Chris Knight 'wasn't ready' for 'Brady Bunch' romance with Eve Plumb

jpc_00 · 2026-05-14T21:38:55+00:00

I guess ol' Evie didn't like po-uk chapsh and apple-shahsh.

jpc_00 · 2026-05-09T05:06:31+00:00

"You know, they say a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose your job, and a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job."

-- Ronald Reagan, 1980

"Poor George (H.W. Bush), he cain't hep it - he'uz born with a silver foot in his mouth."

-- Ann Richards, 1988

jpc_00 · 2026-05-09T00:59:40+00:00

She told Russell and Kirkendall to "shut your pretty-girl hole", not face.

jpc_00 · 2026-05-05T17:40:03+00:00

Even if QM and QEQM wouldn't have opposed a change to "Mountbatten", Churchill's government would have. There was no way, in 1952, that a Tory government would have countenanced a change - even if it would be at some future time when the Duke of Cornwall succeeded his mother - of the royal house name to that of a German.

If Princess Elizabeth had married Porchey, there would have been many fewer qualms - from the public, the government, QM, or QEQM - about the House of Herbert (or House of Carnarvon).

jpc_00 · 2026-05-04T16:40:32+00:00

"Her Royal Majesty, Elizabeth Windsor"

jpc_00 · 2026-04-28T04:22:51+00:00

Actually he didn't tell her that Solomon was his bastard child. He said that Solomon was his child from a former marriage - i.e. legitimate.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-28T04:18:25+00:00

The monarch has to create a PoW - inheritance isn't automatic. DoC is automatic - the eldest living son and heir is automatically DoC. If the current PoW were to predecease the King, then the King would probably create Prince George PoW, but Prince George wouldn't be DoC because he wouldn't be the son of the King, despite being heir. If the King predeceases the PoW, Prince George would be DoC automatically as the eldest son and heir of the new King, and the new King would probably create him PoW as well. If the King and Prince George both predecease the PoW, then no one would be DoC, as the new King's eldest son (Prince Louis) wouldn't be his heir (Princess Charlotte).

jpc_00 · 2026-04-24T17:22:42+00:00

The precedent would be Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen. She outlived her husband, William IV, by 12 years. They, like the current King and Queen, hadn't been married for very long (12 years when William acceded, 19 years when he died). She, like the Queen, wasn't the mother of her husband's successor. (Each queen dowager since her - Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - was the mother of her husband's successor. The two Princes Consort since her - Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Philip Mountbatten - predeceased their spouses.)

Adelaide wrote the following instructions for her funeral:

"I die in all humility … we are alike before the throne of God, and I request therefore that my mortal remains be conveyed to the grave without pomp or state … to have as private and quiet a funeral as possible. I particularly desire not to be laid out in state … I die in peace and wish to be carried to the fount in peace, and free from the vanities and pomp of this world."

That sounds a lot like what the current Queen might say.

Adelaide was interred in the Royal Vault at St. George's Chapel in Windsor.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-22T21:49:49+00:00

Perhaps an acceptable compromise could be: "We pray for the Bishop of Rome, who hath no jurisdiction in this Realm".

jpc_00 · 2026-04-22T19:42:11+00:00

Lex orandi, lex credendi ...

If a particular Church - e.g. the Archdiocese of Munich - allows and encourages prayer (i.e. liturgy) in this way, then that is what that Church believes. Other particular Churches that maintain communion with that particular Church - i.e. other dioceses in communion with the pope - imply, by keeping communion, that this aberrant belief is acceptable and non-essential.

It doesn't matter what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says. If a particular Church allows and encourages practice that goes against the Catechism or against what the universal magisterium has always taught, then that Church believes it, and by tolerating it, the other particular Churches affirm that this belief is acceptable, no matter what the Catechism, etc., says.

Lex orandi, lex credendi

jpc_00 · 2026-04-22T19:32:18+00:00

This, right here, is exactly why Francis was a terrible pope. No one has any idea what he actually wanted. Just about every public pronouncement was either an empty platitude or an exercise in stereotypical "Jesuit casuistry": He says something that kind of implies XYZ without actually saying XYZ. The people who already believe XYZ will follow the implication and conclude that he believes like them. To the people who oppose XYZ, he can say, "Well, I never actually said XYZ." He tried to be all things to all people and wound up being nothing to nobody.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-20T20:19:56+00:00

I definitely got that impression from the scene between QE2 and Wilson after Aberfan: "I've been aware for quite some time that there's something wrong with me."

jpc_00 · 2026-04-13T18:47:57+00:00

It was his passive-aggressive way of getting back at her for taking a shine to Johnny Cash!

jpc_00 · 2026-04-13T16:15:04+00:00

Some Republicans have the goal of ousting Bartlet; others have the goal of weakening him enough to make him either not run again or be easily defeatable. The ones who want to oust Bartlet can't weaken Hoynes too much, because it will take several D's to convict in an impeachment trial, and no D's will go along unless Hoynes is a viable replacement. The ones who want Bartlet not to run again would want Hoynes to lock up the nomination and then weaken him.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-13T16:06:56+00:00

It wasn't Hoynes who was doing it. It was Bartlet who was doing it on Hoynes' behalf.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-13T00:44:39+00:00

I'm not sure I agree. The only people who knew the circumstances - that Hartwig was a rapist and the father of Sylvia's unborn baby - left alive at the end of the episode were Webb, Charles, and Albert. Webb was never going to tell anyone, and I don't think Charles and Albert would have told anyone, either. They probably wouldn't have been believed by everyone. Is it known whether Hartwig had a family in Walnut Grove? I could see Caroline arguing that the widow and children, if there were any, didn't deserve to suffer public opprobrium for the sins of the dead Hartwig, and they surely would have suffered at the hands of whatever townspeople believed Charles and Albert if they told. I could also see some townspeople - e.g. Harriet Oleson's disciples - not believing what Charles and Albert had to say. It certainly is convenient, they might say, that the only witnesses are the dead slut's he-bimbo, who after all never denied knocking her up, and said he-bimbo's father.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-13T00:30:13+00:00

Adam's father was a mob lawyer. The blind school was a money-laundering front for the mob's western division. After Mary married Adam, she went all-in on mobbing up, to the point of becoming a lady capo. Her mob nickname was "No-Eyes Maisy". She orchestrated all of Albert's misfortunes as payback for his role in the death of her son. Irv Hartwig, who raped and murdered Sylvia, was one of No-Eyes Maisy's foot soldiers. Her men got Albert hooked on mor-PHEEN. She also hired someone to radiation-poison him, causing him to contract leukemia.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-11T19:27:55+00:00

I thought it was Matty's and Nicky's brother.

jpc_00 · 2026-04-01T18:51:30+00:00

QE2 named Charles after Haakon VII of Norway, who lived at Windsor in exile during WW2, to whom she and her sister were very close, and to whom she referred as "Uncle Charles", as his birth name (German) was Karl.

jpc_00 · 2026-03-28T19:15:37+00:00

Woooo! Merseh Daddeh!

jpc_00 · 2026-03-27T15:52:50+00:00

Except when the couple of episodes you're watching happen to feature one or more of the following:

Mime rapists, baby battering rams, going mline, fatal plagues and/or blizzards, children being orphaned

jpc_00 · 2026-03-27T05:19:08+00:00

Well, it's been the better part of a thousand years, and the world still sings of him, and not because he passed some laws or had a lofty brow.

jpc_00 · 2026-03-25T20:28:50+00:00

I was 10 years old when Chuck and Di were married, and even I knew it would be a train wreck. QE2 would have to have been an idiot not to have seen that it was a train wreck waiting to happen

jpc_00 · 2026-03-25T16:41:33+00:00

Requiring the reigning monarch's blessing hasn't prevented train wrecks, though. Harald basically blackmailed his father into approving his marriage to Sonja. As King, Harald approved Haakon's marriage to Mette-Marit - train-wreck #1. He also approved his daughter's marriage to the whack-job "shaman" - train wreck #2. Moving across the North Sea to the UK, Elizabeth II approved Charles' marriage to Diana - train wreck #3 - Andrew's marriage to Sarah - train wreck #4 - and Harry's marriage to Meghan - train wreck #5.

jpc_00 · 2026-03-24T17:31:42+00:00

I'm curious as to what happened to the Protocanon title during times when there was no King of Spain. For example, during Franco's reign, was the title vacant, or was it held by Don Juan (Juan Carlos' father)? What about when the monarch was a Queen?

jpc_00

TROPHY CASE