Where to Draw the Line?

Marina Sirtis (Counseler Deanna Troy in STNG) and Brent

This is a subject I have touched before, also because a lot of times I have found myself right in the middle of those typical fan-meets-idol situations and because I come across a lot of fans…online.


This time the trigger was the question why Brent is so distant, especially on conventions, towards fans. The answer is, some fans have behaved badly around him and towards him in his personal life, like stealing roof tiles and making threatening calls to his girlfriend. Yeah, I can understand perfectly well why that made him cautious. Of course it’s true it’s only a small group of fans who behave badly, but how can you tell the bad apples apart from the rest of the apples, especially when they turn up in droves? So yeah, I think Brent’s kept distance and his refusal to do certain things, are justified.




I can climb on my soapbox again and whine and protest like I’ve done many times before. I choose not to do that. Instead I like to tell you about one of my own fan-meets-idol experiences. Actually, it wasn’t a fan-meets-idol situation, rather a fan-goes-to-idol’s-privat-house situation. The year was I think 2000. I was not alone, two other fans were with me. I was in London for the first time. Let me start at the start.

It was in the year the Queen musical had its first run. Because I was a much more devoted and active Queen fan at the time I signed up to join some other fans on a roadtrip to London. It would be my first time in London.
We booked three seats on a coach which went from Rotterdam to Calais. In Calais the coach would go on a ferry and cross the North Sea to Dover. In Dover we would board the coach again and continue our trip towards London. We left from Rotterdam in the evening and we’d be traveling all through the night. Arrival in London would be some time around 5 or 6 in the morning.

Not Freddie's house, but the entrance
to the Dominion

When we arrived on Victoria coach station no shops were yet opened and there was hardly anyone about. We had to kill the first two hours on the station, hanging sleepy in the uncomfortabel plastic chairs. Boredom soon drove us out of the station and into the city in search for the first Baker to open his doors and offer us fresh bread and coffee. I remember my first contact with London being smelly. I remember Victoria coach station very well, also since it didn’t really change in between then and now. I remember there being a vague plan that included getting the musical tickets which one of my fellow travellers had not managed to get beforehand. I also remember the plan to go to Freddie Mercury’s house where his good friend Mary (forgot her last name) still lived.

We went for breakfast and coffee first since the ticket booth at the venue didn’t open until 10 am. I vaguely remember arriving early for the tickets and managing to get tickets for the afternoon show around 3 pm. It would be possible, but it left us very little time to get back to the coach station to accept the travel back home. Yes, we only stayed one day, we had no hotel reservations. Anyway, we got our ticket and decided to travel to Kensington and find Freddie’s house. There’s really not that much to tell about, mainly because there is only one thing I remember. That one thing was for me the reason to write this blog post.

Here it comes:

We arrived at the house late in the morning or early in the afternoon. I don’t quite remember. There was a wall all around the house. Looking up, I could only see one window and nothing much more. On the brick wall there was writing; I could tell the wall had been repainted many times to cover all the writing. I realized that would never really stop. One of my fellow travellers produced a pen or sharpie, something to write with. They proceeded to leave a message on the tiled ground. God knows to who, Freddie had been dead for nearly 10 years and I’m sure they didn’t give a freakin’ damn about Mary. Both my travelling companions left their messages on the ground, then the writing implement was handed to me. I refused. I’m a decent person who doesn’t write on other people’s belongings, no matter how important or famous they might be. They tried to convince me it was all right, everybody did it. I refused again arguing that I found it impolite and indecent. They egged me on and on….I’m proud to say I stood my ground; I never signed the…uh….ground.

You see, I’ve got my principles. They’re only human. They got their talents, I got mine. I really don’t see why they should be more celebrated for being able to play an instrument, sing or for pretending to be someone else. I don’t see why their belongings should be covered in ridiculous writings or stolen because of who they are. I don’t have my picture taken with them, I hardly ever ask for autographs and I’ll hang back while they’re handling their more insisting fans.

Promo for Fresh Hell. Read next post if you want to know more

I’m a fan of their work. That is what I want, that is what I’ll take (I do pay for it). That is what I appreciate them for, but it doesn’t make me think they’re more worth because of it. They can’t put me down, because I don’t play an instrument or because I’m not a good singer or actor. They might contribute more to culture, but I contribute more to society. In the end, it all goes hand in hand. We should respect them and their privacy as much as we like ourselves and our privacy be respected. I know there’s a price to pay for being famous, but does that really mean that we can pull any string to have them dancing to our demands anyway we want? I don’t think so.

Respect were respect is due.

I would still like to meet Mr. Brent Spiner. I just want to be able to look him in the eyes and see for myself. It’s up to him how he wants to deal with me. I can only hope we will be equally respectful to each other.

This is funny:

>He was walking in my directions and I commented to those in the car
>that it looked like DATA (the walk was unmistakable). As I pulled the car out to
>finish the U-turn, he passed us and got into a small, compact car (like a Toyota)
>and pulled past me. I laughed so hard to see it *was* DATA! :-)

I don't know what would have amused me more ... seeing Brent Spiner on the street or seeing Data in a Toyota!

As a Star Trek fan, I appreciate this one as well:

Well, if that is how he feels then I guess it might be time to hang up the

Ol' Yellow Eyes and head on to other places where no man has gone before.

Source: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.tv.star-trek.next-gen/4MZi-IHoHPM

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

A bit whiny.


Former Queen Beatrix about the book ‘Voor de Troon Wordt men Niet Ongestraft Geboren’ (Translation: ‘One Does Not Get Born For the Throne Unpunished'). She din’t like the book. She said the authors created a prejudice and distorted image of the three Kings. Yeah well, since homely lives don’t make history and we humans have an excellent ability to spot the ugliness, almost anything that’s touched on comes out distorted, because some prejudice opinion thinks a half- or none truth about someone or something. That’s life. It’s even proved we’re terrible in retaling truth. What she was really angry about was that it was not more flattering to her family.

It’s not that I completely disagree with her. To me it seems it’s a bit coincidental that precisely our three Kings turned out to be nutters and/or evil. I don’t think they really were. I think they just were very human. King William I was and is hardly the only greedy man. King William II is not the only pushover and King William III is not exactly the only adulterer on earth. I don’t approve of that behaviour, but be honest, how would you do it with a throne under your arse? You really think you’d be much better? In some cases, sure, but in most, you’ll be just as crap as they were, only maybe just in other areas.

Another question: How many of you are true revolutionairies? My point is, beside the Kings’ obvious flaws, they were also very much products of their time. Colonial belongings were very normal and not frowned upon. Adultery was very normal in upper class families too. It works the same now. And greed and no strong behaviour are timeless.

I’m not telling anyone to get off their backs, I’m just trying to point out that maybe before passing judgement, we should look at ourselves and then judge.

So, anyone care to throw the first stone at target of choice?

Queen William II

First Impressions of Sophie

People seem to be very judgemental in those days. Or is that us now, lifting out impressions on people from people out of diaries and letters? It’s probably true we are these days less judgemental and more self-involved. Not necessarily a good thing.

These days we do give impressions of people. We still critizise them, but more than before we search for the positive assets, rather than the negative. Well, not me, obviously. I’m always searching for the negatives. One negative characteristic of Sophie is, she’s very judgemental.

Her first meeting with her future husband is quite intersting. She doesn’t know him yet and things he’s charming. She even has a great time spending with him and his brother. Later she’ll also dislikes his brother.

What is a little disturbing to me is that she seems to like things I like and she seems to dislike the things I dislike in people. We might have some things in common, but even more sets us apart.

I should be careful not to reveal too much. I still want to put it all together in one post to analyze why her three sons died so young.

Females Rule

Yes, yes; filling my quota.

In the TV-series “Wij Alexander”, some hotel employee remarks mockingly to a shop owner:

“Didn’t only the females survive in the Dutch Royal family?”

 (paraphrased)


Yes, that’s right. Or like a poster on a forum puts it:

"The Orange Dynasty needs the women to survive."

The males have a tendency to die young, unmarried, or childless and in quite a few cases all of those.

"Willem II had 4 sons -- Willem III -- Alexander (died at 29, never married) -- Hendrik (died 59, married twice, no children) -- Ernst (died as infant).

If Willem III had not married a second wife - one third of his age and produced Wilhelmina - dynastic disaster would have struck.

He married Emma on 7 Jan 1879
brother Hendrik died 13 Jan 1879
son Willem died 11 June 1879
daughter Wilhelmina born 31 Aug 1880
son Alexander died 21 Jun 1884
The Dutch royal family was three people - King, Queen, Princess
Next closest relations were Willem III's sister Sophie and her family. She had married the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach.

The Dutch royal family has been singularly unsuccessful in producing males that live and reproduce.

Willem II's offspring are noted above -- He was one of two sons of Willem I -- His only brother Frederik had two sons - one died as an infant, the second lived to be almost 10!!

Willem I was the only surviving son of Willem V Stadhoulder - His first son died on the date of his birth; son #3 died at 25 unmarried."

These weak males were often the cause of the original Orange-Nassau becoming extinct.

"(The Orange-Nassaus are one of those IRRITATING dynasties that keep dying out, branch after branch after branch. The Vasas and the Jagiellons went the same way. I prefer dynasties that implode majestically, like the Plantagenets.)"

Don't we all? Or no, we don't, it’s good for a lot of gossip and rumour. It keeps the family interesting and somewhat tragically fairytale.

"Wiwill (the prince, as he was called) exiled himself and died in Paris after fornicating, gambling and drinking himself to death - in the good copany of the future Edward VII as we are always fond to add."

Love the last sentence. At that point the prince had grown out of his nickname of Wiwil and was now Willem. He was just rarely called that, rather Willem or the more fruity variation of Le Prince de Citron.

Source: Google forum

I posted this, because I noticed it as well. They were smart enough to marry in strong women, who in turn gave them some more weak males. Since they were marrying family, cousins most of the time, it’s hardly a surprise. No wonder the 20th century went by fairly smoothly under female rule.

Even now it's the women making the strongest impression. Just look at our former Queen Beatrix and at our current Queen Maxima. Then look at our King Willem-Alexander.

Yeah, sure. We know who's boss.

Our next head of the kingdom will be Amalia, Willem-Alexander's and Maxima's oldest daughter. Another Queen.

From left to right: Princess Ariane, Princess Alexia and Princess Amalia

Reflecting on the book “Wiwill”

Yesterday I finished reading the book about prince Willem IV, Alexander’s older brother.

To me it seems the prince’s governor, De Casembroot, really didn’t like the Queen, Sophie from Württemberg, King Willem III’s first wife, and gave a very coloured impression of her. The other way around is true too; the Queen didn’t like him much either, which might have influenced her behaviour towards De Casembroot. The book is not a very good basis to build a judgement on. Yet, I don’t like her much.

According to other sources, like the book about the Queen, to her friends she was a warm, intelligent, developed and sharp person. She might well have been, but it’s also known she found it easy to dislike people or thought them beneath her. She would behave according to her opinion on someone; not necessarily pleasant and all the above.

Another thing that bothers me a bit is how’s written about Alexander. Yes, he was somewhat nervous and sickly, but there was a person there. An interesting person, even. Unfortunately, the book “Wiwill” talks only about the period in which De Casembroot was with Willem/Wiwill. That means, since Alexander is eleven years younger than Willem, there’s not much to say about him yet. It was a bit disappointing, but I could have expected that.

The only standard, in no way different view to others, is the view on the King. As is well known, the King was unpredictable, mean and unreasonable, but could also be jovial, generous and friendly. He even managed a few times to say something wise. Most of the time, however, he was the ogre we all know and love.

There were things said about Maurits, but it was so little and so insignificant, I can’t even remember it. The poor child never got a fair chance to make an impression on his own instead of being compared to his brothers who did live to be grownups.


Bol.com     Google     Literatuurplein

the book "Prins Wiwill"

Whether he was smart, I don’t know. According to Wiwipedia he might have been, according to other sources, which I can’t remember, he wasn’t particularly. Over the last couple of days I read, almost finished, the book “Prins Wiwill”. The book is a dramatized telling of events. Though an interesting and easy read, it does force the author’s interpretations and opinions about people and events on the reader. I wonder how many times the prince really was in tears and how many times the author decided the prince was.

One such thing, or rather person, victimized by this approach is Queen Sophie. In part the strong opinion ventilated in the book has been brought on by the prince’s personal care taker. This man, De Casembroot, has written a diary in the period he was responsible for the prince’s upbringing. The book is based on that diary. Very likely the author’s opinion about the Queen is mainly based on what De Casembroot wrote. According to De Casembroot, the Queen is a manipulative wench who’s not afraid to use everybody, including her own son, to oppose everything the King says, does and might think and does. In some accounts it is even said she was teaching her son where to lie down on the ground and how to press his ear to the floor to hear best what was going on in the room below.

I’m not sure how much of that is true. I’ve got the feeling a lot of those rumours are what they are; rumours, passed on by all the personnel. Maybe it is true, but there’s no way we’re going to see any evidence for that.

Not only the Queen doesn’t come off lightly, Prince Wiwil doesn’t come off very well either. According to the book he’s an uninspired, lazy, indifferent kid who’s suffering from tantrums and sometimes even shows behaviour foul and mad as his dad’s. Just like his mom, in this book, the view that is shed on him is pepperred in the opninions and ignorance of the time he lived in.

In both cases I believe parts of it, because I read it somewhere else, or because I observed, for as far as I can, certain behaviour before. A lot I will write off as “the view of the time”. For instance, De Casembroot is against everything Thorbeckian, which is very liberal, especially for the time. Thorbecke was once a minister in the 19th century Dutch government. He wrote the constitution we’re living on and extract our rights from to this day. I think it’s no surprise I am, to use the 19th century expression, a Thorbeckian.

In the coming week I planned to read a book about Queen Sophie, based on her letters, if I’m not mistaken. In this case I’m going to have to remind myself, Queen Sophie liked to dramatize everything. That has become very clear from the books about Wiwil and Alexander.

What will be left is to read about Willem III, their father. I think I have a fair amount of information about the man so far. What I’m interested in, in the King’s case, is why his marriage with Sophie didn’t work, but did work with Emma. What were the differences? What did Sophie do to tick the King off and what did Emma do to calm him down?

All this study is to try and understand Wiwil and Alexander. Their tragedy, especially their demise, puzzles me. Both did nothing to save themselves. More and more I start to believe Sophie has been the great cause for that. Sure, King Willem III didn’t help, yet, Queen Wilhelmina talks about her “dear father” and she turned out to be a good Queen. I know Emma has a very big hand in that one. Still, Wilhelmina’s “dear father” stands so far apart from the hatred both Wiwil and Alexander felt. Can one man really manage to have such different and strong effects on persons all by himself. Even so, could the King?