On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 01:36:09 UTC, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

Nope, has to be the Thames or rather the Isis unless all his auditors were
Oxfordian too.

cough Oxonian /cough

I rather thought you would have fun with that one.

For what it's worth, and personally I think it's largely an attempt to divine a rule where none is needed, the Penguin Writer's Manual has this to say:

"Traditionally 'shall' was used to form the future tense for the first person singular and plural ('I/we shall go tomorrow') and to state a firm intention if used with any other personal pronoun ('You shall go to the ball'; 'Britons never, never, never shall be slaves'). Conversely 'will' formed the future tense for the second and third person ('You/they will know soon enough') and expressed a firm intention if used with 'I' or 'we' ('I will not put up with this'). This distinction has largely died out, with 'I will' or 'we will' being used in informal usage and the general use of the contraction ''ll', e.g. 'I'll', 'we'll'. 'Shall', however, is needed when asking questions that relate to the immediate situation: 'Shall we dance?' is an invitation to someone to dance now; 'Will we dance?' only makes sense if the speaker is looking ahead to the possibility of dancing at some future event, as in 'Will there be dancing?'"

To my mind, the reliance on stock phrases from pantomime and music hall rather undermines the attempt to justify any hard and fast rule. But hey ho. I shall test you on "may" and "might" next. (Or will I?) :-)
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================