a elaboração de legislação em Cuba que aumente a segurança e a inocuidade dos alimentos, por meio da transferência da experiência brasileira na definição de limites permissíveis de metais pesados nos solos.

 

2. O Projeto especificará os objetivos, as atividades e o orçamento para sua execução no âmbito do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

3. O Projeto será aprovado e firmado pelas respectivas instituições coordenadoras e executoras.

 

Artigo II

 

1. O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil designa:

 

a) a Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, do Ministério de Relações Exteriores, (ABC/MRE) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) a Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

2. O Governo da República de Cuba designa:

 

a) o Ministério de Comércio Exterior e Investimento Estrangeiro (MINCEX) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Instituto de Solos, do Ministério da Agricultura (MINAG), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo III

 

1. Ao Governo da República Federativa do Brasil cabe:

 

a) designar e enviar técnicos para desenvolver em Cuba as atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

b) receber técnicos cubanos no Brasil para serem capacitados;

 

c) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto;

 

d) prestar o apoio necessário à realização das atividades previstas no projeto.

 

2. Ao Governo da República de Cuba cabe:

 

a) designar técnicos para participar das atividades previstas no Projeto;

 

b) disponibilizar instalações e infraestrutura adequadas à execução das atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

c) prestar apoio operacional aos técnicos enviados pelo Governo brasileiro, mediante o fornecimento de todas as informações necessárias à execução do Projeto; e

 

d) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto.

 

3. O presente Ajuste Complementar não implica qualquer compromisso de transferência de recursos financeiros de uma Parte à outra ou qualquer compromisso gravoso a seus patrimônios nacionais.

 

4. As partes executarão o Projeto conforme sua disponibilidade orçamentária.

 

Artigo IV

 

Para a execução das atividades previstas no Projeto, as Partes poderão dispor de recursos de instituições públicas e privadas, de organismos internacionais, de agências de cooperação técnica, de fundos e de programas regionais e internacionais, que deverão estar previstos em outros instrumentos, diferentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo V

 

Todas as atividades mencionadas neste Ajuste Complementar estarão sujeitas às leis e aos regulamentos em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e na República de Cuba.

 

Artigo VI

 

1. As instituições executoras mencionadas no Artigo II elaborarão relatórios sobre os resultados obtidos no Projeto, os quais serão apresentados às instituições coordenadoras.

 

2. Os documentos resultantes das atividades desenvolvidas no contexto do Projeto serão de propriedade conjunta das Partes. Em caso de publicação dos referidos documentos, deverão as Partes ser prévia e formalmente consultadas e mencionadas no documento objeto de publicação.

 

Artigo VII

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar entrará em vigor na data de sua assinatura e terá vigência de 2 (dois) anos, renováveis automaticamente, até o cumprimento de seu objeto, exceto se as Partes acordarem o contrário.

 

2. O presente Ajuste Complementar poderá ser modificado ou emendado a qualquer momento, por consentimento mútuo das Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo VIII

 

Qualquer controvérsia relativa à interpretação ou execução do presente Ajuste será resolvida pelas Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo IX

 

Qualquer uma das Partes poderá notificar à outra, a qualquer momento, por via diplomática, sua decisão de denunciar o presente Ajuste Complementar. A denúncia terá efeito três (3) meses depois da data da respectiva notificação. As Partes decidirão sobre a continuidade das atividades que estiverem em execução.

 

Artigo X

 

Às questões não previstas no presente Ajuste Complementar, aplicar-se-ão as disposições do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987.

 

Assinado em Havana, Cuba, em 31 de janeiro de 2012, em dois exemplares originais, em português e espanhol, sendo ambos os textos igualmente autênticos.

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

 

AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “FORTALECIMENTO DA ORGANIZAÇÃO DA PESQUISA CLÍNICA SOBRE CÂNCER”

 

O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil

 

e

 

O Governo da República de Cuba (doravante denominados “Partes”),

 

Considerando que suas relações de cooperação têm sido fortalecidas e amparadas pelo Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987;

 

Considerando o desejo comum de promover a cooperação para o desenvolvimento; e

 

Considerando que a cooperação técnica na área de saúde se reveste de especial interesse para as Partes,

 

Ajustam o seguinte:

 

Artigo I

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar visa à implementação do projeto “Fortalecimento da Organização da Pesquisa Clínica sobre Câncer”, doravante denominado “Projeto”, cuja finalidade é fortalecer as capacidades do Brasil e de Cuba para realizarem pesquisa sobre câncer de acordo com as boas práticas clínicas.

 

2. O Projeto especificará os objetivos e as atividades para sua execução no âmbito do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

3. O Projeto será aprovado e firmado pelas respectivas instituições coordenadoras e executoras.

 

Artigo II

 

1. O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil designa:

 

a) a Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, do Ministério de Relações Exteriores, (ABC/MRE) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

2. O Governo da República de Cuba designa:

 

a) o Ministério de Comércio Exterior e Investimento Estrangeiro (MINCEX) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Centro Nacional de Ensaios Clínicos (CENCEC), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo III

 

1. Ao Governo da República Federativa do Brasil cabe:

 

a) designar e enviar técnicos para desenvolver em Cuba as atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

b) receber técnicos cubanos no Brasil para serem capacitados;

 

c) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto;

 

d) prestar o apoio necessário à realização das atividades previstas no projeto.

 

2. Ao Governo da República de Cuba cabe:

 

a) designar técnicos para participar das atividades previstas no Projeto;

 

b) disponibilizar instalações e infraestrutura adequadas à execução das atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

c) prestar apoio operacional aos técnicos enviados pelo Governo brasileiro, mediante o fornecimento de todas as informações necessárias à execução do Projeto; e

 

d) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto.

 

3. O presente Ajuste Complementar não implica qualquer compromisso de transferência de recursos financeiros de uma Parte à outra ou qualquer compromisso gravoso a seus patrimônios nacionais.

 

4. As partes executarão o Projeto conforme sua disponibilidade orçamentária.

 

Artigo IV

 

Para a execução das atividades previstas no Projeto, as Partes poderão dispor de recursos de instituições públicas e privadas, de organismos internacionais, de agências de cooperação técnica, de fundos e de programas regionais e internacionais, que deverão estar previstos em outros instrumentos, diferentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo V

 

Todas as atividades mencionadas neste Ajuste Complementar estarão sujeitas às leis e aos regulamentos em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e na República de Cuba.

 

Artigo VI

 

1. As instituições executoras mencionadas no Artigo II elaborarão relatórios sobre os resultados obtidos no Projeto, os quais serão apresentados às instituições coordenadoras.

 

2. Os documentos resultantes das atividades desenvolvidas no contexto do Projeto serão de propriedade conjunta das Partes. Em caso de publicação dos referidos documentos, deverão as Partes ser prévia e formalmente consultadas e mencionadas no documento objeto de publicação.

 

Artigo VII

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar entrará em vigor na data de sua assinatura e terá vigência de 2 (dois) anos, renováveis automaticamente, até o cumprimento de seu objeto, exceto se as Partes acordarem o contrário.

 

2. O presente Ajuste Complementar poderá ser modificado ou emendado a qualquer momento, por consentimento mútuo das Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo VIII

 

Qualquer controvérsia relativa à interpretação ou execução do presente Ajuste será resolvida pelas Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo IX

 

Qualquer uma das Partes poderá notificar à outra, a qualquer momento, por via diplomática, sua decisão de denunciar o presente Ajuste Complementar. A denúncia terá efeito três (3) meses depois da data da respectiva notificação. As Partes decidirão sobre a continuidade das atividades que estiverem em execução.

 

Artigo X

 

Às questões não previstas no presente Ajuste Complementar, aplicar-se-ão as disposições do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987.

 

Assinado em Havana , Cuba, em 31 de janeiro de 2012, em dois exemplares originais, em português e espanhol, sendo ambos os textos igualmente autênticos.

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

 

AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “INTERCÂMBIO DE EXPERIÊNCIAS E DESENVOLVIMENTO DE CAPACIDADES TÉCNICAS EM CONTROLE BIOLÓGICO DE PRAGAS AGRÍCOLAS ENTRE BRASIL E CUBA – FASE II”

 

O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil

 

e

 

O Governo da República de Cuba (doravante denominados “Partes”),

 

Considerando que suas relações de cooperação têm sido fortalecidas e amparadas pelo Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987;

 

Considerando o desejo comum de promover a cooperação para o desenvolvimento; e

 

Considerando que a cooperação técnica na área agrícola se reveste de especial interesse para as Partes,

 

Ajustam o seguinte:

 

Artigo I

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar visa à implementação do Projeto “Intercambio de Experiências e Desenvolvimento de Capacidades Técnicas em Controle Biológico de Pragas Agrícolas entre Brasil e Cuba – Fase II”, doravante denominado “Projeto”, cuja finalidade é capacitar especialistas cubanos em novos processos tecnológicos desenvolvidos pela Embrapa, para a produção em massa de microorganismos e artrópodes benéficos, com ênfase no cultivo da soja.

 

2. O Projeto especificará os objetivos, as atividades e o orçamento para a sua execução no âmbito do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

3. O Projeto será aprovado e firmado pelas respectivas instituições coordenadoras e executoras.

 

Artigo II

 

1. O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil designa:

 

a) a Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, do Ministério de Relações Exteriores, (ABC/MRE) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) a Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

2. O Governo da República de Cuba designa:

 

a) o Ministério de Comércio Exterior e Investimento Estrangeiro (MINCEX) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Ministério da Agricultura (MINAG), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo III

 

1. Ao Governo da República Federativa do Brasil cabe:

 

a) designar e enviar técnicos para desenvolver em Cuba as atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

b) receber técnicos cubanos no Brasil para serem capacitados;

 

c) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto;

 

d) prestar o apoio necessário à realização das atividades previstas no projeto.

 

2. Ao Governo da República de Cuba cabe:

 

a) designar técnicos para participar das atividades previstas no Projeto;

 

b) disponibilizar instalações e infraestrutura adequadas à execução das atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

c) prestar apoio operacional aos técnicos enviados pelo Governo brasileiro, mediante o fornecimento de todas as informações necessárias à execução do Projeto; e

 

d) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto.

 

3. O presente Ajuste Complementar não implica qualquer compromisso de transferência de recursos financeiros de uma Parte à outra ou qualquer compromisso gravoso a seus patrimônios nacionais.

 

4. As partes executarão o Projeto conforme sua disponibilidade orçamentária.

 

Artigo IV

 

Para a execução das atividades previstas no Projeto, as Partes poderão dispor de recursos de instituições públicas e privadas, de organismos internacionais, de agências de cooperação técnica, de fundos e de programas regionais e internacionais, que deverão estar previstos em outros instrumentos, diferentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo V

 

Todas as atividades mencionadas neste Ajuste Complementar estarão sujeitas às leis e aos regulamentos em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e na República de Cuba.

 

Artigo VI

 

1. As instituições executoras mencionadas no Artigo II elaborarão relatórios sobre os resultados obtidos no Projeto, os quais serão apresentados às instituições coordenadoras.

 

2. Os documentos resultantes das atividades desenvolvidas no contexto do Projeto serão de propriedade conjunta das Partes. Em caso de publicação dos referidos documentos, deverão as Partes ser prévia e formalmente consultadas e mencionadas no documento objeto de publicação.

 

Artigo VII

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar entrará em vigor na data de sua assinatura e terá vigência de 2 (dois) anos, renováveis automaticamente, até o cumprimento de seu objeto, exceto se as Partes acordarem o contrário.

 

2. O presente Ajuste Complementar poderá ser modificado ou emendado a qualquer momento, por consentimento mútuo das Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo VIII

 

Qualquer controvérsia relativa à interpretação ou execução do presente Ajuste será resolvida pelas Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo IX

 

Qualquer uma das Partes poderá notificar à outra, a qualquer momento, por via diplomática, sua decisão de denunciar o presente Ajuste Complementar. A denúncia terá efeito três (3) meses depois da data da respectiva notificação. As Partes decidirão sobre a continuidade das atividades que estiverem em execução.

 

Artigo X

 

Às questões não previstas no presente Ajuste Complementar, aplicar-se-ão as disposições do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987.

 

Assinado em Havana , Cuba, em 31 de janeiro de 2012, em dois exemplares originais, em português e espanhol, sendo ambos os textos igualmente autênticos.

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

 

AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “FORTALECIMENTO INSTITUCIONAL DO CENTRO DE TECNOLOGIA E QUALIDADE DO MINISTÉRIO DA INDÚSTRIA SIDEROMECÂNICA DE CUBA – FASE III: CAPACITAÇÃO EM IMPLEMENTAÇÃO ASSISTIDA , ENSAIOS DE SUFICIÊNCIA E CALIBRAÇÃO DE INSTRUMENTOS DE METROLOGIA INDUSTRIAL”

 

O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil

 

e

 

O Governo da República de Cuba (doravante denominados “Partes”),

 

Considerando que suas relações de cooperação têm sido fortalecidas e amparadas pelo Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987;

 

Considerando o desejo comum de promover a cooperação para o desenvolvimento; e

 

Considerando que a cooperação técnica na área de metrologia se reveste de especial interesse para as Partes,

 

Ajustam o seguinte:

 

Artigo I

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar visa à implementação do projeto “Fortalecimento Institucional do Centro de Tecnologia e Qualidade do Ministério da Indústria Sideromecânica de Cuba – Fase III: Capacitação e Implementação Assistida, Ensaios de Suficiência e Calibração de Instrumentos de Metrologia Industrial”, doravante denominado “Projeto”, cuja finalidade é capacitar técnicos da Empresa de Serviços Tecnológicos de Cuba nas áreas de metrologia e avaliação da conformidade.

 

2. O Projeto especificará os objetivos, as atividades e o orçamento para sua execução no âmbito do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

3. O Projeto será aprovado e firmado pelas respectivas instituições coordenadoras e executoras.

 

Artigo II

 

1. O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil designa:

 

a) a Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, do Ministério de Relações Exteriores, (ABC/MRE) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia Industrial (INMETRO), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

2. O Governo da República de Cuba designa:

 

a) o Ministério de Comércio Exterior e Investimento Estrangeiro (Mincex) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) a Empresa de Serviços Tecnológicos (CTEC), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo III

 

1. Ao Governo da República Federativa do Brasil cabe:

 

a) designar e enviar técnicos para desenvolver em Cuba as atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

b) receber técnicos cubanos no Brasil para serem capacitados;

 

c) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto;

 

d) prestar o apoio necessário à realização das atividades previstas no projeto.

 

2. Ao Governo da República de Cuba cabe:

 

a) designar técnicos para participar das atividades previstas no Projeto;

 

b) disponibilizar instalações e infraestrutura adequadas à execução das atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

c) prestar apoio operacional aos técnicos enviados pelo Governo brasileiro, mediante o fornecimento de todas as informações necessárias à execução do Projeto; e

 

d) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto.

 

3. O presente Ajuste Complementar não implica qualquer compromisso de transferência de recursos financeiros de uma Parte à outra ou qualquer compromisso gravoso a seus patrimônios nacionais.

 

4. As partes executarão o Projeto conforme sua disponibilidade orçamentária.

 

Artigo IV

 

Para a execução das atividades previstas no Projeto, as Partes poderão dispor de recursos de instituições públicas e privadas, de organismos internacionais, de agências de cooperação técnica, de fundos e de programas regionais e internacionais, que deverão estar previstos em outros instrumentos, diferentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo V

 

Todas as atividades mencionadas neste Ajuste Complementar estarão sujeitas às leis e aos regulamentos em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e na República de Cuba.

 

Artigo VI

 

1. As instituições executoras mencionadas no Artigo II elaborarão relatórios sobre os resultados obtidos no Projeto, os quais serão apresentados às instituições coordenadoras.

 

2. Os documentos resultantes das atividades desenvolvidas no contexto do Projeto serão de propriedade conjunta das Partes. Em caso de publicação dos referidos documentos, deverão as Partes ser prévia e formalmente consultadas e mencionadas no documento objeto de publicação.

 

Artigo VII

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar entrará em vigor na data de sua assinatura e terá vigência de 2 (dois) anos, renováveis automaticamente, até o cumprimento de seu objeto, exceto se as Partes acordarem o contrário.

 

2. O presente Ajuste Complementar poderá ser modificado ou emendado a qualquer momento, por consentimento mútuo das Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo VIII

 

Qualquer controvérsia relativa à interpretação ou execução do presente Ajuste será resolvida pelas Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo IX

 

Qualquer uma das Partes poderá notificar à outra, a qualquer momento, por via diplomática, sua decisão de denunciar o presente Ajuste Complementar. A denúncia terá efeito três (3) meses depois da data da respectiva notificação. As Partes decidirão sobre a continuidade das atividades que estiverem em execução.

 

Artigo X

 

Às questões não previstas no presente Ajuste Complementar, aplicar-se-ão as disposições do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987.

 

Assinado em Havana , Cuba, em 31 de janeiro de 2012, em dois exemplares originais, em português e espanhol, sendo ambos os textos igualmente autênticos.

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

 

AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “APOIO TÉCNICO PARA A EXPANSÃO E CONSOLIDAÇÃO DA REDE CUBANA DE BANCOS DE LEITE HUMANO”

 

O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil

 

e

 

O Governo da República de Cuba (doravante denominados “Partes”),

 

Considerando que suas relações de cooperação têm sido fortalecidas e amparadas pelo Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987;

 

Considerando o desejo comum de promover a cooperação para o desenvolvimento; e

 

Considerando que a cooperação técnica na área de saúde se reveste de especial interesse para as Partes,

 

Ajustam o seguinte:

 

Artigo I

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar visa à implementação do projeto “Apoio Técnico para a Expansão e Consolidação da Rede Cubana de Bancos de Leite Humano”, doravante denominado “Projeto”, cuja finalidade é consolidar e expandir a Rede Cubana de Bancos de Leite Humano para atender à demanda de leite processado e fortalecer as ações de promoção, difusão e apoio ao aleitamento materno em Cuba.

 

2. O Projeto especificará os objetivos, as atividades e o orçamento para sua execução no âmbito do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

3. O Projeto será aprovado e firmado pelas respectivas instituições coordenadoras e executoras.

 

Artigo II

 

1. O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil designa:

 

a) a Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, do Ministério de Relações Exteriores, (ABC/MRE) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) a Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

2. O Governo da República de Cuba designa:

 

a) o Ministério de Comércio Exterior e Investimento Estrangeiro (Mincex) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Ministério da Saúde Pública (Minsap), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo III

 

1. Ao Governo da República Federativa do Brasil cabe:

 

a) designar e enviar técnicos para desenvolver em Cuba as atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

b) receber técnicos cubanos no Brasil para serem capacitados;

 

c) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto;

 

d) prestar o apoio necessário à realização das atividades previstas no projeto.

 

2. Ao Governo da República de Cuba cabe:

 

a) designar técnicos para participar das atividades previstas no Projeto;

 

b) disponibilizar instalações e infraestrutura adequadas à execução das atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

c) prestar apoio operacional aos técnicos enviados pelo Governo brasileiro, mediante o fornecimento de todas as informações necessárias à execução do Projeto; e

 

d) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto.

 

3. O presente Ajuste Complementar não implica qualquer compromisso de transferência de recursos financeiros de uma Parte à outra ou qualquer compromisso gravoso a seus patrimônios nacionais.

 

4. As partes executarão o Projeto conforme sua disponibilidade orçamentária.

 

Artigo IV

 

Para a execução das atividades previstas no Projeto, as Partes poderão dispor de recursos de instituições públicas e privadas, de organismos internacionais, de agências de cooperação técnica, de fundos e de programas regionais e internacionais, que deverão estar previstos em outros instrumentos, diferentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo V

 

Todas as atividades mencionadas neste Ajuste Complementar estarão sujeitas às leis e aos regulamentos em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e na República de Cuba.

 

Artigo VI

 

1. As instituições executoras mencionadas no Artigo II elaborarão relatórios sobre os resultados obtidos no Projeto, os quais serão apresentados às instituições coordenadoras.

 

2. Os documentos resultantes das atividades desenvolvidas no contexto do Projeto serão de propriedade conjunta das Partes. Em caso de publicação dos referidos documentos, deverão as Partes ser prévia e formalmente consultadas e mencionadas no documento objeto de publicação.

 

Artigo VII

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar entrará em vigor na data de sua assinatura e terá vigência de 2 (dois) anos, renováveis automaticamente, até o cumprimento de seu objeto, exceto se as Partes acordarem o contrário.

 

2. O presente Ajuste Complementar poderá ser modificado ou emendado a qualquer momento, por consentimento mútuo das Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo VIII

 

Qualquer controvérsia relativa à interpretação ou execução do presente Ajuste será resolvida pelas Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo IX

 

Qualquer uma das Partes poderá notificar à outra, a qualquer momento, por via diplomática, sua decisão de denunciar o presente Ajuste Complementar. A denúncia terá efeito três (3) meses depois da data da respectiva notificação. As Partes decidirão sobre a continuidade das atividades que estiverem em execução.

 

Artigo X

 

Às questões não previstas no presente Ajuste Complementar, aplicar-se-ão as disposições do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987.

 

Assinado em Havana , Cuba, em 31 de janeiro de 2012, em dois exemplares originais, em português e espanhol, sendo ambos os textos igualmente autênticos.

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

 

AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “IMPLEMENTAÇÃO FÍSICA DO BANCO DE DADOS GEOLÓGICOS DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA”

 

O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e

 

O Governo da República de Cuba (doravante denominados “Partes”),

 

Considerando que suas relações de cooperação têm sido fortalecidas ao amparo do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987;

 

Considerando o desejo comum de promover a cooperação para o desenvolvimento; e

 

Considerando que a cooperação técnica na área de geologia se reveste de especial interesse para as Partes,

 

Ajustam o seguinte:

 

Artigo I

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar visa à implementação do projeto “Implementação Física do Banco de Dados Geológicos da República de Cuba”, doravante denominado “Projeto”, cuja finalidade é implementar o modelo conceitual elaborado na primeira fase de execução do referido Projeto, com ênfase nas bases de dados de cronolitoextratigrafia, afloramentos geológicos e recursos minerais.

 

2. O Projeto especificará os objetivos, as atividades e o orçamento para sua execução no âmbito do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

3. O Projeto será aprovado e firmado pelas respectivas instituições coordenadoras e executoras.

 

Artigo II

 

1. O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil designa:

 

a) a Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, do Ministério de Relações Exteriores, (ABC/MRE) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Serviço Geológico do Brasil (CPRM), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

2. O Governo da República de Cuba designa:

 

a) o Ministério de Comércio Exterior e Investimento Estrangeiro (Mincex) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Instituto de Geologia e Paleontologia (IGP), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo III

 

1. Ao Governo da República Federativa do Brasil cabe:

 

a) designar e enviar técnicos para desenvolver em Cuba as atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

b) receber técnicos cubanos no Brasil para serem capacitados;

 

c) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto;

 

d) prestar o apoio necessário à realização das atividades previstas no projeto.

 

2. Ao Governo da República de Cuba cabe:

 

a) designar técnicos para participar das atividades previstas no Projeto;

 

b) disponibilizar instalações e infraestrutura adequadas à execução das atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

c) prestar apoio operacional aos técnicos enviados pelo Governo brasileiro, mediante o fornecimento de todas as informações necessárias à execução do Projeto; e

 

d) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto.

 

3. O presente Ajuste Complementar não implica qualquer compromisso de transferência de recursos financeiros de uma Parte à outra ou qualquer compromisso gravoso a seus patrimônios nacionais.

 

4. As partes executarão o Projeto conforme sua disponibilidade orçamentária.

 

Artigo IV

 

Para a execução das atividades previstas no Projeto, as Partes poderão dispor de recursos de instituições públicas e privadas, de organismos internacionais, de agências de cooperação técnica, de fundos e de programas regionais e internacionais, que deverão estar previstos em outros instrumentos, diferentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo V

 

Todas as atividades mencionadas neste Ajuste Complementar estarão sujeitas às leis e aos regulamentos em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e na República de Cuba.

 

Artigo VI

 

1. As instituições executoras mencionadas no Artigo II elaborarão relatórios sobre os resultados obtidos no Projeto, os quais serão apresentados às instituições coordenadoras.

 

2. Os documentos resultantes das atividades desenvolvidas no contexto do Projeto serão de propriedade conjunta das Partes. Em caso de publicação dos referidos documentos, deverão as Partes ser prévia e formalmente consultadas e mencionadas no documento objeto de publicação.

 

Artigo VII

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar entrará em vigor na data de sua assinatura e terá vigência de 2 (dois) anos, renováveis automaticamente, até o cumprimento de seu objeto, exceto se as Partes acordarem o contrário.

 

2. O presente Ajuste Complementar poderá ser modificado ou emendado a qualquer momento, por consentimento mútuo das Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo VIII

 

Qualquer controvérsia relativa à interpretação ou execução do presente Ajuste será resolvida pelas Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo IX

 

Qualquer uma das Partes poderá notificar à outra, a qualquer momento, por via diplomática, sua decisão de denunciar o presente Ajuste Complementar. A denúncia terá efeito três (3) meses depois da data da respectiva notificação. As Partes decidirão sobre a continuidade das atividades que estiverem em execução.

 

Artigo X

 

Às questões não previstas no presente Ajuste Complementar, aplicar-se-ão as disposições do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987.

 

Assinado em Havana , Cuba, em 31 de janeiro de 2012, em dois exemplares originais, em português e espanhol, sendo ambos os textos igualmente autênticos.

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

 

AJUSTE COMPLEMENTAR AO ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, TÉCNICA E TECNOLÓGICA ENTRE O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA PARA A IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DO PROJETO “ESTABELECIMENTO DE SUBSTÂNCIAS DE REFERÊNCIA PARA O CONTROLE DA QUALIDADE DOS MEDICAMENTOS”

 

O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil

 

e

 

O Governo da República de Cuba (doravante denominados “Partes”),

 

Considerando que suas relações de cooperação têm sido fortalecidas e amparadas pelo Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987;

 

Considerando o desejo comum de promover a cooperação para o desenvolvimento; e

 

Considerando que a cooperação técnica na área de saúde se reveste de especial interesse para as Partes,

 

Ajustam o seguinte:

 

Artigo I

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar visa à implementação do projeto “Estabelecimento de Substâncias de Referência para o Controle da Qualidade dos Medicamentos”, doravante denominado “Projeto”, cuja finalidade é promover o intercâmbio de conhecimentos entre Brasil e Cuba com vistas à realização de estudos e ao estabelecimento e monitoramento das substâncias de referência utilizadas no controle da qualidade de medicamentos em ambos os países.

 

2. O Projeto especificará os objetivos, as atividades e o orçamento para sua execução no âmbito do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

3. O Projeto será aprovado e firmado pelas respectivas instituições coordenadoras e executoras.

 

Artigo II

 

1. O Governo da República Federativa do Brasil designa:

 

a) a Agência Brasileira de Cooperação, do Ministério de Relações Exteriores, (ABC/MRE) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) a Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

2. O Governo da República de Cuba designa:

 

a) o Ministério de Comércio Exterior e Investimento Estrangeiro (MINCEX) como instituição responsável pela coordenação, acompanhamento e avaliação das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar; e

 

b) o Centro para o Controle Estatal de Medicamentos, Equipamentos e Dispositivos Médicos (CECMED) como instituição responsável pela execução das atividades decorrentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo III

 

1. Ao Governo da República Federativa do Brasil cabe:

 

a) designar e enviar técnicos para desenvolver em Cuba as atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

b) receber técnicos cubanos no Brasil para serem capacitados;

 

c) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto;

 

d) prestar o apoio necessário à realização das atividades previstas no projeto.

 

2. Ao Governo da República de Cuba cabe:

 

a) designar técnicos para participar das atividades previstas no Projeto;

 

b) disponibilizar instalações e infraestrutura adequadas à execução das atividades de cooperação técnica previstas no Projeto;

 

c) prestar apoio operacional aos técnicos enviados pelo Governo brasileiro, mediante o fornecimento de todas as informações necessárias à execução do Projeto; e

 

d) acompanhar e avaliar o desenvolvimento do Projeto.

 

3. O presente Ajuste Complementar não implica qualquer compromisso de transferência de recursos financeiros de uma Parte à outra ou qualquer compromisso gravoso a seus patrimônios nacionais.

 

4. As partes executarão o Projeto conforme sua disponibilidade orçamentária.

 

Artigo IV

 

Para a execução das atividades previstas no Projeto, as Partes poderão dispor de recursos de instituições públicas e privadas, de organismos internacionais, de agências de cooperação técnica, de fundos e de programas regionais e internacionais, que deverão estar previstos em outros instrumentos, diferentes do presente Ajuste Complementar.

 

Artigo V

 

Todas as atividades mencionadas neste Ajuste Complementar estarão sujeitas às leis e aos regulamentos em vigor na República Federativa do Brasil e na República de Cuba.

 

Artigo VI

 

1. As instituições executoras mencionadas no Artigo II elaborarão relatórios sobre os resultados obtidos no Projeto, os quais serão apresentados às instituições coordenadoras.

 

2. Os documentos resultantes das atividades desenvolvidas no contexto do Projeto serão de propriedade conjunta das Partes. Em caso de publicação dos referidos documentos, deverão as Partes ser prévia e formalmente consultadas e mencionadas no documento objeto de publicação.

 

Artigo VII

 

1. O presente Ajuste Complementar entrará em vigor na data de sua assinatura e terá vigência de 2 (dois) anos, renováveis automaticamente, até o cumprimento de seu objeto, exceto se as Partes acordarem o contrário.

 

2. O presente Ajuste Complementar poderá ser modificado ou emendado a qualquer momento, por consentimento mútuo das Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo VIII

 

Qualquer controvérsia relativa à interpretação ou execução do presente Ajuste será resolvida pelas Partes, por via diplomática.

 

Artigo IX

 

Qualquer uma das Partes poderá notificar à outra, a qualquer momento, por via diplomática, sua decisão de denunciar o presente Ajuste Complementar. A denúncia terá efeito três (3) meses depois da data da respectiva notificação. As Partes decidirão sobre a continuidade das atividades que estiverem em execução.

 

Artigo X

 

Às questões não previstas no presente Ajuste Complementar, aplicar-se-ão as disposições do Acordo Básico de Cooperação Científica, Técnica e Tecnológica entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República de Cuba, assinado em Havana, em 18 de março de 1987.

 

Assinado em Havana , Cuba, em 31 de janeiro de 2012, em dois exemplares originais, em português e espanhol, sendo ambos os textos igualmente autênticos.

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL

 

PELO GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DE CUBA

   

Victorian terraced house, likely to have been built under a lease from the executors of W. K. Jenkins to William or Henry Cullingford, builders, 1854–8 [source: British History on-line]. Part of the Pembridge Conservation Area. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, London.

 

(CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 - credit: Images George Rex.)

Duneira house and gardens at Mount Macedon.

 

(Extract from Macedon Ranges cultural heritage and landscape study/Trevor Budge and Associates. 4 v. 1994.).

Henry Suetonius Officer reputedly aquired the Duneira site from

1872-1877 (Blocks 4,5,10,11,14) paying some £84 for 38 acres but

rate listings give Robert Officer as the owner. .

.

Suetonius Henry Officer (1830-1883).

Officer was born in Hullgreen, New Norfolk, Tasmania 1830, the

son of Sir Robert & Lady Officer. He was educated in Edinburgh

with his brother, Charles, and returned to the colonies, seeking

gold in Victoria but eventually settling for pastoralism in

company with his brothers and Charles Miles{ ibid.}. They managed

stations in the Wimmera and the Riverina, James marrying in 1866

and commencing construction of a 20 room homestead at Murray

Downs & Willakool, two adjoining properties fronting the Murray

River. After experimentation with irrigation, via steam pumps and

windmills, he was able to develop extensive orchards and crops. He was also, like his brother, interested in

acclimatisation, having developed an ostrich farm on his property

(Charles was a council member of the Zoological & Acclimatisation

Society for 10 years, president in 1887). .

.

Blighted by illness, Suetonius reputedly moved to Leighwood,

Toorak (Melbourne) in 1881, having erected the first stage of

Duneira at Mount Macedon, but died two years later. However his son, Henry jnr. was

born at South Yarra in 1869 and his next child, Jessie, was born

at Macedon in 1877, indicating that he was in residence at both

places prior to the dates previously supposed..

.

Suetonius probably commissioned the first stage of Duneira to be

erected as a summer house between c1874-6. The architect Levi

Powell is thought to have designed a house for him there around

that date. The first improvements listed on the site were

stables in 1874 when Robert Officer was rated as owning the site. The house was reputedly not occupied regularly

until c1881 when Suetonius moved to Toorak.

However it appears he and his family were in residence at Duneira

by 1877..

.

When Suetonius died in 1883 his wife, Mary Lillias Rigg Officer

(nee Cairns), of Glenbervie, Glenferrie Road, Toorak was the

co-executor of the estate, with merchant Robert Harper; she is

the rate occupier in 1888. Mrs Officer was the

sister of Mrs Robert Harper (Huntly Burn) and Mrs John C lloyd

(Montpelier, later Timsbury): all three houses were reputedly

built in the same period... .

.

The house bricks for the first stage were said to have come from

the Macedon Brick Kiln (once near the Macedon railway station,

set up in c1888-9?) with external walls built in 14" Flemish bond

from slop-moulded bricks (9 inch by 2.1/2). The bricks were reputedly carted

from Macedon by Cogger. The footings were of bluestone

and reputedly dressed sandstone blocks also survive, suggesting

that the first stage was face brick with stone quoins and the

next renovation c1888 added wings and a cement coating to the

whole complex. Floor frames were reputedly supported on stone

dwarf walls and joists were 6x2.1/2 inch jarrah, with flooring

being 6 inch pine}. Seaweed was apparently used for

ceiling insulation..

.

The servants' wing verandah was skillion in form with timber

posts with classical capitals. The main verandah had coupled

posts (rebuilt with single posts) a panelled frieze and slimmer

capitals set just under the frieze rail}. The

balustrade may have been of single cast-iron balusters..

.

Just prior to the sale to the speculator, James Smith Reid in

1890, and during the occupation of Edward Dyer, major additions

were made to the house complex and a reputedly a caretaker's

lodge was placed at the gate (survives, altered c1920s) but this

appears to have been added by Reid in the early 1890s. .

.

The added rooms were reputedly: billiard (32'x24') and dining

rooms, kitchen, servants bathroom, service block with 5 rooms

(engine room, dairy, pantry, store, boiler room, built of

Northcote machine made 9" brickwork). Damp proof coursing was

used in these additions compared to the slate of the first stage

and acetylene gas (engine room) was thought used for lighting

from this period, as reticulated in 1.1.2" mains and 1/2 inch

branches to internal and some external verandah lights.

Cast-iron elaborately detailed water radiators were also used,

with hot water pumped from the boiler room, and later a duplicate

boiler allowed hot water to be reticulated taps in the house{

ibid.}..

.

The description in rate books expands to villa and cottages (on

37 acres) for the first time under Reid in c1893 but the annual

valuation had already peeked in 1888 at £200 in the occupation of

Edward Dyer. An Edward Dyer was listed at that time as a fruiterer in

Burwood Road, Hawthorn..

.

The water supply is from a concrete tank fed by a spring.

Outbuildings include timber clad stables, storerooms,

blacksmith's shop, coachman's room, milking bails, hay shed and a

green house. The stables (extended) were described as having had

a shingled gabled roof (rear skillion) with loft entered via an

external stair at the north end. It had a blacksmith's

shop (altered for garage c1941), carriage and coachman's rooms,

two stores and vertically boarded main doors{ ibid.,p24}. The

milking and hay sheds had hipped roof forms and timber cladding

and frame. The interior was white-washed. The greenhouse

in the secret hedged garden is of a later date, with a timber

frame built up on 11" cavity brickwork walls, with a brick floor

and heated water pipes under each shelf. The boiler is near the

entry..

.

The `Gisborne Gazette' reported on Duneira in 1903 under the

heading of `A Popular Health Resort':.

`Duneira certainly merits a few remarks though beautiful

residences and grounds are by no means rare in that locality..

(when Reid purchased it, it was `little better than a wilderness'

and he had spared no expense to restore it).. After passing the

lodge at the main entrance, a broad serpentine drive leads up to

the house and from there the grounds are laid out in broad

sloping lawns surmounted with choice borders and fringed with

trees which however do not interfere to any great extent with the

view. There is of course no lack of flowers which grow

luxuriantly on the mount but the great feature of Duneira is the

lawns, those open green expanses which delight the eye at all

times of the year. the secret of this perennial verdure is to be

found in the copious water supply with which Macedon is blessed

(spring at rear of house, tapped by tunnelling 40m into the hill,

ie. grass grows up to base of Monterey pines)..

.

During Reid's time there, the valuation increased marginally in

1899-1900 and again soon after, with Reid's address being given

as care of Rosstrevor Magill, South Australia, in c1909-10. JS Reid died in 1922, leaving

the property to the management of JS Reid jun..

.

The main garden elements are: sweeping lawns, box hedges, weeping beech and cherry, extensive hedges (holly, laurel), a hedged

`secret garden' with green house, mature firs, elm and chestnut ì

avenues. There is also a fountain and a wide spreading weeping elm to the rear of the house, near the tennis court..

.

Significant Trees:.

`Ulmus x hollandica'.

`Prunus' "shirotae".

`Albies procera'.

`Ilex kingiana'.

My nov desktop:

 

Programs running:

Rainmeter (Various Configs)

Executor

Rocket Dock

CD Art Display

Styler

Icon X

Desktop Media

  

Icons are from Eclispe as well as my own. They will be made available on DevART.

 

What do you guys think? Any questions about it will be answered!

One of the small statues that the Holiday Inn Dalí in Mexico City, D.F. Mexico has scattered around the ground floor. Taken by a Nikon D610 at ISO 4000 (not a typo, see the EXIF...) with a Nikkor 35mm ƒ 2 AF-D lens. Exposure is 1/40 sec @ ƒ 5.6.

 

If an artistic executor of the sculptor has any copyright objections to this photo, Flickr-mail the poster stating that you are such an executor, state the objection(s), and it will be taken down...

 

While you are contacting the poster anyway, please tell him the name of the sculptor

 

View On Black

 

Looking to shoot of bunch of ESB themed shots to celebrate the 30th anniversary of my favorite film. So I decided it would be best to start with the very first figure from The Empire Strikes Back.

Entrada da cidade de Marabá.

 

Julgamento do assassinato dos ativistas José Cláudio e Maria dos Espírito Santo, que foram mortos em março de 2011 em Nova Ipixuna. O resultado do júri, que aconteceu nos dias 03 e 04 de abril, foi a condenação dos executores Alberto Lopes e Lindonjonson Silva, e absolvição de José Rodrigues, acusado de ser o mandante do crime. A ação provocou revolta nos familiares e movimentos agrários que acompanhavam o caso em vigília no Fórum de Marabá (PA).

 

(CC BY-SA) NINJA

Todas as imagens estão sob licença Creative Commons 3.0 e podem ser utilizadas livremente desde que disponibilizadas nas mesmas condições com o uso do código acima. Imagens em alta resolução estão disponíveis através de requerimento no email fotografia@foradoeixo.org.br

Cidade de Marabá.

 

Julgamento do assassinato dos ativistas José Cláudio e Maria dos Espírito Santo, que foram mortos em março de 2011 em Nova Ipixuna. O resultado do júri, que aconteceu nos dias 03 e 04 de abril, foi a condenação dos executores Alberto Lopes e Lindonjonson Silva, e absolvição de José Rodrigues, acusado de ser o mandante do crime. A ação provocou revolta nos familiares e movimentos agrários que acompanhavam o caso em vigília no Fórum de Marabá (PA).

 

(CC BY-SA) NINJA

Todas as imagens estão sob licença Creative Commons 3.0 e podem ser utilizadas livremente desde que disponibilizadas nas mesmas condições com o uso do código acima. Imagens em alta resolução estão disponíveis através de requerimento no email fotografia@foradoeixo.org.br

Her Grace, The tenth Duchess of Manchester married to the Tenth Duke of Manchester for 50 years until her death in 1966.

They Married at Kimbolton Castle had children there and traveled abroad.

San Francisco, Kenya and Pebble Beach California were special to them.

At Nells death she was buried at Kimbolton Castle family Crypt. As are the other family.

HER GRACE,

THE MOST NOBEL NELL VERE STEAD, The tenth Duchess of Manchester.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 29

Of the trustee act. (Cap 167). That any person having claim or a interest in THE ESTATE OF THE MOST NOBEL NELL VERE STEAD. DUCHESS OF MANCHESTER, of Kapasrwa Estate. Hoey's bridge and of Hillsborough California United States of America, who died on September 2nd 1966, Is Hereby required to send particulars in writing of his claim in writing to Messers. Shaw and Carruthers advocates of PO BOX 112, Eldoret on or the 31st Day of March 1967, after which date the executors will distribute the Estate among the persons entitled. Thereto having reguard only to the claims and interest of which it has had notice and will not as respects the property so be distributed be liable to any person of Claim it shall not have notice.

Eldoret January, 1967

 

SHAW AND CRUTHERS Advocates for the Executors PO BOX 112, Eldoret.

 

The Duke of Manchester,Kapsimotwa Estate, P.O. Box 9, HoeysBridge ; Trans Nzoia District.

Note the price !!! And the Date...!!

 

One of these players is my father. His last name matches mine.

 

Note the date: He graduated the spring of 1943, became a naval officer after going to Chicago and becoming a "90-day wonder", served during the Normandy Invasion, and was in the Sea of Japan when WWII ended.

 

I found this “Why Do Men Play Football” among my father’s belongings sent to me by my brother.

 

My dad, John Curtis Fischer, died in 1991 at age 69 from metastatic prostate cancer. My brother was the executor of my parent’s estate.

 

This was written by Bernard Taylor, co-captain of the football team along with my father:

 

I obtained the item below from a 1943 Emporia State Football Program handout and read it at the end of January, 2008. My thoughts immediately turned to how our young boys are treated in “modern” times.

 

Today, the exuberance described below is neither allowed to burn off in a pre-class playground, or even by walking to school. Our solution, as parents, teachers and society in general, has been Ritalin. In that decision, our society overlooks the God-given maleness that requires movement and contact. Goodness, what a poor substitute is a chemical for our young boys, who are to become men, compared to what they have received before.

 

You may not agree but much has changed since the time my father played football. I don’t think the changes have addressed the in-born nature of male youths. Adults are culpable. Why? They simply, and on an escalating scale, do not nurture the proper methods and philosophy for venting the “lust” of physical games.

 

In 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s everything may not have been right, but some things appear to have been so. Read on.

 

------------------

 

"Why Do Men Play Football? “I’ll tell you,” says Capt. Bernard Taylor.

 

Source: Washburn vs. Emporia State Football Program, Saturday, October 3, 1942.

 

“Why do boys play football? Did you ever stop to dwell upon that question? Usually men must have some reason in mind when they literally way-lay each other night after night in practice so that they might proceed that week-end against some new foe on whom they use the same tactics that they have been employing and practicing throughout the week.

 

“The golfer plays golf usually for the sport of it and to keep his waist line down. The tennis player does likewise. But why are twenty-two boys lining up out on the field this afternoon to play football? I’ll grant you that none of the twenty-two players are playing the game to lose a little excess weight from about their mid-riffs. No, there is a reason much deeper than that that makes young Americans throughout the country line up on Saturdays to exercise physical and mental prowess against another group of boys that entertain the same thought and ideas against them. The reason, as we see it, is that football is the typical sport that suits the sporting blood of the free, unregimented young men of America. It is a sport of physical contact. A sport that will enable each player to cut loose with as much excess body energy as he desires. Football is a sport, you might say, that served as a substitute for internal uprisings and petty wars in the United States during the past twenty-two years, for the game of football has afforded players an opportunity to fight and show their superiority over other groups of similar individuals.

 

“The United States is a hot bed of fighting youths. Youths who desire competition and body contact. Therefore we believe that although there is great sport in the game of football, players throughout the country participate in the game to get rid of that inner lust that is harbored within them to fight someone—to show their superiority—and to take the chances of getting an arm, leg, or other parts of their bodies broken and bruised. No, these boy who are laying out there on the field are not softies. They are the back bone of America, and as General MacArthur once said, ‘Give me all the football players in the United States with the proper amount of military training and we will have an army that could whip all the armies in the world—hands down.’”

 

My father, J. Curtis Fischer, was co-captain with Bernard Taylor. Both joined in Navy in 1943. The armed services were well represented by many members of Emporia State football."

    

Accounts.

SURROGATE'S COURT,

County Of New York.

In the Matter

of

the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Harry B. Hollins,John L. Cadwalader and Frederick Ogden Beach, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of CONSUELO, DOWAGER

Duchess Of Manchester, deceased.

14

Extract from Account of Proceedings,

Verified 20th May, 1912.

SCHEDULE II.

Statement of other fuets affecting the administration of the Estate.

The testatrix up to the time of her marriage, had been an American citizen, residing in New York, but by reason of her marriage became a British subject and a resident of London, England. At the time of her death the larger part ofher estate was located in New York and elsewhere in the United States, and with reference to that property she provided for a separate administration by the executors now accounting herein and by them in their

15 17

18 Extracts from American Executors' Accounts

capacities are trustees. The remaining property is under administration by the general executors and trustees under a grant of probate in England.

Death duties or taxes on all the property of the estate, including that in America, have been levied in England, the place of domicile of the testatrix, but these taxes have not been entirely collected owing to the fact that the payment would occasion a deficiency of assets under the control of the executors in England unless recourse were had to jewelry, personal belongings located in England, and the family residence in London. The duties so imposed are of three-fold character, denominated respectively Estate, Legacy and Settlement Estate Duties, and with regard to the property under the control and administration by the executors accounting herein the amount levied aggregated the sum of £71,700. All these duties are levied on rights ofsuccession enjoyed by the legatees under the will by the law of England. Nevertheless, the bulk of the estate of the testatrix is under the control of the executors appointed by this court, and is to remain under administration by them on distribution to them as trustees. The general executors who were appointed in England have ascertained that after using all available personal securities and cash under their control in paying the duties charged on both classes of property—viz., on the American estate and general estate—there will be a deficit of £20,000 or thereabouts, unless recourse be had to personal belongings, jewelry, pictures and heirlooms of the testatrix, which in large part were specifically bequeathed, the family residence in London, which is a leasehold and which is located at Number #5 Grosvenor Square, London and the contents of said residence.

In a suit brought in the High Court of Justice

[ocr errors]

20

Extracts from American Executors' Accounts 19

in England, Chancery Division, by the general executors against the Duke andDuchess of Manchester and their children and other persons interested in the estate, to determine a number of questions affecting the administration of the estate, and among them the question whether the general executors were liable to pay death duties in England on the American assets, a judgment was rendered to the effect that the death duties in England hereinabove referred to were properly payable by the general executors upon the entire estate, including the American assets. Such further proceedings Mere taken under that judgment that an order was made therein, dated February 20, 1912, charging such death duties upon the estate, and intimating that any sums of money sent by the American executors to England might be impounded for the payment ofsuch death duties as were charged by reason of succession under the will to the American assets, whatever the purpose of such payments or to whomever made.

The executors of the estate in England have urged that the American executors should remit to 21 them sufficient amounts of capital to supply such deficit and thereby avoid the necessity of a sale of the personal heirlooms and belongings, and the family residence in London, as there are ample assets under the control of the American executors.

An order was therefore made on the 28th day of March, 1912, in the said suit hereinbefore referred to by which it was directed that unless the American executors should remit to the general executors the sum of £20,000 within a certain time specified, the executors in England should proceed to a sale of the leasehold No. 5 Orosvenor Square. It has been urged that such payment would subserve the orderly administration of the estate and the in22 Extracts fromAmerican Executors' Accounts

terests of the family, and, besides, remove a reason for adverse action and litigation in impounding the income which the American executors remit to the family of the testatrix and annuitants in England.

The accounting executors have been of the opinion, should the court so order, that in the decree to be entered settling these accounts there should be some provision authorizing and directing the ac„„ counting executors to remit to Viscount Duncannon and Thomas Rawle, as general executors of the will ofthe testatrix, the sum of £20,000, or thereabouts, with which to pay such deficit of

£20,000.

* * » »

Extracts from Supplemental Account of

Proceedings Verified July 15, 1912.

SCHEDULE C 1.

[ocr errors]

Payments from capital for crpcimcs of administration.

June 7, 1912—Voucher No. 1.

Remitted Vise o u n t Duncannon and

Thomas Rawle Trustees, by draft on

London, £20,000 at 4.8720 exchange.. $97,440.00

(Reing amount advanced to meet de-

ficit in English Death Duties on

American assets.)

» * * *

HARRY II. HOLLINS,

JOHN L. CADWALADER,

FREDERICK OGDEN REACH,

Executors.

*******

Extract from Supplemental Account of Proceedings 25

SCHEDULE H.

Statement of other facts affecting the administration of the Estate.

Since the prior accounting it was found that the premises No. 5 Grosvenor Square, London, were likely to be sold, unless the money was advanced by the American executors to meet the English Death Duties, as set forth in Schedule H of such prior accounting. The American executors, there- 26 fore, made the said payment of £20,000 which is shown in Schedule C 1 of this account, and thereupon an order was duly entered in the suit referred to in such prior account staying the sale of the said residence property.

One of the grand and historic buildings that line Salisbury’s Cathedral Close, it is named after William de Braybrook (1298-1319), beneficiary and executor of the will of Bishop Nicholas Longspee. In later years, the house became the residence of headmasters of the Cathedral School.

not every home you get to photograph is a mansion or beautifully designed. This could be a really nice place but it is tired, built in the 60's the house is now being sold by the executors of a will. The agent who I did this for gets me to shoot almost all his listings no mater what condition they are in.

Abstract of Title for 29 Beaumont Street, Ramsgate, (formerly 13 Waterloo Place) in trust of the estate of Stephen Goldsmith deceased dated 27th September, 1874.

 

27th July 1854 Conveyance between George Hurst of Ramsgate, John Eley of Hanover Lodge, Middle Row, Brixton, Surrey and Stephen Cockburn of Ramsgate, Brazier. Reciting the Will of Richard Kempley, Ramsgate, Builder, dated 8th June 1833 and an Indenture date 17th August 1852 between Edward Haynes Mason, George Martin Hinds, Architect, Elizabeth Cooper, Widow, George, Hurst, John Eley, by the death of Elizabeth Kempley on 10th September 1853, widow of Richard Kempley.

 

10th and 11th July, 1820 Indenture between Ann Turner Brown, Richard Kempsley and Richard Crockford.

 

6th July 1826 between Richard Kemps;ey and William Foster.

 

22nd March 1832 Indenture of Transfer between William Foster, Richard Kempsley, Thomas Ansell and Sibella Redman Ansell.

 

30th March 1841 Between William Woodland, Sibella Redman Woodland, Richard Kempley, Elizabeth Kempley, Joseph Haynes and James Browne Judge.

 

14th December 1859 Conveyance: Stephen Cockburn, Stephen Goldsmith of Ramsgate, Alfred James Steed, Tailor of Ramsgate.

 

29th Decemebr 1859 Will of Stephen Goldsmith (died 10th June 1871) appointed his son Stephen Goldsmith the Younger and son-in-law, Alfred James Steed as Trustees and Executors.

 

1 2 ••• 63 64 66 68 69 ••• 79 80