[Q]: Given the below context:  Radical rebuilding schemes poured in for the gutted City and were encouraged by Charles. If it had been rebuilt under some of these plans, London would have rivalled Paris in Baroque magnificence (see Evelyn's plan on the right). The Crown and the City authorities attempted to establish "to whom all the houses and ground did in truth belong" to negotiate with their owners about compensation for the large-scale remodelling that these plans entailed, but that unrealistic idea had to be abandoned. Exhortations to bring workmen and measure the plots on which the houses had stood were mostly ignored by people worried about day-to-day survival, as well as by those who had left the capital; for one thing, with the shortage of labour following the fire, it was impossible to secure workmen for the purpose. Apart from Wren and Evelyn, it is known that Robert Hooke, Valentine Knight, and Richard Newcourt proposed rebuilding plans. With the complexities of ownership unresolved, none of the grand Baroque schemes could be realised for a City of piazzas and avenues; there was nobody to negotiate with, and no means of calculating how much compensation should be paid. Instead, much of the old street plan was recreated in the new City, with improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood. New public buildings were created on their predecessors' sites; perhaps the most famous is St Paul's Cathedral and its smaller cousins, Christopher Wren's 50 new churches. On Charles' initiative, a Monument to the Great Fire of London was erected near Pudding Lane, designed by Christopher Wren and Robert Hooke, standing 61 metres (200 ft) tall and known simply as "The Monument". It is a familiar London landmark which has since given its name to a tube station. In 1668, accusations against the Catholics were added to the inscription on the Monument which...  Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: Great Fire of London


[Q]: Given the below context:  Burges played an important role in the renaissance of High Victorian stained glass. The provision of glass of appropriate colour and richness was central to many of his decorative themes, and he invested effort in working with the best cartoonists and manufacturers to achieve this. He also studied the history of glass production, writing in his second Art Applied to Industry lecture, "[a] use of antiquarian studies is to restore disused arts, and to get all the good we can out of them for our own improvement." In the catalogue to the exhibition of stained glass cartoons from Cardiff Castle, Sargent pays tribute to "his deep knowledge of the history and techniques of glass manufacture" and Lawrence considers him a pioneer who, by his "painstaking studies, re-established the principles of medieval decoration and used this to make [his] own bold and original statements." The results were outstanding; Lawrence wrote that Burges designed with "a vibrancy, an intensity and a brilliance which no other glass maker could match." He acknowledges Burges's debt to the manufacturers and craftsmen with whom he worked, in particular, Gualbert Saunders, whose "technique [gave] Burges's glass its most distinctive characteristic, namely the flesh colour. This is unique, had no precedents and has had no imitators." As well as at Saint Fin Barre's, Burges designed stained glass for all of his own significant churches, for reconstructions of medieval churches undertaken by others, and for his secular buildings. He undertook significant work at Waltham Abbey with Edward Burne-Jones, but much of his work there was destroyed in the Blitz. Crook writes, "At Waltham, Burges does not copy. He meets the Middle Ages as an equal.".  Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: William Burges


[Q]: Given the below context:  Jeff Gerber lives in an average suburban neighborhood with his seemingly liberal housewife Althea, who tolerates her husband's character flaws out of love. Every morning when Jeff wakes up, he spends some time under a tanning machine, hits the speedbag, drinks a health drink, and races the bus to work on foot. Jeff presents himself as happy-go-lucky and quite a joker, but others tend to see him as obnoxious and boorish. Althea, who watches the race riots every night on TV with great interest, chastises Jeff for not having sympathy for the problems of black Americans. One morning, Jeff wakes up to find that his pigment has changed. He tries to fall back asleep, thinking that it is a dream, but to no avail. He tries taking a shower to wash the "black" off him, but finds it does not work, when Althea walks into the bathroom, and screams. He explains to her that the "Negro in the bathroom" is him. At first, Jeff believes this to be the result of spending too much time under the tanning machine. He spends almost the entire day at home, afraid to go out of the house, only going out once to venture into the "colored part of town" in order to find a pharmacy to buy "the stuff they use in order to make themselves look white." His attempts to change his skin color fail. The next day, he is persuaded to get up and go to work. Things start out well at first, until Jeff is accused of robbery while running alongside the bus to work. The policeman assumes that, since he is a black man, he must have stolen something. During his lunch break, he makes an appointment with his doctor who cannot explain Jeff's condition either. After several calls, the doctor suggests that Jeff might be more comfortable with a black doctor.  Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: Watermelon Man (film)


[Q]: Given the below context:  The NSWCA appealed to Lord Harris, and in reply he said he did not blame them or the cricketers of Sydney in any way, but said that "it [the riot] was an occurrence it was impossible he could forget". On 11 February, one day after the conclusion of the match and three days after the riot, Harris wrote a letter to one of his friends about the disturbance. It was clear that he intended the letter to be printed in the press, and it appeared in full in The Daily Telegraph on 1 April, among other London newspapers, reigniting the furore. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack considered the incident of such significance that it reprinted the whole correspondence. The letter gives a detailed contemporary account of what Lord Harris thought about the riot.Lord Harris referred to the crowd as a "howling mob" and said "I have seen no reason as yet to change my opinion of Coulthard's qualities, or to regret his engagement, in which opinion I am joined by the whole team". He further added that "Beyond slyly kicking me once or twice the mob behaved very well, their one cry being, 'Change your umpire'. And now for the cause of this disturbance, not unexpected, I may say, by us, for we have heard accounts of former matches played by English teams." Harris further accused a New South Wales parliamentarian of assisting the gamblers in the inciting the unrest, although he did not name the accusee. He said I blame the NSW Eleven for not objecting to Coulthard before the match began, if they had reason to suppose him incompetent to fulfil his duties. I blame the members of the association (many, of course, must be excepted) for their discourtesy and uncricket like behaviour to their guests; and I blame the committee and others of the association for ever permitting betting, but this last does not, of course, apply to our match only. I am bound to say they did all in their power to quell the disturbance. I don't think anything would have happened if A. Bannerman had been run out instead of Murdoch, but the latter, besides being a great...  Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]:
Sydney Riot of 1879