Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Prince Egbert.



PS James is (apparently) a favourite but look what happened the last few times we had a James on the throne!


and when does the dynasty* end? if it had been a girl and then when she got married? seriously, I am just wondering this.



*not the alexis & krystal variety.


edit: apologies nette for ruining your thread.

I don't think they think that much about what happened to the other monarchs who had that name - if they did Charles is much worse a name than James - first one got executed after a bloody civil war and the second was a randy old goat by all accounts.


Come to that Harry is really called Henry - the last Henry (VIII) had six wives, two of them he had executed and two he divorced.


Even William I was last to successfully invade the UK - responsible for a significant amount of blood shed in this country.


Hardly any traditional Royal name is untainted by some pretty bad history associated with at least one of the monarchs with that name.


Elizabeth possibly the one exception but that's not much use for a boy!

I'm warming to Winston & so is my Jamaican/British neighbour Dave


"Yes yes, that would really unify the nation"


That is after we'd stopped laughing & David did a few finger clicks of appreciation


So come on William & Kate, do the right thing. Give us a Prince Winston


One love.

indiepanda Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Come to that Harry is really called Henry - the

> last Henry (VIII) had six wives, two of them he

> had executed and two he divorced.


> Hardly any traditional Royal name is untainted by

> some pretty bad history associated with at least

> one of the monarchs with that name.


ah yes see your point indie, you're right there aren't many historical names that are untainted.


to confuse matters, wasn't henry VIII known as david as well?




Still with Egbert. King Prawn to his mates.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you for your reply. I have sent you a PM.  
    • It required legislation to identify the beneficial owners of properties in the UK held by overseas companies - and these still haven't been properly disclosed - ownership of things isn't just a google search away - and to suggest otherwise is not to understand how capitalism works. Unless you (cyclemonkey) do have access to that knowledge and would like to share.
    • "Mysterious owners" 😆  If only there was a powerful search engine at our fingertips to find out such deep secrets.        
    • It's the "due to commercial reasons" line again that is vexing. Last year it seemed, although there was a similar level of objection, that the reasons were commercial - Gala didn't appear entirely prepared to run 3 more events, or more likely didn't have sufficient interest from other promoters / organisers who could 'sub-let' the site as with Brockwell Park (I believe?). This year they appeared more organised, had another year to plan & prepare, to the extent they actually had names for two of the three new events which indicated to me that they had third party promoters / organisers in place.  So yes, it does make you wonder whether the repeated level of objection, combined with the impending elections, led to the council 'advising' that maybe they shelve it again? I'm afraid I can't see the whole extension application just being a ruse to guarantee permission for the 'regular' event. Gala are a commercial venture with ambition - every festival's business plan is to expand, expand, expand, year on year on year. Gala won't give up until they have taken over the whole park for a Summer of Raves, and the mysterious owners are on their yachts counting their ££££
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...