William & William: Two British Monarchical Namesakes in NYC

Ten years ago, and just last year, Prince William of the United Kingdom visited NYC. 

Since the death of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, in 2022, William has now become the Prince of Wales, the crowned heir apparent to the throne. If all goes according to plan, he will one day become King William V.

But the to-be King William V isn't the first future British monarch to visit NYC. In fact, his previous namesake, King William IV, was in NYC more than two hundred and forty years earlier -- and this William was, in fact, the first British royal ever to visit the city.

Only he wasn't here as a tourist -- the then-Prince William was a 16-year old officer in the British Navy and he'd been sent to the city in September 1781 to fight in the Revolutionary War. As it turned out, he didn't stay long. Soon the British surrendered at Yorktown, the war coming to an end and American independence soon to arrive. 

But the then-Prince William's brief stay in NYC wasn't without drama. The leader of the Colonial Army, General George Washington, hatched a plot to kidnap the British royal and use him as a hostage for military strategic leverage. The plot failed and soon was no longer necessary.

The irony is that, at the time, no one thought William would ever become King. 

His father, George III, was still in the prime of his literally crazy life. William also had two older brothers who were ahead of him in the line of succession -- William was the spare x 2. And yet family circumstances would lead him to the throne -- after his father died, William's oldest brother became King George IV but he had no legitimate heir. And when their brother Frederick died in 1827 (who also had no legitimate heir), William became the heir to the throne -- and in 1830 George IV died and William became King.

He only ruled for seven years -- he was already 64 year old (the oldest person to become King until the current Charles III in 2022) and his health wasn't great. But during his brief reign, the British parliament enacted major reforms, including the abolition of slavery and the first social welfare programs.

William also had no legitimate heirs and so, after his death in 1837, his 17-year old niece Victoria became Queen, thus beginning the legendary 63-year Victorian age, lasting until the 20th century.

William himself was a bit of a lout -- he loved to drink, party, and he had an Irish actress mistress with whom he fathered ten illegitimate children. He eventually dumped her and made a proper marriage but, with no legitimate heir, his line of the family, the House of Hanover, ended and it would be Victoria's line that would and continues to rule to this day -- including the future William V. 

The British Monarchy & NYC

Like many people, I have an unhealthy amount of totally irrational interest in the British monarchy.

I love the PBS show Victoria, I'm almost as excited for the third season of The Crown as I am for the final season of Game of Thrones, the wife and I actually watched both royal weddings (in 2011 and 2018), I just watched the two-part documentary on Princess Margaret, I read all the click bait about the royals that I can. 

Basically, when it comes to the monarchy, Mr NYC is like an old bored housewife.

Pourquoi?

Well, I guess it's because the monarchy has "all the elements": politics, money, fame, glamour, celebrity, and history. The most amazing thing about the British monarchy, both in the UK and around the world, is how it's a chain that wraps around time -- it links to the past, present, and future. It's living history, it looks back and moves forward at once. There's nothing quite like it anywhere else in the world.

In a world of rapid change, the British monarchy basically doesn't change -- it's a perverse anchor of stability. Yet it does "refresh" itself -- marriages and babies bring new faces, new personalities, redefining and modernizing this very old institution.

Such is the case of Meghan Markle, the half-black American divorcee who married Prince Harry last year. She is the latest fresh face, the latest reset of the British monarchy, and she's also pregnant -- bringing a literal new face into the world.

The princess (or Dutchess as she's technically known) was in NYC this week for a baby shower. I'll let others say what they will about it. But she's basically getting good press, people are happy to see her here. She's getting better press than the old Edward and Mrs Simpson, the notorious ex-King and his American wife who used to blow into NYC every year, live it up in high-style at the Waldorf Astoria, and then get out of town without, apparently, not paying their bills. (Royals, apparently, can be deadbeats.) 

I think we can thus conclude: NYC, and the world, will be fascinated with the British monarchy and the British monarchy will always enjoy visiting NYC.

Mr NYC's British Repository

One month from today there will be a big election, called a General Election, in the United Kingdom -- where the fourteen-year rule of the Conservative Party is expected to end with the Labour Party replacing it. 

Ever since I saw the British show "Yes Minister"/"Yes Prime Minister" as a kid, I've been more than midly obsessed with British politics. Therefore, on the night of July 4th, as most Americans will be celebrating our independence from the UK, I'll be feverishly following the UK election results as they trickle in from across the pond.

Even though New York City has been independent from England's "Green & Pleasant" for over 240 years, the British impact on this city is inescapable. After all, this is New York City, after York, a big city in England. And over the years I've chronicled the deep synergy that exists between this city and Britain -- and you can read it all here.

This city would not, could not, exist the way it does today without it's British lineage and influence. And the UK wouldn't exist today without us -- after all Winston Churchill, Britain's savior of a Prime Minister, had a mother from Brooklyn!

If you want to get a literal taste of Britain in NYC, you can visit the great restaurat Tea and Sympathy downtown. And you want to learn more about British politics, you must listen to the excellent podcast the Rest is Politics that is so smart and informative and looks at policy and politics in the UK and beyond.

Boris the British NYC Baby

The brand new British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is an eccentric character who will either successfully take the United Kingdom out of the European Union or inflict one of the greatest catastrophes on that nation since the Second World War. 

Them's the stakes, Game of Thrones style -- he'll either "win" or "die" (politically and economically that is). 

The blond moppy-haired Johnson will be the economic equivalent of either Thomas Cromwell or Neville Chamberlain -- he'll either "deliver Brexit" with a deal from the EU or "crash out", the economic equivalent of going Cold Turkey. It'll be fascinating to see what happens.

On the great old show Yes, Minister there's a memorable quote: "Britain has had the same foreign policy for 500 years -- a disunited Europe." Mr. Johnson seems very qualified to help continue that policy.

For all his silliness, Mr. Johnson is the ultimate son of the British aristocracy and privilege which one small catch -- he was born in NYC and lived here for a long time. He has a foot in both the New and Old Worlds. Even though he was Mayor of London before becoming British PM, Johnson is very familiar with this country and city -- he could probably even navigate his way on the subway.

Talking about British leaders in NYC, you should check out this documentary that was produced in 1972 when King Edward VII -- the man who abdicated the throne in 1936 for "the woman I love" -- died.  Fast forward to about 0:16 where he talks about how, in 1919, when still the Prince of Wales, Edward visited NYC and invited then-Mayor Hyland to lunch. Shockingly, the Mayor turned the Prince down! No lunch for you! Can you imagine -- being invited to lunch by royalty and bailing?

So why did the mayor do it?

Because the mayor was an Irish immigrant and depended on Irish votes and Irishmen and women back then hated the British monarchy because Britain ruled Ireland like a colony. So he stiffed the King! Hard to imagine a New York mayor doing the same kind of thing today!

 

Review: "Dixon & Daughters"

When I visited London in 2008 I went to the National Theatre where I saw Jeremy Irons in a great play called Never So Good (I even blogged about it here).

On my most recent trip I went back to the National Theatre and saw another, more intimate play called Dixon and Daughters -- an intense, very British working class family drama about the deep trauma of generational abuse. 

Staged in a tiny part of the National called the Dorfman Theatre, Dixon is about an elderly woman named Mary who returns home after a short stint in prison. She had pled guilty to a minor crime committed by one of her troubled daughters -- meanwhile her other daughter has a troubled daughter of her own. There's also another woman named Briana who has infiltrated and created trouble in this family's life because she knows their deep dark secret that they want to keep hidden at all costs (literally hidden by rug over a patch of blood-stained carpet).

It's a dark, brutally unsentimental play about generations of women, dealing with the harm committed against them by men and each other, trapped in a world of near-poverty they can never escape, trying to find some kind of inner peace.

A relatively short play (only 90 minutes with an intermission), the cast featured an excellent cast of British theater actors who you really believe are they people they portray. Dixon and Daughters reminded me of a shorter, British version of August: Osage County and also of the movies of the brilliant director Mike Leigh who tells wonderful stories of working-class lives (Secrets and Lies and Another Year are very similar to this play). 

While not a great play, it was certainly interesting and it's a reminder of who wonderful and powerful the theater can be, especially in London. Despite Brexit and the unending soap-opera of the royal family, a play like this is a reminder that theater is perhaps the UK's greatest cultural export.

By the way, while sitting in a small waiting area for the play to start, a great British actress Harriet Walter strode into the National and I managed to get a quick picture of her. She's been seen recently on Succession, Ted Lasso, and The Crown and has had a long career in British theater and TV.  It was an honor to see a bit of British theater along with one of its greatest thespians. 

NYC by ChatGPT

User: tell me the history of new york city

ChatGPT: New York City has a rich and fascinating history that dates back hundreds of years. Here's a brief overview of its history:

Early History:

The area where New York City now stands was originally inhabited by various Native American tribes, including the Lenape people. In 1524, Italian explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano became the first recorded European to enter New York Harbor. In 1609, Henry Hudson, an Englishman sailing for the Dutch, explored the region and claimed it for the Dutch.

Dutch and British Colonization:

In 1624, the Dutch West India Company established a trading post called New Amsterdam on the southern tip of Manhattan Island. The settlement grew slowly, focused primarily on fur trading. In 1664, the British, under the command of the Duke of York (later King James II), seized New Amsterdam from the Dutch without much resistance. It was renamed New York in honor of the Duke.

American Revolution:

During the American Revolution, New York City was a strategic location and a major British stronghold. In 1776, the Continental Army under General George Washington attempted to defend the city but was forced to retreat after a series of defeats. The city remained under British control until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris ended the war and the British evacuated.

19th Century Growth:

In the 19th century, New York City experienced rapid growth and transformation. The completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 connected the city to the Great Lakes region and boosted trade and transportation. The city became a major center for finance, trade, and immigration. Waves of immigrants, including Irish, German, Italian, Jewish, and others, arrived in New York City, contributing to its diverse cultural fabric.

Civil War and Reconstruction:

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), New York City played a crucial role as a major hub for recruiting soldiers and supplying the Union Army. The city's economy boomed during this time, benefiting from manufacturing and trade. After the war, the city experienced further growth and urban development.

20th Century and Beyond:

In the early 20th century, New York City continued to expand and solidify its status as a global metropolis. Landmark events include the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883, the opening of the subway system in 1904, and the construction of iconic skyscrapers like the Empire State Building in the 1930s.

The city faced numerous challenges, including the Great Depression, social unrest, and crime waves in the mid-20th century. However, it also witnessed significant cultural and artistic movements, such as the Harlem Renaissance, which showcased African American talent and creativity.

In recent decades, New York City has remained a vibrant and influential city on the world stage. It faced a tragic moment on September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center was attacked, leading to the loss of thousands of lives. The city demonstrated resilience and unity in the face of adversity.

Today, New York City is a global center for finance, commerce, culture, and tourism. It is known for its diverse neighborhoods, iconic landmarks (such as Times Square, Central Park, and the Statue of Liberty), and as a hub for arts, entertainment, and media. It continues to evolve and shape the world around it while preserving its rich historical legacy.

The Art of the Deal ... Sorta

Once upon a time, roughly 340 years ago, a business and a government got together to do a deal. The English East India Company controlled an island off the coast of Indonesia called Banda or Run -- and the Dutch government wanted it. 

Why? 

Because it had nutmeg, lots and lots of nutmeg. Nutmeg, and other yummy spices, could only be found here, and they were tres valuable. So much so that the Dutch sent ships to the other side of the world to try to get control of this and other "spice islands", and the British returned the favor by sending ships to take away the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam in North America.

Deadlock. Stalemate. So they played let's make a deal.

In 1677, the British gave the Dutch control of Banda (Run) island and the Dutch gave the British control of New Amsterdam, an island otherwise known as Manhattan. 

Yeah ... that happened.

These days, of course, Banda is no longer controlled by the Dutch and Manhattan is no longer controlled by the British. Still, it's amazing to think that what is now the financial and cultural capital of the world was considered less valuable than a small (albeit gorgeous) Polynesian island. Once upon a time, such a world existed. Who thought it would ever change?  

It did, as it always does. But to think, if not for nutmeg -- nutmeg! of all the friggin' things! -- if not for that particular seasoning you can find on your spice rack, Manhattan would probably have remained under Dutch control and the course of American history would have been very different. It's crazy to think about. But of such trivial things are the pivots points of history made.

Oh, that reminds me, if you've ever heard the great song "Instanbul" but They Might Be Giants,  you know the lyric:

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

Well, now we know why they changed it: nutmeg.

Memo from NYC

Tonight on PBS is the season finale of the British show "Downton Abbey." If you've never seen it, it's a costume drama about the complex lives and loves of a British noble family in early 20th century England -- and the lives and loves of their servants. It has a great cast, gorgeous production values, and is a lot of fun. The show was a big hit in the UK and is now a big hit here. Mr NYC is, for one, a big fan.

It's fast becoming the water cooler show of the Yuppie set -- think "Sopranos", think "Sex and the City", think "Mad Men."

But as good as "Downton Abbey" is, haven't we seen this show before?

Well, yes. It was called "Upstairs, Downstairs" and it ran for five seasons in the early 1970s. At the time, it was as huge a show as there has ever been. It was about a wealthy British political family in -- guess -- early 20th century Britain, and their servants. It was a high class soap opera but so much more. "Upstairs, Downstairs" was the first show to ever reach more than a billion viewers worldwide (the second show to do this was "Baywatch" in the '90s) and it won lots of Emmys.

Last year the wife and I watched the whole series on Netflix, right after seeing the first seasons of "Downton Abbey." And while "Downton Abbey" is good, "Upstairs, Downstairs" is truly great TV. 

What makes it great? Because it was a stark, unsentimental, visceral look at the English class system, and how it warped and distorted and corrupted the lives of both masters and servants. They all seemed trapped by this system that was bigger than all of them, and they were all quietly dying inside. Also, the performances in "Upstairs, Downstairs" were so powerful, you truly believed that the masters had been rich and privileged all their lives and the servants came from poverty. The sexual, familial, and social tension in every scene of the show was almost unbearable. That's great drama.

With "Downton," on the other hand, you get the sense that the masters and servants are all great pals and that this English class system is actually quite a great thing. And the masters and the servants seem, for the most part, indistinguishable from each other. 

As the author of this article says about "Downton Abbey"

Edward Gorey, that beloved and prolific purveyor of doomed Edwardians, once told an interviewer that his mission in life was to make everybody as uneasy as possible, because, he said, “that’s what the world is like.” What “Downton Abbey” offers, by contrast, is a utopian version of the past that’s custom made for the present sociopolitical morass. It presents a system so perfect that it can weather any upheaval, smooth out any wrinkle, absorb any shock. It refers incessantly to the coming collapse of the social order and then sets up its conflicts like bowling pins to be swiftly knocked down and neatly swept away.

And drama, like life, is never neat. So while we can all enjoy "Downton Abbey", I would urge all Mr NYC readers to get "Upstairs, Downstairs" on Netflix now. 

Bloomberg's Next Mission: London

Mayor Bloomberg has less than a year in office left and the big question is: what will he do next?

When you have north of $20 billion, you don't exactly need to find a regular job to pay the bills. However, Bloomberg is a super Type A personality and isn't exactly the type of person to retire so he can go play golf and catch the early-bird special. No, he's a driven man -- first he built a global corporation and then he reshaped NYC. What's left? 

How about another major city in another country? Like London.

No, it's doubtful that Bloomberg will become mayor of London. After all, he isn't a British citizen (as far as I know), so there's no point. But according to this article, he has an eye on conquering the town with his enormous wealth and influence in other ways. He wants to be a "player" in that town, as much as he is in NYC.

In many ways, he already has conquered London. His company is building a huge office building there and Bloomberg is already part of the top echelon of British society. Most of all, the British Prime Minister and the Mayor of London have looked to Bloomberg for advice on how to govern -- so his influence is already there. But the rumor is that Bloomberg, after he leaves office, plans to spend more time there and become less of American citizen and more of a global citizen. When you have homes all over the world, after all, that's easy to achieve. It'll be interesting to see what he does.

But that's the great thing about NYC -- when you live here, you are a global citizen of sorts. The world comes to NYC. Of course with Bloomberg's billions, it's easier to be more of one than others, but in this town of global citizens, at least he's in good company.

Review: "My Favorite Year" (1982)

If you can ever call a movie nothing more than an expression of pure joy, it'd have to be the 1982 classic My Favorite Year.

It's impossible to imagine a movie this funny, well-written, heartfelt and wild coming out today. But back in the early 1980s this old-fashioned comedy gem slipped out.

The year in question is 1954, and a young comedy writer named Benjy Stone from Brooklyn is writing for the country's most popular TV variety show, Stan "King" Kaiser. One week a washed up British movie star named Allann Swan visits to guest star on the show -- and he's drunk and unreliable. Benjy is told to take care of him for the week -- and craziness and hijinks and hilarity ensue. 

The plot for this movie is slight -- it's more about the characters, their romances, their hopes, and their fears. And it's about a culture clash, two very different worlds smashing together -- the world of Jewish New York City comedians clashing with the world of a British master thespian, all told through a loving 1950s nostalgia lense.

Benjy is played by a very young Mark Lin-Baker, a few years before his long run on Perfect Strangers and then on Broadway. He's charming, and I don't know why he didn't make more movies, especially since My Favorite Year was a big hit. Alan Swann is played magnificently by Peter O'Toole, a truly titanic performance (he also got an Oscar nomination for it). Joe Bologna, the great character actor, plays a Stan Kaiser and the rest of the supporting cast includes a gorgeous Jessica Harper as Benjy's love interest, Lanie Kazain, and many others. You can tell they all had a lot of fun making this picture.

My Favorite Year is very loosely based on something that happened in the early 1950s when a young Mel Brooks was a writer on Sid Ceasar's variety show. The guest one week was Errol Flynn, the great British movie star of the 1930s and '40s who was also a hopeless drunk. Brooks was tasked with making sure he made it to rehearsals and the show, and that wasn't always easy. Nothing as crazy happened in real life as in in the movie, but it's great premise for a movie -- which is obviously why they made one.

The movie is also a look at a special moment in time when NYC was still the heart of television, and shows like Sid Ceasar's reigned supreme. While they never say what network the fictional Stan Kaiser show is on, most of the movie takes place at 30 Rock so it's obviously supposed to be NBC. 

In these dark times, My Favorite Year is a little piece of light.

The (British) Empire Strikes Back

On the edge of Wall Street lies a small church that seems like an oddity amongst the glass skyscrapers of wealth and power around it.

But make no mistake: Trinity Church is one of the wealthiest, most powerful institutions in all of NYC. It owns office buildings, historic properties, and several cemetaries where people like Alexander Hamilton, Ed Koch and even my own father are buried. It may say it's a church but it's really a real estate beomoth.

Since it's a church, it's assets and revenues are murky. Unless I'm mistaken, they don't pay any tax and there's little of the transparancy you get from a public comany. A recent lawsuit has, however, revealed that Trinity Church's real estate assests are currently valued at around $2 billion and it draws in revenues of almost $160 million a year. Faith has its rewards, apparently.

Here is what is most scandalous: even though this church is so wealthy, little of its wealth goes to the poor. In fact, almost none of it does. It spends millions of dollars of year in "communication" and six-figure salaries for its executives. This has caused some rifts amongst its congregants, who feel more of its money should be going to those in need. Needless to say (ha ha), their complaints are being dismissed.

Here is also what's most fascinating: do you know how Trinity Church got so wealthy? Thank Queen Anne. In 1705, when our city was still very much under the rule of the British, the queen gave this church almost 300 acres of land in lower Manhattan. Over the centuries, Trinity sold off most of the land and invested it in real estate. Pretty smart.

And a pretty good example of how the past and the present merge and how, more than two hundred years since we cast off the British empire, a vestige of the empire still lives in NYC.

Brittania Rules

Greetings from London. I'm five hours ahead of you. I promised that I would blog from England if I could and I'm a man of my word (although this British keyboard is a female dog). I hope you're all well and keeping an eye on NYC for me. I'm writing to you from the lobby of the Grosvernor House hotel where we're staying (or, for those of you who've seen the movie, the Sexy Beast hotel). It's a lovely, lovely place and this afternoon we had High Tea here where I had the best scones I've ever ate (American scones are lousy -- too big, too dense, too tough; these were small, warm, and fluffy. But enough about the food.)

I've been to London about seven times so I've seen most of the big sights several times already. However, thus far, we've seen Windsor Castle, the Imperial War Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the British Museum (where we saw the Elgin Marbles and Rosetta Stone). We also went to Harrods and although I didn't buy anything (I mean, I want to keep some of my life savings), we walked around it's amazing food court and also saw the most bizarre, weird thing ever: the Dodi and Diana Memorial. I took pictures of it and will upload them to here if and when I can.

The weather for our Windsor Castle day was perfect but yesterday and today the weather has been quitessentially British: lovely and sunny one minute, rainy and nasty the next. Gotta love this country.

Tomorrow we're off for Paris on the Eurostar and I'll try to blog again there if I can. Otherwise, when I'm back, I'll give you all a more complete roundup of this trip.

Toodles.

Governor's Island

The IRA in NYC: April, 1922

About a year ago, I blogged about the forgotten wars of NYC, literal battles that have been fought on the streets of this city but that few, if anyone, remember.

The most memorable wars that have come to the five boroughs were separated by roughly 200 years -- the American Revolutionary War and the September 11, 2001/War on Terror. But other wars, like a pre-Revolutionary slave war or the 19th century Chinatown Tong Wars, have been mostly lost to history -- they were ugly, shameful, utterly lacking in the nobility of fighting for freedom and democracy. These wars weren't against a foreign enemy or terrorist group -- they were citizens fighting other citizens over money and turf.

But 100 years ago this month, another battle came to NYC and it had nothing to do with Americans or New Yorkers at all -- it was the continuation of a fight that had originated in Ireland as part of the rebellion against British rule there. Calling what happened "a battle" is really inaccurate -- it was a hit, a failed hit as it turned out, but nonetheless was part of a larger war raging between the Irish Republican Army and the British Empire ("The Troubles") that lasted in various forms until 1998. 

You must read this fascinating story about what happened on a lovely Spring night on the Upper West Side when an Irishmen out for a smoke nearly got, well, smoked himself. Although this incident involved the IRA and its fight with the British, it was actually due to the victim in this case being an informer, an IRA member who gave secret info to their Imperial oppressors, and was hiding out in NYC -- until he got caught. 

It's a fascinating story, a story about how the wars of the Old World always come to the New World -- and how NYC seems to be right in the middle of them.

Remembering WNYC-TV

New York City has changed in many ways during my lifetime, much of it in the physical infrastructure of the city itself: old buildings torn down and new shiny ones put up, neighborhoods gentrified from poor to rich, pedestrian plazas and new parks, bike lanes -- you name it, this town has transformed dramatically since the turn of this century. If a time-traveller from thirty years ago was to stroll the city streets today, he or she would be like Marty McFly in Back to the Future II, looking in wonder at how the old town had become techy and neon.

And they'd also discover that the city's old public TV station, WNYC-TV, is no longer around. 

Today we live in the age of the Internet, streaming shows, and literally thousands of cable channels. We drown in content from all over the world. But it wasn't always like this. Once upon a time, and not so long ago, television was three and a half-networks, local stations, and a bunch of cable channels showing repeats, old movies, and news. Here in NYC any "alternative" programming was reserved for public television stations like Channel 13 which, then and now, mostly showed documentaries, British TV, and children's shows.

WNYC-TV was different.

Owned by the city, a sister broadcaster to WNYC radio (which is bigger and more popular than ever today), and located on Channel 3, WNYC-TV was a bizarre hodgepodge of programming. It was a cross between PBS and public access, a true oddity. WNYC-TV would show local public affairs shows, coverage of the United Nations General Assembly, foreign news from Japan and Italy, soccer games, and music videos.

Like the city itself, the station had a gritty, street-level vibe but also an international flavor. It was intensely local and extremely global. 

It also showed a lot of very weird and off-beat British TV, the kind of stuff you didn't see on Masterpiece Theater.  During the week, the station would show episodes of the working class British soap opera EastEnders. Very popular in the UK (and still on), the show basically consisted of lots of cocky-accented people yelling at each other in pubs and dreary houses. On Saturday nights, there was The Diary of Adrian Mole, about an English teenager dealing with the miseries of his home life and school (being a teenager at the time, I identified with him except that he had a cute girlfriend named Pandora and, uh ... well, anyway). There was The Fall and Rise of Reginal Perrin, about a food company executive who hated his life so much that in basically every scene he was trying to kill himself, only to get interrupted. There was The Young Ones, an extremely raunchy show about a bunch of university pals living together in a messy house. And there was Shelley, about an overeducated and unemployed man living in London, spending the entire time making fun of people who are more sucessful than him. It's also where I discovered Blackadder!

These shows were like nothing else on regular American TV at the time, and they did quite a number on my impressionable teenage mind. I felt lucky to live in a city where we had a station like this.

And then I went to college. And WNYC-TV vanished. 

In 1996, the city sold off WNYC-TV and radio. A foundation was started to buy and run the radio station, and today it's a broadcasting and podcasting powerhouse. But WNYC-TV was sold off to some commercial broadcaster who just leased out its airwaves. Any trace or connection to the city was gone. All that is left of WNYC-TV are various clips on YouTube, some of which you can see below, including the final signoff in 1996.

This is a part of the city that is gone today but whose spirit still lives on. 

Review: "Jerusalem"

"I will not cease from Mental Flight

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green and pleasant land."  

The great poet William Blake wrote those words more than 200 years ago. For the British, it has become a rallying song, a sort of "America, the Beautiful", a call to make the sceptered isle the sort of city upon a hill that Ronald Reagan liked to talked about here. It is sung at political rallies and "football" games in the UK, the Brits calling their fellow countrymen to make their country great.

Needless to say, for the amazing new play "Jerusalem" on Broadway, it is a deeply ironic title.

Set in a grungy trailer park in contemporary England -- ravaged by three decades of Thatcherism and New Labour policies -- the play centers on an aging rebel named Johnny "Rooster" Byron. Rooster is a man who time and life has passed by, and he has repeatedly refused to vacate and move his trailer from the park that is to be demolished -- in order for some developers to build more of the luxury housing that has been encroaching upon the area. 

When the play starts, the morning after a wild party thrown outside Rooster's trailer, two cops come by and inform Rooster that he has 24 hours to leave. As the day wears on, Rooster continues to go about his life as though nothing is going to happen to him -- he drinks, smokes weed, and makes lots and lots of noise to bother his new, unwanted neighbors. At various times, he tells wild and unbelievable stories about himself and his daredevil days. Meanwhile, the young and desolate teenagers who live nearby come by and hang out with Rooster -- to buy weed and figure our their sad lives. Also, Rooster has to confront his ex-wife and the son he is alienated from, as well as some old friends who are trying to bring Rooster to his senses and get him to leave.

While Rooster's ordeal is the overarching story, "Jerusalem" is really a play of many subplots: there is the young man who is also leaving soon -- for Australia; there is the young girl who lusts after him; there is Ginger, one of Roosters "mates", who wants nothing more than to be like Rooster; and there is a missing girl named Phaedra, who Rooster is protecting from a violent and sexually aggressive stepfather. All of these interesting, dimensional characters add up to make "Jerusalem" a very funny and emotionally violent play. 

Written by a British playwright named Jez Butterworth (who recently wrote the movie Fair Game), "Jerusalem" is about the kind of people you rarely see on stage. You almost never see three-hour plays about angry middle aged men but this one does it with style. Mark Rylance plays Rooster and his performance has been rightly hailed as one of the most amazing Broadway has seen in years. It's up there with Brando in "Streetcar", it's that good (Rylance recently won a Tony for the role). The supporting cast is of young, mostly unknown British actors whose performances show a joy and exuberance that is enthralling. Best of all, while this play is an angry blast of social criticism -- against a Britain that is letting the young fall behind, that (like NYC) is being sold to the highest bidder and crushing everyone else, that is failing in every way of being Blake's Jerusalem -- it is never preachy, never didactic. It does what all great drama does: it shows, never tells.  

"Jerusalem" is the kind of play that makes theater great, that makes the kind of statement about the human condition and packs the kind of emotional wallop that only great theater can make. This is not a play for tourists or the casual theatergoer -- "Jerusalem" is a play for all those that love great drama about people and the crazy, conflicted world we all live in.  

Interview: Lynn Paula Russell, Legendary Artist and Performer - Creating an Artistic Career

Somebody should make a movie or, better yet, a mini-series about the life of Lynn Paula Russell. Her story has had a number of fascinating chapters that would translate into equally exciting episodes. Lynn has worked as a stage actress, model, and adult film star. But that’s not even what she’s best known for! Lynn has mainly had a long and very successful career as a portraiture and erotic artist. She has used her body, mind, intelligence, emotions, and overwhelming talent to forge a long, unique, and multi-varied artistic career, an amazing professional achievement.

If the biggest thing on Lynn’s resume was appearing in the revolutionary musical Hair, that would be enough. But after years on the stage, she moved into erotic modeling before starting her career as a graphic designer and illustrator. Lynn is best known for her highly explicit, charged, and extremely beautiful erotic art in addition to her portraits of the rich and famous. But whether she’s illustrating people or subjects that are naughty, nice, or both, her work blazes with color, sensuality, confidence, and a true appreciation of the beauty of the human form. To see her work is to see an explosion of love for people, for nature, for sex, and for the gloriousness of life.

Lynn is British and still lives in the United Kingdom but, from the late 1960s to the 1980s, she came to NYC several times. She had, to say the least, many interesting adventures and experiences in the city that most of us can only dream about. In this three-part interview, Lynn shares her memories and thoughts on her career of performing, art, sex, and, of course, New York City. 

Tell us briefly about your upbringing and what led you to pursue an artistic career.

Since it is virtually impossible to be brief when it comes to discussing one’s upbringing I will try not to get too deeply into this subject. I grew up in a small seaside town in the South of England. My mother was a gifted artist who had never been given the opportunity to pursue a career of her own, so she was determined that this should not happen to her four daughters. From a very young age, we all took dancing classes and appeared onstage in musical shows. These were the highlights of my young life. But in the early years I also loved to draw all the time and knew this was one of my best subjects at school. When it was time to choose a career direction, I was torn between my two loves – Art and Theatre. Eventually it seemed more sensible to go to Art School, and I specialized in Graphic design. But nothing is straightforward and soon after leaving college I found myself being propelled towards a career treading the boards.

You have acted and danced but also have spent most of your career as a painter and illustrator. Tell us about your experiences as a stage performer and why you decided finally to devote yourself to creating art.

Well, in my hometown I had become closely associated with a writer who was planning a musical production for the London stage. He had seen my appearances in the local amateur dramatics and wanted me to be in his production. This sounds mad, when I look back, because I had had no professional experience – and as it happened, I never did appear in that show, but it did provide me with a huge impetus to come to London. I was taken on by an agent who sent me up for all kinds of jobs. The very first one brought me to the US. What luck that was! Then the second job granted me the unique experience of appearing in the musical Hair, which had come over from Broadway to the West End in 1968 and caused a sensation. I had seen it as an 18-year old student and been quite shocked by its openness, and then three years later, in the National Tour of the show, there I was, the erstwhile prim, provincial girl, stripping off on stage and feeling proud to do so!

The breakthrough of these early days didn’t last unfortunately and although there had been a few high spots that were exciting, after 6 year’s work began to dwindle. It was as if some inner reserve was holding me back from fully engaging with my true feelings. My trouble was that I could only play emotionally inhibited girls, like myself, and couldn’t get beyond a certain inner block. But when doors start closing, others open to new possibilities.

You have had a long and successful career as an erotic artist. What inspired you to start creating erotic art and what are your favorite books that you've created and worked on?

The answer to this springs out of what I said about feeling blocked. I guess we all have to work within our limitations, but something was pushing me from inside to burst out and release myself. This burst-out finally happened when I was 30 – well, they say that hitting this age makes you review your life and take stock. It certainly heralded a change of direction for me. This is when I took the plunge and decided to model for soft-core porn magazines in England. I did not see this at first as a career move – it was more like accepting a dare. I viewed it as a sort of therapy. To my great surprise, I took to it like a duck to water. Being able to be honest at last and get my clothes off was a massive relief, and for a few weeks the modeling sessions took over my life. Since the things that move us deeply have to be expressed in art, I soon found myself drawing on my experiences to create new work. Then I started illustrating a magazine called Janus, which specialized in a very British subject – erotic corporal punishment. This also expressed my own area of interest since S/M was something that had intrigued me ever since discovering The Story of O.

Several collections of my work were published in the early 2000s by the Erotic Print Society, and I think my favorite is A Sexual Odyssey. That is the most comprehensive cross-section of illustrations and paintings.

Your erotic art is very explicit but it is also visually stunning -- colorful, elegant, sensual, and confident. It feels like you are both trying to arouse the viewers while also proclaiming the beauty and power of human sexuality. Is that a good way to describe your work or would you describe it differently?

I am glad that is how you see my work. Yes, beauty, and power are very relevant. That is what hit me when I started my adventures – sex is the fundamental power of life, which is always motivating people, whether they are aware of it or not. The expression of power, both negative and positive, is always related to the sex drive, which is why we have to be careful how we use it in our relationships. And yes, the beauty is there too. Orgasm is a way of connecting with the universe, with the very core of our being. Excuse me for waxing lyrical, but it is about time that we started to see and evaluate our sexuality in a new way and stop thinking in terms of ‘dirt’ and ‘smut’.

You're most known for your erotic artwork but have also done non-erotic art like portraitures. What is some of your most notable or favorite non-erotic art that you've created?

Before I entered the erotic scene my work was largely centered around the theatre. When I was no longer an actor, I illustrated a children’s book and painted some posters of vintage film stars. Then there was a stint working backstage, mainly on the show Annie, which was a huge hit in London. Andrea McArdle who created the part of Annie in the original production, had come over from Broadway to open the show, and it was her mother Phyllis who first commissioned a portrait from me. Thereafter, I received other commissions from the cast and production team, like Sheila Hancock, who played Miss Hannigan, and Charles Strouse, the composer of the music. Then other shows followed. A Chorus Line was one of these. Of course, since most of my paintings were supposed to be surprise presentations, I wasn’t able to paint from life. Two of my favorites were the portraits of Tommy Steele in many of his various roles, and of Monty Berman, the famous London costumier.

In 1979 I was once more in New York, painting such people as Liberace, TV chat-show host Merv Griffin and theatre producer Lewis Allen. Much later on, in NY, I met the publicist of "Masterpiece Theatre" and was asked to provide publicity portraits of actors in British TV shows that were widely shown in the States. The most memorable one of these showed the young Colin Firth heading the cast in his first appearance in a TV series. Remembering back, there was also a calendar to celebrate the Royal Wedding of Charles and Di in 1981. That really was miles away from my erotic creations!

Thanks Lynn! In the next part of our interview, Lynn tells us about working and having fun in NYC in the 1970s and ‘80s.

You can visit Lynn Paul Russell’s website and an exhibition of her work at:

www.lynnpaularussell.org
https://www.talismanfineart.com/product/cat/current-feature-4

Remembering Jennie Jerome, Winston Churchill's Brooklyn Mama

Sir Winston Churchill is one of the most revered people who ever lived. The 20th century British statesman and Prime Minister was one of the Allied leaders who, in the Darkest Hour, defeated Nazi Germany in World War II and thereby saved Western Civilization.

And even though he was the quintessential Englishman, Winston Churchill was half-American -- specifically, he was half-Brooklyn.

Sir Winston's mother was from Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. Lady Jennie Jerome Churchill was born there in the then-City of Brooklyn in 1854 and, at the age of 20, married Lord Randolf Churchill (giving birth to Winston, her oldest son, in 1875).

Long-story short: one of history's greatest statesman was brought into the world via 21 year-old Brooklyn gal who was one of the first "dollar brides" -- i.e. a rich American given in marriage to the historical but broke British nobility. 

Although her famous son would overwhelm her memory, Jennie Jerome had a fascinating -- and scandalous -- life all of her. Many lovers (including a future King Edward VII), a younger second husband (only 16 days older than Winson!), major philanthropic initiatives, and she played a major role in Winston's early political career -- although her death in 1921 precluded her seeing her son's ultimate triumph.

You should read and watch (below) about her amazing life.

Even though Jennie Jerome lived almost her entire adult life in England, she hasn't been forgotten in her hometown. Up in the Bronx there's a playground named in her honor. And doubtless, without the NYC grit she gave her eldest son, the history of the world would be very different.