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

    • So irrespective of the scandal how do you think that Rayner did as Housing Secretary?  
    • The Labour astro-turfers are out in force on this thread aren't they!
    • I don't really care about political sleaze in this  i am more concerned about thjle ability to run.a country without running it into the ground. Currently, labout seem to be heading straight towards the rocks, ignoring the warning blasts from the economic ighthouse. 
    • Which is exactly why Rayner had to go - don't be the sleaze attack dog and then not keep your own house in order - the really shocking fact is she didn't go the moment this came to light because she knew what advice, and the advice to seek proper tax expertise that was given to her in writing by the very people she was trying to throw under the bus - she clearly thought she might be able to spin her way out of it. When you look at the facts, the advice she was given and when and her behaviour in the last few days it has been scandalous and just shows the contempt for the public intelligence some politicians have. Interesting to see a very unscientific vox pop on BBC News last night but a lot of her own constituents seem to want rid of her as well and to be honest if you have to lose your cabinet role for this breach of the rules then you should probably lose your seat too. That is the hypocrisy here and why a lot of people don't like politicians because they're all the same.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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