(no subject)
Oct. 5th, 2010 10:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingersThis evening I went to SWMBO offices where there was a talk on Faberge by Geoffrey Munn. Various nobs and important folk were there, and Mr Munn himself was pretty illuminating on the subjects of lapidary stuff and the languages of stones and flowers. We spoke for a bit and I found out that he had known of one of my godfathers, who by chance had also known the Queen Mum (RIP). Nice chap, as it happens, though I hadn't known of him from his appearances on the Antiques Roadshow. I mingled with the various lords and ladies and the odd oligarch or twain, before the wife and I took a cab back to the depths of East Dulwich. Apparently I'm a 'social asset', being rather well connected and prepared to talk to anyone.
And still I'm too damn commie for all of this. Even Mr Munn opined that the massive inequalities of the late Victorian and Edwardian period were the basis of Faberge and Cartier's ability to produce such high-value objects of craft and art, and was content that such times had passed. These days Imperial Faberge Eggs are valued at some £20M and rising: which is some Easter gift. Though I might just covet a Faberge cigarette case to put my spliffs in, I doubt whether either I or Madame could afford such a luxury: and even if I could, I doubt that I'd ever spend quite so much on an item quite so trivial, especially when there are starving children, if not on my doorstep, then not more than a couple of thousand miles away.
Luxuria was originally one of the seven deadly sins. What happened to change this?
And still I'm too damn commie for all of this. Even Mr Munn opined that the massive inequalities of the late Victorian and Edwardian period were the basis of Faberge and Cartier's ability to produce such high-value objects of craft and art, and was content that such times had passed. These days Imperial Faberge Eggs are valued at some £20M and rising: which is some Easter gift. Though I might just covet a Faberge cigarette case to put my spliffs in, I doubt whether either I or Madame could afford such a luxury: and even if I could, I doubt that I'd ever spend quite so much on an item quite so trivial, especially when there are starving children, if not on my doorstep, then not more than a couple of thousand miles away.
Luxuria was originally one of the seven deadly sins. What happened to change this?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-06 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-06 06:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-06 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-06 01:58 pm (UTC)Of course you're a social asset
Date: 2010-10-06 09:47 am (UTC)Re: Of course you're a social asset
Date: 2010-10-06 01:50 pm (UTC)Mr Square-Peg-in-a-Round-Hole.
Actually, that's not entirely true. As was mentioned, Geoffrey Munn (a Grammar School chap) didn't entirely approve of the social conditions in the pre WWI era, despite his love of, and fascination with, the craftsmanship and artistry of Faberge. He even mentioned that he benefitted from the social mobility in his era in comparison to the eras previous.
Also many of the 'Nobs' attending had more than a cursory acquaintance with the notion of social justice: some of them devoting their lives to 'good' works of various kinds.
This makes me wonder if the fault lies mainly with the arriviste money grabbing social climbing grocer's daughters of Grantham, and their ilk. I'm sure the traditional upper classes have a rump of semi-fascistic types who could think of no greater pleasure than knouting a few peasants to death before a hearty lunch, but I'm beginning to think of them as being in a minority. The problem with me is I'm not actually upper class, more, like George Orwell, lower-upper-middle class, if you see what I mean: and that group are amongst the most mean, rapacious, and grasping, of all of British society.