Doing your own wedding makeup : Revlon make up brushes.

Doing Your Own Wedding Makeup

doing your own wedding makeup
  • marriage: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
  • A marriage ceremony, esp. considered as including the associated celebrations
  • the social event at which the ceremony of marriage is performed
  • a party of people at a wedding
  • Cosmetics such as lipstick or powder applied to the face, used to enhance or alter the appearance
  • an event that is substituted for a previously cancelled event; "he missed the test and had to take a makeup"; "the two teams played a makeup one week later"
  • constitution: the way in which someone or something is composed
  • The composition or constitution of something
  • cosmetics applied to the face to improve or change your appearance
  • The combination of qualities that form a person's temperament

Brass Monument, East Shefford
Brass Monument, East Shefford
...And another bit of light verse: The Dapple-Grey Palfrey Chorus: Fear not, dear damsel, should things go astray; The dapple-grey palfrey will show you the way. Sir William was noble, a knight of Champagne With chivalrous virtues, both humble and plain. The pride of the tournaments, strong with the lance, On his dapple-grey palfrey, made fearless advance, And no one could better him – never defeated – No knight could beat him – not e’en if he cheated. A damsel loved William; his love was returned: With passion most perfect their lonely hearts yearned. Her father was rich, he was grizzled and grey; William asked for her hand, but he turned him away. As he walked o’er the drawbridge, she ran to his side: Saying, “Thus thou must do if thou wouldst be my bride: Go to thine Uncle, for wealthy is he, And tell him our tale – how we would wedded be – Ask him to vouchsafe three hundred a year That you might marry me, William my dear.” He mounted his palfrey, his heart filled with zest, “For this he would grant me an early bequest.” His uncle received him, with wide, toothless smile, “Why, my dear nephew, ‘tis many a mile You’ve ridden to find me, pray what is the cause?” And Will takes his cue: on his knees he implores, “Sir, I would be married, the maid is agreed; Three hundred a year is all that I need.” His uncle embraced him, and clapped his broad back, “Marry a maid? Why then, you shall not lack! Go ride to a tourney, and while you’re away, I’ll make the arrangements, lad, what do you say?” Sir William’s eye shed a joyful salt tear, “I’ll go to my jousting, then marry my dear!” But while William’s sporting about with his lance, A cunning blow’s struck to our budding romance, For Will’s hoary uncle, who was eighty or more Rides off and pounds on the father knight’s door, “I have gold in profusion, the most in the land; I prithee, Sir, give me your fair daughter’s hand.” The father’s broad smile was gross to behold, As he chuckled, “Why, Sir, if you’ve plenty of gold, You may have her tomorrow, at crack of the dawn!” When news reached the maiden, her face grew forlorn, She wept bitter tears, and her makeup did run, “Me marry the uncle? I wanted the son!” Now William came back from the tourney with pride, Expecting that soon he would have his pert bride, When a vassal came riding up to his front door, “I come from thine Uncle, and he doth implore, Will you lend him your palfrey, all dappled and grey, For to carry the fair bride on her wedding day?” “My Uncle is marrying?” Poor Will gave a start, “Do you think, at his age, it is good for his heart? And who is the spinster, and will she wear white?” The vassal said, “Sir, ‘tis your own heart’s delight – Her father’s consented, he’s pleased with the match; Your Uncle thinks her a remarkable catch.” Now Will’s in a quandary; his eyes smart with salt: “She’s marrying him? And the whole thing’s my fault! Should I lend my grey palfrey to that horny old coot? Would that his arse could connect with my boot! Ah! But my darling -” he was weeping, of course; “If she can’t have my hand, I shall give her my horse!” So he lent his grey palfrey with many a tear, And early next morning, up mounted his dear, Surrounded by servants, all gaunt and forlorn, With an hour to go ‘til the nuptial dawn. The greybeards were waiting for her in the Church, She yawned, “Oh, my goodness! I’m left in the lurch!” So she rode for to marry Will’s Uncle so creepy, But as they rode, her attendants grew sleepy, And each fell asleep on the back of his mount: A second twist comes in our happy account, The fair damsel yawns, and she nods her sweet head, And the dapple grey palfrey homeward has sped. Now Will is a-weeping, he won’t be consoled, As the dapple grey palfrey’s hoofs on the mould Bear his beloved in a bee-line for home, With hoofbeats muffled by oak-leaves and loam. She comes to the drawbridge and canters across Whilst William’s bemoaning his horrible loss. The dapple-grey palfrey draws up to the keep, And William’s beloved, she wakes from her sleep; She wanders inside, all bewildered and yawning And William beholds her as morning is dawning. They kiss quite a lot, and their hands grope and grapple, Then he carries her off to his own private chapel. Meanwhile his uncle is twiddling his thumbs, And all of the wedding guests sit on their bums. The servants cry, “Goodness! Did we fall asleep? It seems that our mistress escaped from this creep! That dapple-grey palfrey, now where can it be?” And all of them rode to Sir William’s to see. And as they rode over the drawbridge and moat, Will and the damsel came outside to gloat, And wedding bells tolled from the castle behind, And William’s uncle went out of his mind. He died not long afterwards; so did her dad; The couple inherited all, and were glad. Source material: A thirteenth century lay in the fabileau style. See Pauline Matarasso (Trans.), Aucassin and Nicolette and other tales, Harmondsw
More tea, vicar?
More tea, vicar?
ARCHBISHOP CRANMER SAYS BISHOP MUST RESIGN Apparently, on his Facebook page, he described the Royal Family as ‘philanderers’ with a record of marriage break-ups who ‘cost an arm and a leg’. He also referred to the Prince of Wales as ‘Big Ears’. Well, these are simply statements of fact: there have been and are ‘philanderers’ in the Royal Family, and they do cost an arm and a leg. And Prince Charles does apparently possess prominent auditory apparatus, though His Grace is no expert in cranial proportions. But Pete omitted to tell us that there are also sincere, devoted and committed Christians in the Royal Family who take their wedding vows before God very seriously; they understand fully the meaning of fidelity and faithfulness, duty and honour, loyalty and service. And Pete also forgot to tell us that, while they do indeed ‘cost an arm and a leg’, they supply the Treasury with an entire torso of revenue and provide the nation with a head. And Pete should also know that it is wrong to judge by appearances or to mock the afflicted: judging by his beer-swilling picture, he’s no looker. But Pete is a judgmental bishop, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those whom he hates. He describes himself as a ‘Christian Socialist’, so he is of the Gordon Brown school of economics: perhaps one ought to pity his myopia and forgive his ignorance of fiscal probity and economic morality. Yet it is one thing spitefully to give the Royal couple just seven years, or to liken them to ‘shallow celebrities’ and talk of their wedding as ‘nauseating tosh’ or ‘national flimflam’. But it is quite another to assert that the hereditary principle – the very bedrock and foundation of the Monarchy – is ‘corrupt and sexist’. Media reaction to this story has focused on the Bishops ‘cruel’, ‘disrespectful’, ‘absurd’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘childish’, ‘extremely rude’ and ‘un-Christian’ comments: in the words of Nicholas Soames, they are ‘not what one expects from a bishop’. The Bishop of London could not be reached for a comment, and Clarence House said it did not wish to comment. Bizarrely, rather than censure the Bishop, Lambeth Palace said: ‘(He) is entitled to his views.’ His Grace begs to differ. The views he is entitled to express are the views of the Church of England. He is a leader within the Established Church of which the Queen is 'by God's Ordinance’ Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor. And, God willing, Prince William will inherit those titles and responsibilities when he becomes King. But Bishop Pete is a self-confessed republican. Apparently, when news of the Royal engagement was announced, he tweeted: ‘Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.’ Being all with-it and media savvy, Pete has his Twitter feed directly linked to his Facebook, and this tweet elicited one of his friends to ask: “Isn’t the Queen your boss?”. To which Bishop Pete replied: “I think you’ll find that God and the Bishop of London are my bosses. I am a citizen, not a subject!” This is curious, and the Bishop is guilty of a gross hypocrisy. All who are ordained into the Church of England swear an oath of allegiance. Bishop Pete has said: “I, Peter Broadbent, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.” And so he became a curer of souls. Has the Bishop become a hypocrite? A liar? Even a philanderer? Do these vows have so little meaning that they are as easily disregarded as the marriage vows of Prince Charles and Diana, whom the Bishop so evidently disrespects and despises? And what of Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates? The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify; but only that prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers. Does Bishop Pete uphold the traditional doctrine and teaching of the Church he purports to serve, or not? When he ordains deacons and priests, does he cross his fingers behind his back as he asks ordinands to swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs

doing your own wedding makeup