Would you call your new baby boy 'Louis'?

Soldato
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,518
Location
London
I'm sorry but this is just unacceptable.

I can only speak for my view, and colour me eccentric and out of step, but in my off the wall mind, although I know, and totally accept that the grammatical way of saying this is, “ I COULDN’T care less”, to whacky, far out me, “I COULD care less”, seems to reinforce the fact that I couldn’t give a dozen rats posteriors.
I apologise if it upsets British minds, but there is a small part of my DNA which isn’t British, this prompts me to occasionally go outside the tent, and **** in, I hope that this is understandable, if not totally acceptable.
 
Associate
Joined
11 Aug 2011
Posts
660
I can confidently answer no as Louis was on the wife's name shortlist for our son, who is now 15 months old.

I didn't like the name so it was struck off the list.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,160
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I can only speak for my view, and colour me eccentric and out of step, but in my off the wall mind, although I know, and totally accept that the grammatical way of saying this is, “ I COULDN’T care less”, to whacky, far out me, “I COULD care less”, seems to reinforce the fact that I couldn’t give a dozen rats posteriors.
I apologise if it upsets British minds, but there is a small part of my DNA which isn’t British, this prompts me to occasionally go outside the tent, and **** in, I hope that this is understandable, if not totally acceptable.

It's understandable, yes, but it's objectively wrong and makes you look silly. It has nothing to do with being British. You don't have to be British to understand English. Stating that you could care less is stating that you do care to some unspecified extent. That's not about grammar. It's about meaning. "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are both grammatically correct - the point is that they have completely different meanings. The former states that you do care. The extent to which you care is unspecified, but you are explicitly stating that you do care. The latter states that you don't care at all. When you use the former and mean the latter, you are wrong. It's not about grammar. It's about meaning.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
21,968
Location
London
On this whole "anti-royal" nonsense:

I have lived in a few countries, some with royal families, some without, and I wouldn't give up the royals for the world. They really do bring a sense of occasion on many occasions and the tourism pull is un-neglectable.

If you're incapable of seeing the benefits they bring to the country then go move to a country without royals.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,361
I forgot majority on here are all english and love the royals.

Only the protestants in Scotland like the royals. Everyone else hates them.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
7,095
Location
Shropshire
I forgot majority on here are all english and love the royals.

Only the protestants in Scotland like the royals. Everyone else hates them.


When you make sweeping statements like that with no reference to the source of what I can only assume is a personal opinion of highly dubious stature, it confirms the suitability of your forum name ;) Why you also "forgot" that the majority on a British forum are English is another very odd thing to say....
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Posts
11,533
Before then, it was stolen... in the 5th century by the English conquerors
I believe we were in fact cordially invited... by the Romans, to defend their citizens and all the local non-citizen residents against raiding Vikings, Celts, Picts and so on... We were fairly well-received and welcome to stay, as we brought aong nice concepts like fortified burghs and compulsory education.... I believe...
Various schollars have pointed out that the adoption of Anglo-Saxon language, culture and customs spread across the land far faster than any conquering army (which was pretty small in those days) would have been able to enforce, thus arguing for a fairly peaceful migration rather than an invasion. :)

"Vee vere invited. Check viz Polandt!"


Only the protestants in Scotland like the royals. Everyone else hates them.
Not that many people seemed to mind when the King of Scotland also inherited the English throne... :p
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,160
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I believe we were in fact cordially invited... by the Romans, to defend their citizens and all the local non-citizen residents against raiding Vikings, Celts, Picts and so on... We were fairly well-received and welcome to stay, as we brought aong nice concepts like fortified burghs and compulsory education.... I believe...
Various schollars have pointed out that the adoption of Anglo-Saxon language, culture and customs spread across the land far faster than any conquering army (which was pretty small in those days) would have been able to enforce, thus arguing for a fairly peaceful migration rather than an invasion. :)

"Vee vere invited. Check viz Polandt!" [..]

It was claimed several centuries later that some Germanic mercenaries (Hengist and Horsa) were invited over for that purpose and paid to fight against the Picts...and then turned on their employer and took almost all of Britannia because they could. The very fact that the Romano-Britons needed mercenaries to protect them proved that they couldn't protect themselves, so why not take it all? A rich land and a power vacuum. The sources are a bit dubious in terms of accuracy, but they're all we have for the early medieval period and that part of the story is very plausible.

It does seem that most of the conquest was done by migration. I think the most likely method would be a hostile takeover at the top (which would have been violent) combined with enough migration to create sufficient numbers for a ruling class and cultural conquest, combined with decent rule and a much worse alternative looming on the horizon. Britons would then have Anglicised for the same reason that their ancestors (and many other conquered people) Romanised. Outright force wouldn't have been necessary for that, for the actual conquest, only for the initial taking of enough power to start the actual conquest. Conquest is always political and cultural - military force alone can only attain occupation at most.

The land that became England wasn't given to the Angles/Saxons/Jutes. It was taken by them. There's good evidence that they took it with relatively little violence, but they took it.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2008
Posts
9,828
Location
Warrington
Nothing like arguing facts by simply saying you don't believe in them! :D

The Royal Family bring in more money than they take, it's that simple.

I won't even pretend to know about the finances of the Royal Family, but I hasten to add that I am not their biggest fan.

However, what grinds my gears a bit is the following:

Prince Harry: Went to Eton and got two A Levels, a B in Art and a D in geography, having dropped history. Then a few more years down the line is an Apache Pilot.

I'm pretty sure common Bob off the street with two A levels, a B in Art and a D in geography, having dropped history, would also stand a good chance of becoming an Apache Pilot...
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2008
Posts
10,065
Location
Stoke area
I won't even pretend to know about the finances of the Royal Family, but I hasten to add that I am not their biggest fan.

However, what grinds my gears a bit is the following:

Prince Harry: Went to Eton and got two A Levels, a B in Art and a D in geography, having dropped history. Then a few more years down the line is an Apache Pilot.

I'm pretty sure common Bob off the street with two A levels, a B in Art and a D in geography, having dropped history, would also stand a good chance of becoming an Apache Pilot...

Yeah, that really annoyed me. I turned down an RAF pilot scholarship when I was 18 for my now wife, something I've always regretted.

Later in life, I wanted to rejoin but was too old for the pilot scheme so I looked at the army. I could be an army helicopter pilot, but I'd have to go in via Logistics due to my age and work experience and then try and move over to pilot but it'd be a hard move as normally you go in as a pilot and can't transfer over it. A week later, Harry did just that.

Yes, they get special treatment, but, they are effectively always on duty, always in the public eye and at least they served.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
7,095
Location
Shropshire
I won't even pretend to know about the finances of the Royal Family, but I hasten to add that I am not their biggest fan.

However, what grinds my gears a bit is the following:

Prince Harry: Went to Eton and got two A Levels, a B in Art and a D in geography, having dropped history. Then a few more years down the line is an Apache Pilot.

I'm pretty sure common Bob off the street with two A levels, a B in Art and a D in geography, having dropped history, would also stand a good chance of becoming an Apache Pilot...


Life will be far more relaxed once you realise that A: Life is not fair, and B: He's not "Bob down the street"

Seeking the nirvana of equality and justice is a frustrating road to take ;)

There may be a grain of consolation in today's papers for you where some ex academic is spouting forth the desire for businesses to treat ex Eton pupils more critically and less favourably in the job market than those from Slopton-in-the-Slush Comprehensive ;) I feel his pleas will fall on deaf ears however...
 
Top Bottom