New K&C Ranges (1 Viewer)

[OzDigger]

OZ,

There were a few good lookers on Dr Who.

Hey AM, are you suggesting I chose those five based on looks alone

Guilty as charged, just call me Shallow Oz

 

[Currahee Chris]

OK, if you guys want wacky, what about a Dr Who companion range

Here's my top 5 list:
Zoe Heriot (Wendy Padbury) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Heriot

Sarah Jane Smith (Elizabeth Sladen) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Smith

Leela (Louise Jameson) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leela_(Doctor_Who)

Romana II (Lalla Ward) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romana_I#Romana_I

Rose Tyler (Billie Piper) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Tyler

Leela was definately my kind of lass!! - I did put an L in front of that right??

Romana was always so stuffy and weird in the head- she was married to Tom Baker for awhile. Sarah Jane was certainly cute but my favorite might be the one woman from the original launch- Barbara- something about that bun hairstyle from the 60's- I still think it looks great on women.

 

[Spitfrnd]

OZ,

There were a few good lookers on Dr Who.

Funny, I was thinking of that range too. Billie Piper was my favorite Rose. Spoiled it for me when she left the new adventures.

 

[maddadicus]

Funny, I was thinking of that range too. Billie Piper was my favorite Rose. Spoiled it for me when she left the new adventures.

After a while, her voice started to drive me nuts...had a shrill tone to it. I liked the black actress and felt her time on the show was too short. Not sure of the latest companion...seems to have way too much social indignation and makes the Doctor way too weak...Just my thoughts, but since this is a K/C thread....Polystone Tardis #DW001..Michael

 

[theBaron]

All right, now we're geekin' it up with Dr. Who trivia, wicked!

Have you all seen this, the SciFi Channel is launching a series based on Sarah Jane Smith, TheSarah Jane Adventures, starring Elisabeth Sladen? Here's a link to their promo page:

http://www.scifi.com/sarahjaneadventures/

I think the latest incarnation of the series has remained true to the earlier versions. I was skeptical, at first, because I had watched the Tom Baker series as a kid, so for me, he was the Doctor. But I enjoyed both of the new Doctors, Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant; I think they each brought a different outlook to the character, and played him accordingly.

And Rose is a babe!

Too bad they didn't revive the characters of Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart and Sergeant Benton, though...

Prosit!
Brad

 

[Louis Badolato]

All right, now we're geekin' it up with Dr. Who trivia, wicked!

Have you all seen this, the SciFi Channel is launching a series based on Sarah Jane Smith, TheSarah Jane Adventures, starring Elisabeth Sladen? Here's a link to their promo page:

http://www.scifi.com/sarahjaneadventures/

I think the latest incarnation of the series has remained true to the earlier versions. I was skeptical, at first, because I had watched the Tom Baker series as a kid, so for me, he was the Doctor. But I enjoyed both of the new Doctors, Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant; I think they each brought a different outlook to the character, and played him accordingly.

And Rose is a babe!

Too bad they didn't revive the characters of Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart and Sergeant Benton, though...

Prosit!
Brad

Brad,

I also watched the original, and loved the new series. My favorite episodes from the new series were the two parter on the Battle of Britain, where at the end the Doctor gets the nanobots to save the little boy who had been looking for his mommy, and everyone else as well. "Just this once, everybody lives!"

 

[chalklands]

Feeling solumn tonight.
Would a series based around the wreath laying ceremony at the Cenotaph in London be too far fetched? Seems to me that it would be a sombre 'foil' to the Leibstandarte range.

Nah, would never sell. Or has it already been done?




The Queen; senior members of the Royal Family attending in military uniform; the Prime Minister; the leaders of the major political parties from all parts of the United Kingdom; Commonwealth High Commissioners to London, on behalf of their respective nations; the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the British Dependencies; the Chief of the Defence Staff; the First Sea Lord; the Chief of the General Staff; the Chief of the Air Staff; representatives of the merchant navy and Fishing Fleets and the merchant air service............... British Army , Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, Royal Marines...........

 

[marco55]

How come the British Navy,Marines,and Air Force are Royal but the Army is not.It has a glorious past and traditions.
Mark

 

[chalklands]

I think I listed the Army first!
Apologise for my ponderings, just watched one of the final episodes of the 'World at War' and it just struck me that's all. I'm sure it would not just stop at the British Army, RAF, RN ...... US Army, US Airforce, Free French etc etc etc.... I'm sure other nations hold similar ceremonies.

 

[chalklands]

How come the British Navy,Marines,and Air Force are Royal but the Army is not.It has a glorious past and traditions.
Mark

Sorry, misread your post! I have to admit I'm not sure why it's not the 'Royal Army'. It does of course have a 'glorious past and traditions'. I'm sure other more learned (than me) members of this forum would know the answer? Maybe because Army Regiments have their own individual titles?

 

[Mister Dave]

I too am no expert in this matter, though it seems that the Royal distinction is on a unit level basis in the British Army, i.e. Queens Own Cameron Highlanders, Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch), Royal Scots, etc....and these traditionally were distinguished by blue uniform facings. I am sure somebody else can elaborate on this a bit?

MD

 

[thebritfarmer]

How come the British Navy,Marines,and Air Force are Royal but the Army is not.It has a glorious past and traditions.
Mark

From what I can decipher it is because the professional army is descended from Cromwell's New Model Army during the Civil War. It could hardly be called the "Royal Army" now when it was fighting the Royalists then.

 

[JPB]

So any news or gossip of what the 2 new ranges will be?

JP

 

[Molloy]

How come the British Navy,Marines,and Air Force are Royal but the Army is not.It has a glorious past and traditions.
Mark

Hi Mark,

Just to further the excellent responses from some of the other forum members, yes, the reason why the British Army alone of the the UK's armed service branches specifically doesn't have the word "Royal" in its title is because it traces its roots back to a number of different units, not all of which originally owed allegiance or fealty to the British monarchy.

As a professional, permanently standing military force, the modern British Army is reckoned to draw its origin from the "New Model Army" created by Parliament in 1645, during the English Civil War. As has been pointed out by the Britfarmer below, far from being merely a body which didn't owe specific loyalty to the monarch, this was a force which was explicitly anti-monarchy, fighting as it did on the side of Parliament during that conflict. Therefore, to include the word "Royal" in the title of such an organisation, or any subsequent development of it, would be somewhat inappropriate. Nowdays, of course, that's largely an historical irrelevancy, but the distinction still remains, and is likely to stay unchanged.

Later, after the restoration of the British monarchy in the 1660's, various other military units, some of which had remained loyal to the monarchy, were subsumed into this new organisation - hence the reason why certain individual sub-units of the British Army are granted the "Royal" moniker in their titles. Other corps and regiments have subsequently earned the title for long service, valour etc, or were founded after the Restoration.

An example of the modern lingering effects of this history can be seen in the respective order of precedence of the infantry regiments of the Guards Division. The Grenadier Guards still retain their position as the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards, despite the fact the 2nd Regiment of Foot Guards (the Coldstream Guards) were chronologically founded before the 1st (1650 as opposed to 1656). The distinction is made because the Coldstreamers sided with Parliament, whilst the Grenadier Guards (although that title wouldn't be used until earned at Waterloo more than a century later) remained loyal to the monarchy and accompanied Charles II into exile. To see first hand the "friendly" rivalry that still ensues from this past, check out the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLJOVK9MJwo&feature=related

This is just one example of the huge volume of traditions and heritage associated with the British Army - it's an aspect of military history that constantly fascinates me. There's definitely a book waiting to be written about this stuff!

Anyway, hope this is of some help to you.

Cheers,

Molloy.

 

[marco55]

Thank guys,
I've always found the British Army very interesting.It's an Army like no other and you should be very proud of it.We Yanks always think of the Revolution and War of 1812 but forget that many British soldiers have died defending Americans.My hats off to you.
Mark

 

[damian]

The Brits are an amazing bunch. They have all these really interesting traditions. For example in the UK surgeons are always called Mr and not Dr. In the States and Canada they are called Dr. The reason is that originally surgeons were part of the guild of Barber Surgeons. James IV of Scotland formed the college of Barber Surgeons 500 years ago in Edinburgh. He was a very educated monarch for the time. The Royal College of Surgeons and teh guild of Barbers formaly dissaciated sometime in teh 19 the century. However they mantain very cordial relationships and have acombined annual dinner in Edinburgh. The Guild of physicians (internists) despised the surgoens as poorly educated rough and ready chaps who weere only good for draining abscesses and pulling teeth and doing haircuts. This despite the fact that all the physicians at the time could do was examine urine and give you mercury. As an aside it still seems that that is all they can do today. So the College of Physicians which was formed after the College of Surgeons would not refer to surgeons as Dr. The College of Surgoens was aslo given a royal charter long before the physicias. So to this day in the UK and the commonwealth a surgeon is referred to proudly as Mr '..... whilst a physician is referred to as Dr....
As Molloy pointed out the Coldstream Gaurds are the 2nd Battalion. There motto is Nulli Secundus which means Second to None. So they themselves never ever use the apellation Second.

Regards
Damian

 

[wadepat]

Hi Damian,

That is really interesting information! I wondered why you corrected persons when they addressed you as Dr. rather than Mr. Now, it all makes sense to me. Thanks for the insightful information!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat