Rolls Royce

[Eleven]

I was looking at a Rolls Royce for fun the other day and it generated a question that maybe some of the English speaking members can help with. Before WWII, RR made engines and frames and buyers ordered bodies from coach builders. Yet all seem to have the same general look, at least from the radiator to the windshield (bonnett). After the war, RR started selling with their own steel bodies yet Hooper, Park Ward and Mulliner among others still made bodies. Yet, other than Hooper, which I seem to be able to tell apart, they all really look the same. Later RR bought Park Ward and Milliner so I get that but the question is: How much did RR control the overall look of their cars before and after the war? Anyone know much about this?

(BTW, the car I was looking at was a Silver Shadow (I think) "Shooting Brake (sp?)-Station wagon for the American speakers. Totally cool car but really clapped out. WELL used and loved I suspect.

 

[Nickodell]

Hi, Tracy. I don't think they "controlled" the appearance of the cars whose bodies were made by the famous coach builders you name. Rolls began building complete cars when the era when almost all Rolls Royces were chauffer-driven limousines was coming to an end, and owner-drivers started to become more common.

But the others continued to be custom made, with the customer essentially ordering from a narrow range of designs (sedan, limousine, sedanca, cabriolet, etc.), and an expansive list of trim and extras, like clocks, radios, cabinets, bars, folding seats and so on.

If you had money - and I mean money - you could order almost anything. An American woman specified a makeup case that cost some $60,000 in today's dollars and a special clock that cost $24,000. Others ordered duplicate instrument panels for the rear passengers in a limousine. One woman ordered a built-in chamber pot; even Rolls considered this a trifle eccentric but it was done. Others specified special interior heights for tall customers to be able to keep their top hats on, and one had all the operational switches labeled in Olde English script on ivory escutcheons. You could order leather or fabric seats, high-gloss woodwork or more satin-like. Cherry, mahogany, teak, etc.

The Maharajah of Patiala bought 35 Rollses in one order, specifiying gold-plated dashboards, real fur floor coverings and inbuilt medicine chests. The Nizam of Hyderabad, who could, at a pinch, come up with $40 billion (today's dollars), had 50, including one with a body made out of solid beaten silver.

The British army took several Silver Ghost chassis (frame, engine, gearbox and running gear) and fitted armoured car bodies to them. Lawrence of Arabia used one to shoot up the Turks. After the war he said that if he could have anything in the world it would be a Rolls-Royce with petrol and tyres to last his lifetime (which, sadly, was just a few more years.)

The so-called "Silver Lady" radiator mascot - correctly called "Spirit of Ecstacy" was sculpted by Charles Sykes, the model being the mistress of a British nobleman who had infused Rolls with needed cash when the company was finding its feet. In the days when radiator caps were removable, the owner was supplied with two; one with the Spirit on and a plain one, to be used if the car was to be left unattended for any time. When safety regulations came into effect, Spirit was hinged. When Queen Elizabeth II ordered a Phantom IV (a rare straight eight cyl.), instead of Spirit she specified a statue depicting St. George, England's patron saint, slaying the dragon. The first one was subjected to vibration on a testing machine, to simulate years of driving, and redesigned subtly to add strength.

Rolls began to lose interest in cars in the 60s, and concentrate on aero engines. Today they are the predominant manufacturer of jets, including the Trent, at 100,000 static thrust (5,000 used to be rated good in the 50s.)

 

[mikephillips]

In the prewar days when it was mostly coach built one reason Rolls, and most other high end makers actually supplied the fenders, scuttle, hood and radiator shell so what you were having made was literally only the body. No to say a wealthy customer could have those replaced as well, just that most didn't. I suspect Rolls and others did this because most kept those items and thus the car would be recognized as being from their individual lines and not something that if it was seen out would be an unknown.

 

[MikeH]

I like the Rolls that Nicolas Cage is driving the Sorcerer's Apprentice. A 1935 Phantom Coupe.

http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sectio...mousCars/SS_have_i_seen_that_car_sorcerer.jpg

The following was copied from the description on the CNBC site.

An extremely rare original (owned by Nic Cage) and this replica were used in the movie. This Rolls was built in less than six weeks for stunts, mounted on a 2003 Chevy pickup chassis. It’s made from Rolls parts and other fabricated pieces to create the look.

In a press release for the film, Cage explains the car choice: “We came up with the idea that Balthazar should have that particular Rolls-Royce because the Rolls-Royce factory developed the Merlin engine that was also in the Spitfire airplanes that defeated the Nazis in World War II. Many cars have won the Grand Prix, but only one had ever stopped a war. So for me, it was a perfect addition to the movie because it showed the concept of Merlinians at work; behind the scenes protecting mankind and how they are present even though we are not aware of it.”
…Oooor, maybe it was just that he wanted to show off his rare Rolls.

 

[Eleven]

In the prewar days when it was mostly coach built one reason Rolls, and most other high end makers actually supplied the fenders, scuttle, hood and radiator shell so what you were having made was literally only the body. No to say a wealthy customer could have those replaced as well, just that most didn't. I suspect Rolls and others did this because most kept those items and thus the car would be recognized as being from their individual lines and not something that if it was seen out would be an unknown.

Well, that would make sense if they were supplying the radiator shell, wings and bonnet (How English am I!!) pre war. Postwar-aside from Hooper who seemed to like to extend the roof line all the way back, the others must have been mostly "customizers" and trim enhancers because the basic lines of the cars do not seem to change much regardless of who does the body. Having said that, a RR enthusiast would probably barbeque me right now.

As an aside, I thought Cage was dead broke and owed a couple of million to the feds in taxes, how did he manage to hold on to that car???

 

[rapier]

I regret to say to my Sunbeam friends in the USA that most of what has been written on this site about Rolls Royce is completely wrong. So wrong it would fill the screen to correct the issues mentioned.

Rolls Royce has a fascinating history and may I recommend all car enthusiasts on this site use the web to learn more about the company and it's background.

Happy reading

 

[Nickodell]

I regret to say to my Sunbeam friends in the USA that most of what has been written on this site about Rolls Royce is completely wrong. So wrong it would fill the screen to correct the issues mentioned.

Rolls Royce has a fascinating history and may I recommend all car enthusiasts on this site use the web to learn more about the company and it's background.

Happy reading

Although you neither cite what is supposedly wrong, nor identify who is wrong, I suggest that for "happy reading" you invest in a copy of The Kings of the Road, by the late, great, auto writer Ken Purdy, and turn to the chapter titled "Of Ghosts and Wraiths," from which most of the data I cite comes. The book is long out of print, but still available from ilibris.com.

On the subject of right and wrong, the word it's is a contraction of "it is," making what you wrote: "...and it is background." The possessive impersonal pronoun is just its (no apostrophe.)

 

[Series6]

On the subject of right and wrong, the word it's is a contraction of "it is," making what you wrote: "...and it is background." The possessive impersonal pronoun is just its (no apostrophe.)

Amazing what you learn on this site. Thanks Nick. I never knew there was such a thing as a possessive impersonal pronoun.... I was concerned, however, of my overuse of the apostrophe....

And the story of the mistress modeling for the Spirit of Ecstacy? I read the same story in some RR club mailing when I used to sell Roll Royce. I guess they're wrong too? Where's your supporting data?

 

[Nickodell]

Hi, Nick Jr.

As anyone who has been on the forum for some time knows, I am a freelance writer. Actually, I've been a writer for many years, both in my employment as a technical writer and later as a freelancer, or "Grubstreeter" as we are known in the publishing trade (i.e. someone who will write on any subject for the price of some grub.)

Love and respect for the English language has been a guiding light - some might say an obsession - since my early days, and I hate to see it butchered. The state of English grammar, puntuation and comprehension in the US, and Britain, is abysmal. Many bilingual foreigners speak and write our language better than a distressing percentage of Americans and Britons. That said, I try to avoid correcting people (other than other "professional" writers, especially in newspapers) as it is usually regarded as offensive. I made an exception this time as I was sure the accusation of inventing facts was aimed at me, and general accusations without citing specifics p*ss me off.

I could never understand why the apostrophe poses such problems. The rules are pretty simple. However, the it's/its confusion is almost endemic. It's so bad in Britain that they now virtually ignore the apostrophe other than in formal writing.

If you really are interested in pronouns; they can be divided into personal (I, me, you, etc.) and impersonal (it, that, etc.) A further subdivision would indicate possessive - my, your, etc. - for personal pronouns (personal possessive), and its for impersonal (impersonal possessive.) The possessive case is also called the genitive case.

There is also the double genitive. For example, "a cousin of John's," "a friend of mine" (of , John's and mine all indicate possessive.)

Help! Stop me before I get into the dative, accusative and ablative cases.

Now aren't you glad you asked? (Even if you didn't )

 

[Series6]

Um....there's a double genitive, dative, accusative and ablative case?


Oh, great.....

 

[MikeH]

Thread hijack here.

What really bugs me is the incorrect use of "myself" when "me" should be used. I guess those that use it feel they are speaking with more sophistication.

Sorry for the hijack.

 

[agmason]

What really bothers me is the use of "very unique". The definition of unique: Being the only one of its kind; unequaled, unparalleled or unmatched. How can you have very "one of a kind"?

 

[agmason]

One of my favorite Rolls Royce stories is that Volkswagen outbid BMW in 1998 to buy Rolls Royce and Bentley from Vickers. It turned out that the Rolls Royce name belonged to Rolls Royce PLC, the engine manufacturer, and was not included with the purchase. On top of that, BMW had an agreement to supply v8 and v12 engines to Rolls Royce and could cancel the contract with a 12 month notice leaving VW with no engines for Bentleys. BMW licensed the Rolls Royce name from Rolls Royce PLC and makes Rolls Royce cars. Volkswagen bought the old Rolls Royce Crewe factory and couldn't make Rolls Royce cars! Instead, they make Bentleys.

 

[Nickodell]

Um....there's a double genitive, dative, accusative and ablative case? Oh, great.....

Don't worry. In English we only use a few cases, such as possessive, subjective and objective. The weird cases like the above only occur in "inflective" languages like Latin and German. Ablative, for example, is only used in Latin, Sanskrit and Hungarian. Even talking about it makes my stomach churn, taking me back to high school in the late 40s and early 50s, trying to make sense of all the cases in Latin. Even ablative breaks down to subdivisions like ablative absolute.

I always remember the movie Young Winston, where a 12-year-old Churchill is being grilled on his Latin by the headmaster of a prep school (played by the brave Jack Hawkins, whose cancerous larynx had been removed, and whose voice was spoken by a voice-over), in which his father wanted to enroll him. "Demonstrate the use of the accusative case," thunders the headmaster. Little Winston hesitates, and the head says "For example, how would you address this chair?" [It would be "oh chair" in the accusative - also known as the nominative - case.]

"I never would, sir," says Winston, to the headmaster's fury.

English is a difficult language to learn, because of the many inconsistencies and lack of rules (such as the many pronunciations of "ough"), but thank goodness at least we don't have to worry about almost all cases, or the stupid [IMHO] idea of inanimate objects having genders.

On that subject, who makes the decision in, for example, French of what gender a new word should be? Who elects/appoints him/her to that position? How did whoever decide what gender the word merde (sh*t) should be? And even the French have illogical genders. For example, at the table you have "le couteau" (knife: masculine) and "la fourchette" (fork: feminine.) And who made the dumb decision that le train (masc.) is pulled by la locomotive (fem.)? What the hell is feminine about a fire-breathing, 300-ton steam locomotive?

 

[Bill Blue]

What the hell is feminine about a fire-breathing, 300-ton steam locomotive?

Probably nothing, but I imagine that decision was made when locomotives checked in at a petite 20 tons or so. But that raises another question, as a feminine 20 tonner evolves into a fire breathing 300 tons, at what point should it become masculine?

Bill

 

[Nickodell]

I'm surprised that nobody spotted my error. "Oh table!" is of course using the vocative case. The hadmaster actually ordered Winston to demostrate the vocative, asking him "for example, how would you invoke this table?" Churchill's reply was correct. My bad, as the dumb phrase has it.

And the French for locomotive is actually locomotif.

 

[Eleven]

Nick,
As the official English Speaking Official of the SAOCA, you used IMHO and My Bad in two posts. If you start referring to your BFF's, speaking telephonically, using your "apps" or eating veggies, I may have to block you.

PS, I still don't understand what the coach builders did to the Rolls to make them unique and special to them. I am beginning to think it was an Edwardian version of "Pimp my Ride"...

 

[Series6]

Don't worry. In English we only use a few cases, such as possessive, subjective and objective. The weird cases like the above only occur in "inflective" languages like Latin and German. Ablative, for example, is only used in Latin, Sanskrit and Hungarian. Even talking about it makes my stomach churn, taking me back to high school in the late 40s and early 50s, trying to make sense of all the cases in Latin. Even ablative breaks down to subdivisions like ablative absolute.

I always remember the movie Young Winston, where a 12-year-old Churchill is being grilled on his Latin by the headmaster of a prep school (played by the brave Jack Hawkins, whose cancerous larynx had been removed, and whose voice was spoken by a voice-over), in which his father wanted to enroll him. "Demonstrate the use of the accusative case," thunders the headmaster. Little Winston hesitates, and the head says "For example, how would you address this chair?" [It would be "oh chair" in the accusative - also known as the nominative - case.]

"I never would, sir," says Winston, to the headmaster's fury.

English is a difficult language to learn, because of the many inconsistencies and lack of rules (such as the many pronunciations of "ough"), but thank goodness at least we don't have to worry about almost all cases, or the stupid [IMHO] idea of inanimate objects having genders.

On that subject, who makes the decision in, for example, French of what gender a new word should be? Who elects/appoints him/her to that position? How did whoever decide what gender the word merde (sh*t) should be? And even the French have illogical genders. For example, at the table you have "le couteau" (knife: masculine) and "la fourchette" (fork: feminine.) And who made the dumb decision that le train (masc.) is pulled by la locomotive (fem.)? What the hell is feminine about a fire-breathing, 300-ton steam locomotive?

Latin, Sanskrit and Hungarian?-Fine PS-Why is Latin America called Latin America? Last time I heard they all spoke some form of Spanish.

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the streets. We shall never surrender our chairs."

I don't even want to know why the French asign Le and La to their words. I don't even like French Toast. Don't plan on going there. German confuses me enough. Mein, Meine, Sein, Ihr, Seinen, Unser, Ouier, Ihr,,,, I'l have one Der Weinerschnitzel Please, with Chili and onions.... (Yes, I know it's Das Weinerschnitzel and it ain't a hot dog either)

I once annoyed a large woman "who wore comfortable shoes" (wink, wink) and for all intent and purpose she might well have been a 300 ton fire breathing loco...

 

[MikeH]

Now go away before I taunt you a second time.

 

[Nickodell]

Thread hijack here. What really bugs me is the incorrect use of "myself" when "me" should be used. I guess those that use it feel they are speaking with more sophistication. Sorry for the hijack.

I'd already hijacked it.

Yes, that's one more of my pet hates. "Myself" is a reflexive pronoun, meaning you are performing an action on yourself (stop sniggering in the back, there). E.g. "I hurt myself." "I washed myself." If you are simply the object of an action, you use "me." "He hurt me." "Tell me the time." (To Nick Jr: That is the objective case of the first person singular personal pronoun.)

I used to work as a technical writer, correcting manuscripts meant for publication by, usually, very intelligent people; scientists and academics with PhDs and MSc's. [The apostrophe is used here for clarity.] And most of them couldn't put a coherent essay together. Amazing; they had been in school until their late 20s and early 30s, gained the top degrees in incredibly difficult disciplines, and were essentailly illiterate. I especially remember one PhD writing: "It was a surprise to myself." I wanted to write back: "God help myself. This amazed myself!"

Of course, the personal pronouns "I" and "me" are similarly misused and confused. You hear/read even nominally highly-educated people coming up with "You can expect him to let you and I know," and similar crap. "I" is a subjective pronoun - it indicates the person performing the action. The easiest way to find the proper one is to strip one of the objects out. In other words, if you remove "you" from the example, it would leave "I expect him to let I know," which would be glaringly obvious to even the most illiterate (except in some rural parts of England, where you still hear that usage.)

Then there's my NUMBER ONE teeth-gritting one, which has taken over almost universally; the use of "lay" instead of "lie." There was a picture in the Philadelphia Inquirer a couple of weeks ago of Michael Vick, kneeling face down on the grass, after fumbling a pass that led to the Eagles' defeat and out of the playoffs. The caption read: Michael Vick lays down on the turf after missing .... etc. I wrote to the author of the article: "What was he laying? Eggs? Bricks? Railroad tracks?"

Most days myself feels like King Canute trying to push the sea back.