My eternal dilemma as a bride-to-be is that I have no money. The world of wedding planning is one with the attitude 'have lots of money or get out', where the word "budget" denotes something around the £600 range. At the same time, I don't want to pitch up at a tacky registary office wearing just a t-shirt and jeans. I want to look back on the event and be able to say I created something meaningful and nice with the resources I had.
Wedding dress shopping, however, presents the biggest hurdle. There really are very few options if you don't want to pay the same for a dress as you would for several months of mortgage. You could try the high-street, but in the handful of places that have their own bridal collection (monsoon, john lewis, house of fraser), the styles available are limited and prices can still push the £1000 mark. The worst bit though, is that the majority of these shops only sell the bridalwear online, forcing you to buy something before you've even tried it on. Yes you can return the dress if it's no good, but the thought of parting with such an enormous wad of cash when all you've got to go on is the tiny website picture, is not appealing. This problem encompasses all the other 'budget' ways of getting a wedding dress, from the online handmade store 'etsy' to the places selling cheap Chinese knock-offs, to the websites selling preowned dresses. You will never have the security of seeing yourself in the dress first.
Wedding dress shopping is constantly touted as the most exciting and fun part of organising the whole thing, but for someone with no money - it isn't, it really isn't. I will never be able to walk into a fancy bridal shop and just try things on for the sake of it. I will never have that moment where I try on a dress that makes my mum cry, then only glance at the price tag as an afterthought. It's very disheartening, and actually takes the 'bride' part out of being a bride. This is where I get people telling me to just wear anything, that it really doesn't matter if the dress is a funny colour and so on. Actually it does matter. I want to be able to have the same feel to my wedding as the girl who's got unlimited access to daddy's credit cards. I want to look back at my photos and not cry because I couldn't even wear a wedding dress to my own wedding, and at the moment that's looking like a distinct possibility.
So I googled 'wedding dress sale bristol' and came up with this http://www.theweddingsale.com/. Looking at it you'd be fooled into thinking there'd be an enormous room with hundreds of different dresses to choose from. If you look at their FAQ page here http://www.theweddingsale.com/pages/faq.html they say people will be 'spoilt for choice' and that it'll be so popular you have to register for a particular time slot. And right at the bottom they say that it doesn't matter if you come on a sunday, because they re-stock overnight. Now I got quite excited about this sale, because I thought it would finally be a chance to grab a wedding dress at a price that wasn't rediculous. So I booked two places, for my mum and myself, on Sunday 29th January. At the time I'd been given a job in a wedding shop that meant I had to work saturdays, so sunday was the only time I could go (after doing one day of work they then gave my job to someone else because they wouldn't have to pay that person, but that's another story). As it was a sale, I wasn't expecting 5* service, and I assumed most of the dresses would be a bit naff, but I thought there would be a handful of things I could try on and, if I didn't find anything I liked at least I'd get an idea of what was available.
This sale turned out to be the biggest disappointment and case of false advertising ever. It was held at the Berkertex Bride shop in the city centre and, having been past the shop a few times, I thought it would be too small for the supposedly enormous number of dresses on offer. My mum and I turned up, however, to be greeted by the smallest sale we've ever seen. There were less than 30 dresses there, taking up only a tiny part of the shop. When I explained to one member of staff that the website said they re-stock, she said that wasn't true, and that most things had been purchased on saturday. This obviously meant that the claim of there being a huge choice no matter what day you come was a complete lie. She also said that pretty much all the dresses left were in sizes 12 and 14. I am a size 16 so this meant there would be nothing to try on, even though the website had said there would be a wide variety of sizes available. My mum and I were then left to go through the rails on our own, as the staff were simply not interested in us. We found one size 16 dress and the tag said it was damaged, so we'd essentially wasted our time. There was hideously loud rap music playing, which gave me a headache and which really isn't the sort of thing you want to hear in a bridal shop. Once a shop assistant did decide to talk to us, she immediately tried to sell us things from their full price collection, which I'd already said I couldn't afford. So my word of warning is this: if you are a bride on a budget DO NOT even consider going to one of these sales run by TheWeddingSale.com. It is a TOTAL con and not worth your time.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
My First Wedding Fair
The last exhibition-type show I'd attended was the BBCs 'Big Bash' in...1996, so the world of wedding fairs has been something completely new. I approached the subject with care, as I was worried that the general feel of such an event would be 'find the hundred most annoying people and lock them in a room' and that, as someone with pretty much no money and an ugly body, those annoying people would go out of their way to make me feel uncomfortable. However, part of me thought it might be a laugh and, when talking with my mum and my best friend, Kirsty, we'd decided to head for the National Wedding Show at the NEC in March. So, wanting to see a smaller version of what I'd be up against and, as it was only £2, I made my way to a wedding fair here in Bristol last Sunday (the 15th).
It was held at the Marriott Hotel next to Cabot Circus shopping centre so was really easy to get to, especially as Mike consented (after much sulking) to give me a lift in the Yaris. He point blank refused to step inside the fair though so, what with my mum and bridesmaid living in different bits of the country, I was totally on my own. I felt bad, not for myself, but for the poor guys standing outside next to the fancy wedding cars. Bad because it was freezing cold, and also because I can't afford a wedding car so I couldn't even go and talk to them. That really set the whole awkward tone for the day actually. Because the moment you walk into one of these fairs, you take on the quality of a frightened deer caught in headlights. You are, to all those suppliers, fair game. So the number one rule to live by at a wedding fair is DON'T MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANYONE. Seriously, you make eye contact and you're a gonner. You make eye contact and somebody on a commission-based salary starts desperately trying to sell you something. You probably don't need that thing. You might not even be able to afford it. But now your stuck with the task of politely telling them to get lost. This led to me getting very acquainted with looking into the middle distance, making a careful balancing act between seeing what was on offer without looking like I was interested. It's difficult, but it's either that or listen to someone talk about fake tan for ten minutes.
Barely had I stepped into the warm and very posh confines of the Marriott when a man in a very elaborate suit and waistcoat combo thrust a leaflet in my direction. "Have you sorted out the groom's outfit yet" he asked. At this point, the 'groom' had gone back to bed in his pants and, having known him for over 3 years, I knew there was no way in hell he would put on morning dress for our wedding. I would be lucky to get him wearing the suit he's owned since he was 15. Of course I couldn't say all that, so I politely said "he's got his own suit, but thanks anyway", and on I went. You see - and it's obvious but worth pointing out anyway - the people at these wedding fairs want you to buy into the hype. They want you to want the sort of wedding you see on the cover of some vulgar magazine. They want you to want matching chair covers and table runners, and little bags of sweeties for your guests, and flowers from half way round the globe, a 5 tier cake, the designer dress, the creche service, the car, the list goes on and on and on. And if you don't want all that, if you're just there to casually chat to a florist about a tiny seasonal bouquet, like I did, then you will either get really frustrated or have a permanent fit of the giggles, again like I did when one lady gasped when I told her Mike wouldn't be wearing a tie.
I think what let me down about the whole day was how 'samey' it all looked. The dresses on show, and in the fashion show, were the same identical strapless ones you see everywhere. The cakes, which I couldn't even taste-test because of my allergies, were the usual massive things with fake flowers down one side. The cars, and I do actually like cars, were the rolls-royce and bentley. Now there's nothing wrong with a rolls-royce, but what if you want to turn up in an Aston Martin? I wanted to be presented with more than the 'safe' option. A wedding is a total blank canvas. It can be the realm of anything possible (provided you have the money). Yet so often we're sold the line that we have to look like and buy what everyone else looks like and buys. It just makes me a bit sad really.
Not that it was all bad. To end on a high note I met a wonderful photographer, and a wonderful florist. Now, I could also end on high note by discussing quite how naff the fashion show was, but let's just leave that for now. They did the best with what they had, bless them. No, what actually made the thing worthwhile was chatting to the wonderful people at 'The Little Photo Company'. www.littlephotocompany.co.uk. I was reluctant to go up to photographers because of how much money they generally cost. I didn't want to insult anyone by making a loud 'eeeesh' sound when they gave a quote. What hooked me on this particular set though was, when I went past, I was handed not a leaflet but a bright yellow DVD box. Now that, I thought, is clever marketing, just as I looked up to be greeted by perhaps the mot smiley photographer ever. My first question was did they cover Cornwall, at which point he gestured to the wall of photos behind him and pointed out weddings in both Paris and California. So far so good. Then the price. These people will do 10 hours of photography, covering everything from the bridal preparations to the last drunken rendition of 'hey jude' at 2am, and their packages start at £815. If you do the math that's £80 an hour, which is not bad really. My only problem is that I don't think our wedding will last 10 hours! They had three lovely albums of photos on their table, and I happily chatted to the guy whilst looking through one. I was particularly drawn to one of the black and white photos, which showed what must have been the groom and best man sharing a joke. I've found it difficult to find a style of wedding photography I like, because so many look like they've gone a little crazy in the post-processing, causing the photos to have an unnatural 'too bright' look. But these ones were genuinely very good. Above everything, they looked natural, and they caught all the fleeting little moments that make up the soul of a wedding. What really got my attention, however, was just how nice the guy was (and as you can tell I am awful at remembering names!). He had one of those personalities pretty much anyone could get along with, which is important if he's going to be capturing the most special day of your life, and I was very encouraged by this. I went home and watched the DVD, which contains a slideshow of their work, and all I need to do now is convince Mike that a talented, friendly photographer is worth the money!
It wasn't just photographers who got me thinking though. I was standing looking through my programme at the rather confusing way they number all the stands, trying to find a florist, when all of a sudden I smelt the gorgeous scent of fresh flowers. I turned round to be greeted by a big table full of beautiful arrangements, so I went over to have a chat. I caught the poor lady whilst she was trying to eat a biscuit, but she happily talked with me about what sort of flowers I was interested in. Again, my general lack of money reared its head, so I explained that I'd just be wanting a small bouquet for myself, a tiny one for Kirsty, and about four 'pots' of flowers that could be put on the registrars table and then transferred to the dining table for the reception. Luckily, this lady was not one of the typical pushy wedding vendors, but even agreed that it was silly having a different set of flowers for the ceremony and reception. We had a long discussion about what sort of style I wanted, and I was very happy that she immediately understood my ramblings about wanting a bouquet of various flowers, with foliage, and in 'muted' colours. She also immediately knew what was in season, and suggested fresias, which are my mum's favourite flower and which I'd love to include. In fact, we even started talking about non-flower realted things, as her sister was getting married and she was searching for a bridesmaid dress. As with the photographer, what impressed me most was how friendly and approachable she was, which again is important if you want a florist who'll help you create an atmosphere for your big day. The website is http://www.radisol.com/clifton-flowers/index.htm.
I left the wedding fair quite exhausted (you walk miles at these things and I'd had to stand to watch the naff fashion show) and rather nervous about the National Wedding Show in March. If I'd found this small Bristol fair quite so...odd, what on earth would something ten times the size be like? At least for that one I'd have the company of my mum and best friend, and there would be a lot more alcohol on offer. I think I might get a bit more practice in though, so I've decided to go to the Bristol Vintage Wedding Fair in February. After all, you don't know what you'll get until you try.
It was held at the Marriott Hotel next to Cabot Circus shopping centre so was really easy to get to, especially as Mike consented (after much sulking) to give me a lift in the Yaris. He point blank refused to step inside the fair though so, what with my mum and bridesmaid living in different bits of the country, I was totally on my own. I felt bad, not for myself, but for the poor guys standing outside next to the fancy wedding cars. Bad because it was freezing cold, and also because I can't afford a wedding car so I couldn't even go and talk to them. That really set the whole awkward tone for the day actually. Because the moment you walk into one of these fairs, you take on the quality of a frightened deer caught in headlights. You are, to all those suppliers, fair game. So the number one rule to live by at a wedding fair is DON'T MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANYONE. Seriously, you make eye contact and you're a gonner. You make eye contact and somebody on a commission-based salary starts desperately trying to sell you something. You probably don't need that thing. You might not even be able to afford it. But now your stuck with the task of politely telling them to get lost. This led to me getting very acquainted with looking into the middle distance, making a careful balancing act between seeing what was on offer without looking like I was interested. It's difficult, but it's either that or listen to someone talk about fake tan for ten minutes.
Barely had I stepped into the warm and very posh confines of the Marriott when a man in a very elaborate suit and waistcoat combo thrust a leaflet in my direction. "Have you sorted out the groom's outfit yet" he asked. At this point, the 'groom' had gone back to bed in his pants and, having known him for over 3 years, I knew there was no way in hell he would put on morning dress for our wedding. I would be lucky to get him wearing the suit he's owned since he was 15. Of course I couldn't say all that, so I politely said "he's got his own suit, but thanks anyway", and on I went. You see - and it's obvious but worth pointing out anyway - the people at these wedding fairs want you to buy into the hype. They want you to want the sort of wedding you see on the cover of some vulgar magazine. They want you to want matching chair covers and table runners, and little bags of sweeties for your guests, and flowers from half way round the globe, a 5 tier cake, the designer dress, the creche service, the car, the list goes on and on and on. And if you don't want all that, if you're just there to casually chat to a florist about a tiny seasonal bouquet, like I did, then you will either get really frustrated or have a permanent fit of the giggles, again like I did when one lady gasped when I told her Mike wouldn't be wearing a tie.
I think what let me down about the whole day was how 'samey' it all looked. The dresses on show, and in the fashion show, were the same identical strapless ones you see everywhere. The cakes, which I couldn't even taste-test because of my allergies, were the usual massive things with fake flowers down one side. The cars, and I do actually like cars, were the rolls-royce and bentley. Now there's nothing wrong with a rolls-royce, but what if you want to turn up in an Aston Martin? I wanted to be presented with more than the 'safe' option. A wedding is a total blank canvas. It can be the realm of anything possible (provided you have the money). Yet so often we're sold the line that we have to look like and buy what everyone else looks like and buys. It just makes me a bit sad really.
Not that it was all bad. To end on a high note I met a wonderful photographer, and a wonderful florist. Now, I could also end on high note by discussing quite how naff the fashion show was, but let's just leave that for now. They did the best with what they had, bless them. No, what actually made the thing worthwhile was chatting to the wonderful people at 'The Little Photo Company'. www.littlephotocompany.co.uk. I was reluctant to go up to photographers because of how much money they generally cost. I didn't want to insult anyone by making a loud 'eeeesh' sound when they gave a quote. What hooked me on this particular set though was, when I went past, I was handed not a leaflet but a bright yellow DVD box. Now that, I thought, is clever marketing, just as I looked up to be greeted by perhaps the mot smiley photographer ever. My first question was did they cover Cornwall, at which point he gestured to the wall of photos behind him and pointed out weddings in both Paris and California. So far so good. Then the price. These people will do 10 hours of photography, covering everything from the bridal preparations to the last drunken rendition of 'hey jude' at 2am, and their packages start at £815. If you do the math that's £80 an hour, which is not bad really. My only problem is that I don't think our wedding will last 10 hours! They had three lovely albums of photos on their table, and I happily chatted to the guy whilst looking through one. I was particularly drawn to one of the black and white photos, which showed what must have been the groom and best man sharing a joke. I've found it difficult to find a style of wedding photography I like, because so many look like they've gone a little crazy in the post-processing, causing the photos to have an unnatural 'too bright' look. But these ones were genuinely very good. Above everything, they looked natural, and they caught all the fleeting little moments that make up the soul of a wedding. What really got my attention, however, was just how nice the guy was (and as you can tell I am awful at remembering names!). He had one of those personalities pretty much anyone could get along with, which is important if he's going to be capturing the most special day of your life, and I was very encouraged by this. I went home and watched the DVD, which contains a slideshow of their work, and all I need to do now is convince Mike that a talented, friendly photographer is worth the money!
It wasn't just photographers who got me thinking though. I was standing looking through my programme at the rather confusing way they number all the stands, trying to find a florist, when all of a sudden I smelt the gorgeous scent of fresh flowers. I turned round to be greeted by a big table full of beautiful arrangements, so I went over to have a chat. I caught the poor lady whilst she was trying to eat a biscuit, but she happily talked with me about what sort of flowers I was interested in. Again, my general lack of money reared its head, so I explained that I'd just be wanting a small bouquet for myself, a tiny one for Kirsty, and about four 'pots' of flowers that could be put on the registrars table and then transferred to the dining table for the reception. Luckily, this lady was not one of the typical pushy wedding vendors, but even agreed that it was silly having a different set of flowers for the ceremony and reception. We had a long discussion about what sort of style I wanted, and I was very happy that she immediately understood my ramblings about wanting a bouquet of various flowers, with foliage, and in 'muted' colours. She also immediately knew what was in season, and suggested fresias, which are my mum's favourite flower and which I'd love to include. In fact, we even started talking about non-flower realted things, as her sister was getting married and she was searching for a bridesmaid dress. As with the photographer, what impressed me most was how friendly and approachable she was, which again is important if you want a florist who'll help you create an atmosphere for your big day. The website is http://www.radisol.com/clifton-flowers/index.htm.
I left the wedding fair quite exhausted (you walk miles at these things and I'd had to stand to watch the naff fashion show) and rather nervous about the National Wedding Show in March. If I'd found this small Bristol fair quite so...odd, what on earth would something ten times the size be like? At least for that one I'd have the company of my mum and best friend, and there would be a lot more alcohol on offer. I think I might get a bit more practice in though, so I've decided to go to the Bristol Vintage Wedding Fair in February. After all, you don't know what you'll get until you try.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
On A Delicate Dilemma
I've only been wedding planning for a month and already it's thrown up issues and dilemmas which normally I'd just tell to get stuffed but, because it's a wedding, I have to be all nice and tactful about. For example, I don't want a large wedding. The thought of walking into a room full of people I don't know and have them stare at me makes me want to throw up, and this is without considering the cost of feeding all these randoms. I thought Mike was on the same page, until he promptly announced that his uncle, aunt, and all 4 of his cousins from Wales absolutely *had* to be invited. When I asked why, he said 'just because'. This is the sort of illogical 'wedding goggles' nonsense I've always dreaded. He's not seen these people since he was a kid, and his cousins (who are in their late teens/ early 20s) are not going to want to enjure the 6 hour drive to Cornwall to be forced through a wedding of someone they barely know. I mean the whole point of choosing Cornwall in the first place was so we avoided all the wider-family-hangers-on as they'd be put off by the distance. I said maybe we could compromise and invite just uncle and his wife, but I got a 'hmpf'. I could understand if, at the same time, I was waving an ever-growing list of 'must have guests' in his face, but I don't even want most of my own family there. Hopefully he'll have forgotten all of this by the time we order invites, and I just write one for the uncle and that'll be the end of it.
Secondly I have to decide wether or not my dad will walk me down the aisle. Well it's not really an aisle, just a bit of the hotel dining room in between some chairs, but you know what I mean. My dad and I have never seen eye to eye and my gut instinct is that, as it was my mum who really shaped me into the person I am today, it should be her that I walk in with. And then there's a part of me that thinks the whole 'being given away' thing is a horribly patriarchal tradition, stemming from when marriage was actually a property transaction between the bride's father and her future husband, with the bride being the property. I'd rather sit in a bath full of leeches than start my wedding with something that says "this woman can't look after herself so I'm transferring responsibility for her to you". So perhaps I'll walk in with just my bridesmaid. Then there's this little niggling voice that says maybe my dad is all excited about giving me away (although he's not spoken to me once about the wedding since I got engaged), how do I let him down gently without hurting his feelings or, more importantly, avoid setting him into one of his rages.
Lastly, I've been really clever and managed to pick a bridesmaid with an attitude problem. My plan had always been to have two bridesmaids - my best friend Kirsty, and my fiance's sister - but the sister is showing signs of being a bad choice. I thought that being a bridesmaid would be something exciting for her to do, as well as being a nice way to be involved with her brother's wedding, but she seems to have decided that it's her job to dictate what she will wear and do, and damned if I actually had a particular look I wanted for my own wedding! Apparently the bridesmaid dress is too short (it falls just below the knee), she doesn't like that it's strapless, she wants to wear fur (eeeeewwww), she'll be wearing trousers underneath any dress (!?), she doesn't want to walk down the aisle with me, and don't expect her to stay for the meal after. This is not helped by my fiance's mother agreeing with her and saying 'you don't have to do that if you don't want to''. Actually, the point of being a bridesmaid is that there are certain things you *have* to do, but you do them to help the bride make her wedding special. It's not like I'm asking her to wear a horrible gold, slutty dress, and forcing her to organise a hen night or something. All I'd like is for her to walk down the aisle with me in the nice dress I've picked out, holding a tiny bunch of flowers. But no, this is too much. So how exactly do you tell a bridesmaid that she's fired? Seriously the whole thing is driving me mad.
Secondly I have to decide wether or not my dad will walk me down the aisle. Well it's not really an aisle, just a bit of the hotel dining room in between some chairs, but you know what I mean. My dad and I have never seen eye to eye and my gut instinct is that, as it was my mum who really shaped me into the person I am today, it should be her that I walk in with. And then there's a part of me that thinks the whole 'being given away' thing is a horribly patriarchal tradition, stemming from when marriage was actually a property transaction between the bride's father and her future husband, with the bride being the property. I'd rather sit in a bath full of leeches than start my wedding with something that says "this woman can't look after herself so I'm transferring responsibility for her to you". So perhaps I'll walk in with just my bridesmaid. Then there's this little niggling voice that says maybe my dad is all excited about giving me away (although he's not spoken to me once about the wedding since I got engaged), how do I let him down gently without hurting his feelings or, more importantly, avoid setting him into one of his rages.
Lastly, I've been really clever and managed to pick a bridesmaid with an attitude problem. My plan had always been to have two bridesmaids - my best friend Kirsty, and my fiance's sister - but the sister is showing signs of being a bad choice. I thought that being a bridesmaid would be something exciting for her to do, as well as being a nice way to be involved with her brother's wedding, but she seems to have decided that it's her job to dictate what she will wear and do, and damned if I actually had a particular look I wanted for my own wedding! Apparently the bridesmaid dress is too short (it falls just below the knee), she doesn't like that it's strapless, she wants to wear fur (eeeeewwww), she'll be wearing trousers underneath any dress (!?), she doesn't want to walk down the aisle with me, and don't expect her to stay for the meal after. This is not helped by my fiance's mother agreeing with her and saying 'you don't have to do that if you don't want to''. Actually, the point of being a bridesmaid is that there are certain things you *have* to do, but you do them to help the bride make her wedding special. It's not like I'm asking her to wear a horrible gold, slutty dress, and forcing her to organise a hen night or something. All I'd like is for her to walk down the aisle with me in the nice dress I've picked out, holding a tiny bunch of flowers. But no, this is too much. So how exactly do you tell a bridesmaid that she's fired? Seriously the whole thing is driving me mad.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Book Review - Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, by G.W Bernard
I've read a lot of Bernard's previous work, including his short articles where he claims that Anne Boleyn probably did commit adultery with at least one of the five men accused alongside her. I didn't find the argument particularly convincing, mostly because the dates on which Anne was meant to have done the dirty deed were not compatible with when she was actually at the royal palaces mentioned, and I have always believed that the poor woman, her brother, and the others, were simply destroyed on a whim by a King who'd become infatuated with yet another mistress. I'd even written an essay on Anne and Henry's relationship whilst studying for my masters, and vowed to defend her to the very last, bitter word. She has always been, ironically along with Katherine of Aragon, one of my heroes.
So it was with great interest that I opened Bernard's latest book Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, wondering what on earth he'd come up with now to paint Anne as an adulteress. In fact, the first 124 pages of the book are not concerned with Anne's fall, but with other aspects of her life, such as her early relationship with the King, and her religious beliefs. I actually found these parts of the book very well argued, as Bernard consistently shows evidence to prove that it was Henry, not Anne, who held back from full sexual relations during their early relationship, and that it was Henry, not Anne, who drove the divorce proceedings and subsequent religious change. Of course, putting Henry in the driving seat fits neatly with Bernard's much more complicated theory in The King's Reformation, which is that Henry was not manipulated by factions but directed policy himself. So perhaps we should be wary of taking all of his conclusions about Anne's religion etc at face value.
The last part of the book deals exclusively with the theories surrounding Anne's sudden fall and her execution. By this point, funnily enough, I really wanted Bernard to come up with some watertight arguments about why he thinks Anne might have been guilty. However, after refuting the other theories behind her fall - that it was the work of Cromwell, for example - he then goes on to offer no more than the 'might have beens' that he so criticises. He even ends the book by stating that his theory is a 'hunch' and that Anne 'probably' commited adultery (with Henry Norris, for example). We must remember that the sources that survive from the time are fragmentary and, in the case of Anne's fall, it was hardly likely that she would have confessed even if she had been guilty. But there is still nothing to raise Bernard's conclusions above other historical interpretations - the interpretations he was so quick to discard. He places an unreasonable weight on gossip, especially that of the Countess of Worcester, who denounced Anne's morals and way of life. Yet, even if Henry did believe this gossip, instead of destroying Anne because he was bored with her, it does not mean that the gossip was in fact true!
I still greatly respect Bernard as a historian. I even cornered him whilst he was having his lunch during the Henry VIII conference in 2009 to bombard him with questions about the King's divorce. But I can't help feeling that his ideas about Anne's fall are still barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Anne was no saint - it's the fact she wasn't that makes her so interesting - but in my opinion there is still no concrete evidence to prove that she was guilty of any of the crimes that she was charged with, and that her death was nothing less than murder.
So it was with great interest that I opened Bernard's latest book Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, wondering what on earth he'd come up with now to paint Anne as an adulteress. In fact, the first 124 pages of the book are not concerned with Anne's fall, but with other aspects of her life, such as her early relationship with the King, and her religious beliefs. I actually found these parts of the book very well argued, as Bernard consistently shows evidence to prove that it was Henry, not Anne, who held back from full sexual relations during their early relationship, and that it was Henry, not Anne, who drove the divorce proceedings and subsequent religious change. Of course, putting Henry in the driving seat fits neatly with Bernard's much more complicated theory in The King's Reformation, which is that Henry was not manipulated by factions but directed policy himself. So perhaps we should be wary of taking all of his conclusions about Anne's religion etc at face value.
The last part of the book deals exclusively with the theories surrounding Anne's sudden fall and her execution. By this point, funnily enough, I really wanted Bernard to come up with some watertight arguments about why he thinks Anne might have been guilty. However, after refuting the other theories behind her fall - that it was the work of Cromwell, for example - he then goes on to offer no more than the 'might have beens' that he so criticises. He even ends the book by stating that his theory is a 'hunch' and that Anne 'probably' commited adultery (with Henry Norris, for example). We must remember that the sources that survive from the time are fragmentary and, in the case of Anne's fall, it was hardly likely that she would have confessed even if she had been guilty. But there is still nothing to raise Bernard's conclusions above other historical interpretations - the interpretations he was so quick to discard. He places an unreasonable weight on gossip, especially that of the Countess of Worcester, who denounced Anne's morals and way of life. Yet, even if Henry did believe this gossip, instead of destroying Anne because he was bored with her, it does not mean that the gossip was in fact true!
I still greatly respect Bernard as a historian. I even cornered him whilst he was having his lunch during the Henry VIII conference in 2009 to bombard him with questions about the King's divorce. But I can't help feeling that his ideas about Anne's fall are still barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Anne was no saint - it's the fact she wasn't that makes her so interesting - but in my opinion there is still no concrete evidence to prove that she was guilty of any of the crimes that she was charged with, and that her death was nothing less than murder.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Oops I forgot I had a blog. Oh yeah, and I got engaged.
I must be the worst blogger ever, as I keep forgetting I have this thing. Perhaps if my life were more exciting then I'd be more inclined to update it. At least now I have something to write about, which is that my boyfriend Michael and I got engaged yesterday :).
November 1st was the 3 year anniversary of when we met, and we'd always said we'd get engaged once we'd been together for three years, so we did. This was in no way a 'traditional' engagement, as it was something we'd talked about for a while, so Mike didn't suprise me by getting down on one knee. There was no 'popping the question' either. Mike doesn't feel comfortable with the showy, traditional romanticism expected of the man in this situation and, to be honest, neither do I. So instead we went together to one of the big jewellery shops in the centre of Bristol and purchased a very modest engagement ring. And I do mean very modest. I find the idea of being wearing a ring covered in silly diamonds which cost more than a month's mortgage, quite utterly stupid. What's important about engagement, and then marriage, is the love between the two people, not the jewellery they wear. On the other hand, it's sometimes nice to have a pretty thing occasionally, which is why I didn't forsake the ring entirely.
We do have a picture of the thing somewhere, but at the moment it's on Mike's phone and he's unable to email it to me because... well because he can't be bothered. The actual ring is currently being resized because I have ugly fat sausage fingers and the one at he shop didn't fit. So now I get to embark on the interesting journey that is wedding planning. Not that the wedding will be for at least another two years. A world of tacky tiaras, uncomfortable dresses, and needless decorations await, and I'm sure I will find it rather irritating at times, which is why I intend to blog about it because, lets face it, angry blogs are the most fun.
November 1st was the 3 year anniversary of when we met, and we'd always said we'd get engaged once we'd been together for three years, so we did. This was in no way a 'traditional' engagement, as it was something we'd talked about for a while, so Mike didn't suprise me by getting down on one knee. There was no 'popping the question' either. Mike doesn't feel comfortable with the showy, traditional romanticism expected of the man in this situation and, to be honest, neither do I. So instead we went together to one of the big jewellery shops in the centre of Bristol and purchased a very modest engagement ring. And I do mean very modest. I find the idea of being wearing a ring covered in silly diamonds which cost more than a month's mortgage, quite utterly stupid. What's important about engagement, and then marriage, is the love between the two people, not the jewellery they wear. On the other hand, it's sometimes nice to have a pretty thing occasionally, which is why I didn't forsake the ring entirely.
We do have a picture of the thing somewhere, but at the moment it's on Mike's phone and he's unable to email it to me because... well because he can't be bothered. The actual ring is currently being resized because I have ugly fat sausage fingers and the one at he shop didn't fit. So now I get to embark on the interesting journey that is wedding planning. Not that the wedding will be for at least another two years. A world of tacky tiaras, uncomfortable dresses, and needless decorations await, and I'm sure I will find it rather irritating at times, which is why I intend to blog about it because, lets face it, angry blogs are the most fun.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Allergy Watch - The Eden Project
My boyfriend and I joined my family for a holiday down in our 'usual spot' on the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall earlier this month. The Eden Project seemed like a natural place to break the depressing journey back home, with the added benefit that we escaped the awful traffic building up on the A30 towards Bodmin.
Having previously visited the Eden Project, I was confident that they would still be providing their range of gluten-free foods. On our last visit, my mum and I had found gluten-free soup and bread, and even a gluten-free sandwich in their cafe inbetween the biomes. We weren't even put off when their little info leaflet, picked up earlier in the week, mentioned that they had opened a bakery. We thought it would perhaps be a little shop where you could see bread being made and possibly buy some.
Upon getting to the Eden Project, however, we found that the bakery had completely replaced the cafe inbetween the biomes, and was enormous. There was nothing on offer apart from bread. To make things worse, there were tomatoes everywhere, and this set off my allergy to the extent where I could barely breathe. A lot of the bread was made with nuts, which made the environment unsafe for my mum also.
I was really disappointed and asked a staff member if there was anything we could eat. We were told that we had to go to 'Jo's Cafe' in a completely different building to see if there was anything gluten-free. Jo's Cafe was this tiny place and seemed to specialise mostly in pasta, ironically. There was one gluten-free cake, and two gluten-free dishes, one of which I couldn't have because it had tomato in it. But if they rotate their menu every day, what happens if you arrive on the day when it's just pasta and sandwiches? Do you end up with a banana and an overpriced elderflower cordial?
When we entered the meditteranean biome, we also found that there was a small cafe there, which seemed to be serving regionally-themed bean type dishes. To be honest I couldn't get close enough to see because again it set off my tomato alarm. However, there was no way of knowing if these huge vats of stuff were gluten-free. My mum and I were slightly miffed that the Eden Project, which had previously been so good about gluten allergies, had taken a huge step backwards. No doubt they feel that there's more profit in the bakery angle, but don't they realise that gluten allergy is really common and that a significant minority of their guests will end up feeling excluded and going home hungry? Surely a place who's mantra is about diversity shouldn't go down the 'you can have any food as long as it's bread' road?
We saw that some visitors had bought their own food and had hidden themselves in the garden bit. Perhaps that's what I'll have to do next time. It's a shame because it's put me off going back, and my boyfriend and I were planning on taking a trip there when he passes his driving test and gets his first car soon, as your ticket entitles you to free entry for a year. I've been of two minds wether to write a letter to them about the issue, but perhaps I should and see what they say, so at least other people are informed about it before they decide to go there.
Having previously visited the Eden Project, I was confident that they would still be providing their range of gluten-free foods. On our last visit, my mum and I had found gluten-free soup and bread, and even a gluten-free sandwich in their cafe inbetween the biomes. We weren't even put off when their little info leaflet, picked up earlier in the week, mentioned that they had opened a bakery. We thought it would perhaps be a little shop where you could see bread being made and possibly buy some.
Upon getting to the Eden Project, however, we found that the bakery had completely replaced the cafe inbetween the biomes, and was enormous. There was nothing on offer apart from bread. To make things worse, there were tomatoes everywhere, and this set off my allergy to the extent where I could barely breathe. A lot of the bread was made with nuts, which made the environment unsafe for my mum also.
I was really disappointed and asked a staff member if there was anything we could eat. We were told that we had to go to 'Jo's Cafe' in a completely different building to see if there was anything gluten-free. Jo's Cafe was this tiny place and seemed to specialise mostly in pasta, ironically. There was one gluten-free cake, and two gluten-free dishes, one of which I couldn't have because it had tomato in it. But if they rotate their menu every day, what happens if you arrive on the day when it's just pasta and sandwiches? Do you end up with a banana and an overpriced elderflower cordial?
When we entered the meditteranean biome, we also found that there was a small cafe there, which seemed to be serving regionally-themed bean type dishes. To be honest I couldn't get close enough to see because again it set off my tomato alarm. However, there was no way of knowing if these huge vats of stuff were gluten-free. My mum and I were slightly miffed that the Eden Project, which had previously been so good about gluten allergies, had taken a huge step backwards. No doubt they feel that there's more profit in the bakery angle, but don't they realise that gluten allergy is really common and that a significant minority of their guests will end up feeling excluded and going home hungry? Surely a place who's mantra is about diversity shouldn't go down the 'you can have any food as long as it's bread' road?
We saw that some visitors had bought their own food and had hidden themselves in the garden bit. Perhaps that's what I'll have to do next time. It's a shame because it's put me off going back, and my boyfriend and I were planning on taking a trip there when he passes his driving test and gets his first car soon, as your ticket entitles you to free entry for a year. I've been of two minds wether to write a letter to them about the issue, but perhaps I should and see what they say, so at least other people are informed about it before they decide to go there.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Allergy Watch - Starbucks Gluten Free Sandwich
Ages ago, I'd heard that Starbucks were introducing a gluten-free sandwich, but I've never seen one until now. I even went looking on the web recently to see if they actually had made one, and discovered that the flavour was cheese and coleslaw. We stopped at a service station on the way back from London last night, and there was a Starbucks there, and I spotted this sandwich. It's really not obvious that it's gluten-free, as the words on the label are so tiny. I wouldn't usually pick the flavour as I don't really like coleslaw, but I thought I'd give it a go.
It's made with 'genius' brand gluten-free bread, and the bread is nice. It tastes like real bread, not like cardboard, and it's not stupidly crumbly. The innards of the sandwich was rather pungant, as there were two different types of cheese and the coleslaw. It was perfectly acceptable, but not really something I'd choose if there were lots of options as I still don't like coleslaw. But if I'm ever at a starbucks on route somewhere and need something to eat, then I'd probably get one again. It's not cheap though, but nothing gluten-free is (you know, because we obviously choose to be this way).
It's made with 'genius' brand gluten-free bread, and the bread is nice. It tastes like real bread, not like cardboard, and it's not stupidly crumbly. The innards of the sandwich was rather pungant, as there were two different types of cheese and the coleslaw. It was perfectly acceptable, but not really something I'd choose if there were lots of options as I still don't like coleslaw. But if I'm ever at a starbucks on route somewhere and need something to eat, then I'd probably get one again. It's not cheap though, but nothing gluten-free is (you know, because we obviously choose to be this way).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)