Discussion:
Questions about Prince Harry and the British army
(too old to reply)
D.F. Manno
2005-05-09 22:46:34 UTC
Permalink
According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army. My
questions for our British friends are:

1) How does one address Prince Harry?

2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?

3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
--
D.F. Manno
***@spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."
Blinky the Shark
2005-05-09 22:57:10 UTC
Permalink
D.F. Manno wrote:

> 1) How does one address Prince Harry?

***@uk.gov

> 2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?

You might have to use a remailer.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
John Dean
2005-05-09 23:12:11 UTC
Permalink
D.F. Manno wrote:
> According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army.
> My questions for our British friends are:
>
> 1) How does one address Prince Harry?

Call him what you like. While he is at Sandhurst he is to be known as
Officer Cadet Wales. His name badge says "Wales". And, as the old joke
goes, the Warrant Officers there will call him "Sir" and he will call
them "Sir" but he will actually mean it.
>
> 2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?

Hell no. Call him what you like.
>
> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?

He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales" (see
above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
--
John Dean
Oxford
D.F. Manno
2005-05-10 00:44:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <d5oqhu$c90$***@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote:

> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army.
> > My questions for our British friends are:
> >
> > 1) How does one address Prince Harry?
>
> Call him what you like. While he is at Sandhurst he is to be known as
> Officer Cadet Wales. His name badge says "Wales". And, as the old joke
> goes, the Warrant Officers there will call him "Sir" and he will call
> them "Sir" but he will actually mean it.

Where did "Wales" come from? I thought the family name was Windsor.

> > 2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?
>
> Hell no. Call him what you like.

Really? I could just call him "Harry"?

Somehow I doubt Miss Manners would approve.

> > 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>
> He has no superiors.

That's a reference to his being royal while the officers who outrank him
are not, right?
--
D.F. Manno
***@spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."
h***@gmail.com
2005-05-10 01:06:38 UTC
Permalink
D.F. Manno <***@spymac.com> wrote:
> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> > D.F. Manno wrote:
> > > 1) How does one address Prince Harry?
> > Call him what you like. While he is at Sandhurst he is to be known as
> > Officer Cadet Wales. His name badge says "Wales". And, as the old joke
> > goes, the Warrant Officers there will call him "Sir" and he will call
> > them "Sir" but he will actually mean it.
> Where did "Wales" come from? I thought the family name was Windsor.

His full name is Leftenant Wales, Prince O. (Mrs.)

> > > 2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?
> > Hell no. Call him what you like.
> Really? I could just call him "Harry"?

I call him 'Susan'.

> Somehow I doubt Miss Manners would approve.

She probably disapproves of when I put my feet on the coffee table in
the garage, but face it, old girl, that's what I BUILT the damn thing for.

> > > 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
> > He has no superiors.
> That's a reference to his being royal while the officers who outrank
> him are not, right?

Well, let's face it, yer average cherry LT is gonna get some shit
practical jokes played on him, and when he pulls a Brigade Duty Officer
shift, the Colonel is gonna expect him to stay up all night, writing a
paper on some obscure bullshit that Clausewitz said once. Our Leftenant
Susan, on the other hand, probably won't have to get out of bed before 9.
Because Mom could just send the entire regiment down to guard some kind
of swamp or something, see? And nobody wants that. So, get the hell out,
and don't wake me until I've had a full twelve hours of sleep, and make
sure the engineers get some damn power in this tent so I can play with
my Xbox, Major Whatever-The-Hell-Your-Idiot-Name-Is...

--
Huey
Joseph Michael Bay
2005-05-10 01:15:37 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> writes:


>In article <d5oqhu$c90$***@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote:

>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>> > According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army.
>> > My questions for our British friends are:
>> >
>> > 1) How does one address Prince Harry?
>>
>> Call him what you like. While he is at Sandhurst he is to be known as
>> Officer Cadet Wales. His name badge says "Wales". And, as the old joke
>> goes, the Warrant Officers there will call him "Sir" and he will call
>> them "Sir" but he will actually mean it.

>Where did "Wales" come from? I thought the family name was Windsor.

He's fond of whale-watching and an avid amateur lithographer,
so he's known as Harry "prints of whales" Windsor.


>> > 2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?
>>
>> Hell no. Call him what you like.

>Really? I could just call him "Harry"?

>Somehow I doubt Miss Manners would approve.

Miss Manners is not big on the whole "hey, buddy, I'll call
you by your first name" thing, no.

--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
John Dean
2005-05-10 11:40:02 UTC
Permalink
D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <d5oqhu$c90$***@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>> According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British
>>> Army. My questions for our British friends are:
>>>
>>> 1) How does one address Prince Harry?
>>
>> Call him what you like. While he is at Sandhurst he is to be known as
>> Officer Cadet Wales. His name badge says "Wales". And, as the old
>> joke goes, the Warrant Officers there will call him "Sir" and he
>> will call them "Sir" but he will actually mean it.
>
> Where did "Wales" come from? I thought the family name was Windsor.

Well, the family name is actually Hohenstauffen Können Wollen von und zu
Battenberg mit der Jammy Bits [1], but since the war we don't use it so
much.
But Harry is officially "His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales".
There's only one Prince of Wales and there's only one Prince Henry of
Wales. Like there's only one Prince William of Wales. Wills is rumoured
to be heading for the Army too, so there's scope for confusion unless
they have something like Wales Major and Wales Minor. Of course, Wills
has to find someone to fake his Art A level first but that shouldn't be
too hard.
>
>>> 2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?
>>
>> Hell no. Call him what you like.
>
> Really? I could just call him "Harry"?
>
> Somehow I doubt Miss Manners would approve.

What's he gonna do if you call him Harry? Sue you? But it you want to
creep around going "Sir" and "Your Royal Highness" you're very welcome.
Don't forget to buy the engraved mug and embroidered tea-towel on your
way home.
>
>>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>>
>> He has no superiors.
>
> That's a reference to his being royal while the officers who outrank
> him are not, right?

Now you're getting it. I'm sure it seems strange to all you wonderful
people over there, but here people succeed according to their birth.
Imagine if you had a system where sons followed their fathers into the
job of running the country! Why, we've even had situations where wives
have followed husbands and brothers have followed brothers! Enough said.
You had a whole revolution thing to make sure that couldn't happen there
and quite right too.

[1] Actually Harry's surname is Angeborener-Wahnsinniger but I don't
expect you to believe that either.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-10 13:07:32 UTC
Permalink
John Dean wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:

> > Where did "Wales" come from? I thought the family name was Windsor.
>
> Well, the family name is actually Hohenstauffen Können Wollen von
und zu
> Battenberg mit der Jammy Bits [1], but since the war we don't use it
so
> much.

But seriously, the surname of the royal family is one of those
questions which puts a certain sort of person all a-twitter, but the
answer to the question is less exciting than some might hope: the name
is either "Windsor" or "Mountbatten-Windsor", with the latter certainly
not applying to the queen herself or her children and possibly not
applying to anyone else, either. All that German stuff was officially
swept away in 1917 by Letter Patent issued by George V.

Richard R. Hershberger
John Hatpin
2005-05-10 13:32:24 UTC
Permalink
"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote:

>
>John Dean wrote:
>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
>> > Where did "Wales" come from? I thought the family name was Windsor.
>>
>> Well, the family name is actually Hohenstauffen Können Wollen von
>und zu
>> Battenberg mit der Jammy Bits [1], but since the war we don't use it
>so
>> much.
>
>But seriously, the surname of the royal family is one of those
>questions which puts a certain sort of person all a-twitter, but the
>answer to the question is less exciting than some might hope: the name
>is either "Windsor" or "Mountbatten-Windsor", with the latter certainly
>not applying to the queen herself or her children and possibly not
>applying to anyone else, either. All that German stuff was officially
>swept away in 1917 by Letter Patent issued by George V.

Just to add, the German name was actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the
reason for the Order-in-Council that changed it was popular
anti-German sentiment during WWI, and the "Windsor" comes from Windsor
Castle, not the other way around as one might expect.

Oh, and the name was imported attached to Prince Albert.
--
John Hatpin
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-10 14:45:15 UTC
Permalink
John Hatpin wrote:
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Dean wrote:
> >> D.F. Manno wrote:
> >
> >> > Where did "Wales" come from? I thought the family name was
Windsor.
> >>
> >> Well, the family name is actually Hohenstauffen Können Wollen von
> >und zu
> >> Battenberg mit der Jammy Bits [1], but since the war we don't use
it
> >so
> >> much.
> >
> >But seriously, the surname of the royal family is one of those
> >questions which puts a certain sort of person all a-twitter, but the
> >answer to the question is less exciting than some might hope: the
name
> >is either "Windsor" or "Mountbatten-Windsor", with the latter
certainly
> >not applying to the queen herself or her children and possibly not
> >applying to anyone else, either. All that German stuff was
officially
> >swept away in 1917 by Letter Patent issued by George V.
>
> Just to add, the German name was actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the
> reason for the Order-in-Council that changed it was popular
> anti-German sentiment during WWI, and the "Windsor" comes from
Windsor
> Castle, not the other way around as one might expect.
>
> Oh, and the name was imported attached to Prince Albert.

It was in the can with him.
Joseph Michael Bay
2005-05-10 23:02:08 UTC
Permalink
John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> writes:

>Just to add, the German name was actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the
>reason for the Order-in-Council that changed it was popular
>anti-German sentiment during WWI, and the "Windsor" comes from Windsor
>Castle, not the other way around as one might expect.

>Oh, and the name was imported attached to Prince Albert.


Ow.

--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
groo
2005-05-10 04:14:27 UTC
Permalink
"John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in news:d5oqhu$c90$1
@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:

> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>
>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>
> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales" (see
> above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.

I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his father was
the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the prince-in-waiting or
something? They can't both be the Prince of Wales at the same time, can
they?





--
Buffy: "I'm not exactly unpopular. A lot of people came to my welcome home
party."
Willow: "They were killed by zombies."
Buffy: "Good point." - BtVS
Greg Goss
2005-05-10 07:08:31 UTC
Permalink
groo <***@groo.org> wrote:

>"John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in news:d5oqhu$c90$1
>@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>>
>> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales" (see
>> above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
>
>I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his father was
>the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the prince-in-waiting or
>something? They can't both be the Prince of Wales at the same time, can
>they?

His dad is Duke of Edinburgh. The last few kings have been prince of
Wales before accession to the throne. But Phillip is not king. And I
think that the title is available for re-use once the previous holder
became king.
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/rol_prevprinces.html

--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-05-10 07:12:53 UTC
Permalink
On 10 May 2005, Greg Goss wrote

> groo <***@groo.org> wrote:
>
>> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in
>> news:d5oqhu$c90$1 @news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>
>>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>>>
>>> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales"
>>> (see above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
>>
>> I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his
>> father was the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the
>> prince-in-waiting or something? They can't both be the Prince of
>> Wales at the same time, can they?
>
> His dad is Duke of Edinburgh.

Umm...this is about Harry, and that's his grandfather.

--
Cheers,
Harvey
Greg Goss
2005-05-10 16:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Harvey Van Sickle <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On 10 May 2005, Greg Goss wrote
>
>> groo <***@groo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in
>>> news:d5oqhu$c90$1 @news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>>>>
>>>> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales"
>>>> (see above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
>>>
>>> I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his
>>> father was the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the
>>> prince-in-waiting or something? They can't both be the Prince of
>>> Wales at the same time, can they?
>>
>> His dad is Duke of Edinburgh.
>
>Umm...this is about Harry, and that's his grandfather.

Whoops. I, er, knew that earlier in the thread.

Reading the sites, it sounds like there is a "The Prince of Wales" and
a couple of little "Prince [name] of Wales" kids.

And I never realized that "Harry" seems to really be a "Henry".
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
John Dean
2005-05-10 11:23:20 UTC
Permalink
groo wrote:
> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in news:d5oqhu$c90$1
> @news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>>
>> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales" (see
>> above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
>
> I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his father
> was the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the prince-in-waiting
> or something? They can't both be the Prince of Wales at the same
> time, can they?

His Dad *is* the P.o.W.
His elder brother Wills is next in line for P.o.W. because he's next in
line for the throne. When (if) Charles becomes King, Wills becomes
P.o.W.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-10 13:16:10 UTC
Permalink
John Dean wrote:
> groo wrote:
> > "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in news:d5oqhu$c90$1
> > @news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
> >
> >> D.F. Manno wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
> >>
> >> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales"
(see
> >> above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
> >
> > I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his
father
> > was the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the
prince-in-waiting
> > or something? They can't both be the Prince of Wales at the same
> > time, can they?
>
> His Dad *is* the P.o.W.
> His elder brother Wills is next in line for P.o.W. because he's next
in
> line for the throne. When (if) Charles becomes King, Wills becomes
> P.o.W.

This calls for clarification. There is always a king (or at least a
queen) but this principle doesn't work its way down the chain. It is
entirely possible to go without a Prince of Wales. The title is
traditionally bestowed upon the heir apparent, but he is not the Prince
of Wales until the ceremony happens. Charles was nine years old before
he got the title, though he had been Duke of Cornwall since his
mother's accession when he was four.

Richard R. Hershberger
groo
2005-05-10 19:21:13 UTC
Permalink
"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> John Dean wrote:
>> groo wrote:
>> > "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in news:d5oqhu$c90$1
>> > @news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>> >
>> >> D.F. Manno wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>> >>
>> >> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales"
> (see
>> >> above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
>> >
>> > I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his
> father
>> > was the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the
> prince-in-waiting
>> > or something? They can't both be the Prince of Wales at the same
>> > time, can they?
>>
>> His Dad *is* the P.o.W.
>> His elder brother Wills is next in line for P.o.W. because he's next
> in
>> line for the throne. When (if) Charles becomes King, Wills becomes
>> P.o.W.
>
> This calls for clarification. There is always a king (or at least a
> queen) but this principle doesn't work its way down the chain. It is
> entirely possible to go without a Prince of Wales. The title is
> traditionally bestowed upon the heir apparent, but he is not the Prince
> of Wales until the ceremony happens. Charles was nine years old before
> he got the title, though he had been Duke of Cornwall since his
> mother's accession when he was four.

Despite the noble attempts, I'm still confused. If Charles is the POW,
then Harry isn't (yet) the POW. And even if Charles kicks off or gets
promoted, Harry still won't be the POW until something happens to big
brother William. Right?

If so, then (going back to the original thread) why would Harry be
addressed as "Wales" by people in the army? He's not the Prince of Wales.

And, for extra credit, what is Harry's actual title with respect to his
possible future princehood?





--
Buffy: "I'm not exactly unpopular. A lot of people came to my welcome
home party."
Willow: "They were killed by zombies."
Buffy: "Good point." - BtVS
John Dean
2005-05-10 22:50:40 UTC
Permalink
groo wrote:
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
> news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> John Dean wrote:
>>> groo wrote:
>>>> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in news:d5oqhu$c90$1
>>>> @news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>>>
>>>>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>>>>>
>>>>> He has no superiors. His senior officers will call him "Wales"
>>>>> (see above) on formal occasions. In the mess he will be Harry.
>>>>
>>>> I am quite ignorant about the monarchy etc. I thought that his
>>>> father was the Prince of Wales. Doesn't that make him the
>>>> prince-in-waiting or something? They can't both be the Prince of
>>>> Wales at the same time, can they?
>>>
>>> His Dad *is* the P.o.W.
>>> His elder brother Wills is next in line for P.o.W. because he's
>>> next in line for the throne. When (if) Charles becomes King, Wills
>>> becomes P.o.W.
>>
>> This calls for clarification. There is always a king (or at least a
>> queen) but this principle doesn't work its way down the chain. It is
>> entirely possible to go without a Prince of Wales. The title is
>> traditionally bestowed upon the heir apparent, but he is not the
>> Prince of Wales until the ceremony happens. Charles was nine years
>> old before he got the title, though he had been Duke of Cornwall
>> since his mother's accession when he was four.
>
> Despite the noble attempts, I'm still confused. If Charles is the POW,
> then Harry isn't (yet) the POW. And even if Charles kicks off or gets
> promoted, Harry still won't be the POW until something happens to big
> brother William. Right?
>
> If so, then (going back to the original thread) why would Harry be
> addressed as "Wales" by people in the army? He's not the Prince of
> Wales.
>
> And, for extra credit, what is Harry's actual title with respect to
> his possible future princehood?

Harry is not "The Prince of Wales". That's his Dad. That title is
traditionally bestowed on the male heir to the throne.
Harry is "HRH Prince Henry of Wales".
His bruv is "HRH Prince William of Wales".
If Prince Charles dies while his Mother is still alive OR Prince Charles
succeeds to the throne on the Queen's death, the expectation is that
Wills will be made "Prince of Wales".
--
John Dean
Oxford
groo
2005-05-11 00:29:34 UTC
Permalink
"John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in
news:d5rdlq$tud$***@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Harry is not "The Prince of Wales". That's his Dad. That title is
> traditionally bestowed on the male heir to the throne.
> Harry is "HRH Prince Henry of Wales".
> His bruv is "HRH Prince William of Wales".
> If Prince Charles dies while his Mother is still alive OR Prince
> Charles succeeds to the throne on the Queen's death, the expectation
> is that Wills will be made "Prince of Wales".

You must think I'm really dense. But I still don't understand.

They call Harry "HRH Prince Henry of Wales", per the above. But we have
established many times here that he is not, in fact, the Prince of
Wales. WTF is he prince OF? Prince of England? Prince of the United
Kingdom?

And if one of these is the case, WTF does Wales have to do with it? He's
not actually FROM Wales, is he? (I understand that the heir to the
throne is called the Prince of Wales by tradition. But Harry ain't that,
at least not yet.)


I'm probably laboring under some stupidity from my childhood. I think I
learned that the head dude & dudette were called the King and Queen,
respectively. Their heirs were called Princes and Princesses. But it
seems to me that here we have a case of a Prince's kid, and I didn't
think they got titles until there was a vacancy.
Alistair Gale
2005-05-11 00:58:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:29:34 GMT, groo <***@groo.org> wrote:

>"John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in
>news:d5rdlq$tud$***@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:

>You must think I'm really dense. But I still don't understand.
>
>They call Harry "HRH Prince Henry of Wales", per the above. But we have
>established many times here that he is not, in fact, the Prince of
>Wales. WTF is he prince OF? Prince of England? Prince of the United
>Kingdom?
>
>And if one of these is the case, WTF does Wales have to do with it? He's
>not actually FROM Wales, is he? (I understand that the heir to the
>throne is called the Prince of Wales by tradition. But Harry ain't that,
>at least not yet.)
>

So if Harry is called "Harry Wales" because his dad is Prince of
Wales, does that mean that Charles, in turn, was called "Charlie
Edinborough" at school?

--
alistair
Joseph Michael Bay
2005-05-11 01:59:33 UTC
Permalink
groo <***@groo.org> writes:


>They call Harry "HRH Prince Henry of Wales", per the above. But we have
>established many times here that he is not, in fact, the Prince of
>Wales. WTF is he prince OF? Prince of England? Prince of the United
>Kingdom?

>And if one of these is the case, WTF does Wales have to do with it? He's
>not actually FROM Wales, is he? (I understand that the heir to the
>throne is called the Prince of Wales by tradition. But Harry ain't that,
>at least not yet.)

In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
to England, invaded and conquered Wales. So King Edward I, the
"Hammer of the Scots", who was in fact English (French, Norwegian)
but was fond of bashing Scots (and Welshmen, and Jews, and probably
he was a dick to the Angles and Saxons and assorted other non-Norman
English), having conquered Wales before that digression, decided to
make his son the Prince of Wales (the previous Prince of Wales, an
actually Welsh guy named Llewellyn and everything, died from being
killed by English (er) soldiers).

There is a story that the Welsh, although defeated, were still
resistant to the idea of having an Englishman (or whatever) lording
(or kinging) it over them, so Edward I asked the Welsh nobles "What
if I appointed a prince who was born in Wales and does not speak a
word of English?" and they said "Fine" and then he was all "Ha! My
son was born in this very castle and all he can say is WAAA" and
they were all "oh, you got us" but that's a pocketfull.

But anyway, the tradition of having England's heir apparent, who is
actually a child rather than a parent, be the Prince of Wales came
about as a way of reminding people who was the big dog.


(Okay, "apocryphal".)
--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
groo
2005-05-11 02:56:19 UTC
Permalink
***@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in
news:d5rou5$n6k$***@news.Stanford.EDU:

> groo <***@groo.org> writes:
>
>
>>They call Harry "HRH Prince Henry of Wales", per the above. But we
>>have established many times here that he is not, in fact, the Prince
>>of Wales. WTF is he prince OF? Prince of England? Prince of the
>>United Kingdom?
>
>>And if one of these is the case, WTF does Wales have to do with it?
>>He's not actually FROM Wales, is he? (I understand that the heir to
>>the throne is called the Prince of Wales by tradition. But Harry ain't
>>that, at least not yet.)
>
> In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
> that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
> to England, invaded and conquered Wales. So King Edward I, the
> "Hammer of the Scots", who was in fact English (French, Norwegian)
> but was fond of bashing Scots (and Welshmen, and Jews, and probably
> he was a dick to the Angles and Saxons and assorted other non-Norman
> English), having conquered Wales before that digression, decided to
> make his son the Prince of Wales (the previous Prince of Wales, an
> actually Welsh guy named Llewellyn and everything, died from being
> killed by English (er) soldiers).
>
> There is a story that the Welsh, although defeated, were still
> resistant to the idea of having an Englishman (or whatever) lording
> (or kinging) it over them, so Edward I asked the Welsh nobles "What
> if I appointed a prince who was born in Wales and does not speak a
> word of English?" and they said "Fine" and then he was all "Ha! My
> son was born in this very castle and all he can say is WAAA" and
> they were all "oh, you got us" but that's a pocketfull.
>
> But anyway, the tradition of having England's heir apparent, who is
> actually a child rather than a parent, be the Prince of Wales came
> about as a way of reminding people who was the big dog.
>
>
> (Okay, "apocryphal".)

I think I must not drink enough.





--
Buffy: "I'm not exactly unpopular. A lot of people came to my welcome
home party." Willow: "They were killed by zombies."
Buffy: "Good point." - BtVS
chris greville
2005-05-11 05:02:44 UTC
Permalink
"groo" <***@groo.org> wrote in message
news:***@64.164.98.6...
> ***@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in
> news:d5rou5$n6k$***@news.Stanford.EDU:
>

>>
>> In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
>> that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
>> to England, invaded and conquered Wales. So King Edward I, the
>> "Hammer of the Scots", who was in fact English (French, Norwegian)
>> but was fond of bashing Scots (and Welshmen, and Jews, and probably
>> he was a dick to the Angles and Saxons and assorted other non-Norman
>> English), having conquered Wales before that digression, decided to
>> make his son the Prince of Wales (the previous Prince of Wales, an
>> actually Welsh guy named Llewellyn and everything, died from being
>> killed by English (er) soldiers).
>>
>> There is a story that the Welsh, although defeated, were still
>> resistant to the idea of having an Englishman (or whatever) lording
>> (or kinging) it over them, so Edward I asked the Welsh nobles "What
>> if I appointed a prince who was born in Wales and does not speak a
>> word of English?" and they said "Fine" and then he was all "Ha! My
>> son was born in this very castle and all he can say is WAAA" and
>> they were all "oh, you got us" but that's a pocketfull.
>>
>> But anyway, the tradition of having England's heir apparent, who is
>> actually a child rather than a parent, be the Prince of Wales came
>> about as a way of reminding people who was the big dog.
>>
>>
>> (Okay, "apocryphal".)
>
> I think I must not drink enough.
>

Us Brits have been assimilated by many different races.
Except the Borg. And Seven of Nine could achieve that.

And wait until he tells you about Beddgelert and how it got it's name, and
the quirky town of Portmerrion.....

Chris Greville
Mark Steese
2005-05-11 08:06:25 UTC
Permalink
"chris greville" <***@Noooooospamhotmail.com> wrote in
news:d5s3ll$dht$***@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:

>>> But anyway, the tradition of having England's heir apparent, who is
>>> actually a child rather than a parent, be the Prince of Wales came
>>> about as a way of reminding people who was the big dog.
>>>
>>> (Okay, "apocryphal".)
>>
>> I think I must not drink enough.
>
> Us Brits have been assimilated by many different races.
> Except the Borg. And Seven of Nine could achieve that.
>
> And wait until he tells you about Beddgelert and how it got it's name,

From its being the traditional burial place of St Celert. But that seems a
bit prosaic, a bit dog-bites-man, somehow. If only there were some way to
make it more a man-bites-dog story...

> and the quirky town of Portmerrion.....

That's not a town. It's a Village.
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
Bill Van
2005-05-11 04:59:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <d5rou5$n6k$***@news.Stanford.EDU>,
***@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:

> In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
> that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
> to England, invaded and conquered Wales. So King Edward I, the
> "Hammer of the Scots", who was in fact English (French, Norwegian)
> but was fond of bashing Scots (and Welshmen, and Jews, and probably
> he was a dick to the Angles and Saxons and assorted other non-Norman
> English), having conquered Wales before that digression, decided to
> make his son the Prince of Wales (the previous Prince of Wales, an
> actually Welsh guy named Llewellyn and everything, died from being
> killed by English (er) soldiers).
>

The Welsh business was memorably [1] novelized by Edit Pargeter, aka
Ellis Peters [Cadfael mysteries], in a quartet collectively called The
Brothers of Gwynedd: Sunrise in the West, The Dragon at Noonday, The
Hounds at Sunset, Afterglow and Nightfall.

[1] Accurately? I don't know. But very good reading.

bill
h***@gmail.com
2005-05-11 05:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Bill Van <***@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
> The Welsh business was memorably [1] novelized by Edit Pargeter,

Any relation to Lionel and Jean Pargeter?

--
Huey
"I've written a book, _My Life In Kenya_"
"Oh, really? What's it about?"
"My life in Kenya..."
Bill Van
2005-05-11 06:17:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <9sOdnbUO4s4fABzfRVn-***@speakeasy.net>,
***@gmail.com wrote:

> Bill Van <***@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
> > The Welsh business was memorably [1] novelized by Edit Pargeter,
>
> Any relation to Lionel and Jean Pargeter?

Lessee: Jean Pargeter, Judi Dench, Queen Victoria, the Prince of Wales,
The Brothers of Gwynedd, Edith Pargeter.

bill, yes, as time goes by
Charles Bishop
2005-05-11 14:19:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <9sOdnbUO4s4fABzfRVn-***@speakeasy.net>, ***@gmail.com
wrote:

>Bill Van <***@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
>> The Welsh business was memorably [1] novelized by Edit Pargeter,
>
>Any relation to Lionel and Jean Pargeter?

Dunno, but her children were Spellchecker Pargeter, RedPencil Pargeter,
and, can't remember the name of the other child.

--
charles, Scanscion?
Bill Kinkaid
2005-05-11 15:16:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 May 2005 14:19:10 GMT, ***@earthlink.netttt (Charles
Bishop) wrote:
>In article <9sOdnbUO4s4fABzfRVn-***@speakeasy.net>, ***@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>Bill Van <***@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
>>> The Welsh business was memorably [1] novelized by Edit Pargeter,
>>
>>Any relation to Lionel and Jean Pargeter?
>
>Dunno, but her children were Spellchecker Pargeter, RedPencil Pargeter,
>and, can't remember the name of the other child.

And that would make her mother their Grammarchecker.

Bill in Vancouver

"We are running twenty-first century software
on hardware last upgraded 50,000 years ago or more.
This may explain a lot of what we see in the news."

- Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress
Tim Wright
2005-05-11 15:18:43 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:
> Bill Van <***@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
>
>>The Welsh business was memorably [1] novelized by Edit Pargeter,
>
>
> Any relation to Lionel and Jean Pargeter?
>
That would be Lionel Hardcastle, not Pargeter.
Mark Steese
2005-05-11 08:38:57 UTC
Permalink
***@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in news:d5rou5$n6k$1
@news.Stanford.EDU:

> In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
> that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
> to England, invaded and conquered Wales.

Not to be picky or anything, but Normandy was independent of France between
AD 911 and AD 1204, so at the time of the Conquest the Normans weren't
French, really. (Which may be why it's still referred to as "The Norman
Conquest" rather than "The French Conquest.")

Incidentally, William the Conqueror's wife, Matilda of Flanders, counted
Alfred the Great (who really was English) among her ancestors. Apparently
she never let her bastard of a husband forget it, either. (See
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Matilda-of-Flanders, which says
Matilda was also called "Maud," but is silent on the question of whether
she was ever actually referred to as "Maud Flanders.")
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-11 13:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Mark Steese wrote:
> ***@Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote in news:d5rou5$n6k$1
> @news.Stanford.EDU:
>
> > In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
> > that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
> > to England, invaded and conquered Wales.
>
> Not to be picky or anything, but Normandy was independent of France
between
> AD 911 and AD 1204, so at the time of the Conquest the Normans
weren't
> French, really. (Which may be why it's still referred to as "The
Norman
> Conquest" rather than "The French Conquest.")

Not to be even pickier (especially since I am going from memory here
and could well be entirely wrong) the Duchy of Normandy was a fiefdom
of the King of France. This doesn't mean that the Duke of Normandy had
to do what the King of France said, of course. But talking about
'independent' bits doesn't really apply for this period.

Richard R. Hershberger
Mark Steese
2005-05-12 18:45:17 UTC
Permalink
"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>> > In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
>> > that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
>> > to England, invaded and conquered Wales.
>>
>> Not to be picky or anything, but Normandy was independent of France
>> between AD 911 and AD 1204, so at the time of the Conquest the
>> Normans weren't French, really. (Which may be why it's still referred
>> to as "The Norman Conquest" rather than "The French Conquest.")
>
> Not to be even pickier (especially since I am going from memory here
> and could well be entirely wrong) the Duchy of Normandy was a fiefdom
> of the King of France. This doesn't mean that the Duke of Normandy
> had to do what the King of France said, of course. But talking about
> 'independent' bits doesn't really apply for this period.

After the Duke of Normandy hacked his way onto the throne of England in
1066, Normandy was politically united with England until Philip II Augustus
claimed it for France by force in 1204. It seems to me that characterizing
it as independent of France before that date is reasonable.
--
Mark Steese
===========
The first signs of the death of the boom came in the summer,
early, and everything went like snow in the sun.
Out of their office windows. There was miasma,
a weight beyond enduring, the city reeked of failure.
Joseph Michael Bay
2005-05-12 19:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Mark Steese <***@yahoo.com> writes:

>"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
>news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>>> > In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
>>> > that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
>>> > to England, invaded and conquered Wales.
>>>
>>> Not to be picky or anything, but Normandy was independent of France
>>> between AD 911 and AD 1204, so at the time of the Conquest the
>>> Normans weren't French, really. (Which may be why it's still referred
>>> to as "The Norman Conquest" rather than "The French Conquest.")
>>
>> Not to be even pickier (especially since I am going from memory here
>> and could well be entirely wrong) the Duchy of Normandy was a fiefdom
>> of the King of France. This doesn't mean that the Duke of Normandy
>> had to do what the King of France said, of course. But talking about
>> 'independent' bits doesn't really apply for this period.

>After the Duke of Normandy hacked his way onto the throne of England in
>1066, Normandy was politically united with England until Philip II Augustus
>claimed it for France by force in 1204. It seems to me that characterizing
>it as independent of France before that date is reasonable.


Heck, I was just calling Normandy France for two reasons: (a) it's
part of France now, and (b) it was more amusing to me to say that
the English were basically Scandanavian vikings from France, because
I thought it would be fun to make groo's head explode while giving
the real answer to the "Prince of Wales" question.

All of that makes sense and is true, but is intentionally convoluted,
like something Donald Rumsfeld would say, except true.

--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
John Dean
2005-05-12 22:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> Mark Steese <***@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> "Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
>> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>>> In the 13th-14th C, the English, who were from France, except
>>>>> that they were actually Vikings who moved to France, and then
>>>>> to England, invaded and conquered Wales.
>>>>
>>>> Not to be picky or anything, but Normandy was independent of France
>>>> between AD 911 and AD 1204, so at the time of the Conquest the
>>>> Normans weren't French, really. (Which may be why it's still
>>>> referred to as "The Norman Conquest" rather than "The French
>>>> Conquest.")
>>>
>>> Not to be even pickier (especially since I am going from memory here
>>> and could well be entirely wrong) the Duchy of Normandy was a
>>> fiefdom of the King of France. This doesn't mean that the Duke of
>>> Normandy had to do what the King of France said, of course. But
>>> talking about 'independent' bits doesn't really apply for this
>>> period.
>
>> After the Duke of Normandy hacked his way onto the throne of England
>> in 1066, Normandy was politically united with England until Philip
>> II Augustus claimed it for France by force in 1204. It seems to me
>> that characterizing it as independent of France before that date is
>> reasonable.
>
>
> Heck, I was just calling Normandy France for two reasons: (a) it's
> part of France now, and (b) it was more amusing to me to say that
> the English were basically Scandanavian vikings from France, because
> I thought it would be fun to make groo's head explode while giving
> the real answer to the "Prince of Wales" question.
>
Only a limited number of Normans ever settled in England. The majority
of the population remained Angle / Saxon / Celt. By the time the Normans
had interbred with locals for a couple generations there wasn't much
Scandinavian or French left. One of the reasons why the language wasn't
changed from English as a result of the invasion although, obviously,
there was a borrowing from French. Strangely enough, a lot of the French
borrowing into English can be shown to be so far behind the Conquest
that it was clearly to do with communication between France and England
rather than a legacy of the conquerors themselves.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Peter Boulding
2005-05-12 22:39:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:24:12 +0100, "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net>
wrote in <d60krb$lon$***@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>:

>Strangely enough, a lot of the French
>borrowing into English can be shown to be so far behind the Conquest
>that it was clearly to do with communication between France and England
>rather than a legacy of the conquerors themselves.

And bear in mind that Great Britain is "great" not out of arrogance but only
to distinguish it from "Lesser Britain" - Brittany.

--
Regards
Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
John Dean
2005-05-11 09:52:59 UTC
Permalink
groo wrote:
> "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in
> news:d5rdlq$tud$***@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> Harry is not "The Prince of Wales". That's his Dad. That title is
>> traditionally bestowed on the male heir to the throne.
>> Harry is "HRH Prince Henry of Wales".
>> His bruv is "HRH Prince William of Wales".
>> If Prince Charles dies while his Mother is still alive OR Prince
>> Charles succeeds to the throne on the Queen's death, the expectation
>> is that Wills will be made "Prince of Wales".
>
> You must think I'm really dense. But I still don't understand.
>
> They call Harry "HRH Prince Henry of Wales", per the above. But we
> have established many times here that he is not, in fact, the Prince
> of Wales. WTF is he prince OF? Prince of England? Prince of the
> United Kingdom?
>

Can you spot a difference between "Henry, Prince of Wales" and "Prince
Henry of Wales"?
There you go.
--
John "Prince among men" Dean
Oxford
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-11 13:19:33 UTC
Permalink
John Dean wrote:
> groo wrote:
> > "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote in
> > news:d5rdlq$tud$***@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
> >
> >> Harry is not "The Prince of Wales". That's his Dad. That title is
> >> traditionally bestowed on the male heir to the throne.
> >> Harry is "HRH Prince Henry of Wales".
> >> His bruv is "HRH Prince William of Wales".
> >> If Prince Charles dies while his Mother is still alive OR Prince
> >> Charles succeeds to the throne on the Queen's death, the
expectation
> >> is that Wills will be made "Prince of Wales".
> >
> > You must think I'm really dense. But I still don't understand.
> >
> > They call Harry "HRH Prince Henry of Wales", per the above. But we
> > have established many times here that he is not, in fact, the
Prince
> > of Wales. WTF is he prince OF? Prince of England? Prince of the
> > United Kingdom?
> >
>
> Can you spot a difference between "Henry, Prince of Wales" and
"Prince
> Henry of Wales"?
> There you go.

To expand upon this just a teensy bit, I think groo is conflating the
rank of 'prince' with the title (and, in theory, job) of 'Prince of
Foo'. One can be of princely rank without being prince of any place in
particular.

Wales, in medieval theory, is a principality. This is in the same way
that Burgundy was a dukedom and France a kingdom. The principality of
Wales is a fiefdom of the king of England (which is not quite the same
thing as saying it was a part of the kingdom of England) and therefore
its prince a vassal to the English king. The line of princes of Wales
merged along the way into that of the kings of England and the king
traditionally grants this title to his heir. This is all quite
theoretical and I make no claim that it corresponds in any real way to
the reality of the Middle Ages, but that was the theory. In the late
Middle Ages the title was not entirely meaningless, as the Prince of
Wales at least sometimes had some real legal authority in Wales by
virtue of his position.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the sons and
grandsons of the monarch are princes. They hold that rank by virtue of
their birth. Charles is a prince because of who his mom is. He is
Prince of Wales because his mom gave him that goody. (That is also why
he is Duke of Cornwall.) William and Harry are princes because of who
their grandma is. Neither is Prince of anything. They are 'of Wales'
because their dad is Prince of Wales. It is a quasi-surname.

This gives us 'Charles [who is] Prince of Wales' vs 'Prince William
[who is] of [meaning 'from'] Wales.'

Clear now? I hope you were taking notes, since this may be on the
final exam.

Richard R. Hershberger
groo
2005-05-11 17:09:22 UTC
Permalink
"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> To expand upon this just a teensy bit, I think groo is conflating the
> rank of 'prince' with the title (and, in theory, job) of 'Prince of
> Foo'. One can be of princely rank without being prince of any place in
> particular.

You are right, that is the bit that was confusing me. Strikes me as a bit
odd, but then, many things in this world do. Carry on.

> Wales, in medieval theory, is a principality. This is in the same way
> that Burgundy was a dukedom and France a kingdom. The principality of
> Wales is a fiefdom of the king of England (which is not quite the same
> thing as saying it was a part of the kingdom of England) and therefore
> its prince a vassal to the English king. The line of princes of Wales
> merged along the way into that of the kings of England and the king
> traditionally grants this title to his heir. This is all quite
> theoretical and I make no claim that it corresponds in any real way to
> the reality of the Middle Ages, but that was the theory. In the late
> Middle Ages the title was not entirely meaningless, as the Prince of
> Wales at least sometimes had some real legal authority in Wales by
> virtue of his position.
>
> None of that has anything to do with the fact that the sons and
> grandsons of the monarch are princes. They hold that rank by virtue of
> their birth. Charles is a prince because of who his mom is. He is
> Prince of Wales because his mom gave him that goody. (That is also why
> he is Duke of Cornwall.) William and Harry are princes because of who
> their grandma is. Neither is Prince of anything. They are 'of Wales'
> because their dad is Prince of Wales. It is a quasi-surname.
>
> This gives us 'Charles [who is] Prince of Wales' vs 'Prince William
> [who is] of [meaning 'from'] Wales.'
>
> Clear now? I hope you were taking notes, since this may be on the
> final exam.

Thank you very much.

I do understand it now, although I doubt that I could do better than a C-
on the final. If someone asks me to explain it, my plan is to point and
say "Look! A badger wearing a hat!" and then run away.




--
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even
remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-11 17:15:34 UTC
Permalink
groo wrote:
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Clear now? I hope you were taking notes, since this may be on the
> > final exam.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> I do understand it now, although I doubt that I could do better than
a C-
> on the final. If someone asks me to explain it, my plan is to point
and
> say "Look! A badger wearing a hat!" and then run away.

Good news! That's the extra credit portion of the test.
Tim Wright
2005-05-11 17:19:26 UTC
Permalink
groo wrote:
> I do understand it now, although I doubt that I could do better than a C-
> on the final. If someone asks me to explain it, my plan is to point and
> say "Look! A badger wearing a hat!" and then run away.
>
>
>
>
Badgers? We don't need no stinking badgers!
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-11 17:21:07 UTC
Permalink
groo wrote:
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > To expand upon this just a teensy bit, I think groo is conflating
the
> > rank of 'prince' with the title (and, in theory, job) of 'Prince of
> > Foo'. One can be of princely rank without being prince of any
place in
> > particular.
>
> You are right, that is the bit that was confusing me. Strikes me as a
bit
> odd, but then, many things in this world do. Carry on.

As an additional note to further muddy the waters, in Renaissance
political theory 'prince' is used as a synonym for 'ruler'. So when
Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' this did not imply either being 'Prince
of Foo' or being the offspring of a king, but rather being the ruler of
some more-or-less independent political entity. The term was not
gender-specific: Queen Elizabeth was sometimes called a prince in this
sense.

The next lesson will be on the various ways the word 'king' was used...

Richard R. Hershberger
groo
2005-05-11 18:04:08 UTC
Permalink
"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> The next lesson will be on the various ways the word 'king' was used...

I surrender.






--
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even
remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Charles Bishop
2005-05-11 22:03:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@64.164.98.6>, groo
<***@groo.org> wrote:

>"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
>news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> The next lesson will be on the various ways the word 'king' was used...
>
>I surrender.

You have to knock over your kind to signify this.

--
charles
John Dean
2005-05-11 23:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> groo wrote:
>> "Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
>> news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> To expand upon this just a teensy bit, I think groo is conflating
>>> the rank of 'prince' with the title (and, in theory, job) of
>>> 'Prince of Foo'. One can be of princely rank without being prince
>>> of any place in particular.
>>
>> You are right, that is the bit that was confusing me. Strikes me as
>> a bit odd, but then, many things in this world do. Carry on.
>
> As an additional note to further muddy the waters, in Renaissance
> political theory 'prince' is used as a synonym for 'ruler'. So when
> Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' this did not imply either being 'Prince
> of Foo' or being the offspring of a king, but rather being the ruler
> of some more-or-less independent political entity. The term was not
> gender-specific: Queen Elizabeth was sometimes called a prince in
> this sense.
>

And used the word of herself. As she was dying Robert Cecil told her she
must go to bed. To which she replied:
"'Must!' she exclaimed; 'is must a word to be addressed to princes?
Little man, little man, thy father if he had been alive durst not have
used that word, but thou hast grown presumptuous because thou knowest
that I shall die.'" "
--
John Dean
Oxford
Charles Wm. Dimmick
2005-05-14 01:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:

> The next lesson will be on the various ways the word 'king' was used...

As in Lord Lyon King of Arms
Ulster King of Arms
Garter King of Arms
Clarenceux King of Arms
Norroy King of Arms

Charles
D.F. Manno
2005-05-14 01:48:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <egche.1786$***@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
"Charles Wm. Dimmick" <***@snet.net> wrote:

> Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>
> > The next lesson will be on the various ways the word 'king' was used...
>
> As in Lord Lyon King of Arms
> Ulster King of Arms
> Garter King of Arms
> Clarenceux King of Arms
> Norroy King of Arms

Rodney King of Nightsticks.
--
D.F. Manno
***@spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."
chris greville
2005-05-15 12:34:32 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> wrote in message
news:dfm2a3l0t2-***@x-privat.org...
> In article <egche.1786$***@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Charles Wm. Dimmick" <***@snet.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>>
>> > The next lesson will be on the various ways the word 'king' was used...
>>
>> As in Lord Lyon King of Arms
>> Ulster King of Arms
>> Garter King of Arms
>> Clarenceux King of Arms
>> Norroy King of Arms
>
> Rodney King of Nightsticks.

Old King Cole

Nat King Cole <thread merge>

--
Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.
Charles Bishop
2005-05-11 22:01:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@64.164.98.29>, groo
<***@groo.org> wrote:

>"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
>news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

[in short, shapr sentences, with smallish words, explains to groo]
>>
>> Clear now? I hope you were taking notes, since this may be on the
>> final exam.
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>I do understand it now, although I doubt that I could do better than a C-
>on the final. If someone asks me to explain it, my plan is to point and
>say "Look! A badger wearing a hat!" and then run away.

Get a few more animals and you could do another _Wind in the Willows_.

--
charles, not a bad thing
groo
2005-05-12 04:45:47 UTC
Permalink
***@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in
news:ctbishop-***@user-2ivfj1o.dialup.mindspring.com:

>>"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
>>news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> [in short, shapr sentences, with smallish words, explains to groo]

Hey! He used some fairly fancy words, like principality and conflating
and quasi-surname, which I'm pretty sure he invented on the spot just for
me.

You're just jealous because he understands it well enough to explain it
to the simple-minded, and you don't. Ha!

Seriously, though, it was a bit surprising to me that it took so many
responses (some of them by Brits) before anyone actually addressed the
questions I was asking in a way that someone who doesn't already know the
answer could understand. Then along came Richard, and he explained it
clearly, moderately succinctly, and without really implying that I am an
idiot. At least, not so's I noticed.

I shall forever be in his debt, or at least until tomorrow.






--
Haven't figured out how one cooks a Hershberger yet, though.
Peter Boulding
2005-05-12 06:23:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:45:47 GMT, groo <***@groo.org> wrote in
<***@64.164.98.6>:

>Haven't figured out how one cooks a Hershberger yet, though.

An unnervingly Texan glitch in my gray cells added a stray "ey" to the
above, giving rise to a momentary vision of a deep-fried chocolate bar in a
bun.

--
Regards
Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
John Dean
2005-05-12 13:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Peter Boulding wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:45:47 GMT, groo <***@groo.org> wrote in
> <***@64.164.98.6>:
>
>> Haven't figured out how one cooks a Hershberger yet, though.
>
> An unnervingly Texan glitch in my gray cells added a stray "ey" to the
> above, giving rise to a momentary vision of a deep-fried chocolate
> bar in a bun.

See the discussions in a.u.e passim by Googling "deep fried mars bar"
--
John Dean
Oxford
Peter Boulding
2005-05-12 13:52:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 May 2005 14:51:10 +0100, "John Dean" <john-***@frag.lineone.net>
wrote in <d5vmra$d2v$***@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>:

>See the discussions in a.u.e passim by Googling "deep fried mars bar"

I know - I made the discovery that Texans and Glaswegians have something in
common when a search on "twinkies" uncovered a description of deep-fried
Twinkies.

--
Regards
Peter Boulding
***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Joseph Michael Bay
2005-05-12 18:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Peter Boulding <***@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> writes:

>On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:45:47 GMT, groo <***@groo.org> wrote in
><***@64.164.98.6>:

>>Haven't figured out how one cooks a Hershberger yet, though.

>An unnervingly Texan glitch in my gray cells added a stray "ey" to the
>above, giving rise to a momentary vision of a deep-fried chocolate bar in a
>bun.

Sounds like a Scottish glitch to me.

--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
Richard R. Hershberger
2005-05-12 12:46:06 UTC
Permalink
groo wrote:
> ***@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in
> news:ctbishop-***@user-2ivfj1o.dialup.mindspring.com:
>
> >>"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
> >>news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > [in short, shapr sentences, with smallish words, explains to groo]
>
> Hey! He used some fairly fancy words, like principality and
conflating
> and quasi-surname, which I'm pretty sure he invented on the spot just
for
> me.

Yup: and I grant you permission to use it for personal, non-commercial
applications. This permission is non-transferable, however.

> You're just jealous because he understands it well enough to explain
it
> to the simple-minded, and you don't. Ha!
>
> Seriously, though, it was a bit surprising to me that it took so many

> responses (some of them by Brits) before anyone actually addressed
the
> questions I was asking in a way that someone who doesn't already know
the
> answer could understand. Then along came Richard, and he explained it

> clearly, moderately succinctly, and without really implying that I am
an
> idiot. At least, not so's I noticed.

I'm an American, but I more or less grew up on this stuff as a snotty
Anglophile kid. Once I arrived at the age of reason I figured out that
England isn't really like Upstairs Downstairs or a Jane Austen novel.
Seeing A Clockwork Orange helped greatly in disabusing me of my more
romantic notions. But some of that stuff stuck, and I try to keep up.

And no, I really didn't mean to imply that you are an idiot. I'm
usually pretty clear when I think that. This is legitimately
non-intuitive.
>
> I shall forever be in his debt, or at least until tomorrow.

It's not tomorrow yet, so I expect some gratitude! Obsequious flattery
would be appropriate.

> --
> Haven't figured out how one cooks a Hershberger yet, though.

Sending me outdoors in the daytime without a hat has proved effective
in the past.

Richard R. Hershberger
groo
2005-05-12 17:08:35 UTC
Permalink
"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> groo wrote:
>> I shall forever be in his debt, or at least until tomorrow.
>
> It's not tomorrow yet, so I expect some gratitude! Obsequious flattery
> would be appropriate.


Too late. Today is yesterday's tomorrow. Obsequiousness is right out.

I like the cut of your jib, though.







--
Flattery 'R Us
Hactar
2005-05-11 22:50:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <ctbishop-***@user-2ivfj1o.dialup.mindspring.com>,
Charles Bishop <***@earthlink.netttt> wrote:
> In article <***@64.164.98.6>, groo
> <***@groo.org> wrote:
>
> >"Richard R. Hershberger" <***@acme.com> wrote in
> >news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >>
> >> The next lesson will be on the various ways the word 'king' was used...
> >
> >I surrender.
>
> You have to knock over your kind to signify this.

And your schwag.

--
-eben ***@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
GEMINI: Your birthday party will be ruined once again by your explosive
flatulence. Your love life will run into trouble when your fiancee hurls a
javelin through your chest. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_
x***@gmail.com
2005-05-11 15:21:31 UTC
Permalink
groo <***@groo.org> wrote:
>
> Despite the noble attempts, I'm still confused. If Charles is the POW,
> then Harry isn't (yet) the POW. And even if Charles kicks off or gets
> promoted, Harry still won't be the POW until something happens to big
> brother William. Right?

Would it help if you think of it as being
"Prince Harry, (Princely son of the Prince) of Wales"?

Xho

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
groo
2005-05-11 17:10:25 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote in news:20050511112131.991$***@newsreader.com:

> groo <***@groo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Despite the noble attempts, I'm still confused. If Charles is the POW,
>> then Harry isn't (yet) the POW. And even if Charles kicks off or gets
>> promoted, Harry still won't be the POW until something happens to big
>> brother William. Right?
>
> Would it help if you think of it as being
> "Prince Harry, (Princely son of the Prince) of Wales"?
>

Now that I've read Richard H's fine explanation, it would. Previously, not
so much.





--
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even
remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Charles Dye
2005-05-11 14:49:43 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:12:11 +0100, "John Dean"
<john-***@frag.lineone.net> wrote:

>Call him what you like. While he is at Sandhurst he is to be known as
>Officer Cadet Wales. His name badge says "Wales". And, as the old joke
>goes, the Warrant Officers there will call him "Sir" and he will call
>them "Sir" but he will actually mean it.

I was kind of hoping for "Maggot, your highness."

--
Charles Dye ***@highfiber.com
John Hatpin
2005-05-09 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
"D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> wrote:

>According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army. My
>questions for our British friends are:
>
>1) How does one address Prince Harry?

"You over-privileged, overpaid, smug little git-with-a-gun."

>2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?

No, I think you're probably an OK guy, so I'd be nice.

>3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?

I'd hope, the same as (1).

Seriously, though, I think the answer to (3) is that in front of
others they'd address him just the same as other men of his rank and
position in the Army, but in private would take pains to endear
themselves.

"The kid's only along for the ride, anyway. Why ruffle his feathers?
What's more, his Grandma owns me."
--
John Hatpin
K***@yahoo.com
2005-05-09 23:43:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:46:34 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
<***@spymac.com> wrote:

>According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army. My
>questions for our British friends are:
>
>1) How does one address Prince Harry?
>
>2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?
>
>3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?

This is covered in some detail in one of the Hornblower books. A
cousin of the crown and prince of some minor place somewhere is a
midshipman. He's adressed as Mr Prince, I thought that was funny.

Kevin
Paul Ciszek
2005-05-10 02:38:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:46:34 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
><***@spymac.com> wrote:
>
>>According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army. My
>>questions for our British friends are:
>>
>>1) How does one address Prince Harry?
>>
>>2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?
>>
>>3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
>
>This is covered in some detail in one of the Hornblower books. A
>cousin of the crown and prince of some minor place somewhere is a
>midshipman. He's adressed as Mr Prince, I thought that was funny.

Supposedly Prince Charles was called "Aich" by servicemen of
equal rank, short for "HRH", short for "His Royal Highness".
But then, Charlie was *second* in line for the throne when he
served.

--
Please reply to: | "When the press is free and every man
pciszek at panix dot com | able to read, all is safe."
Autoreply has been disabled | --Thomas Jefferson
Nick Spalding
2005-05-10 10:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Paul Ciszek wrote, in <d5p6qc$pku$***@reader1.panix.com>:

>
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:46:34 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
> ><***@spymac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army. My
> >>questions for our British friends are:
> >>
> >>1) How does one address Prince Harry?
> >>
> >>2) Does that apply to those of us who are not subjects of the crown?
> >>
> >>3) How do his superior officers in the army address him?
> >
> >This is covered in some detail in one of the Hornblower books. A
> >cousin of the crown and prince of some minor place somewhere is a
> >midshipman. He's adressed as Mr Prince, I thought that was funny.
>
> Supposedly Prince Charles was called "Aich" by servicemen of
> equal rank, short for "HRH", short for "His Royal Highness".
> But then, Charlie was *second* in line for the throne when he
> served.

No he wasn't, from the time of the Queen's accession he was first in line
being her eldest (and at the time only). Since he was about 4 years old at
that time he certainly was not in the service before then when he was second
in line.
--
Nick Spalding
Paul Ciszek
2005-05-10 14:50:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Nick Spalding <***@iol.ie> wrote:
>> Supposedly Prince Charles was called "Aich" by servicemen of
>> equal rank, short for "HRH", short for "His Royal Highness".
>> But then, Charlie was *second* in line for the throne when he
>> served.
>
>No he wasn't, from the time of the Queen's accession he was first in line
>being her eldest (and at the time only). Since he was about 4 years old at
>that time he certainly was not in the service before then when he was second
>in line.

Ack! By "second", I meant "next", which is I believe the same thing you
mean by "first". Sorry about that.

--
Please reply to: | "When the press is free and every man
pciszek at panix dot com | able to read, all is safe."
Autoreply has been disabled | --Thomas Jefferson
John Dean
2005-05-10 16:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Nick Spalding <***@iol.ie> wrote:
>>> Supposedly Prince Charles was called "Aich" by servicemen of
>>> equal rank, short for "HRH", short for "His Royal Highness".
>>> But then, Charlie was *second* in line for the throne when he
>>> served.
>>
>> No he wasn't, from the time of the Queen's accession he was first in
>> line being her eldest (and at the time only). Since he was about 4
>> years old at that time he certainly was not in the service before
>> then when he was second in line.
>
> Ack! By "second", I meant "next", which is I believe the same thing
> you mean by "first". Sorry about that.

It's all that time Nick spends working on the first floor ...
--
John Dean
Oxford
Mr C
2005-05-10 23:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Nick Spalding <***@iol.ie> wrote:
> >> Supposedly Prince Charles was called "Aich" by servicemen of
> >> equal rank, short for "HRH", short for "His Royal Highness".
> >> But then, Charlie was *second* in line for the throne when he
> >> served.
> >
> >No he wasn't, from the time of the Queen's accession he was first in
line
> >being her eldest (and at the time only). Since he was about 4 years
old at
> >that time he certainly was not in the service before then when he
was second
> >in line.
>
> Ack! By "second", I meant "next", which is I believe the same thing
you
> mean by "first". Sorry about that.
>
I am confused. In what place/custom/idiom/language does second-in-line
really mean "next"?

I mean, you have a throne. Someone's on it. Behind that person forms
a line. The *first* person in line is next up for the throne. Call
'em A. The "second-in-line" person is NOT next (that's A), but but
must await the death/disappearance of A before becoming next. Right?


Mr C
John Hatpin
2005-05-11 02:00:30 UTC
Permalink
"Mr C" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul Ciszek wrote:
>> In article <***@4ax.com>,
>> Nick Spalding <***@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >> Supposedly Prince Charles was called "Aich" by servicemen of
>> >> equal rank, short for "HRH", short for "His Royal Highness".
>> >> But then, Charlie was *second* in line for the throne when he
>> >> served.
>> >
>> >No he wasn't, from the time of the Queen's accession he was first in
>line
>> >being her eldest (and at the time only). Since he was about 4 years
>old at
>> >that time he certainly was not in the service before then when he
>was second
>> >in line.
>>
>> Ack! By "second", I meant "next", which is I believe the same thing
>you
>> mean by "first". Sorry about that.
>>
>I am confused. In what place/custom/idiom/language does second-in-line
>really mean "next"?
>
>I mean, you have a throne. Someone's on it. Behind that person forms
>a line. The *first* person in line is next up for the throne. Call
>'em A. The "second-in-line" person is NOT next (that's A), but but
>must await the death/disappearance of A before becoming next. Right?

If it's any help, I read "second in line" to mean what the poster
intended, assuming that the first in line was the one in power. Nick
correctly picked it up, but I didn't on first reading.

IMO, no real kudos lost for whoever used "second in line" - it's an
easy mistake.
--
John Hatpin
Mr C
2005-05-11 04:35:41 UTC
Permalink
John Hatpin wrote:
> "Mr C" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> >> Nick Spalding <***@iol.ie> wrote:
> >> >> Supposedly Prince Charles was called "Aich" by servicemen of
> >> >> equal rank, short for "HRH", short for "His Royal Highness".
> >> >> But then, Charlie was *second* in line for the throne when he
> >> >> served.
> >> >
> >> >No he wasn't, from the time of the Queen's accession he was first
in
> >line
> >> >being her eldest (and at the time only). Since he was about 4
years
> >old at
> >> >that time he certainly was not in the service before then when he
> >was second
> >> >in line.
> >>
> >> Ack! By "second", I meant "next", which is I believe the same
thing
> >you
> >> mean by "first". Sorry about that.
> >>
> >I am confused. In what place/custom/idiom/language does
second-in-line
> >really mean "next"?
> >
> >I mean, you have a throne. Someone's on it. Behind that person
forms
> >a line. The *first* person in line is next up for the throne. Call
> >'em A. The "second-in-line" person is NOT next (that's A), but but
> >must await the death/disappearance of A before becoming next.
Right?
>
> If it's any help, I read "second in line" to mean what the poster
> intended, assuming that the first in line was the one in power.

Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the ride.

Nick
> correctly picked it up, but I didn't on first reading.
>
Well, I don't blame you, if first-in-line and second-in-line have the
exact same meaning! Unless, of course, by "first reading" you really
meant "second reading."


Mr C
Estron
2005-05-11 13:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Mr C wrote:

> Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the ride.

In a store, the first person in line is the one being waited on at the
moment.

--
Any opinions expressed above are only that, and are my own.
Pax vobiscum.
***@tfs.net
Sugar Creek, Missouri
Mr C
2005-05-11 15:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Estron wrote:
> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Mr C wrote:
>
> > Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the
ride.
>
> In a store, the first person in line is the one being waited on at
the
> moment.
>
Hmmm. Good point. Still, second in line to the throne just doesn't
mean "next" to me.

There's a scene in "A Christmas Story" where the man waiting in line
for Santa (Jean Shepard cameo) says to Ralphie "Hey kid, where do you
think you're going? ... The line *ends* here. It *begins* back there."

So, he takes the "end of the line" to mean "almost there". I think of
it as synonymous with "back of the line". As distinct from "end of my
rope".


Mr C
John Hatpin
2005-05-11 15:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Estron <***@tfs.net> wrote:

>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Mr C wrote:
>
>> Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the ride.
>
>In a store, the first person in line is the one being waited on at the
>moment.

Even if they're on the first floor of the store?
--
John "whichever that is" Hatpin
Charles Bishop
2005-05-11 21:59:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.birch.net>, Estron
<***@tfs.net> wrote:

>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Mr C wrote:
>
>> Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the ride.
>
>In a store, the first person in line is the one being waited on at the
>moment.

Maybe, maybe not. If there's a line at the bank, do you count the person
at the teller's window as being in line? I probably wouldn't, but I can
see where, in a strictly definitional way, she could be considered to be.

--
charles
Blinky the Shark
2005-05-11 23:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <***@news.birch.net>, Estron
><***@tfs.net> wrote:

>>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Mr C wrote:

>>> Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the
>>> ride.

>>In a store, the first person in line is the one being waited on at the
>>moment.

> Maybe, maybe not. If there's a line at the bank, do you count the
> person at the teller's window as being in line? I probably wouldn't,
> but I can see where, in a strictly definitional way, she could be
> considered to be.

The line is composed of those waiting to be handled. If you're being
handled, you're no longer in the line. If there's only one guy in that
chute at the grocery, and the cashier is scanning his taters, there's no
line for that station. When there *is* a line, and another cashier
opens up and says, "I'll take the first people in line", he's not
talking to the guy who's already had half of his order scanned; he's
talking about the people "in line".

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Charles Bishop
2005-05-12 00:31:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
Shark <***@box.invalid> wrote:

>Charles Bishop wrote:
>> In article <***@news.birch.net>, Estron
>><***@tfs.net> wrote:
>
>>>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Mr C wrote:
>
>>>> Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the
>>>> ride.
>
>>>In a store, the first person in line is the one being waited on at the
>>>moment.
>
>> Maybe, maybe not. If there's a line at the bank, do you count the
>> person at the teller's window as being in line? I probably wouldn't,
>> but I can see where, in a strictly definitional way, she could be
>> considered to be.
>
>The line is composed of those waiting to be handled. If you're being
>handled, you're no longer in the line. If there's only one guy in that
>chute at the grocery, and the cashier is scanning his taters, there's no
>line for that station. When there *is* a line, and another cashier
>opens up and says, "I'll take the first people in line", he's not
>talking to the guy who's already had half of his order scanned; he's
>talking about the people "in line".

Blinky, Mr. C; Mr C., Blinky. Mr. Ç, Blinky and I are in argeement, I
think, so now it's two against one, though one only counts if you go
swimming and then only in the ocean since I don't think B is a pool shark.

--
charles, he might be alone shark
groo
2005-05-12 04:49:09 UTC
Permalink
***@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in
news:ctbishop-***@user-2ivfl3o.dialup.mindspring.com:

> In article <***@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
> Shark <***@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> In article <***@news.birch.net>, Estron
>>><***@tfs.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Mr C wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yabbut the one in power isn't "in line"--they're already on the
>>>>> ride.
>>
>>>>In a store, the first person in line is the one being waited on at
>>>>the moment.
>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. If there's a line at the bank, do you count the
>>> person at the teller's window as being in line? I probably wouldn't,
>>> but I can see where, in a strictly definitional way, she could be
>>> considered to be.
>>
>>The line is composed of those waiting to be handled. If you're being
>>handled, you're no longer in the line. If there's only one guy in
>>that chute at the grocery, and the cashier is scanning his taters,
>>there's no line for that station. When there *is* a line, and another
>>cashier opens up and says, "I'll take the first people in line", he's
>>not talking to the guy who's already had half of his order scanned;
>>he's talking about the people "in line".
>
> Blinky, Mr. C; Mr C., Blinky. Mr. Ç, Blinky and I are in argeement, I
> think, so now it's two against one, though one only counts if you go
> swimming and then only in the ocean since I don't think B is a pool
> shark.
>

I think it depends on the queue.

In general, the first person in line at a store is the one being waited
on. But, in at an airport ticket counter, that's not true. The difference
is that at an airport ticket counter, there's a gap between the line and
the person being helped. That's not always the case in a store. Bank
queues tend to be more like the airline ticket queues, with a gap between
the line and the person at the counter being served.



--
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even
remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Charles Bishop
2005-05-12 05:13:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@64.164.98.6>, groo
<***@groo.org> wrote:

[snip lineage]
>
>I think it depends on the queue.
>
>In general, the first person in line at a store is the one being waited
>on. But, in at an airport ticket counter, that's not true. The difference
>is that at an airport ticket counter, there's a gap between the line and
>the person being helped. That's not always the case in a store. Bank
>queues tend to be more like the airline ticket queues, with a gap between
>the line and the person at the counter being served.

So, what, now? Someone explains Princes and princes to you and now line is
to common a word for you? Got to get tarted up with a Britishism like
queue? Hard to spell cause it's not easy knowing when to stop typing
"ue"'s, so you're just showing off, you are.

--
charles, and I didn't answer your other post cause it looked like you were
right and I didn't want to have to admit that publicly
groo
2005-05-12 17:15:18 UTC
Permalink
***@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in
news:ctbishop-***@user-2ivflc8.dialup.mindspring.com:

> In article <***@64.164.98.6>, groo
> <***@groo.org> wrote:
>
> [snip lineage]
>>
>>I think it depends on the queue.
>>
>>In general, the first person in line at a store is the one being
>>waited on. But, in at an airport ticket counter, that's not true. The
>>difference is that at an airport ticket counter, there's a gap between
>>the line and the person being helped. That's not always the case in a
>>store. Bank queues tend to be more like the airline ticket queues,
>>with a gap between the line and the person at the counter being
>>served.
>
> So, what, now? Someone explains Princes and princes to you and now
> line is to common a word for you? Got to get tarted up with a
> Britishism like queue? Hard to spell cause it's not easy knowing when
> to stop typing "ue"'s, so you're just showing off, you are.
>

They haven't gotten to me yet. If they had, I would have written "on
line" in the first sentence.

And there are still numerous gaps in my princely knowledge. For example,
no one has yet explained to me the artist formerly known as the artist
formerly known as Prince.



--
On queue for the lift to go to the first floor.
Greg Goss
2005-05-12 17:36:17 UTC
Permalink
groo <***@groo.org> wrote:

>And there are still numerous gaps in my princely knowledge. For example,
>no one has yet explained to me the artist formerly known as the artist
>formerly known as Prince.

He wanted out of a recording contract. His record company owned the
trademark on his name for a specified period, even though there was an
escape clause on his actual new material and performances.

He solved that by recording his new material under no name at all,
while leaving the trademark to the recording company until that
contract ran out.

Eventually he got ownership of his name back, and resumed using it.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
John Hatpin
2005-05-12 23:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

>groo <***@groo.org> wrote:
>
>>And there are still numerous gaps in my princely knowledge. For example,
>>no one has yet explained to me the artist formerly known as the artist
>>formerly known as Prince.
>
>He wanted out of a recording contract. His record company owned the
>trademark on his name for a specified period, even though there was an
>escape clause on his actual new material and performances.
>
>He solved that by recording his new material under no name at all,
>while leaving the trademark to the recording company until that
>contract ran out.
>
>Eventually he got ownership of his name back, and resumed using it.

It was a useful attention-grabbing stunt, as was the selection of the
name "Prince" in the first place.

Also, for that time he walked around with the word "SLAVE" written on
his forehead in biro. Presumably, he thought that he wasn't getting
paid for any of his work, which is pretty much the definition of
slavery.

Great musician, but he's just another money-grabber.
--
John Hatpin
incandescent blue
2005-05-13 00:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On 2005-05-12, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>Eventually he got ownership of his name back, and resumed using it.
>
> It was a useful attention-grabbing stunt, as was the selection of the
> name "Prince" in the first place.

You'd have to blame that latter stunt on his parents, actually:
his birth name is Prince Roger Nelson, after his father's old band,
the Prince Roger Trio:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=107105

(Of course, someone who didn't welcome the attention might've
just chosen to go by the less-unusual middle name instead.)

> Also, for that time he walked around with the word "SLAVE" written on
> his forehead in biro. Presumably, he thought that he wasn't getting
> paid for any of his work, which is pretty much the definition of
> slavery.
>
> Great musician, but he's just another money-grabber.

But ruffled purple silk pirate shirts are *so* expensive these days!

A. "that's when it all up and flies away, flies away"

--
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
John Hatpin
2005-05-13 14:32:04 UTC
Permalink
incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:

>On 2005-05-12, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>Eventually he got ownership of his name back, and resumed using it.
>>
>> It was a useful attention-grabbing stunt, as was the selection of the
>> name "Prince" in the first place.
>
>You'd have to blame that latter stunt on his parents, actually:
>his birth name is Prince Roger Nelson, after his father's old band,
>the Prince Roger Trio:
>
>http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=107105

OK, OK - blame the parents, as always.

Seriously, I didn't know that - thanks for the info.

>(Of course, someone who didn't welcome the attention might've
> just chosen to go by the less-unusual middle name instead.)
>
>> Also, for that time he walked around with the word "SLAVE" written on
>> his forehead in biro. Presumably, he thought that he wasn't getting
>> paid for any of his work, which is pretty much the definition of
>> slavery.
>>
>> Great musician, but he's just another money-grabber.
>
>But ruffled purple silk pirate shirts are *so* expensive these days!

Thank goodness they are. It means less people can afford to wear
them. It's the end of the purple reign.
--
John Hatpin
incandescent blue
2005-05-13 15:54:15 UTC
Permalink
On 2005-05-13, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
> incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>>On 2005-05-12, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> It was a useful attention-grabbing stunt, as was the selection of the
>>> name "Prince" in the first place.
>>
>>You'd have to blame that latter stunt on his parents, actually:
>>his birth name is Prince Roger Nelson, after his father's old band,
>>the Prince Roger Trio:
>
> OK, OK - blame the parents, as always.

"And Duke Bottomley had been named by parents with upwardly-mobile
if rather simplistic ideas about class structure; his brothers
were Squire, Earl, and King."

But at least they didn't try to get cutesy with the spelling.

(And even if it had been assumed, hey, if it was good enough
for Duke Ellington and Count Basie and Nat King Cole... )

>>> Great musician, but he's just another money-grabber.
>>
>>But ruffled purple silk pirate shirts are *so* expensive these days!
>
> Thank goodness they are. It means less people can afford to wear
> them. It's the end of the purple reign.

I liked that look, predictably enough. If nothing else, the New
Romantic ruffles and frills were better than the assless yellow
trousers from a few years later.

A. "Shirts versus blouses...game: blouses"

--
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
John Hatpin
2005-05-13 18:23:49 UTC
Permalink
incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:

>On 2005-05-13, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>>>On 2005-05-12, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> It was a useful attention-grabbing stunt, as was the selection of the
>>>> name "Prince" in the first place.
>>>
>>>You'd have to blame that latter stunt on his parents, actually:
>>>his birth name is Prince Roger Nelson, after his father's old band,
>>>the Prince Roger Trio:
>>
>> OK, OK - blame the parents, as always.
>
>"And Duke Bottomley had been named by parents with upwardly-mobile
> if rather simplistic ideas about class structure; his brothers
> were Squire, Earl, and King."
>
>But at least they didn't try to get cutesy with the spelling.
>
>(And even if it had been assumed, hey, if it was good enough
>for Duke Ellington and Count Basie and Nat King Cole... )

Don't forget Earl Hines, the wonderful pianist. That was his real
name. Duke was christened Edward Kennedy, but everyone called him
"Duke"; Basie was William, and most people called him "Bill". Nat
Cole got the "King" thing after he turned to pop singing - as a (again
wonderful) pianist, he was plain Nat Cole.
--
John Hatpin
incandescent blue
2005-05-13 21:41:10 UTC
Permalink
On 2005-05-13, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Don't forget Earl Hines, the wonderful pianist. That was his real
> name.

Tsk, how could I forget Father Hines... But "Earl" has been a fairly
common name stateside for many years:

http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-boys/Earl.html

As given names "Duke" barely registers there and "Count" doesn't
show up at all, but "Prince" shows up earlier and more often than
you might expect:
http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-boys/Prince.html

> Nat Cole got the "King" thing after he turned to pop singing - as a (again
> wonderful) pianist, he was plain Nat Cole.

Ah, but don't forget his band was the King Cole Trio, founded
in 1937, even though he didn't start charting as a vocalist until
the 1940s.

A. "fly right"

--
Ava Callison <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net>
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
John Hatpin
2005-05-14 00:25:23 UTC
Permalink
incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:

>On 2005-05-13, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Don't forget Earl Hines, the wonderful pianist. That was his real
>> name.
>
>Tsk, how could I forget Father Hines... But "Earl" has been a fairly
>common name stateside for many years:
>
>http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-boys/Earl.html

And it always seems to be spelt "Fatha Hines" in print. I don't know
why, but I do know he was one hell of a pianist.

>As given names "Duke" barely registers there and "Count" doesn't
>show up at all, but "Prince" shows up earlier and more often than
>you might expect:
>http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-boys/Prince.html

Isn't there a boxer called Prince Naheem or something? Maybe that's
the reason for most of the recent Princes.

>> Nat Cole got the "King" thing after he turned to pop singing - as a (again
>> wonderful) pianist, he was plain Nat Cole.
>
>Ah, but don't forget his band was the King Cole Trio, founded
>in 1937, even though he didn't start charting as a vocalist until
>the 1940s.

Didn't know that. I thought the "King" thing was a commercial
decision, and didn't start until he was being promoted as a singer.

We learn stuff here.
--
John Hatpin
Greg Goss
2005-05-14 00:50:45 UTC
Permalink
John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2005-05-13, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't forget Earl Hines, the wonderful pianist. That was his real
>>> name.
>>
>>Tsk, how could I forget Father Hines... But "Earl" has been a fairly
>>common name stateside for many years:
>>
>>http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-boys/Earl.html
>
>And it always seems to be spelt "Fatha Hines" in print. I don't know
>why, but I do know he was one hell of a pianist.

I wonder if "Goodbye Earl" has had an impact on it. If a movie can
kill "Debbie", then a killing might move "Earl".


--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
incandescent blue
2005-05-14 02:12:23 UTC
Permalink
On 2005-05-14, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> And it always seems to be spelt "Fatha Hines" in print. I don't know
> why, but I do know he was one hell of a pianist.

Dialect pronunciation, I'd presume. (cf. "brotha", "sistah", etc.)

>>As given names "Duke" barely registers there and "Count" doesn't
>>show up at all, but "Prince" shows up earlier and more often than
>>you might expect:
>>http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-boys/Prince.html
>
> Isn't there a boxer called Prince Naheem or something? Maybe that's
> the reason for most of the recent Princes.

Hmmm. Prince Naseem, per Google's handy correction. But his career
doesn't match up perfectly with those graphs; on their hundred-year
scoring, "Prince" vanishes from the chart after 1940 and only reappears
around 1980 before vanishing again. Mr. Hamed's boxing career didn't
start until the early 1990s. Perhaps his nickname is an influence
on that 1990-2003 recent popularity chart, but that big spike in the
1980s seems more likely to be related to the Purple One being at the
height of his popularity.

>>Ah, but don't forget his band was the King Cole Trio, founded
>>in 1937, even though he didn't start charting as a vocalist until
>>the 1940s.
>
> Didn't know that. I thought the "King" thing was a commercial
> decision, and didn't start until he was being promoted as a singer.

Hmmm. The dates from the Nat King Cole Society page may not be giving
the whole story: http://highstreets.co.uk/kcc/html/biograph.htm
says the trio started out with the name "King Cole Swingsters" and
then "King Cole and His Swing Trio" before finally settling on
"King Cole Trio" in '39. (Same lineup, though.) But he was definitely
associated with that nickname from the earliest days of having his
own jazz band, years before the lush-strings-pop-crooner phase.

A. "non dimenticar"

--
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
John Hatpin
2005-05-14 12:21:28 UTC
Permalink
incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:

>On 2005-05-14, John Hatpin <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>As given names "Duke" barely registers there and "Count" doesn't
>>>show up at all, but "Prince" shows up earlier and more often than
>>>you might expect:
>>>http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-boys/Prince.html
>>
>> Isn't there a boxer called Prince Naheem or something? Maybe that's
>> the reason for most of the recent Princes.
>
>Hmmm. Prince Naseem, per Google's handy correction. But his career
>doesn't match up perfectly with those graphs; on their hundred-year
>scoring, "Prince" vanishes from the chart after 1940 and only reappears
>around 1980 before vanishing again. Mr. Hamed's boxing career didn't
>start until the early 1990s. Perhaps his nickname is an influence
>on that 1990-2003 recent popularity chart, but that big spike in the
>1980s seems more likely to be related to the Purple One being at the
>height of his popularity.

Yeah, gotcha. You're most probably right.

>>>Ah, but don't forget his band was the King Cole Trio, founded
>>>in 1937, even though he didn't start charting as a vocalist until
>>>the 1940s.
>>
>> Didn't know that. I thought the "King" thing was a commercial
>> decision, and didn't start until he was being promoted as a singer.
>
>Hmmm. The dates from the Nat King Cole Society page may not be giving
>the whole story: http://highstreets.co.uk/kcc/html/biograph.htm
>says the trio started out with the name "King Cole Swingsters" and
>then "King Cole and His Swing Trio" before finally settling on
>"King Cole Trio" in '39. (Same lineup, though.) But he was definitely
>associated with that nickname from the earliest days of having his
>own jazz band, years before the lush-strings-pop-crooner phase.

It's just occurred to me that maybe the dropping of the "King" bit was
retrospective - jazzers wanted to distinguish the old King Cole (heh!)
who was cool from the newer version who was seriously uncool. That's
a cool Cole categorisation concept (sorry, it's that Carson sketch in
my head again).

Then again, jazz writers often drop nicknames, so Harry "Sweets"
Edison is usually referred to as plain "Harry Edison" in the texts.
Maybe that's why we get "Nat Cole".

Incidentally, I was fortunate enough to meet Harry Edison, and he was
a warm, charming, down-to-earth and extremely witty man, as well as a
superlative musician. But I digress.
--
John Hatpin
Jerry Bauer
2005-05-14 01:14:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:41:10 -0700, incandescent blue wrote
(in article <slrnd8a7nm.pt7.die-blaue-***@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>):


> A. "fly right"

J. "bee good"

--
Chuck Berry
Hactar
2005-05-13 18:05:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <slrnd89jd7.1ila.die-blaue-***@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>
> "And Duke Bottomley had been named by parents with upwardly-mobile
> if rather simplistic ideas about class structure; his brothers
> were Squire, Earl, and King."
>
> But at least they didn't try to get cutesy with the spelling.
>
> (And even if it had been assumed, hey, if it was good enough
> for Duke Ellington and Count Basie and Nat King Cole... )

Maybe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Ellington says "He was known as 'The
Duke'" but doesn't say that isn't his name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Basie doesn't list a "real" name or a
provenance for his appelation, but does put the "Count" in quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_King_Cole says: "Cole was born Nathaniel
Adams Coles" and "Nat got his nickname 'King' performing at one jazz
club".

--
-eben ***@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
Your pretended fear lest error might step in is like the man who
would keep all wine out of the country lest men should be drunk.
-- Oliver Cromwell
incandescent blue
2005-05-13 21:26:19 UTC
Permalink
On 2005-05-13, Hactar <***@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge> wrote:
> In article <slrnd89jd7.1ila.die-blaue-***@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
> incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>> (And even if it had been assumed, hey, if it was good enough
>> for Duke Ellington and Count Basie and Nat King Cole... )
>
> Maybe:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Ellington says "He was known as 'The
> Duke'" but doesn't say that isn't his name.

It isn't.

http://www.dukeellington.com/about/fastfacts.htm

"Birth name: Edward Kennedy Ellington
...Ellington got his nickname of "Duke" from a childhood friend who
commented on his elegant manners, bearing, and dress.".

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Basie doesn't list a "real" name or a
> provenance for his appelation, but does put the "Count" in quotes.

It's yet another case where the nickname's better known than his birthname:

http://www.redbankfestival.com/info_CountBasie.html

"William Basie "The Kid from Red Bank," was born on August 21, 1904...
although many stories circulate about the genesis of his nickname, Basie
recalled it as a tribute to his tendency for slipping off to have some
fun during arranging sessions for the Moten band. As soon as the band
got a few good bars down Basie would slip out, and Moten would come
looking for him saying, "Where is that no count rascal?"

(Another common story, which is on many other pages about Basie, is
that the nickname was patterned after Duke Ellington's moniker)

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_King_Cole says: "Cole was born Nathaniel
> Adams Coles" and "Nat got his nickname 'King' performing at one jazz
> club".

If you want to be specific...
http://www.nat-king-cole.org/biography.html
"Nathaniel Adams Coles was born in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1919 and
christened Nat "King" Cole by a Los Angeles clubowner in 1937."

I'll leave the ranting about Wikipedia being pointlessly incomplete
to Gifford. My point was merely that there was quite a bit of
precedent for musicians with royal nicknames, no matter the source,
long before Prince was born.

A. "sultans of swing"

--
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
John Hatpin
2005-05-13 22:06:27 UTC
Permalink
***@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge (Hactar) wrote:

>In article <slrnd89jd7.1ila.die-blaue-***@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
>incandescent blue <die-blaue-***@hyacinthine.net> wrote:
>>
>> "And Duke Bottomley had been named by parents with upwardly-mobile
>> if rather simplistic ideas about class structure; his brothers
>> were Squire, Earl, and King."
>>
>> But at least they didn't try to get cutesy with the spelling.
>>
>> (And even if it had been assumed, hey, if it was good enough
>> for Duke Ellington and Count Basie and Nat King Cole... )
>
>Maybe:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Ellington says "He was known as 'The
>Duke'" but doesn't say that isn't his name.

It was a nickname, hence the quotes. He got the nickname because of
his taste for fine clothes, food, and his penchant for grand language,
and his grandiose bearing. His given name was "Edward Kennedy
Ellington".

He got that nickname as a kid, before he even thought he'd been
famous, and stuck with it all his life.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Basie doesn't list a "real" name or a
>provenance for his appelation, but does put the "Count" in quotes.

I suspect that Bill Basie was nicknamed "Count" as a riposte to Duke's
nickname, but I'm not sure on that. His given name was William Basie,
and the "Count" came some time after Duke had already achieved fame
and success; I'm using Occam's Razor to get the reason for the name,
not any cites.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_King_Cole says: "Cole was born Nathaniel
>Adams Coles" and "Nat got his nickname 'King' performing at one jazz
>club".

I like, totally don't know about that one, OK? In the context of a
jazz pianist, he was known simply as "Nat Cole" - I'm fairly sure that
the "King" was added by his publicists when he switched over to being
a pop singer.
--
John Hatpin
Joseph Michael Bay
2005-05-13 22:05:31 UTC
Permalink
***@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge (Hactar) writes:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Basie doesn't list a "real" name or a
>provenance for his appelation, but does put the "Count" in quotes.

William Basie. Born in Red Bank, NJ.

--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
S. Checker
2005-05-17 17:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Joseph Michael Bay <***@stanford.edu> wrote:
> ***@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge (Hactar) writes:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Basie doesn't list a "real" name or a
>>provenance for his appelation, but does put the "Count" in quotes.
>
> William Basie. Born in Red Bank, NJ.
>
Count Basie and Kevin Smith. The mind boggles.

--
When you are about to die, a wombat is better than no company at all.
-- Roger Zelazny
Charles Bishop
2005-05-12 19:18:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@64.164.98.6>, groo
<***@groo.org> wrote:

>***@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in
>news:ctbishop-***@user-2ivflc8.dialup.mindspring.com:
>
>> In article <***@64.164.98.6>, groo
>> <***@groo.org> wrote:
>>
>> [snip lineage]
>>>
>>>I think it depends on the queue.
>>>
>>>In general, the first person in line at a store is the one being
>>>waited on. But, in at an airport ticket counter, that's not true. The
>>>difference is that at an airport ticket counter, there's a gap between
>>>the line and the person being helped. That's not always the case in a
>>>store. Bank queues tend to be more like the airline ticket queues,
>>>with a gap between the line and the person at the counter being
>>>served.
>>
>> So, what, now? Someone explains Princes and princes to you and now
>> line is to common a word for you? Got to get tarted up with a
>> Britishism like queue? Hard to spell cause it's not easy knowing when
>> to stop typing "ue"'s, so you're just showing off, you are.
>>
>
>They haven't gotten to me yet. If they had, I would have written "on
>line" in the first sentence.

I thought this was a East Coast/West Cost (of Leftpondia) difference.

Oh, and I thought of a usage where you're right. If you were to ask me
"how many people are in line ahead of you?", I'd include the person being
waited on/taken care of in my answer, whether they were in a grocery or
bank.


--
charles
Joseph Michael Bay
2005-05-12 18:23:32 UTC
Permalink
***@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) writes:

>In article <***@64.164.98.6>, groo
><***@groo.org> wrote:

>[snip lineage]
>>
>>I think it depends on the queue.

>So, what, now? Someone explains Princes and princes to you and now line is
>to common a word for you? Got to get tarted up with a Britishism like
>queue? Hard to spell cause it's not easy knowing when to stop typing
>"ue"'s, so you're just showing off, you are.

Queueer - the line to get gay married.

(from The Onion's list of "2004 Neologisms")
--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
By reading this line you agree to mow my lawn. NO GIVEBACKS.
Hank Gillette
2005-05-10 14:03:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <dfm2a3l0t2-***@x-privat.org>,
"D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> wrote:

> According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army. My
> questions for our British friends are:

Sure it was the British army? Seems he had more interest in joining the
German army.

--
Hank Gillette
Greg Goss
2005-05-10 16:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Hank Gillette <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <dfm2a3l0t2-***@x-privat.org>,
> "D.F. Manno" <***@spymac.com> wrote:
>
>> According to media reports, Prince Harry has joined the British Army. My
>> questions for our British friends are:
>
>Sure it was the British army? Seems he had more interest in joining the
>German army.

It was a COSTUME party. My friend who came as "Death" to a costume
party has no interest in killing people to harvest their souls.
Another friend is not really a vampire, and so far as I know doesn't
really drink blood.

Costume party outfits do not reliably reveal the inner soul. After
all, I've gone to such parties as a LAWYER!
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...