This is Lizzie's house... The kitchen's not my personal taste, but it's serviceable. What's the point in ripping it out so you have none at all? Stupid in the extreme.
Not to mention that she apparently sat there at the bar, in the presence of the ex-wife, bleating "You were already INVOLVED with her? Why didn't you TELL me? WHAT woman forgets when she met her husband? Me, me, me, me, me ..." Who would think this is normal or acceptable social behaviour ... well, I've just answered my own question there ...
I'm imagining that Diminutive Gong Li sort of faded out still clutching her prosecco flute, elegant shins crossed, smiling vaguely, at that point.
Whereas in actuality, if it really happened that way, she'd presumably be sitting there feeling really, really uncomfortable and embarrassed.
Also, why was the son "improbably handsome"? She was always rabbiting on about how totes gorgeous the Baker was when she met him. Perhaps at that point she was still imagining his mother with a bubble perm and bias-cut skirt.
"Improbably handsome" must rank pretty high on the list of comprehensively insulting remarks, wouldn't you say? Offensive to every one of the family in two quick words.
I'm surprised she wasn't bopped on her sniffy little nose by all of them.
All this meeting up with the ex's wife is reminiscent of the episode of Sex and the City where Carrie meets Alexandr's former wife in Paris.
Woman in her late 50's bases her life on a TV show which has been off the air for nearly 10 years - how sad.
So true! And what makes it even worse, is that Liz has already used that scene just a few years ago, when she supposedly met the FRS's glamorous ex. If I remember rightly, she even helpfully referenced her own source by saying "It was just like that scene in SATC when Carrie met Alexandr's ex!" I'm sure I remember us commenting on it on this thread.....off to search...
Oh, and Liz, could I offer some advice to save you a lot of time and anguish? Not fancying someone is not a crime. The fact that David wasn't attracted to you 30 years ago is not grounds to be angry with him or punish him. You can carry on beating him over the head with this grievance forever, treating him horribly ("Are you incontinent?" Charming) to punish him, but nothing will change the fact that we can't help who we do and don't fancy. He didn't do you any wrong in 1983 because he wasn't "yours", so he was entitled to see whoever he pleased.
Increasingly, she seems to be using the column--and the relationship--to try and live out the romance she wishes she could have had with him 30 years ago. That means meeting the "love rival", hitting the roof over perceived betrayals etc, to bring all those old 1983 dramas back to life. But it's a hiding to nothing, because there was no relationship 30 years ago. If she only wants the 30-years-younger version of this man, she should focus her energies on trying to build a Tardis so she can go back to 1983. Otherwise, let it go, and stop acting like you have a right to be upset and angry about stuff that happened when the two of you had no relationship in the first place!
Well, I suppose "In which I bond with David's ex-wife" is a nicer title than "In which I verbally abuse David's ex-wife, and him, it's a miracle neither of them has punched me in the nose yet"
And then yelling "ARE YOU INCONTINENT?!" at him because he had the nerve to need a wee. How dare his bladder not fit in with Liz's schedule!
Her hatred for mothers is mind blowing. It can't be real, can it?
She seems to have forgotten both the sperm stealing and her attempt at adoption with Nirps. Amazing, the holes in her memory. I suspect she drinks more than the occasional stolen half a prosecco.
I hate to tell Liz this, but her examples of her column's "funny" bits in the past weren't funny at all.
I'm kind of loving the buyer's remorse. Nirps is suddenly much more appealing at a distance now that Love Of My Life David is revealed as an actual human with flaws and foibles that don't excite her.
Anyone with half a brain would know the Squeaky/dogs story should have been followed up.
I'm also loving, REALLY loving, the whingeing about her terrible financial troubles closely followed by "thank God I was only driving the Range Rover, not the Merc".
Were she anything even close to a competent writer, I'd say that her attempts to prove how "funny" she once was are ironic, much in the way some students say they're fans of this or that band knowing full well how terrible they are. Alas, this is not the case: she's simply not that proficient a scribe.
As for pissing oneself in a cake shop... I hope she told the staff (assuming, of course, it actually happened, which I strongly doubt).
Example (as if one were needed...) of her piss-poor writing skills:
"On Saturday afternoon, though, something funny did happen.
I went to meet Isobel in the café at the Forbidden Corner, the other side of Leyburn. She assured me the café is lovely, but trust me, it’s not Ottolenghi or Villandry: inside it has barriers, the like of which you get in petrol station shops.
Anyway, we sat down with our awful cake (I still dream about Ottolenghi’s vanilla cupcake), and Isobel started to talk about how plans are going for her new organic café/farm shop, at Catterick, just off the A1.
She said a man had phoned her, and told her he is a historian. Apparently, a bomber aircraft had crash-landed on the site during the war and two airmen were killed. One was a Canadian called Bob.
The historian told Isobel that Bob haunts the spot, adding that at the point of impact he was decapitated. ‘I asked him how he knows that, and he said his great aunt or something was first on the scene, and removed the bodies.’
‘Oh dear,’ I said. ‘What are you going to do?’
‘Well, I’m not telling the staff, because they won’t want to stay late, and lock up.’
This last paragraph would have been funny, only I laughed so much – given my antiquity – that I wet myself. Thank God I was only driving the Land Rover, not the Merc."
Aside from slandering the cafe and informing the staff of her bestest friends shop of something said BF didn't want them to know, she can't remember if she's talking to Isobel in the cafe, or the car. Also, must we assume that, until she got home to wash said bloomers (one of only two pairs she possesses, let us not forget), she was going commando ?
An anorexic dreaming about Ottolenghi's vanilla cupcakes?
Now I know she's telling porkies.
Why does it never get through her thick skull that if she downsized her home (and moving closer to London would cut down on train journeys and petrol costs), got rid of the menagerie and stopped the habit of buying designer clothes, cosmetics and beauty treatments she'd actually have enough cash to live on and the bailiffs wouldn't be on her tail. Any normal person would realise that would be the solution, but Liz seems to think she's a special case in all aspects of her life.
TL;DR - "Woe is me, I'm so poor. (Did I mention I have both a Land Rover and a Merc?)"
"I’m at an age when everyone around me starts dying: my mum, my brother, my nephew, Lizzie." -- While it's normal to lose a pet or an elderly parent, most people do not lose nephews or brothers (unless there is a significantly large age gap between the siblings) while still in their 50s. She's been exceptionally unlucky with having several deaths of close family members in a relatively short space of time, and people would understand that - so the whole "don't worry about me, this happens to everyone at my age, I'm getting old, one foot in the grave" routine is both infuriating and disrespectful
Then complaining that she got a slap on the wrist from Celia Hammond when yes, if Liz is telling the truth (LOL) about what happened to her cat, her behaviour IS more than enough grounds to have the cat taken away from her. And after the way she apparently spoke to David's ex-wife, I'm not bloody surprised his family hates her ...
An anorexic dreaming about Ottolenghi's vanilla cupcakes?
Now I know she's telling porkies.
Why does it never get through her thick skull that if she downsized her home (and moving closer to London would cut down on train journeys and petrol costs), got rid of the menagerie and stopped the habit of buying designer clothes, cosmetics and beauty treatments she'd actually have enough cash to live on and the bailiffs wouldn't be on her tail. Any normal person would realise that would be the solution, but Liz seems to think she's a special case in all aspects of her life.
It's as if she refuses to accept that life isn't always fair and that not everything is as it appears, She looks at other women of her "station" and sees what she believes is wealth, luxury, having it all. The fact that these women are often beneficiaries of TWO high salaries, not one, isn't something that escapes her, thankfully. But it doesn't seem to occur to her that her frenemies will be making compromises for the lives they lead. Compromises like mediocre marriages, "understandings" about partners playing away, having to spend money on LIttle Prunella's education instead of vampire facials or, you know, some economising now and then. Not to mention that a lot of these types are in debt to their ears and beyond - they just manage it better.
So true! And what makes it even worse, is that Liz has already used that scene just a few years ago, when she supposedly met the FRS's glamorous ex. If I remember rightly, she even helpfully referenced her own source by saying "It was just like that scene in SATC when Carrie met Alexandr's ex!" I'm sure I remember us commenting on it on this thread.....off to search...
Oh, and Liz, could I offer some advice to save you a lot of time and anguish? Not fancying someone is not a crime. The fact that David wasn't attracted to you 30 years ago is not grounds to be angry with him or punish him. You can carry on beating him over the head with this grievance forever, treating him horribly ("Are you incontinent?" Charming) to punish him, but nothing will change the fact that we can't help who we do and don't fancy. He didn't do you any wrong in 1983 because he wasn't "yours", so he was entitled to see whoever he pleased.
Increasingly, she seems to be using the column--and the relationship--to try and live out the romance she wishes she could have had with him 30 years ago. That means meeting the "love rival", hitting the roof over perceived betrayals etc, to bring all those old 1983 dramas back to life. But it's a hiding to nothing, because there was no relationship 30 years ago. If she only wants the 30-years-younger version of this man, she should focus her energies on trying to build a Tardis so she can go back to 1983. Otherwise, let it go, and stop acting like you have a right to be upset and angry about stuff that happened when the two of you had no relationship in the first place!
If the Baker's son is a model, I suspect she is absolutely seething with "some people have it ALL DON'T THEY" jealousy. Not only is he graduating confidently from an Italian university, he's effortlessly a model. Unlike she who lopped things off and still only got to be in fashion pastiches in the Mail.
David's son is extremely handsome - and the ex-wife is gorgeous (the son clearly takes after her). It must have driven the embittered Liz to distraction, regardless of the fictional "bonding" incident (nicked wholesale from SATC).
I dunno, I've been thinking about this - has Liz always been so hateful? I recall quite enjoying her column 15-20 years ago. So much seems to have changed. I can't work out if she's trying to, or thinks she is, funny. What she reports of her behaviour towards David is nothing to be proud of - and to me it reads as abusive. She belittles and insults him at every opportunity. Is she really intending to marry him? Because it seems she doesn't even like him, let alone love him. And she is surprised that people contacted Celia Hammond when her poor little elderly cat was savaged by her untrained dogs in her own home?? Has she really lost touch with reality to this extent? And facing bankruptcy yet again? How many times is this now? Pay your flipping tax woman, like the rest of us do!
Liz is going to end up a miserable, poor and lonely old woman. All of her own making.
Comments
Or even telling the truth.
I guess it saves the bailiffs having to... ;-)
Whereas in actuality, if it really happened that way, she'd presumably be sitting there feeling really, really uncomfortable and embarrassed.
Also, why was the son "improbably handsome"? She was always rabbiting on about how totes gorgeous the Baker was when she met him. Perhaps at that point she was still imagining his mother with a bubble perm and bias-cut skirt.
I'm surprised she wasn't bopped on her sniffy little nose by all of them.
So true! And what makes it even worse, is that Liz has already used that scene just a few years ago, when she supposedly met the FRS's glamorous ex. If I remember rightly, she even helpfully referenced her own source by saying "It was just like that scene in SATC when Carrie met Alexandr's ex!" I'm sure I remember us commenting on it on this thread.....off to search...
Oh, and Liz, could I offer some advice to save you a lot of time and anguish? Not fancying someone is not a crime. The fact that David wasn't attracted to you 30 years ago is not grounds to be angry with him or punish him. You can carry on beating him over the head with this grievance forever, treating him horribly ("Are you incontinent?" Charming) to punish him, but nothing will change the fact that we can't help who we do and don't fancy. He didn't do you any wrong in 1983 because he wasn't "yours", so he was entitled to see whoever he pleased.
Increasingly, she seems to be using the column--and the relationship--to try and live out the romance she wishes she could have had with him 30 years ago. That means meeting the "love rival", hitting the roof over perceived betrayals etc, to bring all those old 1983 dramas back to life. But it's a hiding to nothing, because there was no relationship 30 years ago. If she only wants the 30-years-younger version of this man, she should focus her energies on trying to build a Tardis so she can go back to 1983. Otherwise, let it go, and stop acting like you have a right to be upset and angry about stuff that happened when the two of you had no relationship in the first place!
And then yelling "ARE YOU INCONTINENT?!" at him because he had the nerve to need a wee. How dare his bladder not fit in with Liz's schedule!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-3091342/Liz-Jones-s-Diary-lose-sense-humour.html
I'm kind of loving the buyer's remorse. Nirps is suddenly much more appealing at a distance now that Love Of My Life David is revealed as an actual human with flaws and foibles that don't excite her.
Anyone with half a brain would know the Squeaky/dogs story should have been followed up.
I'm also loving, REALLY loving, the whingeing about her terrible financial troubles closely followed by "thank God I was only driving the Range Rover, not the Merc".
As for pissing oneself in a cake shop... I hope she told the staff (assuming, of course, it actually happened, which I strongly doubt).
"On Saturday afternoon, though, something funny did happen.
I went to meet Isobel in the café at the Forbidden Corner, the other side of Leyburn. She assured me the café is lovely, but trust me, it’s not Ottolenghi or Villandry: inside it has barriers, the like of which you get in petrol station shops.
Anyway, we sat down with our awful cake (I still dream about Ottolenghi’s vanilla cupcake), and Isobel started to talk about how plans are going for her new organic café/farm shop, at Catterick, just off the A1.
She said a man had phoned her, and told her he is a historian. Apparently, a bomber aircraft had crash-landed on the site during the war and two airmen were killed. One was a Canadian called Bob.
The historian told Isobel that Bob haunts the spot, adding that at the point of impact he was decapitated. ‘I asked him how he knows that, and he said his great aunt or something was first on the scene, and removed the bodies.’
‘Oh dear,’ I said. ‘What are you going to do?’
‘Well, I’m not telling the staff, because they won’t want to stay late, and lock up.’
This last paragraph would have been funny, only I laughed so much – given my antiquity – that I wet myself. Thank God I was only driving the Land Rover, not the Merc."
Aside from slandering the cafe and informing the staff of her bestest friends shop of something said BF didn't want them to know, she can't remember if she's talking to Isobel in the cafe, or the car. Also, must we assume that, until she got home to wash said bloomers (one of only two pairs she possesses, let us not forget), she was going commando ?
Now I know she's telling porkies.
Why does it never get through her thick skull that if she downsized her home (and moving closer to London would cut down on train journeys and petrol costs), got rid of the menagerie and stopped the habit of buying designer clothes, cosmetics and beauty treatments she'd actually have enough cash to live on and the bailiffs wouldn't be on her tail. Any normal person would realise that would be the solution, but Liz seems to think she's a special case in all aspects of her life.
"I’m at an age when everyone around me starts dying: my mum, my brother, my nephew, Lizzie." -- While it's normal to lose a pet or an elderly parent, most people do not lose nephews or brothers (unless there is a significantly large age gap between the siblings) while still in their 50s. She's been exceptionally unlucky with having several deaths of close family members in a relatively short space of time, and people would understand that - so the whole "don't worry about me, this happens to everyone at my age, I'm getting old, one foot in the grave" routine is both infuriating and disrespectful
Then complaining that she got a slap on the wrist from Celia Hammond when yes, if Liz is telling the truth (LOL) about what happened to her cat, her behaviour IS more than enough grounds to have the cat taken away from her. And after the way she apparently spoke to David's ex-wife, I'm not bloody surprised his family hates her ...
It's as if she refuses to accept that life isn't always fair and that not everything is as it appears, She looks at other women of her "station" and sees what she believes is wealth, luxury, having it all. The fact that these women are often beneficiaries of TWO high salaries, not one, isn't something that escapes her, thankfully. But it doesn't seem to occur to her that her frenemies will be making compromises for the lives they lead. Compromises like mediocre marriages, "understandings" about partners playing away, having to spend money on LIttle Prunella's education instead of vampire facials or, you know, some economising now and then. Not to mention that a lot of these types are in debt to their ears and beyond - they just manage it better.
She could have a go at pulling his son
The son definitely takes after his mother lookswise!
Oh please - what's the poor lad ever done to deserve that?
Abercrombie and Fitch!
I dunno, I've been thinking about this - has Liz always been so hateful? I recall quite enjoying her column 15-20 years ago. So much seems to have changed. I can't work out if she's trying to, or thinks she is, funny. What she reports of her behaviour towards David is nothing to be proud of - and to me it reads as abusive. She belittles and insults him at every opportunity. Is she really intending to marry him? Because it seems she doesn't even like him, let alone love him. And she is surprised that people contacted Celia Hammond when her poor little elderly cat was savaged by her untrained dogs in her own home?? Has she really lost touch with reality to this extent? And facing bankruptcy yet again? How many times is this now? Pay your flipping tax woman, like the rest of us do!
Liz is going to end up a miserable, poor and lonely old woman. All of her own making.