Thread: The Royal Baby Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025622
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Have your say!
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
The Royal Baby was already born 9.5 years ago and her name is Amalia [Biased]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
If I read the results correctly the child will grow to resemble Auntie Pippa.
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
(I'm waiting for some pedant to come along and point out that you don't (or maybe do) get two-headed lizards from Gallifrey.)
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Whut? Tain't here yet?
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
(I'm waiting for some pedant to come along and point out that you don't (or maybe do) get two-headed lizards from Gallifrey.)
Wait no longer. You are that pedant.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
What Royal baby? Which queen is pregnantnow?

...and no, it's not me!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Willandkate's, in July, of course. We haven't had a great deal of run-up to it so far, but once it happens it will be the only Royal Baby, anywhere, ever, and the media won't let us forget it.

I'm hoping for another Bank Holiday, though as it will be short notice we might not get one this year.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
I want a Queen (just because I want to see the Commonweath convulsed in bureaucratic and legislative nightmares to change their succession laws), but, more importantly, I want our friends in the Commonweath to also get an extra day off, because, really, why not? Who doesn't like an extra holiday every once in a while?
Yesterday/today was/is my birthday, and it'd be a lot better if I knew other people were getting a chance to sleep in because of me.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
...Yesterday/today was/is my birthday,...
Good grief, 92! I hope you had a good day.
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I want a Queen (just because I want to see the Commonwealth convulsed in bureaucratic and legislative nightmares to change their succession laws),
Haven't they already done that?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
That baby would be way more interesting if it were a two-headed lizard from Gallifrey!
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Who doesn't like an extra holiday every once in a while?
Employers.
 
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Who doesn't like an extra holiday every once in a while?
Employers.
or contractors who face the choice when an extra bank holiday gets sprung on us of losing a day from their holiday entitlement or losing a days money, or temps who don't even get that choice but just loose a days wages, or people in the hospitality industry for whom an extra bank holiday just means a busier day at work with no extra money.

Fortunately my family and I are no longer in these situations but I feel for those who are.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I thought she had already confirmed it is going to be female ?

I reckon it will be early on the basis of the previous morning sickness.

I want more bank holidays.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I want a Queen (just because I want to see the Commonweath convulsed in bureaucratic and legislative nightmares to change their succession laws), but, more importantly, I want our friends in the Commonweath to also get an extra day off, because, really, why not? Who doesn't like an extra holiday every once in a while?
Yesterday/today was/is my birthday, and it'd be a lot better if I knew other people were getting a chance to sleep in because of me.
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I want a Queen (just because I want to see the Commonwealth convulsed in bureaucratic and legislative nightmares to change their succession laws),
Haven't they already done that?
That process is currently underway, with the working group being led by New Zealand to get the necessary legislation introduced in all 16 Commonwealth Realms after the final agreement was reached in December last year (ironically the day before the Duchess' pregnancy unintentionally went public). The changes have been passed by the parliaments in NZ (as the leader of the process) and in the UK so far (which the UK press might have incorrectly reported as the changes having been made) but they can't come into force until all 16 Commonwealth Realms agree to the changes, like it was in 1936 when the line of Edward VIII was chopped out of the succession.

Canada has also passed their Succession to the Throne Act, but they were stupid and lazy enough to try taking a shortcut instead of doing the work needed to change their constitution properly. They also played with fire by passing an Act which simply assents to the UK's Succession to the Throne Act 2013 instead of laying it out properly. The Act was challenged just last week for being unconstitutional, and it is likely to be the biggest road bump to the whole process.

It has been organised well from the international side, but that doesn't account for individual fuckups in each country such as the stupid Canadians, in Australia there was a minor delay when the Queensland government was mucking around. It's not really a problem when it comes to this first child of the Duke and Duchess even if they are a daughter, but if they have a daughter and the Canadian nonsense is not yet sorted out (or if the required referendum in Australia fails) by the time they have a second pregnancy, things could get awkward if the second kid is a boy as it would involve demoting a person in the direct line.

If the Duke and Duchess have a second pregnancy before the Canadian stupidity is sorted out, the other 15 Realms may decide to chop the Canadians out of the picture and forge ahead without them. The Canadians would then have the choice to do the hard work needed to catch up with the rest, accept a diverging line of succession, or abolish the monarchy altogether.


There's unlikely to be a public holiday for the birth of the third in line in any of the Commonwealth realms other than maybe the majority of the UK - I can see the government of Scotland refusing to declare a public holiday as a petulant demonstration of their devolved right to be jerks even if London hasn't told them to be jerks. Australia gets a public holiday in honour of the reigning sovereign's birthday (but not necessarily the same date) every year already, which will transfer to the next monarch when they ascend the throne.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I thought she had already confirmed it is going to be female ?
Well, who knows.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
That baby would be way more interesting if it were a two-headed lizard from Gallifrey!
Wouldn't it then be a Time Lord, rather than a two-headed lizard?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
No. It would be a two-headed lizard from Gallifrey, not a single-headed monocephalic Time Lord with only one head.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
No. It would be a two-headed lizard from Gallifrey, not a single-headed monocephalic Time Lord with only one head.
thinks ..... if the child is a Time Lord then it could be the Monarch before last.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
... (or if the required referendum in Australia fails) ...
Thanks for the detailed post. Can you elaborate on this point and what is required? I assumed that each realm would pass primary legislation and that would be the end of the matter. I had bad feelings about rocking the boat and if referendums are required my gut tells me that things could end badly.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Insist on the same succession laws in each realm? Why? Hanover didn't in 1837, so why now?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
... (or if the required referendum in Australia fails) ...
Thanks for the detailed post. Can you elaborate on this point and what is required? I assumed that each realm would pass primary legislation and that would be the end of the matter. I had bad feelings about rocking the boat and if referendums are required my gut tells me that things could end badly.
"Primary legislation" is fine for doing things that governments do in normal day to day business. The Constitution is the instrument which governs the government, and therefore it can't be amended by the government without the direct consent of the people, some matters being too important to just leave in the hands of parliamentarians.

You're right that getting referenda involved introduces the chance that it won't go as planned, but that's a chance you take when you allow the people to have the ultimate sovereignty over the top of even the monarch. This could be problematic in Australia where only 8 of the 44 federal referenda held to date have been passed - passing a referendum requires an absolute majority for the 'yes' vote to be achieved across the whole country and in an absolute majority of the states (50% + 1 = 4 states voting yes).

Most, but not all, of the referenda to date have been held on the same day as a federal election. That's not going to work this time for two reasons - the bill authorising the referendum needs to be introduced and pass through Parliament in the next two weeks (not good for making sure it's done right, with the Canadian whoopsie serving as a good caution) and secondly because it could get dragged down by the other referendum (a question on recognising local governments in the Constitution which was previously rejected with a 33/66 overall minority and 0/6 states won) to be held on the same day as the upcoming federal election.

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Insist on the same succession laws in each realm? Why? Hanover didn't in 1837, so why now?
Statute of Westminster - no one Commonwealth Realm (whether the UK or one of the others) may change succession laws without unanimous agreement of the other Commonwealth Realms, unless they are leaving the monarchy completely.

Three of the other smaller Realms do have things set up so their laws just say "we'll go with whatever Britain does" (which is what the Canadians tried to do over the top of their constitution) but in Australia the ultimate sovereignty is held by the people, and the monarch entrusted to protect it on their behalf. That is why modifying the Constitution can not be authorised by mere parliamentarians, it goes all the way up - past even the Queen.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
I can see the government of Scotland refusing to declare a public holiday as a petulant demonstration of their devolved right to be jerks even if London hasn't told them to be jerks.
It is widely believed here that the Royal Family's fondness for holidaying in Scotland, and having lowish-key weddings here (Anne and Zara) is based on the fact that we're less likely to declare public holidays etc.

I'm not a million miles from Balmoral, and there's a strong steer here that the Royal Family actually appreciate the Scots lower-key approach.

Does that make Scots "petulant jerks"? Really?
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
If you want to discuss the finer details of the Commonwealth's constitution, I would ask that you do it in Purgatory, not here. Thanks.

And the giant cheeseburger, perhaps you could refresh your memory of the Ship's commandments, just to make sure you stay the correct side of the line. For example, it would be pleasant if you could refrain from calling other nations 'stupid' or 'jerks'. There are many less confrontational ways that you could make your point.

Imaginary Friend.
Circus host
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
How the heck did this thread get so serious? Please people, look at the questions! Poor Ariel must be [brick wall]
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
I'm just surprised we have got this far and no one has said "ginger"... [Devil]
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
I like the answer about the papers and having lots of "special supplements." I presume that means Team Sky will sign the kid to ride in the Tour de France.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Why are these options not available in the poll?

- a werewolf (hey, I wasn't the one who introduced the subject of Doctor Who...)

- fashionably late (I suppose I could have ticked 'overdue', but as it's a royal baby...)
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I like the answer about the papers and having lots of "special supplements." I presume that means Team Sky will sign the kid to ride in the Tour de France.
If we could keep this thread off-topic speculation free, that would be nice. Just a friendly suggestion.

—Ariston, Circus Host
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I'm just surprised we have got this far and no one has said "ginger"... [Devil]
Or "illegitimate".
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
Until Fiji was suspended from the Commonwealth, we used to get an annual holiday for Prince Charles' Birthday.
But I doubt if we'll get one for this new royal child (and maybe heir to the throne).
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Elizabeth III: she reigns from 2035 until 2114.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
Sir Kevin, I hope that William is around a bit longer than 2035.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Sir Kevin, I hope that William is around a bit longer than 2035.
Not as much as he does himself, I'll warrant.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
Of course, it's quite probable that Charles will still be around in 2035 before William even gets a shot, if he doesn't abdicate before then.

I'm disappointed that the proposed changes to the succession didn't include a prohibition on people over the age of 65 ascending the throne.

[ 08. July 2013, 14:53: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The royal baby will be, I suspect, the same as most other babies - a source of joy and wonder to the parents.

Leave it, and them, alone.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The royal baby will be, I suspect, the same as most other babies - lots of vomiting and nappy soiling
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
The royal baby will be, I suspect, the same as most other babies: a never-ending challenge at first, but a comfort when the parents are middle-aged or older...
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Sir Kevin, I hope that William is around a bit longer than 2035.
I do too! I just thought we might skip a couple of generations and have her ascend the throne the day after she graduates from university!

Would Neill do for a boy's name? It would be unique in the annals of royalty!
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Not that unique., if you go far enough back.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It's a fairly safe bet they won't be giving it an overtly Irish name like Niall or Fionnuala. Queen Gobnait I, now there's a name to think on.

And the world awaits... poor Kate must be really feeling those last days of pregnancy in this weather.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
If it is a boy, you can almost hear the boring "royal" name.

If it is a girl - ditto.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
"Queen Ditto"? Possibly not, [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Edward IX?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If it is a boy, you can almost hear the boring "royal" name.

If it is a girl - ditto.
I'm going for Victoria Alexandra, and possibly Charlotte, for a girl. They might well choose Elizabeth as one of the names, too.

No idea about what it would be called if it's a boy, though I hope it won't be George and it probably won't be Edward. I know old-fashioned names are back on the menu, but can't see Albert making a reappearance.
 
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :
 
If a girl was born today, Emmeline would be an appropriate choice.

(It's my daughter's birthday today, and I've only just realised she shares it with Mrs Pankhurst. If I'd twigged five years ago she'd have it as a middle name.)

[ 15. July 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: birdie ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Edward IX?
Aren't the Roman numerals only added once he/she ascends to the Throne -- often with a different first name? Prince Charles is not Charles III, and in fact, I've heard that he's considering taking the name George VII if the time ever comes.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
I'm not sure but that 'Charlotte' is regarded as an unlucky name for the first child of a royal heir.

Mary and Margaret are unlikely. Victoria and Elizabeth more likely. Wouldn't be at all surprised to see either 'Diana' or (more likely) 'Frances' as one of several middle names. Katherine isn't impossible either.

If the baby's a boy, I imagine we'll have some combination of the usual half-dozen royal boys' names. With maybe one joker in the pack. 'Louis' or even 'John.'

[ 15. July 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
John is out. Ever since Bad King John, he of the Magna Carta, when they decided that no royal baby should ever be called John after that.

Arthur is deemed unlucky as a first name, though it seems to feature as a secondary choice.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
John is out. Ever since Bad King John, he of the Magna Carta, when they decided that no royal baby should ever be called John after that.

The youngest son of King George V and Queen Mary was named John. He was born in 1905 and suffered severely from epilepsy and died at the age of 14. What with King John and poor Prince John, I expect Dwayne or Kyle is more likely.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
I reckon if they're sensitive to public opinion they should put a "Spencer" in there amongst the names somewhere.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I reckon if they're sensitive to public opinion they should put a "Spencer" in there amongst the names somewhere.
No chance - that's just not done.

There's good odds for Diana as a middle name, though.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If it is a boy, you can almost hear the boring "royal" name.

If it is a girl - ditto.
I'm going for Victoria Alexandra, and possibly Charlotte, for a girl. They might well choose Elizabeth as one of the names, too.
Victoria would be rather large shoes to fill. Possibly as a middle name. We already have a Princess Alexandra, so it's unlikely we'd get another one. Elizabeth is a shoe-in for a middle name. Charlotte is a distinct possibility, or Amelia.

Charlotte Elizabeth Victoria Diana?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Probably easier to pick names that it won't have:
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Definitely 'Elizabeth' in there somewhere if a girl and 'George' or 'Albert' in the mix if a boy.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Philip. Please, God. Wouldn't that be wonderful? I can see the headlines now... [Big Grin]

Unlucky names for royal boys: Any name used by a Stuart king or pretender (i.e. James and Charles). Also: John, Richard, Arthur, and, since Ed VIII, Edward. Henry is probably out of the running as well.

Alphonse. The Mango Prince.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

Unlucky names for royal boys: Any name used by a Stuart king or pretender (i.e. James and Charles). Also: John, Richard, Arthur, and, since Ed VIII, Edward. Henry is probably out of the running as well.
But there's currently a Charles, an Edward, and a Henry in the immediate family.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I reckon if they're sensitive to public opinion they should put a "Spencer" in there amongst the names somewhere.
No chance - that's just not done.

There's good odds for Diana as a middle name, though.
Yes, I know it's not done but I I still think the great unwashed would love it.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
My guesses:
Girl - Mary Elizabeth Diana Caroline
Boy - George William Albert Michael

I'd be astonished if Elizabeth wasn't included in any girl's name; not only does it have an impeccable Royal connection, it's also the Duchess's own middle name. Diana or Frances will be in there too, I think. I'd go for Alexandra, but there is a current Princess Alexandra - does that rule it out? Charlotte would be a nod towards Prince Charles, but Caroline is also a feminine form of Charles, and would be a nod towards the Duchess's mother.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
There's no law that says a name can't be used because it exists elsewhere in the family.

Somehow I don't see James though - but then I am a romantic and to me (though not to the German parts of the family) there has already been a perfectly legitimate James III. Likewise Cardinal York was, in some circles, known as Henry IX, perhaps less legitimately due to the law of conquest.

Only Henry and Edward have ever made it to VIII in terms of post-nominal designations. It would be interesting to see if that is in the future.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Prince Edward has a son James, so James is in current use in the Royal Family. A James could end up as James VIII in Scotland.

James is a good name, but somehow I don't see the Royal Baby as a James, either.

[ 18. July 2013, 08:11: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

Unlucky names for royal boys: Any name used by a Stuart king or pretender (i.e. James and Charles). Also: John, Richard, Arthur, and, since Ed VIII, Edward. Henry is probably out of the running as well.
But there's currently a Charles, an Edward, and a Henry in the immediate family.
I doubt we'll see Charles III. More likely George VII (though it's totally weird thinking of him as a George!). Prince Edward is a third son.

[ 18. July 2013, 08:51: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Penelope would be nice for a girl. Thomas would be nice for a boy.

Take a leaf from the papal book - choose something a little different.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Penelope Ann.

Channels Bye, Bye, Birdie
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Stand by - it's on its way. Those who guessed it would be late were right...
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
The Duchess is about to whelp her pup, having been admitted to the hospital - according to Facebook.

Get your votes in now for the next one up against the wall, come the revolution

[Two face]
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I also heard about the Princess being in labour, on Radio 4 right before The Archers. Is it too late to go for Percival? He could ascend to the throne as Henry X. If she prefers, Elizabeth III.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I also heard about the Princess being in labour, on Radio 4 right before The Archers. Is it too late to go for Percival? He could ascend to the throne as Henry X. If she prefers, Elizabeth III.
Did I miss Henry IX?

(And it IS too late -- he's here!)
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
He is here, but no name announced. But I have insider knowledge.

The new baby will be called Ipality and will be known as Prince Ipality of Wales.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
He is here, but no name announced. But I have insider knowledge.

The new baby will be called Ipality and will be known as Prince Ipality of Wales.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
He is here, but no name announced. But I have insider knowledge.

The new baby will be called Ipality and will be known as Prince Ipality of Wales.
Suddenly, I want an eleventh commandment forbidding puns like that.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I also heard about the Princess being in labour, on Radio 4 right before The Archers. Is it too late to go for Percival? He could ascend to the throne as Henry X. If she prefers, Elizabeth III.
Did I miss Henry IX?

(And it IS too late -- he's here!)
Depending on the counting, you might have missed
him
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Has anyone suggested Nelson yet?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My guesses:
Boy - George William Albert Michael
I'd place money on William not being one of his names, but at least one (and quite possibly both) of Philip and Charles being in there. Michael is a possibility, or Francis could do double duty and recall both the Duchess's father and the Duke's mother (in which case, Charles has the wonderful symmetry of recalling the Duke's Father and Duchess's mother.)

Apparently the bookies like James, but I'm not convinced.

George Philip Francis Charles is not impossible. Philip as a first name is maybe even in the running.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Simba?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Philip Alexander Michael Charles
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Rex?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Edgar Alfred Edmund. We haven't had one of those for a while.

I suppose Richard is out?
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Wolf
Tut
Simba
Be fun if he was a Leopold, but somehow I don't see it happening.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Suddenly, I want an eleventh commandment forbidding puns like that.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
... and the BBC subtitles have just said he will soon have a name, that's Forshaw. You heard it here first: Prince Forshaw of Cambridge.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I think Oliver would be good.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Oh no it's GEORGE. Alexander and Louis are great choices though.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Oh no it's GEORGE.
I suppose we have Colin Firth to blame for that.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Oh no it's GEORGE.
I suppose we have Colin Firth to blame for that.
But I was hoping for "Bertie". [Frown] [Biased]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0