Skip to main content

Forget the Queen, I have more birthdays

Apparently this is the Queen's Official Birthday
As I am a mild republican on the quiet (I don't want them all taken out and shot, but I am very doubtful of the benefits of paying for a royal family, even more doubtful about the benefits of having Prince Charles become king, and feel it's time we liquidated most of the royal estates) I won't be celebrating the Queen's diamond jubilee over the next few days. I will just enjoy muttering 'Bah humbug,' and taking potshots at bunting. But I thought I would put up a post that mentioned herself.

One of the oddities about the Queen is that she has two birthdays. This isn't due to some biological peculiarity from inbreeding, but for some reason she has a separate 'official birthday'. (Don't ask.) Funnily, in this age of e-presence I suspect more and more of us will be like the Queen in this respect.

This occurred to me when that excellent living typo Peet Morris congratulated me on my birthday on a day that, well, wasn't my birthday. This reflects an intentional casualness I have about my date of birth online. I am profligate with my dates of birth. The only rule is that none of them is correct. We all know that date of birth is one of the ways financial institutions and others try to make sure they've got the real you - so it seems best not to broadcast your birthday this way if you want to avoid identity theft. (Actually it's academic, as the only time I've suffered identity theft so far they used totally random dates of birth and it wasn't picked up. But hey.)

So you will find, for instance, that on Goodreads I was born on April 1, 1959. I have no idea where it got this date from - it's not the date I put in, but I rather liked it when it came up, so I stuck with it. In the 'Rochdale Hall of Fame' (don't laugh) which I proudly share with the likes of Gracie Fields and Anna Friel, I was apparently born on March 22, 1955 (closer but no cigar). And Wikipedia (I must do something about that photograph - I don't know who put it up, but it's terrible) accurately but coyly places me in 1955. I can think of at least three other dates I've used, though I'm not quite sure where they are.

So move over, Mrs Windsor. Two birthdays? Pah! That's nothing.


Photo from Wikipedia
Labels:

Comments

  1. Craig Marsden1 June 2012 at 11:08

    Whilst also a republican I am somewhat patriotic, and even though I may not support the monarchy I am certainly proud of my green and pleasant land. However, I am a little concerned that this article is merely a gently veiled plea for more birthday presents!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg1 June 2012 at 12:13

    I honestly hadn't thought of birthday presents, Craig!

    I too am patriotric and very supportive of my country - but as France dramatically demonstrates, it is perfectly possible do this without a monarchy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more