'We are not amused" (1887, 1895)

Bapopik at AOL.COM Bapopik at AOL.COM
Tue Jun 6 15:01:11 UTC 2006

>From Newspaperarchive.
31 January 1887, Fitchburg (Mass.) Daily Sentinel, pg. 1, col. 6:
Sir Arthur Helps, who was her private secretary, used to tell an amusing
anecdote of being snubbed by her for telling a rather funny story down the
table, among the (illegible) waiting to relieve the monotony of a dreary dinner
when the queen remarked: "What is it? We are not amused." She has however a love
 of fun, and sometimes laughs heartily.
14 September 1895, Centralia (Wisc.) Enterprise and Tribune, pg. ?, col.  6:
_An Unappreciated Story._
A story told by an English paper, and claiming the merit of absolute truth,
evidences once more the inexorable purity and womanliness of Queen Victoria's
character. At Windsor a party of young princes and princesses were chattering
 with members of the royal household on various matters. The Queen was
present,  but was not noticing them especially, when a heartier laugh than the rest
aroused her interest, and she asked to be told the fun. Now the laugh had
arisen  from an anecdote, which was not really risky, but just a little bit so.
There  was a demur at repeating it to the Queen. Everybody felt slightly
uncomfortable.  The Queen said again that she and Princess Beatrice would like to
hear the  story. It was told. The Queen listened, and then said with he
inimitable dignity  and simplicity: "We are not amused."
It is not the example set by its royal head that has given to the English
smart set its unenviable reputation in the matter of morals big and  little.

The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

More information about the Ads-l mailing list