Name: Sarah Anne Williams

Age 24

Family) Father - Robert Williams; Mother - Linda Williams; Stepmother - Irene Williams; Brother - Toby Williams (age 9); Sister - Colleen Williams (age 5)

Occupation: Actress

History: At the age of nine, Sarah Williams found herself being raised by her father after her mother ran off to pursue an acting career. Bewildered by her mother's sudden abandonment, Sarah hid herself in books. A few years later, both Sarah and her mother made the attempt to rebuild their relationship. Her mother became a star, and soon Sarah idolized her. When her father remarried, Sarah never really gave the woman a chance. She hated Irene from the start and resented her father for remarrying. When Sarah was fifteen, Irene gave birth to Toby. She turned her resentment and anger against her brother, and that resulted in him getting taken by the Goblin King Jareth.

Sarah was forced to then travel the Labyrinth to rescue her brother. She made several friends along the way, Hoggle, Ludo, and Sir Didymus. Sarah found the Labyrith was more than just stone walls.

Once Sarah rescued Toby, her life got better. She was able to let go of the ideal of her mother and live in present with her family. Eventually, Irene gave birth to second child she named Colleen. Sarah graduated High School and went to UCLA to study acting. She got her first acting job at twenty, in a film called Career Opportunities playing Josie McClellen

After that, her career took off. She was in five movies in four years. Sarah was not only beautiful, but also impressively talented. She won two Academy Awards, and two People's Choice awards.

Her Personal life was pretty much an open book. She didn't date, and was close with her father, stepmother and siblings. Her mother had been out of her life for seven years. Sarah doesn't discuss her personal life, but really, she's never forgotten Jareth.

Sometimes at night, Sarah reads the script of the Labyrinth, tempted to try and summon Jareth again. Despite the dangers, Jareth both still intrigues and excites her.

The other day I stepped out onto the deck and immediately heard a meow. Sitting on the patio was a young black and white cat looking up at me. I opened the gate and said "What do you want little one?" and it came right up the steps and rubbed against my leg. Not long into the act of making acquaintances on my deck with the new guest I noticed both of my cats at the screen door with wild looks in their eyes. The initial excitement and inquisitiveness quickly turned to seething resentment when they witnessed me reaching down to pet the intruder. Soon cats on both sides of the screen door had hair and tails standing straight up with arched backs. Ok... So maybe a short visit was going to have to do. I said my goodbyes and brought the kitten back down to the patio. Shutting the gate behind me I could see that my recent guest must have forgotten something, and he was coming back up the steps to inform me. Thinking that I could tactfully hold this short meeting behind a closed gate, I was surprised to see that it wasn't a relevant matter to my determined visitor, and an alternate route was executed in short order. Well, that was it then. Fate had decreed that I should grab my camera to honor one as crafty as he. Surely this small transient would tire of my incessent clicking like my own cats do and be on its merry way in no time.

Bonhams

Les Grandes Marques du Monde à Paris

The Grand Palais Éphémère

Place Joffre

Parijs - Paris

Frankrijk - France

February 2023

Estimated : 1.800.000 - 2.600.000

Withdrawn

The most famous performance car based on the Volkswagen Beetle is, of course, the Porsche 356, but before then there was another from an unlikely source: the Luftwaffe. Specifically, the Luftwaffe's 'courier car' was based on the very first Volkswagen: the KdF Wagen Typ 60, which was in production from 1937 to 1944. The Luftwaffe's requirement was for a fast small car that would serve as a courier vehicle, while at the same time being light, reliable, cheap to build and simple to maintain. The car took its name from its German designer, Kurt C Volkhart, while the low-drag body was designed by Baron R König von Fachsenfeld, who would later produce many streamlined designs for mainstream German manufacturers.

Kurt Volkhart, born in 1890, constructed the first rocket car for Opel in 1928 based on an idea by Max Valier. He also drove it until Fritz von Opel recognised the publicity value of driving the car himself. Volkhart left Opel in resentment; he competed in car races, built his own rocket car, and briefly worked on the construction of a rocket-powered aircraft.

Volkhart had long ago recognised that performance could be improved by careful aerodynamic design, and towards the end of the 1930s planned a small, inexpensive sports car: the two-seater V1. The rear-mounted 1,172cc engine was the same as that found in the Ford Eifel and produced only 32bhp, which in the donor car was good enough for a top speed no better than 100km/h (62mph). But thanks to its extraordinarily low claimed drag coefficient of only 0.165, the slippery Volkhart was capable of speeds of up to 138km/h (85.7mph). Modern aerodynamicists later recalculated the V1's likely drag coefficient as 0.30, but when the V2 was tested in Volkswagen's wind tunnel in 2013 it was found to be 0.216, as good as the very best of modern designs.

Development continued but was stopped later in the war, and the project would not resurface until 1947, following an injection of funds from Sagitta. Based on a Volkswagen chassis that Volkhart had purchased during the war (which was confiscated by the British Army before being retrieved by its owner), the new V2 offered accommodation for 4/5 passengers but never came close to series production, not the least because Volkswagen refused to provide chassis. Construction of the aluminium body was entrusted to Helmut Fuchs in Niederwenningern, Ruhr, with additional work by Hans Daum's body shop. One of the V2's many interesting features was a novel 'anti-skid' mechanism mounted at the rear behind the engine as an early form of 'stability control'.

Only one example of the V2 Sagitta was built in 1947; it was purchased by Hugo Tigges, who had sourced the raw materials necessary for its construction. Tigges used the V2 as his 'daily driver' for six years before consigning it in 1953 to his garden where it served as a chicken coop!

In 1955, the V2 was so neglected that Helmut Daum, son of the aforementioned Hans Daum, was allowed to relocate the chickens and recover the car from the garden. Over the succeeding decades, it was rebuilt and repainted several times and then laid up before coming to Austria in 2011, finding a new home with an Austrian Porsche collector. "I always wanted a one-off," said the new owner in 2015. "I immediately drove to classic car events, including Villa d'Este." There, in 2012, the Volkhart V2 was declared a personal favourite by the television team's presenter, who interviewed only the owner to the chagrin of the many Ferrari owners!

When he later refused to sell the V2 to a friend, the latter offered to restore it for him. The aluminium body has been restored and the non-original British Racing Green livery replaced by silver metallic (the original finish), with the result that its sculptural lines are revealed to their full effect. We are advised that the Beetle engine's 24 horses are in good shape and sound even stronger in the lightweight V2.

Dogs are not allowed on the plaza during special events, but beauty wins out just about every time. Sweet skittish pup is most certainly not a therapy dog, but rules apply only to those that follow them. A bit of resentment, as I reluctantly had left my own pups home in my feeble attempts to follow some of the somewhat sensible rules. A gorgeous dog though no matter it's status, lol.

LIBYA Benghazi -- 14 May 2011 -- Since the Libyan revolution began in many of the liberated towns public artwork dipicting Colonal Gaddafi has began to appear like this image in Benghazi Libya. The images - which are a result of pent-up resentment against the hated Libyan dictator - are a ruthless satire of the bloody and violent regime which Col Gaddafi has used to repress the Libyan people for the past few decades -- Picture by Rory Mulholland | Lightroom Photos *Copy also available

The subject's pose reflects the pose of Lucifer (from John Milton's "Paradise Lost") painted on the guitar by the side. In "Paradise Lost", Lucifer symbolizes the acceptance, the lamentation, and the resentment of reality that accompanies the freewill that he demands from God. This photograph attempts to both accept the subjected self as who he is, transforming himself ideal. However, it portrays his setting as dull and almost colorless to convey that his "ideal self" is not where he desires to be in his life; thus presenting his coreself through the blunt perspective on his room. The subject resents his reality as he pulls his hair off his scalp, yet he prefers the ownership of "freewill" to act on his ambitions rather than to perpetuate no ambitions.

So check me out on Spotify under "Lautrec", my tracks are fire lmao

I have been fascinated by some of the known and relatively unknown women from our mythology. We have all heard stories about Sita, Kunti, Draupadi, Radha.

Are these women just a part of the folklore or can we find deeper meanings. How relevant are their struggles and journeys in the context of today?

It comes as no surprise, that nothing has really changed for most women in our society.

In one of the earliest recorded protests against male dominated world and society, Draupadi’s characteristic fight against injustice reflects one of the first acts of feminism - a fight for ones rights, in this case the rights to avenge the wrongs inflicted on her.

Draupadi exemplifies one of the earliest feminists, be it in terms of polyandry or her thirst for revenge.

While this is an intensive subject of study, we have tried recreating a snapshot of the emotions that Draupadi might have gone through.

In this series we have attempted to showcase one aspect of her emotion -

Raudra Rasa or Raudram, one of the nine rasas in natyashastra, that is a manifestation of anger, resentment and hostility.

www.aditri.co.in

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

Day 260.

I have a unappealing trait and it comes in the form of jealousy.

I cannot begin to explain how irrational and destructive this emotion is and how it happens to me unexpectedly like a bolt from the blue.

I have tried to rationalise it, to understand why I suffer from it.

I think it all comes down to insecurities and low self-esteem. I always think that others are funnier, younger, better looking, know more, have more talent, more friends, more confidence.

Maybe some do, or have/are some of those things, but I also know in my heart (deep down and well hidden admittedly) that I am (or could be) as good as they are, maybe in different ways, but it doesn't stop me reacting to certain situations and getting mad or upset.

I could apologise - I do apologise - but I know it's empty because it won't stop me feeling the same again and reacting as I do.

In a way, it feels worse because I'm aware of how silly it is to be this way. I read the entry on here about envy too - it's similar and I had to check to see what the main differences are:

... jealousy involves the wish to keep what one has, and envy the wish to get what one does not have ...

The experience of jealousy involves:

* Fear of loss

* Suspicion or anger about betrayal

* Low self-esteem and sadness over loss

* Uncertainty and loneliness

* Fear of losing an important person to an attractive other

* Distrust

The experience of envy involves:

* Feelings of inferiority

* Longing

* Resentment of circumstances

* Ill will towards envied person often accompanied by guilt about these feelings

* Motivation to improve

* Desire to possess the attractive rival's qualities

* Disapproval of feelings

Maybe I also suffer from envy to some extent - but jealousy is how I always think of it.

I was going to set this to 'no comments' but I'd like to hear your views. What I don't want however, is for you to tell me that I'm silly to feel this way, that I'm funny, attractive etc - I would have to repeat that I know I'm crazy to feel as I do, but I DO.

And if you've been on the receiving end of this, then you don't need to remind me! You also know I'm sorry.

May 1, 2022 - "The Dokwerker is a statue of a dockworker and a monument located on Jonas Daniël Meijerplein in Amsterdam, a square next to the Portuguese Synagoge Amsterdam. It is as a remembrance of the "Februaristaking", strike in Februari 1941. This bronze statue was made by sculptor Mari Andriessen.

The Docker

During the years of occupation (40-45), Jews were increasingly banned from places where everyone was allowed to go before the war. Trams, public buildings and swimming pools were suddenly off limits to Jews.

When the shops and cafes were also obliged to put up a sign 'forbidden for Jews', the measure was full and many Amsterdammers went on strike.

February strike

On February 25, 1941, under the leadership of the CPN, resistance against the German occupation of the Netherlands began in Amsterdam. The indirect reason for the strike was the occupation by the Germans and the inconveniences that this entailed. Resentment also grew against the measures taken by the Germans, which were aimed in particular against the Jews.

The immediate cause was raids in the Jewish quarter after the Germans rolled up IJssalon Koco in the Van Woustraat on 19 February 1941 because two Jews who had fled Germany and ran this shop had given shelter to members of a gang. The brothers did not survive.

Do you know

A bridge over the Amstel is named after the two brothers, 'the Ernst Cahn and Alfred Cohn Bridge.'

The strike lasted two days, but the superior numbers of the Germans were so immense that nine were killed and more than twenty wounded. The strike is commemorated annually at De Dokwerker.

The statue The Dockworker

This bronze statue is located on the Jonas Daniël Meijerplein. It represents a striker, that is, the uprising of the people against the authorities.

The statue, unveiled by Queen Juliana in 1952, was made by Mari Andriessen on behalf of the city of Amsterdam in memory of the February strike of 1941. Willem Termetz served as a model for the Dokwerker.

Do you know

In 1970 the statue had to be moved due to a refurbishment, when the statue was placed back it suddenly stood in the other direction. The explanation given to it was somewhat curious. The statue would have stood with its hands first towards the Waterlooplein (read: towards the Jewish quarter) and later with its hands apart towards the Jewish Historical Museum (JHM.)

But as you can see in the picture below that is not the case at all, the picture was taken in front of the JHM." Previous text translated from the following website: www.dedokwerker.nl/de_dokwerker.html

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

La Crête de Coq et la Dent de la Rancune - Valée de Chaudefour - Auvergne - France

The Cockscomb and the Tooth of Resentment - "Chaudefour" Valley - Auvergne - France

My Gallery : www.flickr.com/photos/48610053@N04/

Kicking a habit isn’t easy. With addiction, the process of detoxing then rehabbing can be long and arduous, not to mention painfully life-changing.

Sobriety forces you to leave behind a life you may have once enjoyed. Sobriety, also, can come to some people more easily than others. Sobriety is great. It’s a clean and ultimately life-saving undertaking, that when conducted correctly. If you feel alcohol and/or drugs is causing a block between yourself and your loved ones, contact BLVD Treatment Centers. Read more here goo.gl/7UXLvc more about Rehab Resentment: The Fastest Way Toward Relapse.

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

Expressing Anger

A young, thirsty lion and an equally thirsty cougar arrived at their usual watering hole at the same time. Immediately, they began arguing about who should drink first.

Their argument quickly escalated into rage, and the animals started clawing at one another. However, the fight was interrupted when the lion and cougar caught sight of vultures circling overhead, waiting for the loser to fall. The thought of being eaten was enough for the lion and cougar to end their fight.

Anger destroys people and relationships. Cain, the son of Adam and Eve, committed the world’s first murder when in anger he killed his brother Abel. Today, jails, hospitals, abuse shelters and divorce courts are filled with the evidence of anger’s destructive power. However, anger itself isn’t bad. Ephesians 4:26 doesn’t condemn anger; rather, it says, “In your anger do not sin.”

Moses knew the consequences of letting anger lead to sin. At age 40, Moses became so angry when he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew that he killed the Egyptian (see Acts 7:23–24). Then Moses had to flee for his life, remaining in exile for 40 years (see Acts 7:30). Then, 40 years after Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, Moses’ anger got him into trouble again. The wandering Israelites complained bitterly about their thirst to Moses, blaming him for their discomfort and hardships. So God instructed Moses, “Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water” (Numbers 20:8). Instead, Moses angrily struck the rock with his staff. That disobedience against God cost Moses entrance into the promised land (see verse 12).

Anger in marriage isn’t wrong. In “Anger and a Good Marriage” (Together in His Grace, Heartlight Magazine, September 19, 2005), Byron Ware says that anger is inevitable, and the healthy expression of it is a testimony to the strength of a marriage. “Relationships that don’t acknowledge or express anger are usually fragile, unstable, and anemic,” he writes. “For anger not to be expressed suggests that the couple isn’t secure enough or the marriage isn’t strong enough to handle disagreement.”

Not expressing anger leads to the stockpiling of bitterness and resentment; it leads to cold shoulders and cold wars. On the other end of the spectrum is out-of-control anger that is expressed through name-calling, profanity, belittling, intimidation, character assassination and even physical violence. Both extremes are costly to a marriage, undermining intimacy and trust. At its most extreme, unrestrained anger can cost one or both partners their very lives.

In a marriage, respect is key to expressing anger. When anger flares, respect will lead to a discussion of the anger rather than one spouse swallowing their anger in silence. Respect will also guide the expression of anger so that actions are kept within boundaries when tempers blaze. Respect leads to spouses treating each other as helpers and advocates, not as adversaries. And when that happens, the vultures retreat and no one gets eaten.

Number 20:2-11

—Nancy Kennedy

Taken from NIV Couples’ Devotional Bible

Are you familiar with America's current HEALTH CRISIS, aka America's #T_H_U_G_L_I_F_E Culture of African American Child Abuse & Emotional Neglect/Maltreatment the late American story-TRUTH-teller Tupac Shakur, as well as many of his urban story-truth-teller peers, including a number of Mr. Barack “My Brother’s Keeper” Obama and Mrs. Michelle "Girl Power" Obama White House guests and friends, vividly describe in their American artistry or public interviews?

"The Hate U Give Little Infants Fvvks Everyone" ~Tupac Shakur

Are you aware of the #A_F_R_E_C_A_N remedy for the #T_H_U_G_L_I_F_E HEALTH CRISIS experienced, through no fault of their own, by significant numbers of American children and teens?

"America’s Firm Resolve to End Childhood Abuse and Neglect”

medium.com/@AveryJarhman/tupac-addresses-african-american...

medium.com/@AveryJarhman/lets-talk-kendrick-lamar-gangs-g...

Peace.

___

Tagged: #JamylaBolden, #TyshawnLee, #RamiyaReed, #AvaCastillo, #JulieDombo, #LaylahPetersen, #LavontayWhite, #NovaMarieGallman, #AyannaAllen, #AutumnPasquale, #RamiyaReed, #TrinityGay, #ChildhoodTrauma, #Poverty, #ChildAbuse, #ChildhoodMaltreatment, #ChildNeglect, #ChildhoodDepression, #TeenDepression, #TeenViolence, #GunViolence, #GangViolence, #CommunityViolence, #CommunityFear, #PTSD, #PoliceAnxiety, #TeacherEducatorFrustration, #CognitiveDissonance, #KendrickLamar, #TupacShakur, #EmotionalIllness, #MentalHealth, #MentalIllness, #FatherlessAmericanChildren, #ShamirHunter, #DemeaningGovernmentHandouts, #Resentment, #MATERNALRESPONSIBILITY, #DonaldTrump, #HRC, #BarackObama, #MichelleObama, #ObamaAdministration, #ObamaWhiteHouse, #WillfulIgnorance, #AmericanSociety, #Racism, #T_H_U_G_L_I_F_E, #Solutions, >>>, #A_F_R_E_C_A_N,

"America’s Firm Resolve to End Childhood Abuse and Neglect”

Phoebe came to us about 40 pounds under weight. She was sick and had skin issues. We fed her 4 times a day a little bit at a time. Nursed her back to health and she was a great playmate. She never held any resentment towards humans who treated her so badly. We fostered her for quite some time and finally found her her forever home. She is living happily ever after.

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

How can we describe a terrible excuse for a person?

1. A terrible personality always wipes his/her hands on curtains after having eaten chicken or other greasy products when asked to a party.

2. A terrible personality always checks if there was something left in dog’s plate before asking someone over for lunch at his place.

3. You can never hear a kind word from such kind of person but he is always ready with lots of bright ideas for pastime in his company. Don’t be surprised if you are offered to take an unforgettable but unaccompanied trip to the underworld, take part in kite flying or tree climbing merriment, a proposal to improve your culinary skills in frying eggs or lake jumping technique and many many other not less clever ideas of the kind.

4. When the hullabaloo party is over you will always be kindly walked Spanish down the staircase by any of them.

"NEBUCHADNEZZAR!”—you might cry in resentment, and you’d be totally wrong, because it all wasn’t said about no Nebuchadnezzars, it was a snapshot of your trully friend Sibirski who is a terrible dirty creep by coincidence, which you might have already figured out by yourself long time ago.

Cheers!

Trisha appeared on a TV programme, admitting that even though she knew she was HIV positive, she continued to work as a prostitute. There was resentment and open hostility towards her and her son. She felt that many people were hypocritical.

Photograph by John Sturrock.

All photographs have been commissioned by Positive Lives and are shown here with full agreement of the photographer. Full copyright remains with the photographer.

If you are interested in commissioning an exhibition or community programme featuring Positive Lives, contact Mathew Birch at the International HIV/AIDS Alliance mbirch@aidsalliance.org

Please quote the following image reference number if you wish to use or include this image.

JSA-10009907

Französisch Buchholz in the Berlin borough of Pankow, is a district that developed from an earlier settlement in the 13th century and became known as Buchholz. It got its current name because numerous Huguenot families, religious refugees from France, settled here at the end of the 17th century.

By about 1750, the name Französisch Buchholz had become established and the village had become a popular destination for Berliner day trippers.

Because of anti-French resentment in the run-up to the First World War, the district changed its name to Berlin-Buchholz in 1913 and was incorporated into Greater Berlin in 1920.

At the end of the Second World War, Buchholz became part of the Soviet sector of Berlin. After reunification and with some local pressure, the district became Französisch Buchholz again on 30th May 1999, thus after 86 years, regaining its former name.

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

As he is known to some. :) A nickname that makes him blush, but one that a group of close friends gave him. I think it fits.

I love him. What more can I say? You guys know it, he knows it, I certainly know it, everyone does. You can see it in his eyes, in his smile, how much he loves me too. I always thought I knew what love was, but I was strongly, absurdly mistaken until now. Love is so much more than I ever thought it was. It's not just "I love you". It's respect, equality, adoration, trust, individuality, yet coming together as a couple to make each other a little better and certainly happier. It's one big complicated thing, love, but I think when you are truly IN love WITH someone (meaning they love you back), even though it may seem complicated, it's really not. But I do believe one of the biggest things on that list is respect. And equality, really. G respects me, as I do him. We may have an age gap, but he respects me and we are equal. He is not better than me, he doesn't know all there is to know about everything, he doesn't lie when he doesn't know something just to make it seem as though he knew what he was talking about. He's just him, but he is no better than me and I no better than him. Well, I mean, he beats the crap out of my guitar playing, but that's a given. :) And I respect and love that about him...his talent. He has drive and ambition, which makes me have drive and ambition. We feed off of each other's emotions and fully support each other's dreams and goals and talents.

We fight too. Every couple, especially those who live together, are going to fight and have arguments and disagreements. I admit I fly off the handle more than he does and will get angry a heck of a lot quicker than he ever will, but I like to think that's calming down significantly. (I had no idea how much pent up anger I had!) But the key is to be able to take a step back, calm down and talk about it civilly, discuss it instead of arguing. Make your point, apologize for getting so angry, make up and get over it. We fight, we talk, we apologize, we move on and forget about it. Anything either of us has ever been upset about, we talk about, clear the air, because otherwise you'll have resentment and that's not how to have a relationship.

So, I've just decided that everything I ever thought I knew about being in a relationship (even after being married for so long), to throw it out the window and start fresh. Because we must be doing something right. Even after this long, I still cannot wait to come home and see his face, this face, every day, to a hug and a kiss and enthusiasm that I'm home. I smile every time I see him...still. The G I knew before is not the G I know now. He's still the amazingly (jaw droppingly) talented musician he always was, he still has the same sense of humor, he's still him, he's just softened. His eyes softened and his heart softened. I look in his eyes and don't see sadness and a hint of something else I couldn't put my finger on. I see a happy, happy man who is satisfied with life, with me, a man who is just plainly in love and happy.

And so am I.

So thank you, my love, for showing me what love truly is and how to make it work and helping me to be happy, and for always laughing with me. I am truly lucky to have you in my life, by my side, and with me on this crazy journey. I love you with all my heart.

For the YouTube video, click here: youtu.be/2133rQLLgDM

I believe that commuter trains have feelings, and the plain-Jane train that had to follow that Metra Electric Holiday Train at 2:50 had to be simmering with sibling resentment.

"We were both built by Nippon Sharyo. Our pantographs touch the same overhead wires -- our wheels roll on the same tracks. So what's the big deal with THAT one!? Some red and green lights strung on the outside? Holiday tourists with reserved seats inside? This family! Hmmm!! If I don't get to be Holiday Train NEXT year... just you wait!"

Französisch Buchholz in the Berlin borough of Pankow, is a district that developed from an earlier settlement in the 13th century and became known as Buchholz. It got its current name because numerous Huguenot families, religious refugees from France, settled here at the end of the 17th century.

By about 1750, the name Französisch Buchholz had become established and the village had become a popular destination for Berliner day trippers.

Because of anti-French resentment in the run-up to the First World War, the district changed its name to Berlin-Buchholz in 1913 and was incorporated into Greater Berlin in 1920.

At the end of the Second World War, Buchholz became part of the Soviet sector of Berlin. After reunification and with some local pressure, the district became Französisch Buchholz again on 30th May 1999, thus after 86 years, regaining its former name.

LIBYA Benghazi -- 14 May 2011 -- Since the Libyan revolution began in many of the liberated towns public artwork dipicting Colonal Gaddafi has began to appear like this image in Benghazi Libya. The images - which are a result of pent-up resentment against the hated Libyan dictator - are a ruthless satire of the bloody and violent regime which Col Gaddafi has used to repress the Libyan people for the past few decades -- Picture by Rory Mulholland | Lightroom Photos *Copy also available

Antwerp/Antwerpen/Anvers

Belgium/Belgie/Belgique

March 9, 2011

Antwerp is a most cosmopolitan city. There seems to be a certain indescribable ennui throughout much of Belgium- but not in Antwerp. There is a causal sophistication here. Unlike Bruges, which is stuck in time, and Brussels which seems to have lost its identity in its role on the international stage, Antwerp is vibrating through another golden age.

The area has been settled at least since the Roman era, but really rose to prominence in the 1500’s after the Zwin River silted up and Bruges’ economy collapsed. If Bruges was an incredibly prosperous port whose realm of trade stretched throughout medieval Europe and the Levant, Antwerp was a port of intercontinental scale- one of the first such ports in the world. As part of the Spanish Empire, it brought in goods from as far as the Americas and Asia. Some sources say that in the early 1500’s, Antwerp saw up to 40 percent of global trade, and was one of the largest cities in Europe.

This, of course, is where the city’s cosmopolitanism originated. Merchants from across Europe set up shop in Antwerp, and the spirit of tolerance inherent in most port cities attracted a large population of orthodox Jews. And, as always, wealth attracted the arts, including some of the most prominent painters and musicians of the Northern Renaissance.

Despite this boom period, there was a great underlying tension rising. The Low Countries became swept up by the Protestant Reformation and by a growing resentment of Spanish rule. Violence erupted in 1566, with the Iconoclastic Fury, in which Protestants ransacked towns and churches, destroying Catholic icons. A reason why many Medieval churches in Belgium have interiors adorned in the style of the Renaissance and the Baroque is that so many of the items made before 1566 were lost. The fiercely Catholic Spanish came down hard, and thus began the Eighty Years’ War which resulted in the independence of the Netherlands.

As a city at the heart of the Dutch Revolt, Antwerp suffered mightily. In November of 1576, Spanish troops sacked the city, plundering property and killing 6,000 residents - an event which became known the “Spanish Fury”. In 1585, Spain took full control of Antwerp and expelled the Protestants to the north. The population was reduced by half, and Amsterdam became the new center of international trade.

After this, the city fell into a long period of decline and was revived only in the early 19th century, when Napoleon invested in upgrading the long-neglected port (which the British attempted to capture in a disastrous campaign). In the 1890’s, Antwerp hosted a World’s Fair, and in 1920, the Olympics. The city was heavily damaged by German bombs in WW2, but today is on the rise once again- today ranking among the top 20 of busiest ports in the world- certainly larger than the port of New York. Standing on the bank of the River Scheldt, one can see shipping facilities stretching to beyond the horizon.

And once again, Antwerp is a cosmopolitan place. There is a diverse immigrant community, the arts have returned, and the city is taking a seat among the most prominent fashion centers of the world. 80 percent of the world’s rough diamonds pass through its diamond markets (unfortunately though, this includes many blood diamonds).

In short, there is a lot of action here. By day, the streets bustle with a certain vibrancy and lust for life. By night, bars and restaurants host a sophisticated conviviality. It feels like a new city.

It’s interesting how history works though. Walking at dusk through the Grote Markt, with its magnificent Golden Age houses of trade, under the sublime carillon of the Cathedral, you realize that, though the faces and much of the cityscape have changed, it is, in essence, the same city it was half a millennium ago.

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

Nor can there be any doubt that, apart from the ill offices of those who desired to separate the interests of the brothers, the Protector had good reason to stand upon his guard. When Seymour was tried for his life during the winter of 1548-9, dependants and equals alike came forward to bear witness to his intriguing propensities, their evidence going far to prove that, whatever may be thought of Somerset’s conduct as a brother in sending him to the scaffold, as head of the State and responsible for the government of the realm, he was not without83 justification. It is clear that from the first the Admiral, jealous of the position accorded to the Duke by the Council, had been sedulously engaged in attempting to undermine his power, and had not disguised his resentment at his appropriation of undivided authority. Never had it been seen in a minority—so he informed a confidant66—that the one brother should bear all rule, the other none. One being Protector, the other should have filled the post of Governor to the King, so he averred; although, on another occasion, contradicting himself, he declared he would wish the earth to open and swallow him rather than accept either post. There was abundant proof that he had done his utmost, whenever opportunity was afforded him, to rouse the King to discontent. It was a disagreeable feature of the day that men were in no wise slack in accusing their friends in times of disgrace, thereby seeking to safeguard their reputations; and Dorset came forward later to testify that Seymour had told him that his nephew had divers times made his moan, saying that “My uncle of Somerset dealeth very hardly with me, and keepeth me so straight that I cannot have money at my will.” The Lord Admiral, added the boy, both sent him money and gave it to him.67

Perhaps the most significant testimony brought against the Admiral was that of the little King84 himself, who asserted that Seymour had charged him with being “bashful” in his own affairs, asking why he did not speak to bear rule as did other Kings. “I said I needed not, for I was well enough,” the boy replied on this occasion. At another time, according to his confession, a conversation took place the more grim from the simplicity of the language in which it is recorded.

“Within these two years at least,” said Edward, now eleven years old, “he said, ‘Ye must take upon yourself to rule, and then ye may give your men somewhat; for your uncle is old, and I trust he will not live long.’ I answered it were better that he should die.”68

It was scarcely possible that the Protector should not have been cognisant of a part at least of his brother’s machinations; and he naturally, so far as was possible, kept his charge from falling further under the influence of his enemies. The young King’s affection for his step-mother had been a cause of disquiet to her brother-in-law and his wife, care being taken to separate him from her as much as was possible. So long as Katherine remained in London it had been Edward’s habit to visit her apartments unattended, and by a private entrance. Familiar intercourse of this kind terminated when she removed to a distance; and, so far as the Lord Protector could ensure obedience,85 little communication was permitted between the two during the short time the Queen had to live. The boy, however, was constant to old affection, and used what opportunities he could to express it.

“If his Grace could get any spare time,” wrote one John Fowler, a servant of the royal household, to the Admiral, “his Grace would write a letter to the Queen’s Grace, and to you. His Highness desires your lordship to pardon him, for his Grace is not half a quarter of an hour alone. But in such leisure as his Grace has, his Majesty hath written (here enclosed) his commendations to the Queen’s Grace and to your lordship, that he is so much bound to you that he must remember you always, and, as his Grace may have time, you shall well perceive by such small lines of recommendations with his own hand.”69

The scribbled notes, on scraps of paper, written by stealth and as he could find opportunity, by the King, testify to the closeness of the watch kept upon him; their contents show the means by which the Admiral strove to maintain his hold upon his nephew.

“My lord,” so runs the first, “send me, per Latimer, as much as ye think good, and deliver it to Fowler.” The second note is one of thanks.

An attempt was made by the Admiral to obtain86 a letter from the King which, complaining of the Protector’s system of restraint, should be laid before Parliament; but the intrigue was discovered, the Admiral summoned to appear before the Council, and, though he was at first inclined to bluster, and replied by a defiance, a hint of imprisonment brought him to reason, and some sort of hollow reconciliation between the brothers followed.

The King, the unfortunate subject of dispute, was probably lonely enough. For his tutor, Sir John Cheke, and for his school-mate, Barnaby Fitzpatrick, he appears to have entertained a real affection; but for his elder uncle and guardian he had little liking, nor was the Duchess of Somerset a woman to win the heart of her husband’s ward. From his step-mother and the Admiral he was practically cut off; and his sisters, for whom his attachment was genuine, were at a distance, and paid only occasional visits to Court. Mary’s influence, as a Catholic, would naturally have been feared; and Elizabeth, living for the time under the Admiral’s roof, would be regarded likewise with suspicion. But the happiness of the nominal head of the State was not a principal consideration with those around him, mostly engaged in a struggle not only to secure present personal advantages, but to ensure their continuance at such time as Edward should have attained his majority.

The relations between the Seymour brothers being87 that of a scarcely disguised hostility, the Admiral had the more reason to congratulate himself upon having obtained the possession and disposal of the person of Lady Jane Grey—third, save for her mother, in the line of succession to the throne. Should her guardian succeed in effecting her marriage with the King the arrangement might prove of vital importance. On the other hand, Somerset’s matrimonial schemes for the younger members of the royal house were of an altogether different nature. He would have liked to marry the King to a daughter of his own, another Lady Jane, and to have obtained the hand of Lady Jane Grey for his son, young Lord Hertford.

Such projects, however, belonged to the future. Nothing could be done for the present, nor does it appear that, when Somerset’s scheme afterwards became known to the King, it met with any favour in his eyes; since, noting it in his journal, he added his private intention of wedding “a foreign princess, well stuffed and jewelled.”

So far as Katherine was concerned, her domestic affairs were probably causing her too much anxiety to leave attention to spare for those of King or kingdom, except as they were gratifying, or the reverse, to her husband. Since the May day when she had given herself, rashly and eagerly, into the keeping of the Lord Admiral, she had been sorrowfully enlightened as to the nature of the88 man and of his affection; and, if she still loved him, her heart must often have been heavy. The presence of the Princess Elizabeth under her roof had been disastrous in its consequences; and, though it was at first the interest of all to keep the matter secret, the inquisition made at the time of the Admiral’s disgrace into the circumstances of his married life affords an insight into his wife’s wrongs.

In a conversation held between Mrs. Ashley, Elizabeth’s governess, and her cofferer, Parry, after the Queen’s death, the possibility of a marriage between the widower and the Princess was discussed, Parry raising objections to the scheme, on the score that he had heard evil of Seymour as being covetous and oppressive, and also “how cruelly, dishonourably, and jealously he had used the Queen.”

Ashley, from first to last eager to forward the Admiral’s interests, brushed the protest aside.

“Tush, tush,” she replied, “that is no matter. I know him better than ye do, or those that do so report him. I know he will make but too much of her, and that she knows well enough.”70

The same witness confessed at this later date that she feared the Admiral had loved the Princess too well, and the Queen had been jealous of both—an avowal corroborated by Elizabeth’s admissions, when she too underwent examination concerning the89 relations which had existed between herself and her step-mother’s husband.

“Kat Ashley told me,” she deposed, “after the Lord Admiral was married to the Queen, that if my lord might have had his own will, he would have had me, afore the Queen. Then I asked her how she knew that. Then she said she knew it well enough, both from himself and from others.”71

If the correspondence quoted in a previous page is genuine,72 Elizabeth, though she may have had reason to keep her knowledge to herself, can have been in no doubt as to the Admiral’s sentiments at the time of her father’s death. With a governess of Mrs. Ashley’s type, a girl of fifteen such as Elizabeth was shown to be by her subsequent career, and a man like Seymour, it would not have been difficult to prophesy trouble. That the Admiral was in love with his wife’s charge may be doubted; in the same way that ambition, rather than any other sentiment, may be credited with his desire to obtain her hand a few months earlier. What was certain was that he amused himself, after his boisterous fashion, with the sharp-witted girl to an extent calculated to cause both uneasiness and anger to the Queen. That no actual harm was intended may be true—he could scarcely have been blind to the consequences had he dared to deal otherwise with the daughter and sister of Kings; and the whole story,90 when it subsequently came to light, reads like an instance of coarse and vulgar flirtation, in harmony with the nature of the man and the habits of the times. What is less easy to account for is Katherine’s partial connivance, in its earlier stages, at the rough horse-play, if nothing worse, carried on by her husband and her step-daughter. A scene, for example, is described as taking place at Hanworth, where the Admiral, in the garden with his wife and the Princess, cut the girl’s gown, “being black cloth,” into a hundred pieces; Elizabeth replying to Mrs. Ashley’s protests by saying that “she could not strive with all, for the Queen held her while the Lord Admiral cut the dress.” Nor was this the only occasion upon which Katherine appears to have looked on without disapproval whilst her husband treated her charge in a fashion befitting her character neither as Princess nor guest.

The explanation may lie in the fact that the unfortunate Queen was attempting to adapt her taste and her manners to those of the man she had married. But the condition of the household could not last. A crisis was reached when one day Katherine, coming unexpectedly upon the two, found Seymour with the Princess in his arms, and decided, none too soon, that an end must be put to the situation. It was not long after that the households of Queen and Princess were parted, “and as I remember,” explained Parry the cofferer, “this was the cause why she was91 sent from the Queen, or else that her Grace parted from the Queen. I do not perfectly remember whether of both she [Ashley] said she went of herself or was sent away.”73

There can be little doubt, one would imagine, that it was Katherine who determined to disembarrass herself of her visitor. A letter from Elizabeth, evidently written after their separation, appears to show that farewell had been taken in outwardly friendly fashion, although the promise she quotes Katherine as making has an ambiguous sound about it. The Princess wrote to say that she had been replete in sorrow at leaving the Queen, “and albeit I answered little, I weighed it more deeply when you said you would warn me of all evils that you should hear of me; for if your Grace had not a good opinion of me, you would not have offered friendship to me that way, that all men judge the contrary.”74

It is not difficult to detect the sore feeling underlying Elizabeth’s acknowledgments of a promise of open criticism. Katherine must have breathed more freely when the Princess and her governess had quitted the house.

Meantime, in spite of disappointment and anger and care, the winter was to bring the Queen one genuine cause of rejoicing. Thrice married without children, she was hoping to give Seymour an heir,92 and the prospect was hailed with delight by husband and wife alike. In her gladness, and the chief cause of dissension removed, her just grounds of complaint were forgotten; her letters continued to be couched in terms as loving as if no domestic friction had interrupted her wedded happiness, and she ranged herself upon Seymour’s side in his recurrent disputes with his brother with a passionate vehemence out of keeping with her character.

“This shall be to advertise you,” she wrote some time in 1548, “that my lord your brother hath this afternoon made me a little warm. It was fortunate we were so much distant, for I suppose else I should have bitten him. What cause have they to fear having such a wife! It is requisite for them continually to pray for a dispatch of that hell. To-morrow, or else upon Saturday ... I will see the King, where I intend to utter all my choler to my lord your brother, if you shall not give me advice to the contrary.”75

Another letter, also indicating the strained relations existing between the brothers, is again full of affection for the man who deserved it so ill.

“I gave your little knave your blessing,” she tells the Admiral, alluding to the unborn child neither parent was to see grow up, “... bidding my sweetheart and loving husband better to fare than myself.”76

93A few months more, and hope and fear and love and disappointment were alike to find an end. Sudeley Castle, where the final scene took place, was a property granted to the Admiral on the death of the late King, from which he took his title as Lord Seymour of Sudeley. It was a question whether those responsible for the government had the right of alienating possessions of the Crown during the minority of a sovereign, and the tenure upon which the place was held was therefore insecure, Katherine asserting on one occasion that it was her husband’s intention to restore it to his nephew when he should come of age. In awaiting that event Seymour and his wife had the enjoyment of the beauty for which the old building had long been noted.

“Ah, Sudeley Castle, thou art the traitor, not I!” said one of its former lords as, arrested by the orders of Henry IV. for treason, and taken away to abide his trial, he cast a last look back at his home—a possession worthy of being coveted by a King, and by the attainder of its owner forfeited to the Crown.

Here, during the summer of 1548—the last Katherine was to see—a motley company gathered round the Queen. Jane Grey, “the young and early wise,” was still a member of her household, and the repudiated wife of Katherine’s brother, the Earl of Northampton—placed, it would seem, under some species of restraint—was in the keeping of her94 sister-in-law. Her true and tried friend, Lady Tyrwhitt, described by her husband as half a Scripture woman, kept her company, as she had done in her perilous days of royal state. Learned divines, living with her in the capacity of chaplains, were inmates of the castle, charged with the duty of performing service twice each day—exercises little to the taste of the master of the house, who made no secret of his aversion for them.

“I have heard say,” affirmed Latimer, in the course of one of the sermons, preached after Seymour’s execution, in which the Bishop took occasion again and again to revile the dead man, “I have heard say that when the good Queen that is gone had ordained daily prayer in her house, both before noon and after noon, the Admiral getteth him out of the way, like a mole digging in the earth. He shall be Lot’s wife to me as long as I live.”77

To Sudeley also had repaired, in the course of the summer, Lord Dorset, possibly desirous of assuring himself that all was well with his little daughter. He may have had other objects in view. According to his subsequent confession, Seymour had discussed with him the methods to be pursued in order to gain popularity in the country, making significant inquiries as to the formation of the marquis’s household.

95Learning that Dorset had divers gentlemen who were his servants, the Admiral admitted that it was well. “Yet,” he added shrewdly, “trust not too much to the gentlemen, for they have something to lose”; proceeding to urge his ally to make much of the chief yeomen and men of their class, who were able to persuade the multitude; to visit them in their houses, bringing venison and wine; to use familiarity with them, and thus to gain their love. Such, he added, was his own intention.78

Another inmate had been received at Sudeley not more than a few weeks before Katherine’s confinement. This was the Princess Elizabeth, who appears, by a letter she addressed to the Queen when the visit had been concluded, to have been at this time again on terms of friendship and affection with her step-mother, since writing to Katherine with very little leisure on the last day of July, she returned humble thanks for the Queen’s wish that she should have remained with her “till she were weary of that country.” Yet in spite of the hospitable desire, she can scarcely have been a welcome guest, and it must have been with little regret that her step-mother saw her depart.

Meantime, the birth of the Queen’s child was anxiously expected. Seymour characteristically desired a son who “should God give him life to live as long as his father, will avenge his wrongs”—the96 problematical wrongs of a man who had risen to his heights. Elizabeth, who had done her best to wreck the Queen’s happiness and peace, was “praying the Almighty God to send her a most lucky deliverance”; and Mary, more sincere in her friendship, wrote a letter full of affection to her step-mother. The preparations made by Katherine for the new-comer equalled in magnificence those that might have befitted a Prince of Wales; and though the birth of a girl, on August 30, must have been in some degree a disappointment, she received a welcome scarcely less warm than might have been accorded to the desired son. A general reconciliation appears to have taken place on the occasion, and the Protector responded to the announcement of the event in terms of cordial congratulation, regarding the advent of so pretty a daughter in the light of a “prophesy and good hansell to a great sort of happy sons.”

Eight days after the rejoicings at the birth Katherine was dead.

Into the circumstances attending her illness and death close inquisition was made at a time when it had become an object to throw discredit upon the Admiral, and foul play—the use of poison—was suggested. The charge was probably without foundation; the facts elicited nevertheless afford additional proof of the unsatisfactory relations existing between husband and wife, and throw a97 melancholy light upon the closing scene of the union from which so much had been hoped.

It was deposed by Lady Tyrwhitt, one of the principal witnesses, that, upon her visiting the chamber of the sick woman one morning, two days before her death, Katherine had asked where she had been so long, adding that “she did fear such things in herself that she was sure she could not live.” When her friend attempted to soothe her by reassuring words, the Queen went on to say—holding her husband’s hand and being, as Lady Tyrwhitt thought, partly delirious—“I am not well handled; for those that be about me care not for me, but stand laughing at my grief, and the more good I will to them the less good they will to me.”

The words, to those cognisant of the condition of the household, must have been startling. The Queen may have been wandering, yet her complaint, as such complaints do, pointed to a truth. Others besides Lady Tyrwhitt were standing by; and Seymour made no attempt to ignore his wife’s meaning, or to deny that the charge was directed against himself.

“Why, sweet heart,” he said, “I would do you no hurt.”

“No, my lord, I think not,” answered Katherine aloud, adding, in his ear, “but, my lord, you have given me many shrewd taunts.”

“These words,” said Lady Tyrwhitt in her98 narrative, “I perceived she spake with good memory, and very sharply and earnestly, for her mind was sore disquieted.”

After consultation it was decided that Seymour should lie down by her side and seek to quiet her by gentle words; but his efforts were ineffectual, the Queen interrupting him by saying, roundly and sharply, “that she would have given a thousand marks to have had her full talk with the doctor on the day of her delivery, but dared not, for fear of his displeasure.”

“And I, hearing that,” said the lady-in-waiting, “perceived her trouble to be so great, that my heart would serve me to hear no more.”79

Yet on that same day the dying Queen made her will and, “being persuaded and perceiving the extremity of death to approach her,” left all she possessed to her husband, wishing it a thousand times more in value than it was.80

Whether pressure was used, or whether, in spite of all, her old love awakened and stirred her to kindness towards the man she was leaving, there is nothing to show. But the names of the witnesses—Robert Huyck, the physician attending her, and John Parkhurst, her chaplain, afterwards a Bishop—would seem a guarantee that the document, dictated but not signed—no uncommon case—was genuine.

99For the rest, Seymour was coarse and heartless, a man of ambition, and intent upon the furtherance of his fortunes. It is not unlikely that, when his wife lay dying, his thoughts may have turned to the girl to whom he had in his own way already made love; who, of higher rank than the Queen, might serve his interests better, and whom her death would leave him free to win as his bride. And Katherine, with the memories of the last two years to aid her and with the intuitions born of love and jealousy, may have divined his thoughts. But of murder, or of hastening the end by actual unkindness, there is no reason to suspect him. The affair was in any case sufficiently tragic, and one more mournful recollection to be stored in the minds of those who had loved the Queen.

100

CHAPTER VIII

1548Lady Jane’s temporary return to her father—He surrenders her again to the Admiral—The terms of the bargain.

ONE of the secondary but immediate effects of the Queen’s death was to send Lady Jane Grey back to her parents. It was indeed to Seymour, and not to his wife, that the care of the child had been entrusted; but in his first confusion of mind after what he termed his great loss, the Admiral appears to have recognised the difficulty of providing a home for a girl in her twelfth year in a house without a mistress, and to have offered to relinquish her to her natural guardians.

Having acted in haste, he was not slow to perceive that he had committed a blunder, and quickly reawakened to the importance of retaining the possession and disposal of the child. On September 17, not ten days after Katherine’s death, he was writing to Lord Dorset to cancel, so far as it was possible, his hasty suggestion that she should return to her father’s house, and begging that she might be permitted to remain in his hands. In his101 former letter, he explained, he had been partly so amazed at the death of the Queen as to have small regard either to himself or his doings, partly had believed that he would be compelled, in consequence of it, to break up his household. Under these circumstances he had suggested sending Lady Jane to her father, as to him who would be most tender of her. Having had time to reconsider the question, he found that he would be in a position to maintain his establishment much on its old footing. “Therefore, putting my whole affiance and trust in God,” he had begun to arrange his household as before, retaining the services not only of the gentlewomen of the late Queen’s privy chamber, but also her inferior attendants. “And doubting lest your lordship should think any unkindness that I should by my said letter take occasion to rid me of your daughter so soon after the Queen’s death, for the proof both of my hearty affection towards you and good will towards her, I mind now to keep her until I shall next speak to your lordship ... unless I shall be advertised from your lordship of your express mind to the contrary.” His mother will, he has no doubt, be as dear to Lady Jane as though she were her daughter, and for his part he will continue her half-father and more.81

It was clear that the Admiral would only yield the point upon compulsion. Dorset, however, was not102 disposed to accede to his wishes. Developing a sudden parental anxiety concerning the child he had been content to leave to the care of others for more than eighteen months, he replied, firmly though courteously negativing the Admiral’s request.

“Considering,” he said, “the state of my daughter and her tender years wherein she shall hardly rule herself as yet without a guide, lest she should, for lack of a bridle, take too much the head and conceive such opinion of herself that all such good behaviour as she heretofore have learned by the Queen’s and your most wholesome instruction, should either altogether be quenched in her, or at the least much diminished, I shall in most hearty wise require your lordship to commit her to the governance of her mother, by whom, for the fear and duty she owes her, she shall be most easily ruled and framed towards virtue, which I wish above all things to be most plentiful in her.” Seymour no doubt would do his best; but, being destitute of any one who should correct the child as a mistress and monish her as a mother, Dorset was sure that the Admiral would think, with him, that the eye and oversight of his wife was necessary. He reiterated his former promise to dispose of her only according to Seymour’s advice, intending to use his consent in that matter no less than his own. “Only I seek in these her young years, wherein she now standeth either to make or mar (as the common saying is) the addressing103 of her mind to humility, soberness, and obedience.”82

It was the letter of a model parent, anxious concerning the welfare, spiritual and mental, of a beloved child, and Dorset, as he sealed and despatched it, will have felt that policy and conscience were for once in full accord. Lady Dorset likewise wrote, endorsing her husband’s views.

“Whereas of a friendly and brotherly good will you wish to have Jane, my daughter, continuing still in your house, I give you most hearty thanks for your gentle offer, trusting, nevertheless, that for the good opinion you have in your sister [by courtesy, meaning herself] you will be content to charge her with her, who promiseth you not only to be ready at all times to account for the ordering of your dear niece, but also to use your counsel and advice on the bestowing of her, whensoever it shall happen. Wherefore, my good brother, my request shall be, that I may have the oversight of her with your good will, and thereby I shall have good occasion to think that you do trust me in such wise as is convenient that a sister be trusted of so loving a brother.”

The singular humility of the language used by a king’s grand-daughter in demanding restitution of her child is proof of the position held by the Admiral in the eyes of those as well fitted to judge of it as Dorset and his wife, only six months before104 he was sent to the scaffold. It was none the less plain that they were determined to regain possession of their daughter, and, though not abandoning the hope of moving her parents from their purpose, Seymour yielded provisionally to their will and sent Lady Jane home. A letter from the small bone of contention, dated October 1, thanking him for his great goodness and stating that he had ever been to her a loving and kind father, proves that her removal had taken place by that time. The same courier probably conveyed a letter from her mother, making her acknowledgments for Seymour’s kindness to the child, and his desire to retain her, and adding an ambiguous hope that at their next meeting both would be satisfied.83

The Admiral, at all events, intended to obtain satisfaction. Where his interest was concerned he was an obstinate man. Notwithstanding his apparent acquiescence, he meant to retain the custody of Lord Dorset’s daughter, and he did so. Even his household understood that the concession made in sending her home was but temporary; and, in a conversation with another dependant, Harrington—the same who had served his master as go-between before—observed that he thought the maids were continuing with the Admiral in the hope of Lady Jane’s return.

A visit paid by Seymour to Dorset decided the105 question. “In the end”—it is the latter who speaks—“after long debating and much sticking of our sides, we did agree that my daughter should return.” The Admiral had come to his house, and had been so earnest in his persuasions that he could not resist him. The old bait had been once again held out—Lady Jane, if Seymour could compass it, was to marry the King. Her mother was wrought upon till her consent was gained to a second parting; and when this was the case, observed the marquis, throwing, according to precedent, the responsibility upon his wife, it was impossible for him to refuse his own. He added a pledge that, “except the King,” he would spend life and blood for Seymour. Thus the alliance between the two was renewed and cemented. A further item in the transaction throws an additional and unpleasant light upon the means taken to ensure the Lord Marquis’s surrender.

The Admiral was a practical man, and knew with whom he had to deal. He had not confined himself to vague pledges, which Dorset knew as well as he did that he might never be in a position to fulfil. He had accompanied his promises by a gift of hard cash. “Whether, as it were, for an earnest penny of the favour that he would show unto him when the said Lord Marquis had sent his daughter to the said Lord Admiral, he sent the said Lord Marquis immediately £500, parcell of £2,000 which he106 promised to lend unto him and would have asked no bond of him at all for it, but only to leave the Lord Marquis’s daughter for a gage.”84

Five hundred golden arguments, and more to follow, were found irresistible by the needy Dorset. The pressing necessity that Jane should be under her mother’s eye disappeared; the bargain was struck, and the guardianship of the child bought and sold.

The Admiral was triumphant. It was not only the point of vantage implied by the possession of the little ward which he had feared to forfeit, but that his loss might be the gain of his brother and rival. There would be much ado for my Lady Jane, he told his brother-in-law, Northampton, and my Lord Protector and my Lady Somerset would do what they could to obtain her yet for my Lord of Hertford, their son. They should not, however, prevail therein, for my Lord Marquis had given her wholly to him, upon certain covenants between them two. “And then I asked him,” said Northampton, describing the conversation, “what he would do if my Lord Protector, handling my Lord Marquis of Dorset gently, should obtain his good will and so the matter to lie wholly in his own neck? He answered he would never consent thereto.”85

Thus Lady Jane was, for the first time, made an instrument of obtaining that of which her father107 stood in need. On this occasion it was money; on the next her life was to be staked upon a more desperate hazard. In future she appears and disappears, now in sight, now passing behind the scenes, against the dark background of intrigue and hatred and bloodshed belonging to her times.

108

CHAPTER IX

1548-1549Seymour and the Princess Elizabeth—His courtship—He is sent to the Tower—Elizabeth’s examinations and admissions—The execution of the Lord Admiral.

THE matter of Jane’s guardianship satisfactorily settled, Seymour turned his attention to one concerning him yet more intimately. He was a free man, and he meant to make use of his freedom. As after the death of Henry, so now when fate rendered the project once more possible, he determined to attempt to obtain the Princess Elizabeth as his wife. The history of the autumn, as regarding him, is of his continued efforts to increase his power and influence in the country and to win the hand of the King’s sister. Again the contemporary Spanish chronicler supplies a popular summary of the affair which, inaccurate as it is, is useful in showing how his scheme was regarded by the public.

According to this dramatic account of his proceedings, the Admiral went boldly before the Council; observed that, as uncle to the King, it was fitting that he should marry honourably; and that, having109 formerly been husband to the Queen, it would not be much more were he to be accorded Madam Elizabeth, whom he deserved better than any other man. Referred by the Lords of the Council to the Protector, he is represented as approaching the Duke with the modest request that he might be granted not only Elizabeth as his bride, but also the custody of the King.

“When his brother heard this, he said he would see about it.” Calling the Council together, he repeated to them the demand made by the Admiral that his nephew should be placed in his hands; continuing, as the Lords “looked at each other,” that the matter must be well considered, since in his opinion his brother could have no good intent in asking first for the Princess, and then for the custody of the King. “The devil is strong,” said the Protector. “He might kill the King and Madam Mary, and then claim the crown.”86

Whilst this was the version of the Admiral’s project current in the street, there is no doubt that his desire to obtain a royal princess for his wife was calculated to accentuate the distrust with which he was regarded by the Protector and his friends. He was well known to aspire to at least a share in the government. As Elizabeth’s husband his position would be so much strengthened that it might be difficult to deny it to him, or to maintain110 the right of Somerset to retain supreme power. His proceedings were therefore watched with jealous vigilance, his designs upon the King’s sister becoming quickly matter of public gossip. It was not a day marked by an over-scrupulous observance of respect for the dead, and Katherine was hardly in her grave before the question of her successor was freely canvassed amongst those chiefly concerned in it.

“When I asked her [Ashley] what news she had from London,” Elizabeth admitted when under examination at a later date, “she answered merrily ‘They say that your Grace shall have my Lord Admiral, and that he will shortly come to woo you.’”87

The woman, an intriguer by nature and keen to advance Seymour’s interests, would have further persuaded her mistress to write a letter of condolence to comfort him in his sorrow, “because,” as Elizabeth explained, “he had been my friend in the Queen’s lifetime and would think great kindness therein. Then I said I would not, for he needs it not.”

The blunt sincerity prompting the girl’s refusal did her credit. It must have been patent to all acquainted with the situation, and most of all to Elizabeth, that the new-made widower stood in no need of consolation. But, in spite of her refusal111 to open communications with him, and though a visit proposed by Seymour was discouraged “for fear of suspicion,” he can have felt little doubt that in a struggle with Protector and Council he would have the Princess on his side.

In Seymour’s household, naturally concerned in his fortunes, the projected marriage was a subject of anxious debate; and it was recognised by its members that their master was playing a perilous game. In a conversation between two of his dependants, Nicholas Throckmorton and one Wightman, both shook their heads over the risk he would run should he attempt to carry his plan into effect.

Beginning with the conventional acknowledgment of the Admiral’s great loss, they wisely decided that it might after all turn to his advantage, in “making him more humble in heart and stomach towards my Lord Protector’s Grace.” It was also hoped that, Katherine being dead, the Duchess of Somerset might forget old grudges and, unless by his own fault, be once again favourable towards her husband’s brother. The two men nevertheless agreed that the world was beginning to speak evil of Seymour, and, discussing the chances of his attempt to match with one of the Princesses, they determined, as they loved him, to do their best to prevent it, Wightman in especial engaging to do all he could to “break the dance.”88

112If Seymour was going to his ruin it was not to be for lack of warnings. Sleeping at the house of Katherine’s friends, the Tyrwhitts, one night soon after her death, the question of a marriage with a sister of the King’s was mooted; when, although Seymour’s aspirations were not definitely mentioned, Sir Robert spoke in a fashion frankly discouraging to any scheme of the kind on the part of his guest.

Conversing after supper with his hostess, Seymour called to her husband as he passed by, saying jestingly that he was talking with my lady his wife in divinity—or divining of the future; that he had told her he wished the crown of England might be in as good a surety as that of France, where it was well known who was heir. So would it be in England were the Princesses married.

Tyrwhitt answered drily. Whosoever married one of them without the consent of King or Council, he said he would not wish to be in his place.

“Why so?” asked the Admiral. If he, for instance, had married thus, would it not be surety for the King? Was he not made by the King? Had he not all he had by the King? Was he not most bound to serve him truly?

Tyrwhitt refused to be convinced, reiterating that the man who married either Princess had better be stronger than the Council, for “if they catch hold of him, they will shut him up.”89

113Lord Russell, the Lord Privy Seal, spoke no less openly to the adventurer of the danger he was running. The two were riding together to Parliament House in the Protector’s train, when Russell opened the subject by observing that certain rumours were abroad which he was very sorry to hear, and that if the Admiral were seeking to marry either of the King’s sisters—the special one being left discreetly uncertain—“ye seek the means to undo yourself and all those who shall come of you.”

Seymour replied carelessly that he had no such thought, and the subject dropped. A few days later, however, he himself re-introduced it, demanding what reason existed to prevent him, or another man, wedding one of the late King’s daughters? Again Russell reiterated his warning. The marriage, he declared, would prove fatal to him who made it, proceeding to point out—knowing that the argument would have more weight with the man with whom he had to do than recommendations to caution and prudence—that from a pecuniary point of view the match would carry with it no great advantage, a statement vehemently controverted by the Admiral, who throughout neither felt nor feigned any indifference to the financial aspect of the affair.

During the ensuing months he was busily engaged in the prosecution of his scheme. He may have had a genuine liking for the girl to whom his attentions had already proved compromising; he could114 scarcely doubt that he had won her affections. But by a clandestine marriage Elizabeth would, under the terms of her father’s will, have forfeited her right to the succession, and she was therefore safeguarded from any attempt on her suitor’s part to induce her to dispense with the consent of the lawful authorities. Forced to proceed with circumspection, he made use of any opportunity that offered for maintaining a hold upon her, aided and abetted by the partisanship of her servants. A fortnight before Christmas he proffered the loan of his London house as a lodging when she should pay her winter visit to the capital, adding to her cofferer, through whom the suggestion was made, that he would come and see her Grace; “which declaration,” reported to her by Parry, “she seemed to take very gladly and to accept it joyfully.” Observing, moreover, that when the conversation turned upon Seymour, and especially when he was commended, the Princess “showed such countenance that it should appear she was very glad to hear of him,” the cofferer was emboldened to inquire whether, should the Council approve, she would marry him.

“When that time comes to pass,” answered Elizabeth, in the language of the day, “I will do as God shall put in my mind.”

Notwithstanding her refusal to commit herself, it was not difficult for those about her to divine after what fashion she would, in that case, be moved to115 act. Yet she retained her independence of spirit, and when told that the Admiral advised her to appeal to the Protector through his wife for certain grants of land, as well as for a London residence, she turned upon those who had played the part of his mouthpiece in a manner indicating no intention of becoming his passive tool.

“I dare say he did not so,” she replied hotly, refusing to credit the suggestion he was reported to have made that she, a Tudor, should sue to his brother’s wife in order to obtain her rights, “nor would so.”

Parry adhered to his statement.

“Yes,” he answered, “by my faith.”

“Well, I will not do so,” returned his mistress, “and so tell him. I will not come there, nor begin to flatter now.”

If the Admiral possessed partisans in the members of Elizabeth’s household, it was probably no less owing to hostility towards the Somersets than to liking for himself; a passage of arms having taken place between Mrs. Ashley and the Duchess, who had found fault with the governess, on account of the Princess having gone on a barge on the Thames by night, “and for other light parts,” observing—in which she was undoubtedly right—that Ashley was not worthy to have the charge of the daughter of a King. Such home-truths were not unfitted to quicken the culprit’s zeal in the cause of the116 Admiral, and Ashley was always at hand to push his interests.

It was, nevertheless, necessary that the Princess’s dependants should act with caution; and, discussing with Lord Seymour the question of a visit he desired to pay her, Parry declined to give any opinion on the subject, professing himself unacquainted with his mistress’s pleasure. The Admiral answered with assumed indifference. It was no matter, he said, “for there has been a talk of late ... they say now I shall marry my Lady Jane,” adding, “I tell you this but merrily, I tell you this but merrily.”90

The gossip may have been repeated in the certainty that it would reach Elizabeth’s ears and in the hope of rousing her to jealousy. But had it suited his plans, there is no reason to doubt that Seymour would not have hesitated to gain permanent possession of the ward who had been left him “as a gage.” Elizabeth was, however, nearer to the throne, and was, beside her few additional years, better suited to please his taste than the quiet child who dwelt under his roof.

As it proved he was destined to further his ambitious projects neither by marriage with Jane nor her cousin. By the middle of January the Protector had struck his blow—a blow which was to end in fratricide. Charged with treason, in conspiring117 to change the form of government and to carry off the person of the King, Seymour was sent on January 16 to the Tower—in those days so often the ante-room to death.

Though he had long been suspected of harbouring designs against his brother’s administration, the specific grounds of his accusation were based upon the confessions of one Sherrington, master of the mint at Bristol; who, under examination, and in terror for his personal safety, had declared, truly or falsely, that he had promised to coin money for the Admiral, and had heard him boast of the number of his friends, saying that he thought more gentlemen loved him than loved the Lord Protector. The same witness added that he had heard Seymour say that, for her qualities and virtues, Lady Jane Grey was a fit match for the King, and he would rather he should marry her than the daughter of the Protector.

Many of great name and place in England must have been disquieted by the news of the arrest of the man who stood so near the King, and who, if any one, could have counted upon being safeguarded by position and rank from the consequences of his rashness. His assertion that he was more loved than his brother amongst his own class was true, and not a few nobles will have trembled lest they should be implicated in his fall. Loyalty to a disgraced friend was not amongst the customs of118 a day when the friendship might mean death, and most men were anxious, on these occasions, to dissociate themselves from a former comrade.

Elizabeth was not one of those with least to fear, and it is the more honourable to her that she showed no inclination to follow the example of others, or to abandon the cause of her lover. She was in an embarrassing, if not a dangerous situation. No one knew to what extent she had been compromised, morally or politically, and the distrust of the Government was proved by the arrest of both Ashley and Parry, and by the searching examination to which the Princess, as well as her servants, was subjected.

Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, placed in charge of the delinquent, with directions to obtain from her all the information he could, found it no easy task.

“I do assure your Grace,” he wrote to Somerset, “she hath a good wit, and nothing is to be got from her but by great policy.”

She would own to no “practice” with regard to Seymour, either on her part or that of her dependants. “And yet I do see in her face,” said Sir Robert, “that she is guilty, and yet perceive she will abide more storms before she will accuse Mrs. Ashley.”

Whatever may be thought of Elizabeth’s former conduct, she displayed at this crisis no less staunchness and fidelity in the support of those she loved119 than a capacity and ability rare in a girl of fifteen, practically standing alone, confronted with enemies, and without advisers to direct her course. Writing to the Protector on January 28, she thanked him for the gentleness and good will he had displayed; professed her readiness to declare the truth in the matter at issue; gave an account of her relations with the Admiral, asserting her innocence of any intention of marrying him without the sanction of the Council; and vindicated her servants from blame.

“These be the things,” she concluded, “which I declared to Master Tyrwhitt, and also whereof my conscience beareth witness, which I would not for all earthly things offend in anything, for I know I have a soul to be saved as well as other folks have; wherefore I will, above all things, have respect unto the same.” One request she made, namely, that she might come to Court. Rumours against her honour were afloat, accusing her with being with child by the Lord Admiral; and upon these grounds, that she might show herself as she was, as well as upon a desire to see the King, she based her demand.

Tyrwhitt shook his head over the composition. The singular harmony existing between Elizabeth’s story and the depositions extracted from her dependants in the Tower struck him as suspicious, and as pointing to a preconcerted tale.

“They all sing one song,” he wrote, “and so, I120 think, they would not, unless they had set the note before”; and he continued to watch his charge narrowly, and to report her demeanour at headquarters, assisted in his office by his wife, who had been sent to replace the untrustworthy Ashley as governess to the Princess.

“She beginneth now a little to droop,” he wrote, “by reason she heareth that my Lord Admiral’s houses be dispersed. And my wife telleth me she cannot hear him discommended, but she is ready to make answer thereto.”91

Put as brave a face as she might upon the matter, Elizabeth was in a position of singular loneliness and difficulty. Her lover was in prison on a capital charge, her friend and confidant removed from her, her reputation tarnished. Nor was she disposed to accept in a humble spirit the oversight of the duenna sent her by the Council. As the close friend of the step-mother whose kindness the Princess had so ill requited, Lady Tyrwhitt, for her part, would not in any case have been prejudiced in favour of her charge, or inclined to take an indulgent view of her misdemeanours; and the reception accorded her when she arrived to assume her thankless post was not such as to promote good feeling. Mrs. Ashley, the girl told the new-comer, was her mistress, and she had not so conducted herself that the Council should give her another.

121Lady Tyrwhitt, no more inclined than she to conciliation, retorted that, seeing the Princess had allowed Mrs. Ashley to be her mistress, she need not be ashamed to have any other honest woman in that place, and so the intercourse of governess and pupil was inaugurated.

That Lady Tyrwhitt’s taunt was undeniably justified did not the more soften the Princess towards her, and it was duly reported to the authorities in London that she had taken “the matter so heavily that she wept all that night and lowered all the next day.... The love,” it was added, “she yet beareth [Ashley] is to be wondered at.”

Tact and discretion might in time have availed to reconcile the Princess to the change in her household; but the methods employed by the Tyrwhitts do not appear to have been judicious. Sir Robert, taking up his wife’s quarrel, told her significantly that if she considered her honour she would rather ask to have a mistress than to be left without one; and, complaining to his superiors that she could not digest his advice in any way, added vindictively, “If I should say my phantasy, it were more meet she should have two than one.”92

So the days went by, no doubt uncomfortably enough for all concerned. Regarding Tyrwhitt and his wife in the capacity of gaolers, charged with the duty of eliciting her confessions, it was not122 with them that Elizabeth would take counsel as to the best course open to her. The revelations attained by cross-examination from her imprisoned servants as to the relations upon which she had stood during the Queen’s lifetime with Katherine’s husband, were sufficiently damaging to lend additional colour to the scandalous reports in circulation, and her spirited demand that her fair fame should be vindicated by a proclamation forbidding the propagation of slanders concerning the King’s sister was fully in character with the woman she was to become. Though not without delay, her request was granted, and the circumstantial fable of a child born and destroyed may be supposed to have been effectually suppressed.

Whilst this had been Elizabeth’s condition during the spring, the man to whom her troubles were chiefly due had been undergoing alternations of hope and fear. It may have seemed impossible that his brother should proceed to extremities. But there were times when, in the silence and seclusion of the prison-house, his spirits grew despondent. On February 16, when his confinement had lasted a month, and his fate was still undecided, his keeper, Christopher Eyre, reported that on the previous Friday the Lord Admiral had been very sad.

“I had thought,” he said, upon Eyre remarking on his depression, “before I came to this place123 that my Lord’s Grace, with all the rest of the Council, had been my friends, and that I had as many friends as any man within this realm. But now I think they have forgotten me,” proceeding to declare that never was poor knave more true to his Prince than he; nor had he meant evil to his brother, though he had thought he might have had the custody of the King.93

There is something pathetic in the dejection of the Admiral, arrogant, proud, vain and ambitious, thus deserted by all upon whose friendship he had imagined himself able to count. It is impossible to avoid the conviction that, in spite of a surface boldness, the nobles of his day were apt to turn craven where personal danger was in question. On the battlefield valour was common enough, and when once hope was over men had learnt—a needful lesson—to meet death on the scaffold with dignity and courage. But so long as a chance of life remained, it was their constant habit to abase themselves in order to escape their doom. We do not hear of a single voice raised in Seymour’s defence. The common people, when Somerset in his turn had fallen a victim to jealousy and hate, made no secret of their sorrow and their love; but the nobles who had been his brother’s supporters were silent and cowed, or went to swell the number of his accusers.

124By March 20 hope and fear were alike at an end. A Bill of Attainder had been brought into the House of Lords, after an examination of the culprit before the Council, when his demand to be confronted with his accusers had been refused. The evidence against him was reiterated by certain of the peers; the bill was passed without a division; and, in spite of the opposition of the Commons, who supported his claim to be heard in his own defence, the Protector cut the matter short by a message from the King declaring it unnecessary that the demand should be conceded. His doom was sealed.

Was he innocent or guilty? Dr. Lingard, after an examination of the facts, believes that he was unjustly condemned; that, if he had sought a portion of the power vested in the Protector, and might have been dangerous to the authority of his brother, the charge for which he was condemned—a design to carry off the King and excite a civil war—is unproved.

Innocent or guilty, he was to die. In the words of Latimer—who, in sermons preached after the execution, made himself the apologist of the Council by abuse levelled at the dead man—he perished “dangerously, irksomely, horribly.... Whether he be saved or no, I leave it to God. But surely he was a wicked man, and the realm is well rid of him.”94

125Thus Thomas Seymour was done to death by a brother, and cursed by a churchman. Sherrington, who had supplied the principal part of the evidence against him, received a pardon and was reinstated in his office.

Of regret upon the part of friends or kinsfolk there is singularly little token. As they had fallen from his side in life, so they held apart from him in death. If Elizabeth mourned him she was already too well versed in the world’s wisdom to avow her grief, and is reported to have observed, on his execution, that a man had died full of ability (esprit) but of scant judgment.95 Whether or not the Lord Protector was troubled by remorse, he was not likely to make the public his confidant; and Katherine, the woman who had loved him so devotedly, was dead.

126

CHAPTER X

1549-1550The Protector’s position—Disaffection in the country—Its causes—The Duke’s arrogance—Warwick his rival—The success of his opponents—Placed in the Tower, but released—St. George’s Day at Court.

THE Protector’s conduct with regard to his brother does much to alienate sympathy from him in his approaching fall, in a sense the consequence and outcome of the fratricide. He “had sealed his doom the day on which he signed the warrant for the execution of his brother.”96 If the Admiral, having crossed his will, was not safe, who could believe himself to be so? Yet the fashion of the accomplishing of his downfall, the treachery and deception practised towards him by men upon whom he might fairly have believed himself able to count, lend a pathos to the end it might otherwise have lacked.

For the present his power and position showed no signs of diminution. The Queen, his wife’s rival, was dead. The Admiral, who had dared to measure his strength against his brother’s, would127 trouble him no more, unless as an unquiet ghost, an unwelcome visitant confronting him in unexpected places. During his Protectorate he had added property to property, field to field, and was the master of two hundred manors. If the public finances were low, Somerset was rich, and during this year the building of the house destined to bear his name was carried on on a scale of splendour proportionate to his pretensions. Having thrown away the chief prop of his house, says Heylyn, he hoped to repair the ruin by erecting a magnificent palace.

The site he had chosen was occupied by three episcopal mansions and one parish church; but it would have been a bold man who would have disputed the will of the all-powerful Lord Protector, and the owners submitted meekly to be dispossessed in order to make room for his new abode. Materials running short, there were rough-and-ready ways of providing them conveniently near at hand; and certain “superstitious buildings” close to St. Paul’s, including one or two chapels and a “fair charnel-house” were demolished to supply what was necessary, the bones of the displaced dead being left to find burial in the adjacent fields, or where they might. As the great pile rose, more was required, and St. Margaret’s, Westminster, was to have been destroyed to furnish it, had not the people, less subservient than the Bishops, risen to protect their128 church, and forcibly driven away the labourers charged with the work of destruction. St. Margaret’s was saved, but St. John’s of Jerusalem, not far from Smithfield, was sacrificed in its stead, being blown up with gunpowder in order that its stone-work might be turned to account.

The Protector pursued his way unconscious of danger. The Earl of Warwick, his future supplanter, looked on and bided his time. The condition of the country had become such as to facilitate the designs of those bent upon a change in the Government. Into the course of public affairs, at home and abroad, it is impossible to enter at length; a brief summary will suffice to show that events were tending to create discontent and to strengthen the hands of Somerset’s enemies.

The victory of Pinkie Cleugh, though gratifying to national pride, had in nowise served the purpose of terminating the war with Scotland. Renewed with varying success, the Scots, by means of French aid, had upon the whole improved their position, and the hopes indulged in England of a union between the two countries, to be peacefully effected by the marriage of the King with the infant Mary Stuart, had been disappointed, the little Queen having been sent to France and affianced to the Dauphin. In the distress prevailing amongst the working classes of England, more pressing cause for dissatisfaction and agitation was found.129 Partly the result of the depreciation of the currency during the late reign, it was also due to the action of the new owners who, enriched by ecclesiastical property, had enclosed portions of Church lands heretofore left open to be utilised by the labourers for their personal profit. Pasturage was increasing in favour compared with tillage; less labour was required, and wages had in consequence fallen.

To material ills and privations, other grievances were added. Associated in the minds of the people with their condition of want were the changes lately enforced in the sphere of religion. The new ministers were often ignorant men, who gave scandal by their manner of life, their parishioners frequently making complaints of them to the Bishops.

“Our curate is naught,” they would say, “an ass-head, a dodipot [?], a lack-latin, and can do nothing. Shall I pay him tithe that doth us no good, nor none will do?”97

In some cases the fault lay with patrons, who preferred to select a man unlikely to assert his authority. Economy on the part of the Government was responsible for other unfit appointments, and capable Churchmen being permitted to hold secular offices, they were removed from their parishes and their flocks were left unshepherded. Against this practice Latimer protested in a sermon at St. Paul’s, on the occasion of a clergyman having been130 made Comptroller of the Mint. Who controlled the devil at home in his parish, asked the rough-tongued preacher, whilst he controlled the Mint?

The condition of things thus produced was not calculated to commend the innovations it accompanied to the people, and the introduction of the new Prayer-book was in particular bitterly resented in country districts. In many parts of England, interest and religion joining hands, fierce insurrections broke out, and the measures taken by “the good Duke” to allay popular irritation, by ordering that the lands newly enclosed should be re-opened, had the double effect of stirring the people, thus far successful, to yet more strenuous action in vindication of their rights, and of increasing the dislike and distrust with which his irresponsible exercise of authority was regarded by the upper classes.

Upon domestic troubles—Ket’s rebellion in Norfolk, one of large dimensions in the west, and others—followed a declaration of war with France, certain successes on the part of the enemy serving to discredit the Protector and his management of affairs still further.

Whilst rich and poor were alike disaffected in the country at large, the Duke had become an object of jealousy to the members of the Council Board who were responsible for having placed him in the position he occupied. To a man with the sagacity to look ahead and take account of the131 forces at work, it must have been plain that the possession of absolute and undivided power on the part of a subject was necessarily fraught with danger, and that the Duke’s astonishing success in obtaining the patent conferring upon him supreme and regal authority contained in itself the seed and prophecy of ruin. But, besides more serious causes of offence, his bearing in the Council-chamber, far from being adapted to conciliate opposition, further exasperated his colleagues against him. Cranmer and Paget were the last to abandon his cause, but on May 8—not two months after his brother’s execution—the latter wrote to give him frank warning of the probable consequences of his “great cholerick fashions.” It is evident that a stormy scene had taken place that afternoon, and that Paget must have been strongly convinced of the need for interference before he addressed his remonstrance to the despotic head of the Government.

“Poor Sir Richard a Lee,” he wrote, “this afternoon, after your Grace had very sore, and much more than needed, rebuked him, came to my chamber weeping, and there complaining, as far as became him, of your handling of him, seemed almost out of wits and out of heart. Your Grace had put him clean out of countenance.” After which he proceeded to warn the Duke solemnly, “for the very love he bore him,” of the consequences should he not change his manner of conduct.98

132Paget’s love was quickly to grow cold. During the summer the various rebellions in different parts of the country were suppressed, the Earl of Warwick playing an important part in the operations. On September 25 the Protector was, to all appearance, still in fulness of power and authority. By October 13 he was in the Tower.

The Spanish spectator again supplies an account of the view taken by the man in the street of the initiation of the quarrel which led to the Duke’s disgrace and fall. Returned to London, Warwick, accompanied by the captains, English and foreign, who had served under him against the rebels, is said to have come to Court to demand for his soldiers the rewards he considered their due. Met by a refusal on the part of the Protector of anything over and above their ordinary wages, his indignation found vent. If money was not to be had, it was because of the sums squandered by the Duke in building his own palace. The French forts were already lost. If the Protector continued in power he would end by losing everything.

From LADY JANE GREY AND HER TIMES By I. A. TAYLOR

Author of “Queen Hortense and her Friends”

“Queen Henrietta Maria,” etc.

WITH SEVENTEEN ILLUSTRATIONS

London: HUTCHINSON & CO.

Paternoster Row 1908

LIBYA Benghazi -- 14 May 2011 -- Since the Libyan revolution began in many of the liberated towns public artwork dipicting Colonal Gaddafi has began to appear like this image in Benghazi Libya. The images - which are a result of pent-up resentment against the hated Libyan dictator - are a ruthless satire of the bloody and violent regime which Col Gaddafi has used to repress the Libyan people for the past few decades -- Picture by Rory Mulholland | Lightroom Photos *Copy also available

This painting is usually identified with the "Portrait of the Savior" mentioned in 1648 by Ridolfi in the Agnostic convent of Santo Stefano in Venice. On the one hand this Christ is still associated with the master's first works, marked by a pathetic resentment that would soon disappear to leave space for the elevated "classical" melancholy; on the other, Bellini demonstrates his capacity to juxtapose the suggestions of Mantegna's style and those generically Paduan post-Donatello influences with a concept of light that is not only extraordinary but emphatically personal.

"Time is like a sputtered clock,

Waiting for its gun to cock,

The time is now,

It will explode,

In its path death does bode,

For only a moment it exists,

Like an old, washed-up actor,

It persists,

Drunken madness,

And resentment follow,

Like the insignificant, rice-filled swallow,

and in time it might happen,

And after only sadness saddened,

In this giant ocean filled with fish,

Only one type can truly exist,

The one of joy and peace well followed,

It may be too much for me to swallow."

Jaczko

In this visual ad, the newly born child expresses strong resentment to the viewers for not yet possessing term life insurance policy.

BG Annual Conference 2018 | November 8–10 | ZK/U – Center for Arts and Urbanistics

ambient-revolts.berlinergazette.de

The growing interconnectedness of everyone and everything is transforming our world into an unprecedented techno-social environment. The boundaries between atmosphere and politics are being suspended; already, tiny ruptures can cause cascade-like repercussions – think of cyber-attacks or stock market crashes, right-wing resentment or hashtag-based protest. Such ambient revolts are increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) – involving human interaction but seemingly beyond human oversight. Set against this backdrop, the conference poses the questions: What are the techno-social logics of both regressive and repressive tendencies? What are emancipatory movements up against? What potential do micro-political acts have in day-to-day life? What regulations of automated systems at the macro level will enable democracy to emerge in the age of AI? The Berliner Gazette conference will explore these questions in the context of performances, lectures and workshops.

More info: projekte.berlinergazette.de/ambient-revolts/

Photo taken by Norman Posselt (berlinergazette.de / cc by nc)

Along the Bozeman Trail, south of Sheridan, WY. The Bozeman Trail was an overland route connecting the gold rush territory of Montana to the Oregon Trail. Its most important period was from 1863-1868. The flow of pioneers and settlers through territory of American Indians provoked their resentment and caused attacks. The U.S. Army undertook several military campaigns against the Indians to try to control the trail. Because of its association with frontier history and conflict with American Indians, various segments of the trail are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Today, a modern highway route consisting of Interstate 25 runs from Douglas, Wyoming to Sheridan, Wyoming. Interstate 90 from Sheridan, Wyoming to Three Forks, Montana (30 miles west of Bozeman, Montana) and U.S. Route 287 from Three Forks to Virginia City, Montana cover roughly the same general route as the historic Bozeman Trail.

from Wikipedia

still angry over being subjected to a bath

LIBYA Benghazi -- 14 May 2011 -- Since the Libyan revolution began in many of the liberated towns public artwork dipicting Colonal Gaddafi has began to appear like this image in Benghazi Libya. The images - which are a result of pent-up resentment against the hated Libyan dictator - are a ruthless satire of the bloody and violent regime which Col Gaddafi has used to repress the Libyan people for the past few decades -- Picture by Rory Mulholland | Lightroom Photos *Copy also available

Bill Clinton spoke at Toledo's Waite Senior High School on September 27th, 2016. President Clinton promoted Hillary Clinton as someone who as president would govern through empowerment, not resentment. He provided a different perspective on the trade deals that have fueled much of Republican Donald Trump’s appeal in Ohio. The 42nd president spoke to an estimated 800 supporters inside the gymnasium of Waite High School, with many local Democratic elected officials present. As it was National Voter Registration Day, he urged people to register to vote and to remind family and friends of the Oct. 11 deadline.

“We‘ve got a chance to do something together where nobody is left out and left behind. We need to go seize it, and it all starts in Ohio by registering and voting,” Mr. Clinton said.