In article , invalid@invalid
invalid (asdf) wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:58 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:

but perhaps the reason for King's court not sticking is
that it's a bloody stupid name for a sponsor, being so generic
and commonplace. Wouldn't William IV court have been more likely to

last?

Since they were just starting a 63-year Queen's reign that might
not have been seen in that light?

Do you think it's likely their decision was influenced by the fact
that a Queen was about to reign for 63 years?

Who knows? What I don't know was when the "King's Court" designation
ceased to be used regularly. It may well have been late in the 19th
century.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:

Since they were just starting a 63-year Queen's reign that might
not have been seen in that light?

Do you think it's likely their decision was influenced by the fact
that a Queen was about to reign for 63 years?

Who knows?

You, if you think about it for a minute...