What house, bloated with luxury, ever became prosperous without a woman's excellence?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Lives in previous centuries for women are largely a matter of class. It would have been fun to have been a rich, privileged woman in the 18th century, but no fun at all to be her maid.
Rich men's houses are seldom beautiful, rarely comfortable, and never original. It is a constant source of surprise to people of moderate means to observe how little a big fortune contributes to Beauty.
The house a woman creates is a Utopia. She can't help it - can't help trying to interest her nearest and dearest not in happiness itself but in the search for it.
We weren't poor growing up on Long Island, but it wasn't lavish - just a regular middle-class house.
I have always admired women that have a strong sense of self, complemented by femininity. I especially appreciate the presence of these women in traditionally male-dominated industries, such as real estate.
I grew up in a very modest house. We were poor-we lived on the poverty level. We all got jobs as young kids.
The cottage garden; most for use designed, Yet not of beauty destitute.
In London - and forget those extra public pressures on politicians - the lovely old Sloane world of manor houses simply hasn't cut it since Big Bang in 1986, the point at which Mrs. Thatcher really started to achieve her ambition to make this country more like America - its ambition, economy, it's very tangible measures of success.
I can think of a lot of women clients of mine who are well into their 50s or 60s who are still quintessentially very elegant.
Riches are a good hand maiden, but a poor mistress.
No opposing quotes found.