Monday, January 25, 2010

Heiress Of The Day-Lydia Hearst CENSORED VERSION

SORRY CENSORED BY GOOGLE!










Lydia Marie Hearst-Shaw (born September 19, 1984) is an American actress, fashion model, columnist, socialite and heiress to the publishing fortune established by her maternal great-grandfather William Randolph Hearst.[1] The 2007 Michael Awards recognized her as their Model of the Year.[2] Lydia was also given the award of the Best International Supermodel in Madrid on the 12th of November 2008.[3]
Modeling
Hearst has modeled for magazines such as Vogue and fashion designers like Puma and appeared in Puma's French 77 collection. In 2008 she posed in a range of retro-style satin and silk lingerie for Myla's autumn and winter collection [4]. She also appeared topless in the May 2009 issue of GQ Italia.[5]
Journalism
Lydia was a columnist for Page Six Magazine, which comes in the Sunday edition of the New York Post, and she appeared on the cover of the Sept. 30, 2007, issue of the magazine.
Acting
Lydia appeared in the CW hit show Gossip Girl as Lily van der Woodsen's posh interior decorator Amelia on the May 19th season 1 finale. Lydia was also feature in Tara Subkoff’s short fashion film for BeBe in 2008 as a paparazzi stalked starlet. [6] In 2009 Lydia starred in an independent film entitled The Last International Playboy written and directed by Steve Clark (May,2009). [7] Lydia also appeared in Miles Fisher's 2009 music video "This Must Be The Place".[8]
Biography
A daughter of kidnapping victim and publishing heiress Patricia Campbell Hearst and Bernard Shaw, she was born and raised in Wilton, Connecticut. Her father, who was her mother's bodyguard before the couple's marriage, is now the head of security for the Hearst Corporation.[1]
She briefly attended the Lawrenceville School.[1] Since graduating from Wilton High School she attended Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut where she majored in communications and technology before being discovered by fashion photographer Steven Meisel. Her first modeling assignment was for the cover of the Italian edition of Vogue.[1]
Her professional name is Hearst, rather than Hearst-Shaw, which is on her birth certificate.[1]
After shooting for Puma's French 77 collection for a limited edition book called "The Last Playboys Wear Puma" Lydia teamed up in a creative partnership between Puma and Heatherette to design a high-end limited edition handbag. She has continued her partnership with Puma and is set to release a New Holiday Collection and a line of athletic gear. [9]
The picture of her wielding a machine gun was one of the most infamous of the seventies, but now it is Patty Hearst’s model daughter Lydia who is striking a memorable pose.Newspaper heiress Patty became notorious after joining the American guerilla group that kidnapped her.More than three decades later, her 23 year-old daughter has been named the face and body of lingerie designers Myla and appears in a series of provocative poses wearing satin and silk underwear.

She started modeling four years ago and has since worked with leading photographers including Mario Testino and Mark Abrams.In the past year her career has taken off most recently at the “Fashion Oscars”, she was named “Supermodel of the Year”.Her ascent to stardom is a far cry from her mother’s. In 1974, Patty Hearst then aged 19, was kidnapped by left-wing US guerrilla group the Symbionese Liberation Army from her family home in California.

Her captors initially demanded for the release of jailed members of their radical group, and later for the Hearst family to distribute ?30 of food to every poor person in California.Neither was carried out and Hearst later claimed that she was kept in a cupboard for months.She shocked her family when she eventually joined the group and adopted the name Tania.The image of her holding the gun caused controversy in the seventies. She was later arrested with other members of the SLA after a bank robbery.

Despite claiming that she was brainwashed, Hearst was sentenced to seven years in jail. President Jimmy Carter commuted her sentence after two years and later Bill Clinton eventually bestowed a presidential pardon.Hearst later married her former bodyguard Bernard Shaw in 1979. The couple are still married and have two grown up daughters.Initially she tried her hand as an actress but most recently has made her name as a dog-breeder.

The Hearst family name is one of the best known in the US. Her grandfather – press baron William Randolph – built up one of the largest magazine and newspaper businesses in the world.He was caricatured by Orson Welles in classic film Citizen Kane. Her father Randolph was valued at $1.8 billion shortly before his death in 2001 at the age of 85.Luxury lingerie brand Myla was founded in 1999 and is now worth in excess of ?25 million.source: dailymail.co.uk

Martha Coakley- A "Shill" For The "State"






I remember this case well and have followed Dorothy's phenomenal work through the years (decades actually) as she worked to expose the almost unspeakable injustice that was done to one Massachusetts family. This is an absolute must read and we are including her full editorial inside.
The story of the Amiraults of Massachusetts, and of the prosecution that had turned the lives of this thriving American family to dust, was well known to the world by the year 2001. It was well known, especially, to District Attorney Martha Coakley, who had by then arrived to take a final, conspicuous, role in a case so notorious as to assure that the Amiraults' name would be known around the globe.
The Amiraults were a busy, confident trio, grateful in the way of people who have found success after a life of hardship. Violet had reared her son Gerald and daughter Cheryl with help from welfare, and then set out to educate herself. The result was the triumph of her life—the Fells Acres school—whose every detail Violet scrutinized relentlessly. Not for nothing was the pre-school deemed by far the best in the area, with a long waiting list for admission.
All of it would end in 1984, with accusations of sexual assault and an ever-growing list of parents signing their children on to the case. Newspaper and television reports blared a sensational story about a female school principal, in her 60s, who had daily terrorized and sexually assaulted the pupils in her care, using sharp objects as her weapon. So too had Violet's daughter Cheryl, a 28-year old teacher at the school.

But from the beginning, prosecutors cast Gerald as chief predator—his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role. It was that role, the man in the family, that would determine his sentence, his treatment, and, to the end, his prosecution-inspired image as a pervert too dangerous to go free.

The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults' prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.
Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with "a magic wand." She would be convicted of these charges.
Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.
Gerald was sent to prison for 30 to 40 years, his mother and sister sentenced to eight to 20 years. The prosecutors celebrated what they called, at the time "a model, multidisciplinary prosecution." Gerald's wife, Patricia, and their three children—the family unfailingly devoted to him—went on with their lives. They spoke to him nightly and cherished such hope as they could find, that he would be restored to them.
Hope arrived in 1995, when Judge Robert Barton ordered a new trial for the women. Violet, now 72, and Cheryl had been imprisoned eight years. This toughest of judges, appalled as he came to know the facts of the case, ordered the women released at once. Judge Barton—known as Black Bart for the long sentences he gave criminals—did not thereafter trouble to conceal his contempt for the prosecutors. They would, he warned, do all in their power to hold on to Gerald, a prediction to prove altogether accurate.
No less outraged, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein presided over a widely publicized hearings into the case resulting in findings that all the children's testimony was tainted. He said that "Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted." The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly—which had never in its 27 year history taken an editorial position on a case—published a scathing one directed at the prosecutors "who seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that had never occurred."
It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case. Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women's reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.

That left Cheryl alone, facing rearrest. In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl's case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted.
No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of "a primary male offender." According to Ms. Coakley's scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.
Before agreeing to revise Cheryl's sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults' attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.
In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor's Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald's sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the "extraordinary if not bizarre allegations" on which they had been convicted.
Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board's findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board's ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.
On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald's commutation.

Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to "take responsibility" by confessing his crimes. He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment.
The Amirault family is nonetheless grateful that they are together again.
Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was "formidable" and that she was entirely convinced "those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants."
What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.
If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.
Martha Coakley's Convictions
The role played by the U.S. Senate candidate in a notorious sex case raises questions about her judgment.
The following quote is from The Week Magazine:
"Coakley did not prosecute the case, which was already under way when she joined the office as an assistant district attorney in 1986. But years later, after the day-care abuse hysteria had subsided and she had won the office's top job, she worked to keep the convicted "ringleader," Gerald Amirault, behind bars despite widespread doubts that a crime had been committed ... the convictions won by the Middlesex DA in the Fells Acres case have not borne up well. By today's standards, the prosecution of the Amirault family, who owned and operated the day-care center in Malden, Mass., looks like a master class in battling witchcraft."

Reagan-Republican God and Deity


















Ronald Reagan: B Film Actor, Ladies' Man and FBI Snitch
by William Hughes
(Wednesday, November 12, 2008)
Ronald Reagan’s persona was crafted from 1937 to 1965, working in B films. The Shadow side of Reagan, however, reveals that he was a snitch for the FBI and ratted out his fellow members of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), during the days of the “Red Scare.” He also was a notorious womanizer, according to Marc Eliot's expose: “Reagan: The Hollywood Years.” It was Reagan, too, as U.S. President, who ruthlessly busted PATCO in 1981.
“Betrayal is the only truth that sticks.”
-- Arthur Miller [1]
If you are a Hollywood film buff and a political junkie, too, as I am, you will just love Marc Eliot’s latest book, “Reagan: The Hollywood Years.” The author touches on Ronald Reagan’s early days in Dixon, Illinois, but mainly focuses on his film career in which he was cast in one bad B movie after another. The main expose in this absorbing tome is that during the days of the “Red Scare,” late 40s through the 50s, Reagan was a snitch for the FBI! The author writes that Reagan became a “secret informant, code name ‘T-10,’ for J. Edgar Hoover’s red-baiting FBI.” He regularly met with them in LaLaLand and “handed over names of Screen Actor Guild (SAG) members who ‘might’ be Communist sympathizers.” Reagan would also contact his brother, Neil, “from a pay phone on Sunset Boulevard to pass along information” to the FBI. [2]
What brought Reagan, who served as President of SAG, (1947-52), and again in 1959, to do such a terrible thing? I think he was mostly a hollow type of man, vain, insecure and highly self- righteous. The record shows that to protect his rear end, he had become “a commie hunter;” he also carried a gun. The exact number of colleagues on whom Reagan ratted, will probably never be known. Once tagged as a Red “sympathizer,” no matter how scanty the evidence, an individual was subjected to being “blacklisted” and barred from working in the Hollywood Industry. The fact that one’s political beliefs were protected by the First Amendment didn’t stop the witch hunts. Some victims of the blacklisting process were so scarred, that they committed suicide. Mr. Eliot mentions two: Philip Loeb and Barry Crum. [3]
Reagan arrived in Tinseltown in 1937. His prior drama experience came from stage work that he’d done back home in high school and at Eureka College. His also had a better than average speaking voice and projected a wholesome Midwestern look, just what Central Casting was seeking. Like today, however, you can’t get the auditions, unless you have a good agent. Reagan was really lucky on that score. An acquaintance referred him to the William Meiklejohn’s Agency, a well connected Hollywood player, that soon merged into the Lew Wasserman tent. A seven year contract with Warner Brothers quickly followed. Wasserman, a super agent, deserves the major credit for steering Reagan on his nearly 30 year, very lucrative career in Hollywood that lasted until 1965. It all led to the formation of his carefully crafted political persona that was to become his successful calling card.
That job Reagan did as a sportscaster of baseball games (1936-7) worked to his advantage, too. This was at a radio station in Des Moines, Iowa, where he broadcasted the games, giving a play-by-play account, via information coming over a wire. So, Reagan would be sitting in a studio describing a baseball game being played, say in Chicago. This called for him to make up or embellish things in order to enliven the broadcast. Reagan became an expert at “telling stories” and making things up. The telling story thing he got honestly from his father “Jack” Reagan--a shoe salesman. This skill would serve Reagan well, too, as U.S. President, (1981-89), in selling his disastrous “Voodoo Economics” to the people. [4]
Although the author does discuss in some detail Reagan’s two marriages; first to Jane Wyman (1940-49), and then later to Nancy Davis (1952-2004), and also his relationship with his children, I’m going to mostly ignore that sensitive subject. I will only note that Ms. Wyman is one of my all time favorite actresses. Her role in the riveting film, “Johnny Belinda,” is a classic for which she rightly deserved the “Best Actress” award in 1949. It was Ms. Wyman, who had first “urged” Reagan to run for the “Board of SAG,” but she couldn’t stand his right wing zealotry. His incessant “pontificating” about politics tended to “drive her crazy.”
Hollywood, in Reagan’s day, was then, as it is in 2008, the capital of the country as far as very attractive women are concerned. And, he wasn’t shy about dating many leading ladies. In fact, Reagan’s “love life was no secret...It was the talk of the town,” writes Mr. Eliot. Some of the women worked with him at Warner Brothers. Later at the White House, at Cabinet meetings, Reagan would “gossip” in terms “quite graphically,” about the many gals that he’d bedded over the years. It was “a very long list,” according to the author, more than twenty, and it included some fabled female celebrities that would have made even Warren Beatty, a reported legendary womanizer, gasp in awe. (5) Mr. Eliot names Reagan’s putative love interest.
The author also adds all kinds of juicy tidbits in his book to round out his characterization of Reagan. For example, Reagan was “jealous” of the actor Earl Flynn. Well, that one is easy to understand. Flynn was a dashing figure, a “top-of-the-line” star, compared to the boring, wooden Reagan. Also, Mr. Eliot reveals that Reagan loathed the Kennedy brothers, John and Robert, particularly Robert; and that he had a strong dislike for homosexuals; and enjoyed changing his shoes two or three times a day. Reagan also was quoted as saying that he didn’t understand why actors “needed to have a union.” This was another insight into his warped psyche. In August, 1981, then President Reagan ruthlessly fired the striking 11,345 air traffic controllers (PATC0)--busting the union. He did so even though PATCO, and the Teamsters, a national organization, had endorsed him for president over the Democrats’ Jimmy Carter, in 1980. [6]
You might want to know where was the Uber-Patriot Reagan, during WWII? He was making “propaganda movies” in Hollywood, Culver City to be exact, for the government! His eyesight was supposedly “so poor he could be assigned only to limited duties in non combat situation.” When I think about the real patriots that I knew when I was growing up in South Baltimore, who made genuine sacrifices in WWII, such as: Pete “Hooks” Williams, of the legendary “Darby’s Rangers,” who lost a leg at Normandy; “Rip” Burdinski, blinded; Charley Ellenberger, without both of his legs; and Harry C. Agro, who spent nearly three years subjected to vicious beatings every day in a horrific Japanese’s POW camp, I want to scream out about the inequality of it all. [7] Reagan was oiling the propaganda machine, while my heroes were fighting the war. There is plenty more in Mr. Eliot’s gem of a book, on a wide variety of interesting topics, too much for me to summarize here.
I think Reagan, as President of the U.S., pulled a con job on America! He served the Special Interests, not the people. Mr. Eliot’s book opens up a window on the forces, during Reagan’s Hollywood days, which helped to forge this B film actor’s outlook on life. His harmful economic legacy is still with us today. [8]
Notes:
[1]. Arthur Miller’s finest play was the “Crucible,” which debuted in 1953. It was about the Salem witch trials, but it also served as an attack on the evils of McCarthyism, then rampant in the U.S.
[2]. Ronald Reagan’s FBI File No. is #100-382196. Another author, Curt Gentry, in “J. Edgar Hoover,” corroborates Reagan’s spying on his fellow SAG members. He writes, at p. 354, that Reagan was a “confidential informant for the FBI since 1943.”
[3]. “The Inquisition in Hollywood” by L. Ceplair and S. Englund.
[4]. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Voodoo-economics
[5]. http://www.donaly.com/don_alys_column27.html
[6]. http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray06302008.html andhttp://socialistworker.org/2001/374/374_10_PATCO.shtml
[7]. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/5060
[8]. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Ronald_Reagan_Legacy.html Source:
by courtesy & © 2008 William Hughes
Republicans to Nominate Zombie Reagan in 2012

WASHINGTON, DC - In a move that surprised even veteran politicians and reporters, the Republican National Convention announced earlier this week that they planned to nominate the reanimated corpse of former President Ronald Reagan for the 2012 Presidential race.
The former President was resurrected in an arcane voodoo ceremony involving the slaughter of dozens of chickens and goats and lasting several hours.
High Priestess Joleen Acadia commented, "We have to work very hard to resurrect the Reagan. To bring him back we must spill the blood of the innocent."
It is unclear as of press time how the Republicans plan to circumvent the Twenty-Second Amendment, which prevents a person from serving more than two terms in office. Some have speculated that, since the former President has been raised from the dead, he has been effectively re-borne and is thus available to occupy the office of the President for two more terms. The Democrats are expected to take issue with this, however.
Nancy Pelosi, speaking at a fund-raising dinner, commented on the announcement. "The whole idea is completely preposterous. First of all, Reagan has already served out the maximum number of terms he can serve according to the Constitution. The fact that he has been reborn as a zombie doesn't make it okay!"
Republicans have countered this argument saying that the Democrats are just jealous because they can't zombify John F. Kennedy because his brain was destroyed in the assassination. Democrats have refused to comment on that accusation.
Continued Pelosi, "And furthermore, how can we account for the safety of the Presidential staff, not to mention visiting dignitaries, when the President will have an insatiable appetite for the brains of the living?"
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans were excited about the proposition.
"This is truly an exciting time to be a Republican," said Dennis Hastert, the soon-to-be replaced Speaker of the House. "Never before in the history of this great nation have we had the privilege to reanimate the corpse of one our greatest Presidents. As long as we can find a halfway decent running mate for Zombie Reagan, we can't lose in 2012!"
Hastert, though technically correct, completely ignored the failed attempt in 1945 to transfer the brain of the recently deceased Franklin Delano Roosevelt into the body of Harry Truman. Although ultimately a failure, these early attempts at resurrecting a dead President laid the groundwork for the eventual zombification of Ronald Reagan.
After the initial shock of the announcement wore off, pundits agreed that Zombie Reagan was the only clear choice for the Republican Party at this time.
"You've got to look at it this way," stated Greg McDaniel, a political correspondent with the Miami Herald. "The Republicans just got completely trounced in the mid-terms, and they need a real leader that they can unite behind in 2012. Zombie Reagan is the obvious choice. If he could beat the Commies, then I think he'll make short work of Barrack Obama."
"Besides," continued McDaniel, "who else could they possibly run, John McCain or Rudy Guiliani?"
There have been also scattered reports coming in that the Democrats are planning to inject Hilary Clinton with a serum consisting of the combined the DNA of John Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, along with a cryptic sounding 'Chemical X592' The serum would transform Clinton into a super-powered Democrat, which analysts agree would be necessary to defeat Zombie Reagan.
As of press time we have been unable to corroborate those rumors.

ESTATES OF THE REALM






Estates of the realm were the broad divisions of society, usually distinguishing nobility, clergy, and commoners recognized in the Middle Ages and later, in some parts of Europe. While various realms inverted the order of the first two, commoners were universally tertiary, and often further divided into burghers (also known as bourgeoisie) and peasants; in some regions, there also was a population outside the estates. An estate was usually inherited and based on occupation, similar to a caste.
Legislative bodies or advisory bodies to a monarch were traditionally grouped along lines of these estates, with the monarch above all three estates. Meetings of the estates of the realm became early legislative and judicial parliaments (see The States). Two medieval parliaments derived their name from the estates of the realm:
the primarily tricameral Estates-General (French: États-Généraux) of the Kingdom of France (the analogue to the bicameral Parliament of England but with no constitutional tradition of vested powers, the French monarchy remaining absolute); and
the unicameral Estates of Parliament, also known as the Three Estates (Scots: Thrie Estaitis), the parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland (which had more power over the monarch than the French assembly, but less than the English one), and its sister institution the Convention of Estates of Scotland.
Monarchs often sought to legitimize their power by requiring oaths of fealty from the estates.
France under the Ancien Régime (before the French Revolution) divided society into three estates: the First Estate (clergy); the Second Estate (nobility); and the Third Estate (commoners). The king was considered part of no estate.
First Estate
The First Estate comprised the entire clergy, traditionally divided into "higher" and "lower" clergy. Although there was no formal demarcation between the two categories, the upper clergy were, effectively, clerical nobility, from the families of the Second Estate. In the time of Louis XVI, every bishop in France was a nobleman, a situation that had not existed before the 18th century.[1] At the other extreme, the "lower clergy" ( about equally divided between parish priests and monks and nuns) constituted about 90 percent of the First Estate, which in 1789 numbered around 130,000 (about 0.5% of the population).
In principle, the responsibilities of the First Estate included the registration of births, marriages and deaths. They collected the tithe (dîme, usually 10 percent); served as moral guides; operated schools and hospitals; and distributed relief to the poor. They also owned 10 percent of all the land in France, which was exempt from property tax.[1] The church did however pay the state a so-called "free gift" known as a don gratuit, which was collected via the décime, a tax on ecclesiastic offices.
The French inheritance system of primogeniture meant that nearly all French fortunes would pass largely in a single line, through the eldest son. Hence, it became very common for second sons to join the clergy. Although some dedicated churchmen came out of this system, much of the higher clergy continued to live the lives of aristocrats, enjoying the wealth derived from church lands and tithes and, in some cases, paying little or no attention to their pastoral duties. The ostentatious wealth of the higher clergy was, no doubt, partly responsible for the widespread anticlericalism in France, dating back as far as the Middle Ages, and was certainly responsible for the element of class resentment within the anticlericalism of many peasants and wage-earners.
The first estates had to pay no taxes to the second and third estates.
Similar class resentments existed within the First Estate.
During the latter years of the Ancien Régime, the Catholic Church in France (the Gallican Church) was a separate entity within the realm of Papal control, both a State within a State and Church within a Church. The King had the right to make appointments to the bishoprics, abbeys, and priories and the right to regulate the clergy.[2]
[edit] Second Estate
The Second Estate (Fr. deuxieme état) was the French nobility(or any man who owned land) and (technically, though not in common use) royalty, other than the monarch himself, who stood outside of the system of estates.
The Second Estate is traditionally divided into "noblesse de robe" ("nobility of the robe"), the magisterial class that administered royal justice and civil government, and "noblesse d'épée" ("nobility of the sword").
The Second Estate constituted approximately 1.5% of France's population.[citation needed] Under the ancien régime, the Second Estate were exempt from the corvée royale (forced labour on the roads) and from most other forms of taxation such as the gabelle (salt tax) and most important, the taille (the oldest form of direct taxation). This exemption from paying taxes led to their reluctance to reform.
The French nobility was not a closed class, and many means were available to rich land owners or state office holders for gaining nobility for themselves or their descendants.
Noblemen shared honorary privileges such as the right to display their unique coat of arms and the prestige right to wear a sword. This helped to reinforce the idea of their natural superiority. They could also collect taxes from the third estate called feudal dues; this was to be for the third estate's protection.
[edit] Third Estate
The Third Estate (Fr. tiers état) was the generality of people which were not part of the other estates.
The Third Estate comprised all those not members of the above and can be divided into two groups, urban and rural. The urban included the bourgeoisie, as well as wage-labor (such as craftsmen). The rural includes the peasantry, or the farming class. The Third Estate includes some of what would now be considered middle class - e.g. the budding town bourgeoisie. What united the third estate is that most had little or no wealth and yet were forced to pay disproportionately high taxes to the other estates.
[edit] The French Estates General
See main articles French Estates General, Estates General of 1789
The first Estates General (not to be confused with a "class of citizen") was actually a general citizen assembly that was called by Philip IV in 1302.
In the period leading up to the Estates General of 1789, France was in the grip of an unmanageable public debt and terrible inflation and food scarcity. This led to widespread popular discontent and produced a group of third estate representatives pressing a comparatively radical set of reforms - much of it in alignment with the goals of finance minister Jacques Necker but very much against the wishes of Louis XVI's court and many of the hereditary nobles forming the second estate. Louis sought to dissolve the estates general after they refused to accept his agenda, but the third estate held out for their right to representation. The lower clergy (and some nobles and upper clergy) eventually sided with the third estate, and the king was forced to yield. The States-General was reconstituted first as the National Assembly (June 17, 1789) and then as the National Constituent Assembly (July 9, 1789), a unitary body composed of the former representatives of the three estates.
In Scotland
The members of the parliament of Scotland were collectively referred to as the Three Estates (Scots: Thrie Estaitis), know as:community of the realm composed of:
the first estate of prelates (bishops and abbots)
the second estate of lairds (dukes, earls, parliamentary peers (after 1437) and lay tenants-in-chief)
the third estate of burgh commissioners (representatives chosen by the royal burghs)
From the 16th century, the second estate was reorganised by the selection of Shire Commissioners: this has been argued to have created a fourth estate. During the 17th century, after the Union of the Crowns, a fifth estate of royal office holders (see Lord High Commissioner to the Parliament of Scotland) has been identified as well. These latter identifications remain highly controversial among parliamentary historians. Regardless, the term used for the assembled members continued to be 'the Three Estates'.
A Shire Commissioner was the closest equivalent of the English office of Member of Parliament, namely a commoner or member of the lower nobility. Because the parliament of Scotland was unicameral, all members sat in the same chamber, as opposed to the separate English House of Lords and House of Commons.
The Parliament also had University constituencies (see Ancient universities of Scotland). The system was also adopted by the Parliament of England when James VI ascended to the English throne. It was believed that the universities were affected by the decisions of Parliament and ought therefore to have representation in it. This continued in the Parliament of Great Britain after 1707 and the Parliament of the United Kingdom until 1950.
In Sweden and Finland
The Estates in Sweden and Finland were the two higher estates nobility, clergy and the two lower estates burghers and land-owning peasants. Each were free men, and had specific rights and responsibilities, and the right to send representatives to the governing assembly, the Riksdag of the Estates in Sweden and the Diet of Finland (only after 1809), respectively. Also, there was a population outside the estates; unlike in other areas, people had no "default" estate, and were not peasants unless they came from a land-owner's family. A summary of this division is:
Nobility (see Finnish nobility and Swedish nobility) is exempt from tax, has an inherited rank and the right to keep a fief, and has a tradition of military service and government. Nobility was established in 1279 with the Swedish king granted tax-free status (frälse) to peasants who could equip a cavalryman (or be one themselves) in the king's army. Initially, exemption from tax was not inherited, but it became hereditary in 1544. Following Axel Oxenstierna's reform, government positions were open only to nobles. However, the nobility still owned only their own property, not the peasants or their land as in much of Europe. Heads of the noble houses were hereditary members of the assembly of nobles.
Clergy, or priests, were exempt from tax, and collected tithes for the church. After the Reformation, the church became Lutheran. In later centuries, the estate included teachers of universities and certain state schools. The estate was governed by the state church which consecrated its ministers and appointed them to positions with a vote in choosing diet representatives.
Burghers are city-dwellers, tradesmen and craftsmen. Trade was allowed only in the cities when the mercantilistic ideology had got the upper hand, and the burghers had the exclusive right to conduct commerce. Entry to this Estate is controlled by the autonomy of the towns themselves. Peasants were allowed to sell their produce within the city limits, but any further trade, particularly foreign trade, was allowed only for burghers. In order for a settlement to become a city, a royal charter granting market right was required, and foreign trade required royally chartered staple port rights. After the annexation of Finland into Imperial Russia in 1809, mill-owners and other proto-industrialists would gradually be included in this estate.
Peasants are land-owners of land-taxed farms and their families, which represented the majority in medieval times. Since most of the population were independent farmer families until 19th century, not serfs nor villeins, there is a remarkable difference in tradition compared to other European countries. Entry was controlled by ownership of farmland, which was not generally for sale but a hereditary property. After 1809, tenants renting a large enough farm (ten times larger than what was required of peasants owning their own farm) were included as well as non-nobility owning tax-exempt land.
To no estate belonged propertyless cottagers, villeins, tenants of farms owned by others, farmhands, servants, some lower administrative workers, rural craftsmen, travelling salesmen, vagrants, and propertyless and unemployed people (who sometimes lived in strangers' houses). To reflect how the people belonging to the estates saw them, the Finnish word for "obscene", säädytön, has the literal meaning "estateless".
In Sweden, the Riksdag of the Estates existed until it was replaced with a bicameral Riksdag in 1866, which gave political rights to anyone with a certain income or property. Nevertheless, many of the leading politicians of the 19th century continued to be drawn from the old estates, in that they were either noblemen themselves, or represented agricultural and urban interests. Ennoblements continued even after the estates had lost their political importance, with the last ennoblement (Sven Hedin) in 1902. This practice was discontinued with the adoption of the new Constitution in 1974, while the status of the House of Lords continued to be regulated in law until 2003.
In Finland, this legal division existed until the modern age. However, at the start of the 20th century, most of the population did not belong to any Estate and had no political representation. A particularly large class were the rent farmers, who did not own the land they cultivated, but had to work in the land-owner's farm to pay their rent. (Unlike Russia, there were no slaves or serfs.) Furthermore, the industrial workers living in the city were not represented by the four-estate system. The political system was reformed, and the last Diet was dissolved in 1905, to create the modern parliamentary system, ending the political privileges of the estates. The constitution of 1919 forbade giving new noble ranks, and all tax privileges were abolished in 1920. The privileges of the estates were officially and finally abolished in 1995,[2] although in legal practice, the privileges had long been unenforceable. However, the nobility has never been officially abolished and records of nobility are still voluntarily maintained by the Finnish House of Nobility.
Nevertheless, the old traditions and in particular ownership of property changed slowly, and the rent-farmer problem became so severe that it was a major cause to the Finnish Civil War. Although the division became irrelevant following the establishment of a parliamentary democracy and political parties, industrialization and urbanization, it might be possible to claim that their traditions live on in the political parties of Sweden and Finland, in the sense that there are parties that have traditionally represented upper-class and business interests (Moderate Party and Coalition Party) and farmers (the Centre Parties of Sweden and Finland).[citation needed]
In Finland, it is still illegal and punishable by jail time (up to one year) to defraud into marriage by declaring a false name or estate (Rikoslaki 18 luku § 1/Strafflagen 18 kap. § 1).
[edit] In the Holy Roman Empire
The Holy Roman Empire had the Imperial Diet. The clergy was represented by the independent prince-bishops, prince-archbishops and abbots of the many monasteries. The nobility consisted of independent aristocratic rulers: secular electors, kings, dukes, margraves, counts and others. Burghers consisted of representatives of the independent imperial cities. Many peoples whose territories within the Holy Roman Empire had been independent for centuries had no representatives in the Imperial Diet, and this included the imperial knights and independent villages. The power of the Imperial Diet was limited, despite efforts of centralization.
Large realms of the nobility or clergy had estates of their own that could wield great power in local affairs. Power struggles between ruler and estates were comparable to similar events in the history of the British and French parliaments.
The Swabian League, a significant regional power in its part of Germany during the 15th Century, also had its own kind of Estates, a governing Federal Council comprising three Colleges: those of Princes, Cities, and Knights.
[edit] In the Russian Empire
Main article: Social estates in the Russian Empire
In late Russian Empire the estates were called sosloviyes. The four major estates were: nobility (dvoryanstvo), clergy, rural dwellers, and urban dwellers, with a more detailed stratification therein. The division in estates was of mixed nature: traditional, occupational, as well as formal: for example, voting in Duma was carried out by estates. Russian Empire Census recorded the reported estate of a person.
In Catalonia
Main article: Catalan Parliament
The Parliament of Catalonia (Corts Catalanes) was established in 1283, according to American historian Thomas Bisson, and it has been considered by several historians as a model of medieval parliament. For instance, English historian of constitutionalism Charles Howard McIlwain wrote that the Parliament of Catalonia, during the XIV century, had a more defined organization and met more regularly than the parliaments of England or France.[3].
The roots of the parliament institution in Catalonia stem from the Sanctuary and Truce Assemblies (assemblees de pau i treva) that started on the XI century. The members of the parliament of Catalonia were organized in the Three Estates (Catalan: Tres Braços):
the "military estate" (braç militar) with representatives of the feudal nobility
the "ecclesiastical estate" (braç eclesiàstic) with representatives of the religious hierarchy
the "royal estate" (braç reial) with representatives of the free municipalities under royal privilege
The parliament institution was abolished in 1716 after the invasion and annexation of Catalonia by the Kingdom of Castille, together with the rest of institutions of Catalonia, after the War of the Spanish Succession.
The fourth wall refers to the imaginary "wall" at the front of the stage in a proscenium theatre, through which the audience sees the action in the world of the play.[1][2] The term also applies to the boundary between any fictional setting and its audience. When this boundary is "broken" (for example by an actor speaking to the audience directly through the camera in a television program or film), it is called "breaking the fourth wall."[1][3]
The term was made explicit by Denis Diderot and spread in nineteenth century theatre with the advent of theatrical realism.[4] The critic Vincent Canby described it in 1987 as "that invisible screen that forever separates the audience from the stage."[5]
The term "fourth wall" stems from the absence of a fourth wall on a three-walled set where the audience is viewing the production. The audience is supposed to assume there is a "fourth wall" present, even though it physically is not there.[2] This is widely noticeable on various television programs, such as sitcoms, but the term originated in theatre, where conventional three-walled stage sets provide a more obvious "fourth wall".[3] The term "fourth wall" has been adapted to refer to the boundary between the fiction and the audience. "Fourth wall" is part of the suspension of disbelief between a fictional work and an audience. The audience will accept the presence of the fourth wall without giving it any direct thought, allowing them to enjoy the fiction as if they were observing real events.[2] The presence of a fourth wall is an established convention of fiction and drama, this has led some artists to draw direct attention to it for dramatic or comedic effect. This is known as "breaking the fourth wall".[1]
[edit] Fifth wall
The term "fifth wall" has been used as a derivative of the fourth wall, referring to the "the invisible wall between critics and readers and theatre practitioners."[6] This conception led to a series of workshops at the Globe Theatre in 2004 designed to help break the fifth wall.[7] The term has also been used to refer to "that semi-porous membrane that stands between individual audience members during a shared experience".[8] In media, the television set has been described metaphorically as a fifth wall because of how it allows a person to see beyond the traditional four walls of a room[9][10] A different usage of the term has described the fifth wall as the screen on which images are projected in shadow theatre.[11]
Fourth Estate is a term referring to the press. In this sense the term goes back at least to Thomas Carlyle in 1841, who in turn attributed it, possibly erroneously, to a coining by Edmund Burke during a parliamentary debate in 1792 on the opening up of press reporting of the House of Commons. Earlier writers have applied the term to lawyers, to the queen of England, acting on her own account distinct from the power of the king, and to "the mob".
Primary meaning
The term in current use is now appropriated to "the Press",[1] with the earliest use in this sense found in Thomas Carlyle's book On Heroes and Hero Worship (1841) in which he wrote:
Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all. [Italics added][2]
Burke's reference would have been to the traditional three estates of Parliament: The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.[3] If, indeed, Burke did make the statement Carlyle attributes to him, his remark may have been in the back of Carlyle's mind when he wrote in his French Revolution (1837), "A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up; increases and multiplies, irrepressible, incalculable."[4] In this context, the other three estates are those of the French States-General: the church, the nobility and the townsmen.[3] Carlyle, however, may have mistaken his attribution: Thomas Macknight, writing in 1858, observes that Burke was merely a teller at the "illustrious nativity of the Fourth Estate".[5] Other candidates for coining the term are Henry Brougham speaking in Parliament in 1823 or 1824,[1] and Thomas Macaulay in an essay of 1827,[6] again in the context of the parliamentary press.
Author Oscar Wilde wrote:
In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.[7]
[edit] Alternative meanings
[edit] The law
The term Fourth Estate was used in the early seventeenth century to propose that a government should hold in check a fourth estate of lawyers selling justice to the rich and denying it to a rightful litigant who cannot buy a verdict:
What is more barbarous than to see a nation [...] where justice is lawfully denied him, that hath not wherewithall to pay for it; and that this merchandize hath so great credit, that in a politicall government there should be set up a fourth estate [tr. Latin: quatriesme estat] of Lawyers, breathsellers and pettifoggers [...].
—John Florio , 1603[8]
The proletariat
An early citation for this is Henry Fielding in The Covent Garden Journal (1752):
None of our political writers...take notice of any more than three estates, namely, Kings, Lords, and Commons..passing by in silence that very large and powerful body which form the fourth estate in this community...The Mob.[9]
(This is an early use of "mob" to mean the mobile vulgus, the common masses.)
This sense has prevailed in other countries: In Italy, for example, striking workers in 1890s Turin were depicted as Il quarto stato—The Fourth Estate—in a painting by Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo.[10] A political journal of the left, Quarto Stato, published in Milan, Italy, in 1926, also reflected this meaning.[11] The English queen
In a parliamentary debate of 1789 M.P. Thomas Powys demanded of minister William Pitt that he should not allow powers of regency to "a fourth estate: the queen". This account comes to us in the journalism of Burke who, as noted above, apparently was the first to use the phrase in its later meaning of "press".[12]
Fiction
In his novel The Fourth Estate Jeffrey Archer made the observation: "In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estates General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners." The book is a fictionalization from episodes in the lives of two real-life press barons: Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch.
Fifth Estate
The term "Fifth Estate" has no fixed meaning, but is used to describe any class or group in society other than the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), the commoners (Third Estate), and the press (Fourth Estate).[1] It has been used to describe trade unions, the poor, the blogosphere and organized crime. It can also be used to describe media outlets that see themselves in opposition to mainstream ("Fourth Estate") media. The term is entirely different in origin and meaning from "Fifth Column", which is used to describe subversive or insurgent elements in a society.
Nimmo and Combs assert that political pundits constitute a Fifth Estate.[2] Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper argues that bloggers are the Fifth Estate.[3] The American periodical Broadcasting once proudly proclaimed itself to be "The Fifth Estate" on its cover.[4]
The Fifth Estate newspaper began in 1965 as an alternative bi-weekly publication of left-wing politics and the arts in Detroit, Michigan, as part of the so-called "underground press" movement of oppositional papers. It continues publishing today with editorial collectives in Detroit; Liberty, Tennessee; New York City; and La Crosse, Wisconsin. Its usage of the name was the first in the modern era and the editors have attempted to discourage other media outlets from adopting the name, but to no avail.[citation needed]
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation airs a newsmagazine called "The Fifth Estate" on its English language television network. The name was chosen to highlight the program's determination to go beyond everyday news into original journalism. And the title for the magazine show was also taken after a previously aired investigative documentary on CBC TV (January 9, 1974) on the CIA and espionage activities of the US and Canada entitled, "The Fifth Estate: The Espionage Establishment." see James Dubro
The Fifth Estate (band) formed in 1963 as The D-Men, but changed their name to The Fifth Estate in 1965 to indicate their part in the underground music movement and to indicate their musical stance as (if not directly in opposition to) at least "different" from and as an alternative to the top 40 musical scene of that time. In spite of this, through the 60s they had several minor hits and a major international hit (done in five languages) with "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" in 1967.