Timeline for a few finger sandwiches
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1 at 15:56 | comment | added | Michael Harvey | @Astralbee - I gathered as a kid that it was terribly 'genteel' (my mother) or 'daft' (my father) to cut sandwiches into triangles and cut off the crusts. The ones we had at home consisted of stuff between two slices of bread, only the bottom one of which was buttered, and were cut across from side to side. There were things called 'doorsteps', and these had extra-thick slices. | |
| Nov 1 at 10:20 | comment | added | Astralbee | @kaia In the UK (and I believe this text is British English) we were very traditional with sandwich sizes for decades. Subways only started opening here in1996, and only really starting gaining popularity from about 2005. Before that, anything described as a sandwich could be held in one hand! We did have 'finger rolls' which are like hotdog rolls, but 'finger sandwiches' would be two slices of a traditional loaf and then cut lengthways either once or twice to make 'fingers'. | |
| Nov 1 at 9:28 | comment | added | Michael Harvey | @TimR - I eat meat; my partner is vegetarian (a matter more of taste than zeal). We don't cook meat in the house, and I believe I am healthier as a result. When we go out she has no objections to me having a ham roll at the airport or a steak in a French restaurant. What would break a relationship for us is if either ceased being a left winger politically, or was cruel to animals, ecpecially cats. Also racism, homophobia, transphobia, intolerance in general wouldn't fly. We are proudly 'woke'. | |
| Nov 1 at 9:23 | comment | added | Michael Harvey | @TimR - people tend to form couples and have children and I think the state (or State if you like) should regulate things like parenthood, inheritance, property rights, child maintenance, etc. For my partner and me the idea of a ceremony and its patriarchal elements, not to mention boosting the 'wedding-industrial complex' was totally anathema. So the informal Civil Partnership route was ideal for us. | |
| Nov 1 at 9:14 | comment | added | Michael Harvey | @TimR - maybe vows have 'metaphysical' consequence for those who believe in that stuff. But Quakers believe, and they explictly eschew oaths (which involve the deity) in favour of vows (which are just public promises). That's how I see the difference, too. To clarify, I am an atheist. | |
| Oct 31 at 23:19 | comment | added | TimR | But I do like the distinction between "civil partnership" and "marriage". I don't think the State should be in the marriage biz, but should confine itself to the civil partnership side of things. That said, I see no reason why adultery shouldn't be grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership. Eating meat should be grounds enough.or refusing to cook meat. Civil partnership opens the door to the exigencies as the partners see them. | |
| Oct 31 at 23:10 | comment | added | TimR | @michaelharvey It struck me as self-contradictory that overtly religious quotations should be off-limits while "vows" are mandatory. A "vow" is an affirmation with, shall we say, "metaphysical" consequence. | |
| Oct 31 at 22:48 | comment | added | Michael Harvey | @TimR - in the UK, you must exchange vows if you’re getting married; you don't need to for a civil partnership, but you can if you’d like to. The main difference between marriage and civil partnership is that adultery is not a ground for dissolution of the latter, although, if a partner has been unfaithful then that would come under unreasonable behaviour. Beyond this, there are very few differences. | |
| Oct 31 at 22:04 | comment | added | TimR | Thanks for the illumaniating across-the-pond differences between US civil ceremonies and UK civil ceremonies; the latter can apparently be as lavish as the couple wishes, as long as they avoid anything overtly "religious" in nature. Interesting that "vows" are mandatory. | |
| Oct 31 at 20:11 | comment | added | Kaia | @Astralbee I think part of the idea with finger food is that you can usually finish eating whatever piece you pick up in a few bites, so you don't need to put it back down. Which may not be true with e.g. a large sub or a panini. E.g. a burrito is something I can eat on the go, but I wouldn't necessarily call it finger food. | |
| Oct 31 at 20:05 | comment | added | Kaia | A finger sandwich is specifically a tea sandwich, no? Like, cut-off-crusts, cucumbers, etc? I do think the etymology comes from 'finger food' but I'm not sure. | |
| Oct 31 at 16:14 | comment | added | Astralbee | +1 great answer, although "finger sandwiches" may mean sandwiches cut into fingers. Your definition of finger food is correct, but all sandwiches fit that definition. | |
| Oct 31 at 15:15 | comment | added | Kate Bunting | And, in theory, a church wedding can be a very simple ceremony with only two other people present to act as witnesses. AFAIK it rarely happens today, but it sometimes did in the past when all weddings had to be in church. | |
| Oct 31 at 13:21 | comment | added | Michael Harvey | Now that we in the UK can have opposite-sex civil partnerships, my partner or 30 years decided to enter into one at the local Register Office. We demanded the least amount of ceremony possible, and I think the staff were pleased at this. As we left we saw the next set of people using the room and they were clearly going for the maximum. | |
| Oct 31 at 12:54 | history | answered | Daniel Roseman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |