Toast

Sad to see him go. I had a soft spot for the old curmudgeon.

Do you know if it is still there? Or are you just assuming it is after over ten years? Seems like a lot of you unbearable middle age lefties seem to base your entire world view on one-night experiences you had years ago. "I had a nice lamb once, so... that's proof they're all peaceful innit, and anyone who protests Halibuts immigration should be thrown in a gulag!" And that's how we end up with a continent full of people who think pork is "to die for".

If you know of any more people who died in 2016, could you PM the names to me please. Thanks.

Just so we're clear on the rules here, shooter tops themselves, doesn't count right? Only if he was the sole victim. Otherwise it is par for the course. Seems like gunman may be another Proffesor http://www.14news.com/story/30025217/active-shooter-at-delta-state-university?clienttype=generic but I guess that's a bit academic now. Hmm, sounds like a domestic anyway.

Now you're talking

Way beyond the cusp, BBC obit guaranteed as well as probably being the lead obit that day in the Guardian. Would probably even get a tribute show on Radio 2 actually. Oh wow.... I was having my doubts because so far, the news has only been announced on a local US station, the Toronto Star, and specialist magazines. But my research wasn't all that deep, obviously. There's also the Amy Winehouse connection - Sharon's band the Dap Kings also recorded with Amy.

If Andrew had another legitimate child, he or she would come into the line of succession after Beatrice and Eugenie. Edward, Anne and their families would all be bumped down one place. Before the recent legislation, a boy would have been placed before Beatrice and bumped both girls down a place, and a girl would have come after them.

I thought Tommy Cooper was dead.

Nothing of note to update Ms. Bettencourt, but I only recalled her name and really couldn't place her. So after wiki -- I'm being told that she, basically the owner of L'Oreal and not much else I can attest to, is somehow the 10th wealthiest person in the world with $41B? For cosmetics??????? WTF? And it isn't like it's the only cosmetic line, though maybe they have a 90% market share in Europe or some shit? How in fucking hell does owning L'Oreal make someone $41B. Bollocks I say. And anyone responding defending that statistic I say bollocks to you as well. Poppycock in fact! SC L'Oreal is a big name in skincare and hair products as well as make-up. They also own a lot of other brands, so their market share must be enormous. Apart from that, the answer to your question is probably shrewd investments.

I thought it was pretty mild and inoffensive. Bit of a let-down, tbh!

Criminal mischief! Love it

Gravelly sad news. I'll get me coat. Perry barrd news.

No. But I thought this one merited a thread, because of the nature of its very large cast. Many actors who later became stars (or at least familiar faces) appeared in it, some as unnamed extras. It makes people go, "oh, look, xxxxx was in it!" And because it's still the best Titanic film ever made. Re copying the cast from IMDB, it seemed to be the most efficient way. I was not seeking to be "creative" or "interesting". Now fuck off.

Ooh! I'm seeing Madness next Saturday after racing at Newbury. Should be a good day out. What time's your race and what odds are the bookies offering on you? Where's that Armitage Shanks fellow when we need him?

Ooh! I'm seeing Madness next Saturday after racing at Newbury. Should be a good day out.

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured. I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942. Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974. I bow to your superior knowledge, Toastie. I could have sworn Richard got it from William when the latter croaked it but hey, I'm getting on a bit now and you know what that does to the Falk mind. I blame my mum, she followed the Royals avidly and went on about such things rather a lot. I seem to have absorbed a lot of her knowledge like a sponge. I remember she was very upset when William of Gloucester bought it, she had a bit of a thing about him. I was going off the top of my head earlier but I remember reading something about The Duke of Gloucester. The article suggested that The DoG would have taken precedent as a male brother over a female niece and because Prince William died as heir apparent the throne would have gone to back to Elizabeth. Until the law was changed a few years ago I had assumed that if Prince Andrew had died Prince Edward and Viscount Seven would have taken precedence over Beatrice and Eugenie. We need a constitutional expert. do we think Dr David Starkey posts on this site? I think the Duke of Gloucester would have been Regent if Elizabeth had come to the throne as a minor. Maybe that was it. But no, the law has never excluded females in the way that you suggest, not in modern times anyway. Until the recent change, daughters of the monarch had to go to the back of the queue behind their brothers, but once someone was heir apparent it was a fresh start with their family. So Elizabeth could only have been displaced by her own younger brother. Not by an uncle or male cousin. If she had died without issue, Princess Margaret would have been next in line, then her son David Linley. Put another way - the line of succession stays in the same branch of the family. It only skips to another branch when there is nobody left.

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured. I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942. Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974. I bow to your superior knowledge, Toastie. I could have sworn Richard got it from William when the latter croaked it but hey, I'm getting on a bit now and you know what that does to the Falk mind. I blame my mum, she followed the Royals avidly and went on about such things rather a lot. I seem to have absorbed a lot of her knowledge like a sponge. I remember she was very upset when William of Gloucester bought it, she had a bit of a thing about him.

It was Prince William Duke of Gloucester (William of Gloucester) who died in a plane crash. His plane was registered G-AWOG - a registration the CAA wasn't going to issue because of the last three letters but relented when pressured. I assumed that Bibliogryphon had confused Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester with Prince George, Duke of Kent. They were the Queen's uncles, the younger brothers of Edward VIII and George VI. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942. Prince William of Gloucester was the son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and as you say was also killed in a plane crash, in 1972. He was never the Duke though, as his father did not die until 1974.

Wallis was nearly 40 when Edward abdicated she had not had children with her two earlier husbands. The important thing to note that if Edward had not abdicated and other events had taken their course when George VI died in 1952 Elaizabeth would not have been the heir presumptive as the daughter of a brother the throne would have passed to Richard, Duke of Gloucester but he died in an air crash which would have restored Elizabeth to the throne but much later than actually happend. No that's not correct. Elizabeth would not have lost her place if her father had predeceased Edward. And it was the Duke of Kent who was killed in the air crash, not the Duke of Gloucester. The current line of succession 1. The Prince of Wales 2. The Duke of Cambridge 3. Prince George of Cambridge 4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 5. Prince Henry of Wales 6. The Duke of York 7. Princess Beatrice of York 8. Princess Eugenie of York 9. The Earl of Wessex 10. Viscount Severn 11. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 12. The Princess Royal 13. Mr. Peter Phillips 14. Miss Savannah Phillips 15. Miss Isla Phillips 16. Mrs. Michael Tindall Note that Prince Andrew's daughters are before Prince Edward. If Andrew had died, that wouldn't have changed. The death of anyone has never bumped their children downwards

I've just been enjoying this bit of delusional fantasy. http://we3.org In one of the "news articles": Yeah, right.

Unlikely as William is already older than she was when she took the throne. It would probably take for William to die tragically young and for George to live as long as Philip for us to have any chance. The better chance will lie with George's children's generation. I thought it might be interesting to extend this idea with a hypothetical timeframe: The Queen is currentlly 89 and her mum lived to 101. Let's assume she lives for a slightly less long time than her Mum and say she dies in six years' time at 95. In 2021, when she goes, Charles will be 72. Let's assume he also has enough in his tank to reach 95, given the longevity of both his parents (assuming he doesn't abdicate at any point). That takes us to the year 2044, meaning that Prince William will be 62. Asssuming this run of very good luck continues and William also reaches 95 (aided by the advances in medicine we will see by then), George will take the throne in 2077 at the age of 64. Assuming our boy George doesn't turn out to be like Boy George and has children of his own one day, they will presumably also be middle aged by the time they take the throne. Hence, we will really need an untimely death or a scandal to force William or George to abdicate early for a youthful monarch to take the throne again and have any chance of breaking Lizzie's record. The only other very slim possibility would be for George to have a child later in life but the pressure on him to marry and produce "an heir and a spare" early on means this is extremely unlikely too. (The variant on this would be if Prince George was gay or impotent and Charlotte had a child later in life as there would be, initially, less pressure on her to reproduce until George's problem was discovered, leading to a younger niece or nephew taking the throne.) Otherwise, the pattern will just keep repeating of the next in line taking the throne sometime in their 60s or 70s, meaning Lizzie's record will remain unassailable until something calamitous happens leading to the early death or abdication of a monarch to push a younger person onto the throne. The Queen will never abdicate, but that doesn't mean her successors will take the same view. I could easily imagine our future monarchs following the example of the Dutch and allowing the monarch to enjoy retirement.

It doesn't actually say that, though. No cause of death is given.

But is he interesting enough? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa????? Damn right he is!! He is part of my childhood with his brilliant comedic stories/monologues. Shame on ya toastie, shame on ya!!!!!! You misunderstand. I mean no reflection on his entertainment value. No, I just think that there are far too many topics here, many overlapping. I feel that most individuals only justify their own topic if they are regularly newsworthy, or if they are known to be chronically or terminally ill. Thus the Royals are worth following because they are always in the news. People who lead somewhat self-destructive lifestyles, eg Gazza. Just being famous isn't enough - there needs to be guaranteed traffic, otherwise the thread stagnates and gets forgotten.

This one? Although I am a compulsive charity shop browser, I've never seen it. But I'll keep an eye out for it.