1 3 4 5  7 8 9 11
BTW and OT, in BrE a 'geezer' just means 'a good guy' - does it imply age in AmE?

Yes. Gary Williams

Ta.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that Romford's part of London, as you yourself implied in your previous posting. Just not part of the East End.

What a shame. In the days when we used to drive out to Romford market, it was like a country drive most of the way.

Rob Bannister
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
david56 redled:
Django Cat typed thus:

Actually, as Tony Robinson's recent documentary showed, the rightful ... he's a Republican who wouldn't touch Royalty with a bargepole..

Ah, "rightful" must be one of those Humpty Dumpty words.

Not at all. The person who did the research very carefully tracked down the line of succession. No trickery about it.

It turns out that one of the Charleses was a *** and therefore should not have inherited the throne according to the rules that were (and probably still are) in place. Once you correct for that error, the "rightful" line of succession goes through the Huguenots, and the Australian bloke (1) in question is the current representative of that line. He has, apparently, gracefully declined to pursue his claim.
(1) Not a geezer. He's only about my age, as I recall it.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
John Smith redled:
I remember a while ago, one of the US presidents visiting a school. He bent down, before the cameras, and told a schoolboy he had made a spelling mistake: "You forgot the 'e' in 'potatoe'".

It was a vice-president, not a president. It's an American tradition for presidential candidates to pick someone amiable but not too bright as a running mate. In the USA, as in most other countries, the key to getting elected is to capture the so-called "stupid vote", and that is the role of the vice-presidential candidate.

The current administration chose, for some reason, to put the amiable-but-stupid one in the top position and to make the one with the brains the vice-president. It's worked out fairly well, for them if not for the world. One of them gets to make the speeches and the other gets to make the policies.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
david56 redled:

Django Cat typed thus: Ah, "rightful" must be one of those Humpty Dumpty words.

Not at all. The person who did the research very carefully tracked down the line of succession. No trickery about ... bloke (1) in question is the current representative of that line. He has, apparently, gracefully declined to pursue his claim.

Rightful king of where?
Fran
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Frances Kemmish redled:
Not at all. The person who did the research very ... line. He has, apparently, gracefully declined to pursue his claim.

Rightful king of where?

Of England, and of all the other places where the usurper ERII still reigns. Including Australia, I suppose.
Calling the new candidate an Australian is slightly misleading. He now lives in Australia, but was born in England.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Frances Kemmish redled:

Rightful king of where?

Of England, and of all the other places where the usurper ERII still reigns. Including Australia, I suppose. Calling the new candidate an Australian is slightly misleading. He now lives in Australia, but was born in England.

That's what I thought you were saying, but it doesn't seem to fit with what you gave as the reasons for this person being the rightful monarch. England only had two kings called Charles, one of whom died without heirs. The other, Charles I, was many things, but I have never heard that he was illegitimate.
And how did the Huguenots come into the picture? That was what made me wonder whether you were perhaps referring to the kings of France.

I have now seen a website which gives the so-called evidence, which claims that Edward IV was the son of a French archer. However, English law makes the child of a married woman the child of her husband, so this is all irrelevant. (Well, it's all irrelevant, anyway). His children (Edward V, and the Duke of York) died without heirs, and Henry VII traced his claim to the throne to John of Gaunt (that was a little iffy, but didn't have anything to do with Edward IV).
Fran
Peter Moylan typed thus:
david56 redled:

Django Cat typed thus: Ah, "rightful" must be one of those Humpty Dumpty words.

Not at all. The person who did the research very carefully tracked down the line of succession. No trickery about it.

I disagree. AIUI there's some sort of committee which decides who is the next King. They follow the normal line of succession, but are free to use discretion when required. The rightful King is the one chosen by the committee. They may make a mistake, but it is definitive.
It's like cricket, you know. I saw a NZ batsman given out the other day when the replay showed that he hadn't hit the ball. No matter, if the umpire says he's out then he's out. You can't later claim that he was never out and so the game was won by a wicket.

David
==
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Peter Moylan typed thus:

david56 redled: small with a Not at all. The ... tracked down the line of succession. No trickery about it.

I disagree. AIUI there's some sort of committee which decides who is the next King. They follow the normal line ... he's out. You can't later claim that he was never out and so the game was won by a wicket.

Interesting. Of course, Tony Robinson's documentary chose to pursue one particular moment in history when the throne was claimed in dodgy circumstances, and there's probably been dozens.
For a republican, I seem to have ended up in a lot of discussions about Royalty lately...
DC
Show more