Saturday, November 19, 2011

Saturday Statuary - I Can See Your House From Up Here

One of many King Georges (I can never be bothered to find out which but there have been way too many of the buggers) attempts nonchalance while sticking a sword in his foot.
One of a series of spectacularly dumb statues dotted around Westminster.

10 comments:

Speedway said...

All over the world people mistakenly assume that toothpicks with fluffy cellophane on the end was fashioned after picadors' lances.

Not so. George the Inane forever became known as the "King Who Practiced Self-Hors d'Oeurve-ation" when he stabbed himself in the foot with his fluffy-hilted sword.

TAH-DAH!

(Is that weird enough?)

PS: I know some people who could polish him up a bit, if you like.

Vanda said...

Was that the one with the stutter or the womanizer? I can't keep them straight.

savannah said...

I hear, "La Di Dah, darlings!" From the statue, of course, not you, sugar! ;) xooxoxo

dive said...

That's far better then the truth, Speedway. And no thank you; we don't want any royals polishing. The sooner they tarnish and rot the better for everyone.

Vanda, they were all madder than a chocolate sunhat so it really matters not a jot which one it was. The only royal worth remembering is Edward the Second and only because he died with a red hot poker stuck up his bottom. That should have set a precedent for how we treat anyone who feels themselves entitled to rule over others.

Hee hee, Savannah. I'm just waiting for the plane trees to grow another ten feet so we don't have to look at him any more. xoxoxox

Petrea Burchard said...

Why do all the British monarchs have to name themselves the same as all the other British monarchs? It's hard to keep them all organized in my head, even if they did number themselves.

Ms M said...

With scenes like these it's easy to see why the Pythons never lacked for inspiration...

Like Petrea, I also wonder why the monarchs kept naming themselves after each other. Imagination must not have been the highest priority. But I guess they couldn't risk having a King Delbert or King Justin, or Prince Monty.

dive said...

Petrea and Ms.M., you both raise a very valid point. European royals have for centuries been one very small and horrifyingly inbred family with the result that they have no imagination whatsoever.
Had they a few more genes between them they might have achieved the glories that inbred communities in, say, the Appalachians have reached, and we would have been able to enjoy monarchs resplendent with such names as Bobbi-Sue and Cletus, with mullet hair-dos instead of those dull old wigs.
It wasn't always this bad; back in Saxon times we had a Queen Ethelburger and of course King Cnut the anagramatically challenged.
Since then it's been downhill all the way.

Thank you for the Python giggle, Ms.M. Yes, I can quite imagine what Terry Gilliam (one of America's greatest exports) might have done with this image. Hee hee.

Petrea Burchard said...

Funny stuff, Dive. Perhaps the young royal couple will name their first-born Jim-Bob I.

And yes, we should be proud of our genius Terry. We share him, I guess. Don't get me started on "Brazil." It's in my top 5.

Ms M said...

You're so good, Dive -- Queen Bobbi-Sue, King Cletus.... I'm also taken by (the genuine) Queen Ethelburger and King Cnut. Their names do show some imagination.

Terry Gilliam did such marvelous things with pompous statues.

dive said...

Ooooh, me too, Petrea. I love that movie so much. I dare not watch the DVD more than once a year in case I spoil the impact.

Unfortunately our current royals will never have sufficient synapses to manage a Jim-Bob. We'll no doubt be stuck with another George.

Ms.M. Saxon names were truly weird. We have the Ethelbert gate in Norwich named after King Ethelbert; it would be too much to hope for that his parents were named Ethel and Bert.