News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
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.)
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of Great Britain, which resulted from the union of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707, was superseded in 1801 by the United Kingdom, which incorporated the Kingdom of Ireland.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.)

However, I don’t think any of this is relevant to the wording of the agreement, which is surely nothing more than a mistake. And regardless of what may happen in the future, the agreement’s authors would have had no reason to refer to Charles by anything other than his current title.
 
Last edited:

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
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?"
Yep you did. Safe travels!


and

 

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
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?
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.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
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?
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.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
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.
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!).
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom