MrPromey
Well-Known Member
forgot it was fiberglass - my bad.LOL yes agreed. Only one correction, Josh does not have bedhead - he wakes up with the perfect hair each and every day
forgot it was fiberglass - my bad.LOL yes agreed. Only one correction, Josh does not have bedhead - he wakes up with the perfect hair each and every day
The Kingdom of Great Britain, which resulted from the union of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707, was superseded in 1801 by the United Kingdom, which incorporated the Kingdom of Ireland. Should Scotland leave the UK, the UK itself would remain intact (albeit reduced) as the United Kingdom of England (as opposed to Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. It would take the loss of Northern Ireland too for the UK to cease to exist. (It’s also worth noting that an independent Scotland may well opt to remain a monarchy sharing the same sovereign as England, as had been the arrangement between 1603 and 1707.)Al
Also, might the choice of "King of England" vs "King of Great Britain" have been a hedge against the possibility of Scottish independence? (The UK would be different after that, but England will always be England.)
Yep you did. Safe travels!I'm on a plane rn, then Starcruiser for a couple days. But I think I talked about it here, like "Why are they doing this, now?"
Now we know why.I'm on a plane rn, then Starcruiser for a couple days. But I think I talked about it here, like "Why are they doing this, now?"
Meanwhile, Jeff (Vahle), just continues on his merry way, innocent and behind the scenes keeping all the wheels turning. Somehow I picture him whistling silently, zip-a-dee-doo-dah...LOL yes agreed. Only one correction, Josh does not have bedhead - he wakes up with the perfect hair each and every day
One of the board members said today that they were surprised Disney didn’t put up more of a fuss, and this explains why.It really does now all seem to make sense. Disney must be slightly amazed that it took the new board this long to find this out, especially given it was all public.
I'm guessing the previous version didn't have it as iron clad in how long the agreement was for. This new version sounds like it sealed it up as tight as the Marvel/Universal Agreement.Like, the thing where they granted approval to build more theme parks, water parks, and hotels. Why, if that was already part of the comprehensive plan, did they need to do that on some random winter Tuesday?
The mouse had a card up his sleeve!One of the board members said today that they were surprised Disney didn’t put up more of a fuss, and this explains why.
If this holds, they really do have the best of both worlds for the next 30 years.One of the board members said today that they were surprised Disney didn’t put up more of a fuss, and this explains why.
I thought they were only building DVC towers from here on out?Jokes on Disney in the end though because lord knows they’re never actually going to build more theme parks in Orlando.
A whole deckThe mouse had a card up his sleeve!
Indeed. I take back much of my harsh criticism of Disney’s inaction from a few weeks ago (though I still would have preferred them to fight this out as a matter of principle).It really does now all seem to make sense. Disney must be slightly amazed that it took the new board this long to find this out, especially given it was all public.
Time for your buddy Jim to go digging and reach out to his contacts.I have a feeling there are stories here that won't be told until after most of the participants are dead.
I just see it as protecting copyright/trademark. They're tight about who and how they use Mickey and other characters. It only makes sense to protect their owned property.From the article:
Among other things, the agreement spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.
Is this intended as trolling? Doesn’t such obvious mockery (I assume that’s what it is) weaken Disney’s case if the agreement is challenged in court?
If you're a business, doing things strictly for principle is a great way to lose your shirt - especially to your own shareholders.Indeed. I take back much of my harsh criticism of Disney’s inaction from a few weeks ago (though I still would have preferred them to fight this out as a matter of principle).
I was referring to the invocation of Charles III, but that’s been amply explained (as you’ll see as you continue your way though the thread, which is fast growing!).I just see it as protecting copyright/trademark. They're tight about who and how they use Mickey and other characters. It only makes sense to protect their owned property.
Queen Elizabeth was often referred to as Elizabeth II of England. It’s not a gotcha. It’s irrelevant.But they used it as if it was his title.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.