Comments on: Tempus fugit

By: My Home

My Home — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:48:21 +0000

I have read so many content concerning the blogger lovers except
this article is genuinely a nice article, keep it up.

By: silver

silver — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:31:08 +0000

You admired Jacqueline Kennedy? She struck me as vapid shallow woman, who ended up in the role which reflected all that she was actually capable of being: the mistress of a diamond merchant.

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:10:21 +0000

Whenever I see pictures of Jackie from that era, all I can think of is Vaughan Meader’s “The First Family” comedy album. Okay, rip the top button off those 5,000 “First Ladies” and put ’em on the rack!

By: Tatyana

Tatyana — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:01:45 +0000

Neo, I believe you wanted to address *csimon’s comment, not mine: I didn’t say anything about Jackie as a person, or her marriages, or her daughter beyond the topic of the post. I have no opinion of her beyond what I said – she doesn’t interest me, never did.

Csimon – no, I disagree. Gwyneth’s face is exquisite, its beauty is in proportion and expression, not the ever-popular but slightly vulgar features like big eyes that mother has. She could be a princess – her mother, maybe, a pretty milkmaid.

By: Helen

Helen — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:28:24 +0000

Well, I don’t know. There seems to have been rather a lot of Caroline Kennedy around the Obama campaign. Somehow she has become the keeper of the Kennedy flame, whatever that might be.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:22:56 +0000

OT, but I have to pass this on to anyone who might be interested:

This was posted on another neoconservative blog (Discarded Lies), and it’s hair-raising. A Chicago Public Radio interview with BHO on “the redistribution of wealth.”

Just over four minutes of pure Communism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/

He’s shockingly frank that this is his aim and goal, and his interlocutor assumes just like he does that OF COURSE this is the correct and proper thing to do. They spend these four minutes talking about how to go about it.

No ambiguity here, people. AT ALL. Pass it on.

By: csimon

csimon — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:05:56 +0000

Really never regarded Onassis as a “safety zone.” I believe, at the time, Onassis was regarded as the richest man in the world. If anything, her marriage to him drew enormous attention and I remember tons and tons of photos in the papers all the time ( I actually think this time was pre-People Magazine, if you can imagine it) of he aboard his yacht w/ Jackie O., as she was dubbed by the press, and frequently the children. She also made quite the headlines with her frequent shopping sprees in Europe. As for the kids, they both were packed off to boarding schools as soon as old enough.

Agree that Caroline has kept rather a low profile, after her very newsworthy society marriage to Ed Schlossberg, and has guarded her family’s privacy — especially that of her children.

(By the way, Tatyana, Caroline does not resemble her mother at all. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, she does look somewhat like her mother, altho, in my opinion, Blythe Danner has always been far more beautiful.)

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:00:13 +0000

vanderleun:

Agreed about the function of the Onassis marriage—she married him just a few months after Robert Kennedy was assassinated, which seems a telling fact.

As for Mrs. Porter’s—I went to that website, and I’m not so sure about that “turn girls into ladies” bit. After all, I discovered that their literary magazine is named “Haggis/Baggis.”

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:48:08 +0000

Tatyana: what I admire about Jackie is a bit hard to state, but it boils down to the fact that despite the milieu in which she was raised (snobbery and money and all of that) she did pretty well with the hand that was dealt her. Whatever Jack’s infidelities, she kept her mouth shut and never spilled the beans to the tabloids. She always put her children and their welfare first—that, I believe, is why she married Onassis. For their safety and protection, and her own.

She also had great charm and intelligence, and in later life she apparently was an excellent editor when she could have lapsed into a jet-setty life of emptiness. My impression is that she didn’t really seek the extreme fame and celebrity that came her way, although she had wanted a life of glamour and interesting activities among interesting people, especially in the arts.

In this respect I think Caroline has followed in her footsteps, living a dignified and quiet life in which she’s followed her own intellectual and artistic interests, dealt with a host of tragedies while keeping a good public face on it, and kept her personal business as private as possible.

By: vanderleun

vanderleun — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:41:37 +0000

Natural elegance doesn’t really enter into it. Proper finishing does.

Miss Porters knows how to turn girls into ladies.

http://www.porters.org/podium/default.aspx?t=6648

As for the marraige to Onassis marriage, it always seemed to me to have to do with security and the ability to hide from the press at will. Nothing like owning a lot of islands for that purpose.