Wedding of King Juan Carlos of Spain and Princess Sophia of Greece | Unofficial Royalty
This is probably one of the cutiest moments on TV. Little Sophia is so excited to meet Nicki. She never screams “She's real, You're REAL!” It's so precious. Grace Stirs Up Success () cast and crew credits, including actors, actresses, directors, Grace Thomas. Lili Bordán Aunt Sophie Art Direction by. Sophie Luise Elisabeth Muller (born 31 January ) is an English music video director, noted On the set her direction is humble and simple, but she knows what she wants and knows when she gets it. I am always in shock the first time I see them and then after a few more times I am actually amazed. She has taught .
Sophia Grace & Rosie Hit the AMAs Red Carpet -- Extended!
However, by the summer ofit appeared that Sophia and Juan Carlos were beginning to take a romantic interest in one another.
The two spent a good deal of time together at the wedding celebrations, despite the fact that he was officially the escort of Maria Gabriella. The Greek royal family held a dinner for their Spanish guests onboard the ship Polemistis.
At that point, Sophia and Juan Carlos had not seen each other for several months. During that time Juan Carlos had grown a mustache, which Sophia disliked on sight. Sophia later expressed surprise that he let her do it. Irene and Sophia were seen spending time with Juan Carlos at the wedding and various other events, which caught the eye of the press, encouraging rumors that Juan Carlos was courting one of the two sisters. Constantine acted as an unofficial chaperone for Sophia and Juan Carlos when the two attended several private events in London.
Following the success of the Kent wedding, Juan Carlos spent much of the summer of on Corfu at Mons Repos, the Greek royal summer home. Sophia later remarked that the two had several rather nasty arguments while sailing. She said it was during this trip that she decided marriage to Juan Carlos would be a viable option, as she felt if they could move past those arguments which they didthey stood a chance at having a successful marriage. The parents of the bride and groom soon joined their children in Lausanne to mark the happy event.
At the villa, Sophia and Juan Carlos later met with members of the Swiss press to discuss the engagement. Evidently, the two had surprised both sets of parents by indicating their wish to marry. Reportedly, Juan Carlos popped the question to Sophia in a rather unusual way. Sophia did catch the box, and when she opened it she saw that it contained a ring made from melted ancient coins dating back to the reign of Alexander the Great.
According to Constantine, Paul was so excited by the news that he was unaware of the late hour 3: Constantine himself said he was so thrilled by the news of the engagement that he had trouble going back to sleep.
A gun salute was fired from nearby Mount Lycabettus to announce to the Greek public the upcoming marriage of their princess. Juan Carlos and his mother left Lausanne the following day for Athens, traveling with Sophia and her family. OverGreek citizens were waiting in the streets of Athens to welcome the new couple to the country.
Colonel Levidis was in charge of every detail from the wording of the invitations to the exact timing of each ceremony. As the month of May was often a hot one in Greece, most of the official events connected with the wedding were scheduled indoors for the comfort of guests. While conversion to Catholicism was not required of Sophia to marry, the Spanish public would likely expect a future queen to be a practicing Catholic.
As such, a meeting was scheduled in Novemberbetween Juan Carlos and a group of Spanish advisors at his home in Estoril, Portugal. The focus of the meeting was to discuss the best way to navigate the question of religion.
Sophia began lessons in Spanish language, history, and geography. An estimated 5, hotel rooms were added in Athens in late and early in preparation for the event, which predicted as the highlight of the Greek tourist season that year. Officials also began seeking wealthy Greek citizens with extra space to house the influx of tourists and guests. Sophia was seen at the opening of the Paris summer fashion season in January with her mother, sister, and Olga of Yugoslavia, herself a Greek princess and friend of Queen Frederica.
Desses later remarked that the trousseau was not particularly costly or extensive as Greek royal family was reported to be somewhat poor in comparison to their royal counterparts. Celebrations in Athens Three days of pre-wedding festivities began in Athens on May Events included a garden party for 2, guests hosted by the parents of the couple. Spanish ambassador Marquis Luca de Tena held a gala for the couple in Athens the evening before the wedding.
The gala featured Greek folk dancers performing in front of a large gathering of fellow royals and other prominent guests. Prince Constantine took charge of the younger, unmarried adult royals attending the festivities, hosting a ball and sightseeing tours for up-and-coming royals. Members of the wealthy Athenian youth served as tour guides for the visitors.
Juan Carlos was observed as rather tense and gloomy during the celebrations. Unknown to most of the public, Juan Carlos was in severe pain. Less than a month before the wedding, he had broken his left collarbone while practicing judo with Prince Constantine. Approval of the Churches Embed from Getty Images As Juan Carlos and Sophia of different faiths, special consent was needed from both churches for the marriage to take place.
A Greek Orthodox ceremony was required for the couple to be married in Greece, but the Spanish would likely not accept a future royal couple that had not been married according to Roman Catholic rites. After some discussion, an agreement was made to marry the couple in dual Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox ceremonies. The Catholic service would be held at the Cathedral of St. Shortly before the wedding, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church gave their approval for the Orthodox ceremony. Two days before the wedding, Sophia formally renounced her claim to the Greek throne.
However, the Greek government had repeatedly expressed their opinion that should Sophia convert, she should not do so before leaving Greece. Three weeks after the wedding, it was announced that Sophia would be converting to the Catholic faith. Wedding Ceremonies Embed from Getty Images Very early on the morning of the wedding, several loads of fresh red roses were delivered to both the Catholic and Orthodox churches at the request of the bride and Queen Frederica.
Over 35, roses alone decorated the Orthodox cathedral. The Catholic ceremony was to be held first, scheduled for Sophia and her father traveled from the palace to the Cathedral of St.
The carriage was pulled by six white horses. According to estimates by the Athens police, several hundred thousand possibly up to one million Greek and Spanish spectators packed the two-mile procession between the palace and both cathedrals. Upon arrival at St. Denis, Sophia was said to have seemed nervous and worried about the appearance of her train. However, before entering the cathedral, Sophia turned to wave at the excited spectators.
And they are rarer than cases of moral demandingness. Kant is the villain of the piece, too, or one of the major villains, in the history of how the passivity of judgement came so to predominate in modern aesthetics over the activity of making. As between Aristotle and Kant on aesthetics, their titles say it all: To this day a poet is a makar in the Scots tongue: Polemics aside, the main point for our purposes here is that the Aristotelian picture does much better at explaining what Kant wanted to explain when he made his famous distinction between hypothetical imperatives and the categorical imperative; because for Kant that distinction was all-or-nothing.
As MacIntyre nicely puts it in After Virtue p. Few people apart from Oscar Wilde and Friedrich Nietzsche have thought or said that the ethical in this sense just is the aesthetic. This conception of aesthetic normativity is likely to evoke the following protest. Aesthetics, it may be said, runs wider than the philosophy of art. For aesthetics is not just about art. It is about the beautiful. It is not just about the beautiful either; but let this pass for the moment.
Now for Aquinas explicitly, and Aristotle implicitly, the beautiful is a syncategorematic term, set over an autonomous and foundational dimension of assessment, just as much as the good is.
Whatever the standing of art, the beautiful must have a central place within our thinking about normativity: The rest of this paper is a response to this protest.
The effect of my response is, formally, to subordinate the beautiful to the good, even if it is, substantively, to increase the role of the beautiful in our thinking, especially our moral or rather ethical thinking. There may be other places in conceptual space where, conversely, the good is formally subordinated to the beautiful; if so, exploration of them might bring us closer to a response that genuinely is concessive to the protest.
But such explorations go beyond what I want to say here. Our major problem now is actually that we have not too many but too few, and we need to cherish as many as we can. I claim that our moral, and so our ethical, concepts, and the moral and ethical normativity that goes with them, are deeply aesthetically- coloured. The beautiful does indeed have a central place within our thinking about normativity; because it has a central place within our thinking about moral normativity.
And the central place it has is this or this is one of them: Even at best you are likely to be at best intrigued and slightly puzzled by my remark. Clearly complimentary, you might say to yourself, but what exactly is the compliment? If you ask me to elucidate my compliment, there are plenty of further things that I can tell you that may well help. For example I might say, depending of course on circumstances, that I think your action was noble, or fine, or admirable, or excellent, or gracious, or heroic, or wise, or humane, or merciful, or sublimely tactful, or compassionate, or kind, or funny.
In a more colloquial register, I might describe it—depending again on circumstances—as awesome, or cool, or neat.
Grace and the Fever
Most of these further descriptions of your deed give us a more precise idea of what I mean by describing it as beautiful: And some of them do both these things. We might mean that too, of course, but I doubt it is the main thing that we mean. The main point of calling an action virtuous is to say, not that the action in question is beneficial, but that it is admirable. But that, of course, is not the point at all; no more than it is the point about what is desirable that it is actually desired, rather than such-as-to-be-desired.
The idea is to do what deserves admiration, not what actually gets it.
Admirable actions, then, are actions such-as-to-be-admired. But that still gives us no help about which actions these are. Similarly, excellent actions are actions that rise above the rest, and noble actions are actions that deserve to be known;6 but which actions are those?
Here this is the second back-to-frontness it is as if we had in our language a number of pointers towards a central concept—and yet there is a vacancy in our 6 Or possibly, actions characteristic of aristocrats. An objection lurks here. Well, the Greeks have a word for it; and their word is to kalon. Now when I propose that the beauty of an action can be a reason to do it, I mean exactly that: See above on admiration. Nor is the beauty of the deed a reason for me to do it because doing beautiful deeds is an advantage for me, a benefit, a rise in my utility or well-being level, or anything like that.
My idea is not that the beauty of some actions is a reason to do them because beauty is a form of something else, and that something else gives us reason to act, as it were transmitting it via beauty. My idea is that the beauty of some actions itself gives us a reason to do them: And in particular, I want to suggest, it is like this with most of the virtue-words that we use. When we praise actions as brave or wise or restrained or just or kind or loving or friendly or great-souled or magnificent or loyal or reverent …we are picking those actions out not as especially advantageous actions, but as especially excellent, noble, or beautiful ones.
To put the point in a way which is both schematic and a little gimmicky, but is at least, I hope, memorable: What I want to suggest is that on many occasions duty to deon has nothing at all to do with booty to wphelimon ; instead it arises from beauty to kalon.
More soberly, and without the gimmicks: So consider these words: And the point that I want to make about ta aiskhra, things that are aiskhros, is just the converse of my point about ta kala.
In classical Greek, to say that some action is aiskhros is itself to give a reason not to do it, quite apart from any benefits or consequences it may have. And in modern English too, to say that some action is a stinking, squalid, shoddy, shabby, shitty … thing to do is itself to give a reason not to do it, quite apart from its benefits or consequences.
Perhaps, indeed, we find the negative case a clearer one than the positive. Kalon and aiskhron and their English equivalents are generic names for families of intrinsically reason-giving properties.
III I also want to claim that my thesis, as just stated, is what we think; though I suspect it is very often not what we think we think.
Other phenomena too point in the same direction. Half-baked, because on the face of it this is not a satisfactory way of explaining why, for instance, one might not want to be a concentration camp guard 8 however good the salary is, or to tell an undetectable lie.
It is an explanatory dog-leg. The resort to the feeble-looking notion of liveability-with-myself is a rather lame attempt to get by without those deeper and more plausible thoughts—which we still intermittently use, consciously or half-consciously, but have lost our general reflective access to, because it has become harder than it should be, in our culture, to give these thoughts names.
best Sophia Grace & Rosie images on Pinterest in | Ellen degeneres, Fan girl and Girl swag
We have such difficulty accessing the thoughts we need to access, in order to answer the questions we have such difficulty answering.
To say it again, our difficulty is that, like Glaucon himself, we look for the benefit of virtue, the advantage of being virtuous to our flourishing. But Hobbes is both a deliberately provocative stylist, and a maximally reductive theorist. So it is of course entirely possible that his remark is not a joke at all, but seriously intended.
When this is deployed, we may well want to retort or at any rate I usually do: Cut to the chase, and tell me why you find it unacceptable.
The situation is rather that the reasons for action that I most clearly and definitely have are ones that—from a prudential point of view —spell real disaster for me.
But the actions that they mandate are nonetheless clearly the ones to do; not because they are advantageous, but because they are beautiful. But why the confusion and occlusion?
What has happened, to make it so difficult for us to have a full and conscious grasp on these important ethical ideas? I doubt there is any one single answer to that question; the occlusion of to kalon is a complex and long-lasting cultural phenomenon, with complex and widely-distributed roots. But I will talk about one cause of the occlusion.
Like Nietzsche, and indeed Williams, I put at least some of the blame on Socrates. In the abstract what they so longed for—to get back to their families—was of course wholly good.
But as they were placed [facing imminent execution for involvement in the German resistance to Hitler] it was impossible to pursue this end by just and honourable means. And this, I suggest, explains the sense in which they did not see as their happiness what they could have got by giving in. Happiness in life, they might have said, was not something possible for them… Yet this is not the heart of the matter.
They would not have accepted. And there would have been a way in which they would not have felt that happiness lay in acceptance. Polus, do you think that it is a worse thing kakion to do injustice or to suffer it?
- Zayn Malik Reveals Which One Direction Member He’s Closest To As He Covers NME
- Full Cast & Crew
- Wedding of King Juan Carlos of Spain and Princess Sophia of Greece
In my view, to suffer injustice is worse. Then answer me this: Not in the least. But what about this? Consider all the things that you call beautiful ta kala panta: Or do you have some other account than this of the beauty of bodies?
Again, the case of laws and ways of living epitedeumata is not outside this generalisation either.
It certainly is, Socrates. Of course you could. Come then—what did we say just now about doing and suffering injustice? Then if doing injustice is an uglier thing than suffering injustice, it must either be more unpleasant than suffering injustice, and so uglier by a superiority in pain; or else uglier by a superiority in the bad it does us; or else both.
Polus thinks that doing injustice is uglier but better than suffering injustice.