The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Replaces?? Couldn't they have left the others ones in place and put in a special one, rather than combine them?Paul Buswell wrote:Perhaps more importantly, has anyone yet started looking at events to run over the Double-Bank-Holiday Jubilee weekend of Sat 2 to Tues 5 June 2012, which replaces the Bank Holiday weekend of Sat 26 to Mon 28 May 2012.
Paul,Paul Buswell wrote:Perhaps more importantly, has anyone yet started looking at events to run over the Double-Bank-Holiday Jubilee weekend of Sat 2 to Tues 5 June 2012, which replaces the Bank Holiday weekend of Sat 26 to Mon 28 May 2012.
PB
There will be an extra Bank Holiday for HM The Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. There may or may not be an extra Bank Holiday for HRH Prince William's wedding in 2011.Brendan O'Gorman wrote:Paul,Paul Buswell wrote:Perhaps more importantly, has anyone yet started looking at events to run over the Double-Bank-Holiday Jubilee weekend of Sat 2 to Tues 5 June 2012, which replaces the Bank Holiday weekend of Sat 26 to Mon 28 May 2012.
PB
I thought the extra bank holiday was merely an idea that has been floated. What's your source for saying it will replace the end of May bank holiday?
It was announced months ago. And confirmed by any quick google.Brendan O'Gorman wrote: Paul,
I thought the extra bank holiday was merely an idea that has been floated. What's your source for saying it will replace the end of May bank holiday?
These are anti-Royalist sentiments and I shall report you to the Thought Police. My own sentiments on the affair coincide with this essay:Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote:The idea of being in a remote hotel away from all the crap about the wedding sounds like bliss.
I have the opposite opinion. However, I think there is a bit too much fuss being made about the wedding of the person who is only second in line to the throne, and probably won't come to the throne in most people's lifetimes.Arshad Ali wrote:These are anti-Royalist sentiments and I shall report you to the Thought Police. My own sentiments on the affair coincide with this essay:Gareth Harley-Yeo wrote:The idea of being in a remote hotel away from all the crap about the wedding sounds like bliss.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/11/ ... dding.html
Now to scurry away before the Thought Police nab me and throw me in the nick.
Gosh! Do you know something we don't?Alex Holowczak wrote:However, I think there is a bit too much fuss being made about the wedding of the person who is only second in line to the throne, and probably won't come to the throne in most people's lifetimes.
I'm saying that given Queen Elizabeth II is still going strong, aged 80something (and her mother lived to 100), she's probably still got some way to go before her death. She'll be succeeded by Charles as George VII, who is about 25 years younger. So it'll be 30-40 years before William comes to the throne. So that's quite a long time...Sean Hewitt wrote:Gosh! Do you know something we don't?Alex Holowczak wrote:However, I think there is a bit too much fuss being made about the wedding of the person who is only second in line to the throne, and probably won't come to the throne in most people's lifetimes.
The bit about George VII is a bit of a myth, apparently:Alex Holowczak wrote:I'm saying that given Queen Elizabeth II is still going strong, aged 80something (and her mother lived to 100), she's probably still got some way to go before her death. She'll be succeeded by Charles as George VII, who is about 25 years younger. So it'll be 30-40 years before William comes to the throne. So that's quite a long time...
I've heard they may skip a generation. And I've heard that Charles is ambivalent about the throne, considering it a bit of an anachronism, an antiquated relic.Alex Holowczak wrote:I'm saying that given Queen Elizabeth II is still going strong, aged 80something (and her mother lived to 100), she's probably still got some way to go before her death. She'll be succeeded by Charles as George VII, who is about 25 years younger. So it'll be 30-40 years before William comes to the throne. So that's quite a long time...
Good, I'd much rather he came to the throne as Charles III! Personally, I hope they don't abdicate (rather than retire).Christopher Kreuzer wrote:The bit about George VII is a bit of a myth, apparently:Alex Holowczak wrote:I'm saying that given Queen Elizabeth II is still going strong, aged 80something (and her mother lived to 100), she's probably still got some way to go before her death. She'll be succeeded by Charles as George VII, who is about 25 years younger. So it'll be 30-40 years before William comes to the throne. So that's quite a long time...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/2 ... chaelwhite
To be more precise on the ages, Queen Elizabeth II is 84 (her father, George VI, was 30 when she was born, but she succeeded at the age of 25 of when he died in 1952 at the age of 56), Charles is 62 (22 years younger than his mother), and William is 28 (34 years younger than his father). One newspaper article I saw included the suggestion that Charles should step down early, thus starting a trend of "retirement" like that done by the Dutch royal family.
I've heard lots of things too.Arshad Ali wrote:I've heard they may skip a generation. And I've heard that Charles is ambivalent about the throne, considering it a bit of an anachronism, an antiquated relic.Alex Holowczak wrote:I'm saying that given Queen Elizabeth II is still going strong, aged 80something (and her mother lived to 100), she's probably still got some way to go before her death. She'll be succeeded by Charles as George VII, who is about 25 years younger. So it'll be 30-40 years before William comes to the throne. So that's quite a long time...
