_____________________________________________
A small catastrophe today, and I'm still not over it!
As you might imagine, the lamp finials in this house are absolutely exquisite!
"Lamp Jewelry", as the Missus calls them. And she's spent a lifetime collecting them from her travels all over the globe!
There's carved ivory, hand-painted porcelain, pewter, brass, nickle-plate, marble, jade, hand-whittled wood, and sparkling lead crystals!
Well, this evening there was a small meeting planned for a few VIPs, and Ester decided the lamp shade next to the guest of honor's chair needed to be dusted.
We take them outside to do this, and as she unscrewed the turquoise finial it broke in half in her hand!
OMG! We're all getting fired!
As the Butler here, normally when something is broken we carefully wrap each piece (including the slivers) and send it off to a professional conservator. But certainly no time for that today!
So I called Maurizio and asked him to come immediately! It was a clean break in the turquoise, and he was able to fuse the two pieces together with SuperGlue!
And the lamp shade and finial were put back into place -- just in time!
We don't have that many hateful guests who walk around with a magnifying glass to inspect for cracks and improper repairs! So I guess we got away with it, at least for the evening!
I have a professional obligation to report any incidents like this in my daily log -- which the Missus reads from time to time. But I don't think anything more will come from this. (Especially if the SuperGlue holds!)
Hope this wasn't boring! Ha! But such is my world.
Thanks for reading!
And good night,
Andrew
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
FAQ: "Do Charm Schools Still Exist?"
_______________________________________
What a great question, and fun topic!
As the Butler for a billionaire's family, I'm delighted to tell you what I know!
Finishing Schools (also called Charm Schools) primarily teach social etiquette in such areas as:
- Proper topics for social conversation.
- How to address someone (especially dignitaries and royalty).
- How to shake hands and/or bow.
- Letter writing, invitations and regrets.
- How to set a formal dining table.
- And so forth...
These schools also teach physical comportment -- posture, how to walk with style, how to sit, how to eat.
They flourished in earlier times when professional careers were not open to girls. And therefore were designed primarily to prepare young women for marriage -- hopefully into high society.
But many (if not most) of these schools closed when women began entering college and going into professional careers.
Even so, social skills are still important to learn, and many prominent schools have survived.
It's well known that even Diana, Princess of Wales briefly attended the Institut Alpin Videmanette -- a famous finishing school in Switzerland!
In modern times, finishing schools have evolved and are experiencing a resurgence. Especially as the rich grow in numbers.
Even major Corporations are jumping in and sending their prized employees to what they call "Protocol or Etiquette Schools", especially when dealing with foreign corporations.
But long gone are the days when every city and small town in America had a "Miss Lovely's Finishing School for Girls".
(For more information on the best schools still in existence, just Google the phrase "finishing schools switzerland")
I hope this was interesting, and somewhat informative.
Any Butler School in the world (such as the one I went to) covers social etiquette in minute, excruciating detail! Ha!
Example: If your employer has a dinner party for fifteen-or-twenty state Governors, do you know the proper protocol to seat them at the dining table?
I do -- and any good Finishing School would teach you the same.
Good night,
Andrew
What a great question, and fun topic!
As the Butler for a billionaire's family, I'm delighted to tell you what I know!
Finishing Schools (also called Charm Schools) primarily teach social etiquette in such areas as:
- Proper topics for social conversation.
- How to address someone (especially dignitaries and royalty).
- How to shake hands and/or bow.
- Letter writing, invitations and regrets.
- How to set a formal dining table.
- And so forth...
These schools also teach physical comportment -- posture, how to walk with style, how to sit, how to eat.
They flourished in earlier times when professional careers were not open to girls. And therefore were designed primarily to prepare young women for marriage -- hopefully into high society.
But many (if not most) of these schools closed when women began entering college and going into professional careers.
Even so, social skills are still important to learn, and many prominent schools have survived.
It's well known that even Diana, Princess of Wales briefly attended the Institut Alpin Videmanette -- a famous finishing school in Switzerland!
In modern times, finishing schools have evolved and are experiencing a resurgence. Especially as the rich grow in numbers.
Even major Corporations are jumping in and sending their prized employees to what they call "Protocol or Etiquette Schools", especially when dealing with foreign corporations.
But long gone are the days when every city and small town in America had a "Miss Lovely's Finishing School for Girls".
(For more information on the best schools still in existence, just Google the phrase "finishing schools switzerland")
I hope this was interesting, and somewhat informative.
Any Butler School in the world (such as the one I went to) covers social etiquette in minute, excruciating detail! Ha!
Example: If your employer has a dinner party for fifteen-or-twenty state Governors, do you know the proper protocol to seat them at the dining table?
I do -- and any good Finishing School would teach you the same.
Good night,
Andrew
Friday, April 13, 2012
New Rich versus Old Rich!
_____________________________________
As the butler in a billionaire's household, I'm frequently asked about the differences between the old rich and the new.
This of course is one of those areas where generalizations are dangerous, in that we're all so different in the way we conduct ourselves - whether we're new rich, old rich - or poor for that matter.
But to make an attempt to answer, let's first look at the definitions:
Old Rich is usually associated with land ownership (the landed gentry), with money being inherited down the line for at least three generations. (And these people, living from their trust funds, simply don't work - at least as we know it! But to be fair, some of them do "administrate". Which is great work if you can get it!)
New Rich (the Nouveau Riche) usually refers to those who've made their fortunes themselves - as industrialists, bankers, builders, the oil rich, inventors, investors - not to mention the money that flows from sports and media fame (actors, musicians and the like).
(A curious note here: in America, the Rockefeller family (oil) and the DuPont's (gun powder), the Vanderbilt's (railroads) and the Astor's (real estate and hotels) were once considered new rich! But since these families have managed to hang on to their fortunes and pass it down to these very days, they're now considered old rich families.)
Moving right along - conventional wisdom has some very specific adjectives when describing the new and the old rich:
The Old: Quiet, proper, reserved, careful and moderate. (They don't know any other way of life except being rich!)
The New: Loud, crass, vulgar, gauche and splashy. (They're ecstatic about their new-found wealth, and why not have some fun, right?)
I have to admit I agree with the above assessments. But again, the danger of generalizations is that it overlooks the new rich who are quiet, modest and share their wealth through charities of all sorts.
And it overlooks the famous heirs from prominent old rich families who's crassness and vulgarities are constantly being splashed across the news and Hollywood tabloids.
So go figure.
In Europe, there are three classes: The Royals, the Bourgeoisie (people with money), and the Proletariat (the workers). And no matter how many billions the Bourgeoisie might accumulate, they still cannot cross that social barrier of becoming Royalty! (Although with enough money and accomplishments you could be 'Knighted', like Sir Paul McCartney or Dame Edith Evans.)
In America, having thrown off kings and queens, we just have the Bourgeoisie (the Upper Class), and the Proletariat (the Middle and Lower Classes).
And not having Royalty to keep the richest Bourgeoisie in their place, our American billionaires often seem like fish out of water - flopping around, not knowing what to do with themselves and all their money, and constantly embarrassing themselves in front of a tv audience!
We try to re-create Royalty in America by assigning lineage as an indication of respectability. Members of the Mayflower Society - families that can trace their ancestors to those who came over on the Mayflower - are of high esteem. Then there's the DAR - Daughter's of the American Revolution, way up there on the list of American 'royalty'.
And there's the Junior League that further establishes a social hierarchy in America, in the absence of royalty. (Although I think there are branches of the JL in England, right?)
The thing is, being rich, whether new or old, is of no real indication of serious intelligence, magnanimity, or any social conscience at all. You can have old money out the wazoo and still be stupid as an ox, or even worse, selfish. Or new money that allows you the opportunity for grace and charity.
So to wind this up, I really don't know what else to say about the differences between the new and the old rich. There's decidedly a difference, of course. But who cares, and why?
Would you rather be at a cocktail party with a bunch of quiet, boring old-rich buzzards -- or a nutty new rich party where any crazy thing might happen?
I vote for the latter -- but that's just me!
Thanks for reading! And I hope I haven't bored you to tears!
Good night,
Andrew
As the butler in a billionaire's household, I'm frequently asked about the differences between the old rich and the new.
This of course is one of those areas where generalizations are dangerous, in that we're all so different in the way we conduct ourselves - whether we're new rich, old rich - or poor for that matter.
But to make an attempt to answer, let's first look at the definitions:
Old Rich is usually associated with land ownership (the landed gentry), with money being inherited down the line for at least three generations. (And these people, living from their trust funds, simply don't work - at least as we know it! But to be fair, some of them do "administrate". Which is great work if you can get it!)
New Rich (the Nouveau Riche) usually refers to those who've made their fortunes themselves - as industrialists, bankers, builders, the oil rich, inventors, investors - not to mention the money that flows from sports and media fame (actors, musicians and the like).
(A curious note here: in America, the Rockefeller family (oil) and the DuPont's (gun powder), the Vanderbilt's (railroads) and the Astor's (real estate and hotels) were once considered new rich! But since these families have managed to hang on to their fortunes and pass it down to these very days, they're now considered old rich families.)
Moving right along - conventional wisdom has some very specific adjectives when describing the new and the old rich:
The Old: Quiet, proper, reserved, careful and moderate. (They don't know any other way of life except being rich!)
The New: Loud, crass, vulgar, gauche and splashy. (They're ecstatic about their new-found wealth, and why not have some fun, right?)
I have to admit I agree with the above assessments. But again, the danger of generalizations is that it overlooks the new rich who are quiet, modest and share their wealth through charities of all sorts.
And it overlooks the famous heirs from prominent old rich families who's crassness and vulgarities are constantly being splashed across the news and Hollywood tabloids.
So go figure.
In Europe, there are three classes: The Royals, the Bourgeoisie (people with money), and the Proletariat (the workers). And no matter how many billions the Bourgeoisie might accumulate, they still cannot cross that social barrier of becoming Royalty! (Although with enough money and accomplishments you could be 'Knighted', like Sir Paul McCartney or Dame Edith Evans.)
In America, having thrown off kings and queens, we just have the Bourgeoisie (the Upper Class), and the Proletariat (the Middle and Lower Classes).
And not having Royalty to keep the richest Bourgeoisie in their place, our American billionaires often seem like fish out of water - flopping around, not knowing what to do with themselves and all their money, and constantly embarrassing themselves in front of a tv audience!
We try to re-create Royalty in America by assigning lineage as an indication of respectability. Members of the Mayflower Society - families that can trace their ancestors to those who came over on the Mayflower - are of high esteem. Then there's the DAR - Daughter's of the American Revolution, way up there on the list of American 'royalty'.
And there's the Junior League that further establishes a social hierarchy in America, in the absence of royalty. (Although I think there are branches of the JL in England, right?)
The thing is, being rich, whether new or old, is of no real indication of serious intelligence, magnanimity, or any social conscience at all. You can have old money out the wazoo and still be stupid as an ox, or even worse, selfish. Or new money that allows you the opportunity for grace and charity.
So to wind this up, I really don't know what else to say about the differences between the new and the old rich. There's decidedly a difference, of course. But who cares, and why?
Would you rather be at a cocktail party with a bunch of quiet, boring old-rich buzzards -- or a nutty new rich party where any crazy thing might happen?
I vote for the latter -- but that's just me!
Thanks for reading! And I hope I haven't bored you to tears!
Good night,
Andrew
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Easter Sunday! And the End of Lent!
_________________________________________
In the Christian world, these are the highest of holy days! And the culmination is tomorrow, Easter Sunday!
I'm stunned to report that my billionaire employers have already laid out attire for tomorrow's church services -- which did not happen last year, or the year before!
But from time to time they do make an appearance in church. (More strategic, socially speaking, than religious, I suspect.)
I've never been quite clear on what Easter Eggs have to do with all this (and don't really want to know), but I can tell you one thing for sure -- tomorrow the relentless requirements of Lent are over! And we can all get back to business! Ha!
I don't know about you, but I'm absolutely worn out by this forty-six days of abstinence and fasting. (Not to mention the guilt for falling off the wagon now and then!)
But I think we're all faced with this kind of struggle, in most religions around the world, aren't we?
Our Muslim friends have Ramadan and other holy days to contend with. In Judaism, there's fasting requirements every time you turn around, right?
The Buddha seemingly suggested fasting on the full moon, while Hindus prefer the New Moon days.
And curiously, Protestant religions have no specified days for fasting at all. What's that all about? Maybe fasting is one of the things they're "protesting"! Ha!
In any case, we're all more-or-less in the same boat, no matter what religion. But tomorrow, in the Catholic faith, Lent is finally and finally over!
And I for one won't miss it at all!
To distance myself from being pagan in any way, let me close tonight, on the eve of Easter Sunday, with Andrea Bocelli's version of Schubert's "Ave Maria", sung in the pagan Colosseum of Rome, (It's been reclaimed and sanctified by the Vatican, you know, many years ago.)
Here's the amazing YouTube link!
And to my readers all 'round the world, no matter what religion or culture, God bless us all tonight.
Happy Easter,
Andrew
In the Christian world, these are the highest of holy days! And the culmination is tomorrow, Easter Sunday!
I'm stunned to report that my billionaire employers have already laid out attire for tomorrow's church services -- which did not happen last year, or the year before!
But from time to time they do make an appearance in church. (More strategic, socially speaking, than religious, I suspect.)
I've never been quite clear on what Easter Eggs have to do with all this (and don't really want to know), but I can tell you one thing for sure -- tomorrow the relentless requirements of Lent are over! And we can all get back to business! Ha!
I don't know about you, but I'm absolutely worn out by this forty-six days of abstinence and fasting. (Not to mention the guilt for falling off the wagon now and then!)
But I think we're all faced with this kind of struggle, in most religions around the world, aren't we?
Our Muslim friends have Ramadan and other holy days to contend with. In Judaism, there's fasting requirements every time you turn around, right?
The Buddha seemingly suggested fasting on the full moon, while Hindus prefer the New Moon days.
And curiously, Protestant religions have no specified days for fasting at all. What's that all about? Maybe fasting is one of the things they're "protesting"! Ha!
In any case, we're all more-or-less in the same boat, no matter what religion. But tomorrow, in the Catholic faith, Lent is finally and finally over!
And I for one won't miss it at all!
To distance myself from being pagan in any way, let me close tonight, on the eve of Easter Sunday, with Andrea Bocelli's version of Schubert's "Ave Maria", sung in the pagan Colosseum of Rome, (It's been reclaimed and sanctified by the Vatican, you know, many years ago.)
Here's the amazing YouTube link!
And to my readers all 'round the world, no matter what religion or culture, God bless us all tonight.
Happy Easter,
Andrew
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Moderation!
___________________________________
As the butler here in a billionaire's world, I've often noticed and admired that moderation seems to be the rule of the day around here.
By definition, it just means restraint and avoidance of excess, in everything from food, alcohol, tobacco, politics, temper and mood -- anything we frail human beings are prone to.
In fact, in a post entitled "What Do Rich People Eat" I mentioned how carefully my billionaire family avoids getting fat from all the rich food available to them.
- Mark Twain said he didn't care for moderation himself, but "It's always been my rule to never smoke while asleep, or refrain from smoking when awake."
- Oscar Wilde suggested that "Moderation is a fatal thing".
- Plato thought a man of moderation was someone of character and wisdom.
- Aristotle advised to avoid extremes and seek "moderation in all things."
- And Saint Augustine said that "Complete abstinence is easier than moderation."
Obviously, there's a huge debate.
It's a choice, of course, and ultimately becomes a way of life.
But having tossed this idea around for a long time (and to condense the wit and wisdom of people much wiser than me), my own adopted point of view is simply this:
"Moderation should never be carried to extreme!"
Thanks for stopping by tonight!
Andrew
As the butler here in a billionaire's world, I've often noticed and admired that moderation seems to be the rule of the day around here.
By definition, it just means restraint and avoidance of excess, in everything from food, alcohol, tobacco, politics, temper and mood -- anything we frail human beings are prone to.
In fact, in a post entitled "What Do Rich People Eat" I mentioned how carefully my billionaire family avoids getting fat from all the rich food available to them.
- Mark Twain said he didn't care for moderation himself, but "It's always been my rule to never smoke while asleep, or refrain from smoking when awake."
- Oscar Wilde suggested that "Moderation is a fatal thing".
- Plato thought a man of moderation was someone of character and wisdom.
- Aristotle advised to avoid extremes and seek "moderation in all things."
- And Saint Augustine said that "Complete abstinence is easier than moderation."
Obviously, there's a huge debate.
It's a choice, of course, and ultimately becomes a way of life.
But having tossed this idea around for a long time (and to condense the wit and wisdom of people much wiser than me), my own adopted point of view is simply this:
"Moderation should never be carried to extreme!"
Thanks for stopping by tonight!
Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)