The character and actions of Romeo and Juliets Nurse in Act essays

The character and actions of Romeo and Juliets Nurse in Act essays In this scene Nurse has three main goals. First, she wants to convey her message to Romeo: not to mess around with Juliet. Second, she wants to maintain some vestiges of dignity in front of Romeos mercilessly tormenting friends. Finally, she wants some news from Romeo to satisfy Juliet, i.e. a wedding tomorrow. Nurse wants to make sure Romeo understands that Juliet, who is from a good family, and has protectors, will not stand for any ill-treatment. The kindly nurse doesnt want her charges heart broken at age fourteen. In addition, she wants to keep her wits about her in front of the Montagues. She doesnt like them, and attempts to show them up by using fancy (incomprehensible) language, and ordering Peter around. Nurse wants Juliet to stop annoying her about Romeo, and to assure Juliet (and herself?) that Romeos intentions are honorable. Nurses primary obstacle in this scene is her own dim-witted attempt at using erudite language (at which she fails miserably). She is almost unable to communicate her message to Romeo, her word usage is so convoluted. This issue also makes it difficult for her to appear intelligent, elegant and dignified in front of Romeos wiser friends. Not only are her communication deficiencies evident in her own messages, they are apparent in her interpretation of Romeos speech. She very nearly delivers the wrong message to Juliet! Obviously, Nurse never confronts this obstacle. Romeo often has to question her interpretation of his messages to Juliet, but she seems unaware of her linguistic flaws. Benvolio makes fun of the nurses language usage when he says she will indite him to some supper (2.4) instead of invite. She is unable to make Juliets message to Romeo clear, using deal double and sententious instead of double deal and sentence ...

What Caused the Defeat of the essays

What Caused the Defeat of the essays When looking at the Battle of the Little Big Horn there are many reasons why General Custer lost the battle. Many will say that he made bad choices and others will say that his luck just happened to run out that day. I think the reason why Custer lost the battle was a combination of both but it was his choices in the end that cost him his life and the battle. The events that went on around him that are considered his bad luck could have been looked at when they happened and fixed. There was a lot going on around Custer that could have made his mind not focused at the time of the battle such as running for president and also his ego along with overconfidence. From what Steven Ambrose put forth in his opinion of the battle I agree with most of the mistakes that he says Custer made. The first one and I think second most important mistake that Custer made was not taking the 2nd Cavalry when it was offered to him. This would have given him around a 1,100 men and that would have definitely been enough to defeat the Sioux. This can be countered by that Custer had too much pride with the 7th Cavalry and that he didnt want to share it with anyone else. Custer also knew that he was going to face the largest amount of warriors ever so having more men wouldnt hurt him at all and of course increase his chances of winning the battle. The next mistake that Custer made was underestimating the enemy that he was about to face. He figured that there would be about 1,500 warriors at max where there were actually almost double that. Custer probably didnt think that there would be any Cheyenne either. It was also known that at around that time of year the entire Sioux nation comes together for a big get together. This all stems back to others in the army not doing good reconnaissance of the area where they believed the Sioux were. The area that the army believed to be around at first stretched for 125 miles and was about 50 miles...

Land law coursework Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Land law coursework - Essay Example This certificate and the registration as the new owner of the property award him all the rights of the house (Dowden 4). His interests in this case are therefore beneficial interests since he is the proprietor of the instrument and hence the legal owner. In case of any court cases, the registration and the transfer of the certificate of registration and ownership will be proof enough of his binding interests in the property above all the others and it overrides the interests of all. Once the ownership rights have been transferred to him, it is up to him therefore to decide what to do with rest of the people who were intertwined with Abigail especially Thomas (her father) and Michael (the tenant). Thomas is a trustee of Abigail in the registered land and he therefore has his own overriding interests in the land and its instruments. His overriding interests in that property are brought about by the fact that the registrar did not record his interests or agreements with his daughter whe n transferring the property from Gareth and this is according to s 78 of the LRA 2002. Thomas assisted Abigail with one fifth of the payment money required to purchase Heavenly Mews and they drafted an express trust. The form of express trust drafted however was not revealed and hence the interest which Thomas has in the instrument is not known. There are different forms of trust which according to English Law may have been drafted in this scenario by the father and daughter. These trusts must have to mention the beneficiary since it is not a charitable trust that Thomas drafted with his daughter. The interest which Thomas may have on the property of Abigail being a trustee may however not be granted or addressed by the courts. This is because according to the Variation of Trusts Act of 1958, the court lacks power to consent trust ascertained to an individual who is suijuris that is the one who is above the age of consent and who is of sound mind like Abigail (Dowden 64). If the cas e of Savill v Goodall [1993] 1 FLR 755 is to be followed, then Thomas would have claimed his share of the money paid for the house since there was an express trust agreement. The fact that Thomas stayed on and off with his daughter Abigail before she sold the property does not have any effect on the interest according to the act and hence is also not admissible court. The interest therefore remains to be null and void unless Stephen who is the bona fide owner of the property instrument decides to share it or enter into joint tenancy or ownership with him (but it is not a must). The other person who may have an interest on the property once Abigail has sold it is Michael who was a tenant of Abigail for around two months before she sold the house to Stephen. There is no mention of any formality being written that explains the tenancy terms of Michael and Abigail. The case does not state whether the tenancy had commenced or it was to commence in less than three months. In the event tha t it was to commence in less than three months, then the interest will be considered as override interest. If the tenancy in this case was an actual occupation, Michael will have an interest according to Sch 3 para 2 as in the case Abbey National BS v Cann [1991]. If he has this interest, the Stephen will have to assume