Clemency suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

The Spectator's notes

Charles Moore

Wednesday, 23rd April 2008

Charles Moore's reflections on the week

The other day, my old friend Adam Nicolson kindly showed me round Sissinghurst Castle, where he now lives. In the tower are four paintings commissioned by Adam’s late father, Nigel, to recreate, for educational purposes, the house at various stages of its historical development from the Middle Ages to the present. The first shows a mediaeval house and the second a whole new early-Tudor house built only about 50 years after the first, on a site nearby. Adam explained, affectionately, that this was wishful thinking, based on no real evidence. The two houses which Nigel particularly loved were Ightham Mote and Compton Wynyates, and so he gradually convinced himself that Sissinghurst had resembled first the one and then the other. This is a literally graphic example of the dangerous but endearing tendency which all of us have to make history what we want it to be.

There has been a dramatic fall-off, apparently, in the numbers of certain migratory birds reaching this country. How long before there is a correspondence in the Times from people who claim to have heard the last cuckoo?

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Charles Moore | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

DougS

April 24th, 2008 8:04pm

Chuck: You're an old fave now among Speccie writers, but I just have to disagree with something you've said.

You suggest that Ms. Baird's statement about the Queen is somehow a put down and that it wouldn't be tolerated if she said it about minorities. That's true, but you've got the reasoning all mixed up: She's saying that about the Queen in the sense of wishing to make her more accessible, i.e., "lowering" her, so-to-speak, with the implication being that she is now "above" mere mortals (and she is, by God!).

If those words were used about minorities, people would understand that she was saying that they were lower than others. And, of course, it would all be considered inappropriate . . . and rightly so.

She's not saying that about the Queen. The words implicitly recognize the Queen's exalted status, and while the words are a bit informal to use in connection with the monarchy, my sense is that they have an affectionate element.

But in no way do they denigrate the monarchy.

Generally love your stuff, though . . . .

Frank

April 30th, 2008 7:41pm

In simpler and better times not long ago, you had to be twenty-one before you were allowed to vote. You also had to remember the name of the candidate you preferred, because you voted for a person and not a party