Toast

Feeding him raw tripe should cure it.

No. Threads like this are for recording events, not for "fun". If you want to create a prediction or sweepstake thread or some other competition, put it in the Deadpools forum.

Just when you think things can't possibly get any worse .....

Thank you. I was thinking Haddock

@time How is Hadoke pronounced, do you know?

Not if they weren't working Royals, as I suggested. Anyway there are plenty of embarrassing in-laws to be found around the RF.

He's right though. If you read past the snideness in the article, his point is clear.

Not for me. I've always thought Camilla seemed like a good sort, and that it was a shame that Charles didn't marry her way back when. It was a different time when the old traditional Royals controlled things, and they had fixed ideas about who Charles should marry. I never had much time for Diana, and I'm glad that Charles and Camilla were finally able to get together as they are clearly soul-mates. As for Harry, he's a typical "spare". He would probably have been all right if Chelsey Wossname had accepted him and they had been allowed to retreat into the background. She understandably never wanted to be part of the royal circus and was honest enough to walk away before any commitment was made.

What's your problem with that? She has five grandchildren, I think. She has a son and a daughter who have children.

It could be a noun, but it would only need to be capitalised if it were a proper noun. Unless it's German.

As for the first option, does it not depend on the number of fucks? If a singular fuck, it would be "for fuck's sake". If more than one fuck, then "for fucks' sake".

Why? It's not as though he's his so

How very different from the home life of our dear Queen.

I'd say she's just pissed off with being pestered by twats who think they're entitled to swarm all over her and demand selfies.

May I take this opportunity to remind whoever runs the next pool to rope off the first few posts so that they can be used for Lists of picks List of players & their picks Scoreboard Then everything will be on the front page and we won't need to go searching. No reason why the thread couldn't be started now, in fact. The details can be filled in as and when.

It was the first King Charles who was beheaded. But if they were bothered about that, he wouldn't have been named Charles in the first place. Like I said, all the Royal names have baggage. You'd think they'd have steered clear of Edward because of the abdication, but they didn't.

It all seems to have come from one throwaway comment years ago. Every so often it gets repeated, which doesn't mean there was ever any substance to it. I've never seen it said anywhere that Charles would prefer one of his middle names per se, just the George VII thing. That article says "four of the past six monarchs have adopted different titles" which is wrong, it's only three as I listed above. They are probably thinking of Edward VIII, who went by one of his other given names (David) but Edward was his first given name, so it's actually the reverse. Anyway I think it's even less likely that he would use George now that he has a grandson named George. It would be like stealing his name. I'm sure William & Kate chose George because there hadn't been a George in the family for a while.

Let the impatient folks jeer, this is truly a fascinating format for a deadpool.

But why wouldn't he reign in his own name? As the Queen said on her accession when asked about her regnal name: "My own, of course." It's very rare that an English monarch hasn't used their own first name. The three that did choose another name all had a specific reason. Victoria was named Alexandrina after her godfather Tsar Alexander I, but she always preferred her second given name Victoria. Edward VII did not want to reign in his given first name of Albert, out of respect for his father. Unlike his mother, he felt the name should stand alone. George VI (another Albert) chose George to give a sense of continuity following the upheaval of the Abdication. (So Charles calling himself George to "pay tribute to his grandfather" doesn't really work.) There's nothing wrong with Charles as a name. The Queen would not have chosen it otherwise. All royal names come with some sort of baggage.

Then there was the time the West Ham player Julian Dicks sustained an injury and the back page of the Sun loudly proclaimed

I must say Sooty and Sweep seem to be in cracking good nick for their age. Reckon they've been at the Botox?

@ "the tricycle hoax".

Surely somewhere there is some inoffensive person named Colston to whom the dedication could be transferred. Or the landlord could change his own name to Colston