by Elm Park Old Boy » 09 Sep 2009 18:14
by Ian Royal » 09 Sep 2009 18:23
Elm Park Old Boy To answer the original question - no, not by a long way.
'Royals' will do for me (until we change it to 'republicans', and that will be hard to fit int oa decent chant).
I frequently remark at work that I am going to see the mighty Royal at the weekend (but I confess it is a bit tongue in cheek - except for a brief period between about Christmas 2005 and spring 2007).
by Millsy » 09 Sep 2009 18:34
by Terminal Boardom » 09 Sep 2009 19:32
2 world wars, 1 world cup Thanks for a decent thread and discussion FS.
I see exactly what you're saying.
But actually what football fan uses their nickname in casual conversation? it's only ever used by plastics (of any club), the media, and chants.
I'm quite proud of the Royals. It says somethign very important about where we live, and sounds good. Few clubs can say that about their nicknames.
Ours is great. Much better than the biscuitmen.
COME ON YOU ROYALLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
(All we need is an anthem to go with it. The obvious choice would be baed on the national anthem but that seems too flipping obvious for Reading fans grrrrrrrrrr)
by LoyalRoyalFan » 09 Sep 2009 19:41
by From Despair To Where? » 09 Sep 2009 22:00
by Terminal Boardom » 09 Sep 2009 22:07
From Despair To Where? I alway's like Swindon's old nickname, The Moonrakers. Nothing like a nickname to remind you you're an imbred yokel halfwit.
by SLAMMED » 09 Sep 2009 22:13
seahawk10 Royals is safely mid-table. Not the best but certainly not the worst.
Worse than:
Reds
by Sarah Star » 09 Sep 2009 22:28
SLAMMEDseahawk10 Royals is safely mid-table. Not the best but certainly not the worst.
Worse than:
Reds
How is that better than the Royals? Its a fcuking colour.
by leww_rfc » 09 Sep 2009 22:42
by SLAMMED » 09 Sep 2009 22:54
Sarah StarSLAMMEDseahawk10 Royals is safely mid-table. Not the best but certainly not the worst.
Worse than:
Reds
How is that better than the Royals? Its a fcuking colour.
I think he means "Reds" is "Worse than" Royals... and if he doesn't, he damn well should do!
by seahawk10 » 09 Sep 2009 22:58
SLAMMEDSarah StarSLAMMED How is that better than the Royals? Its a fcuking colour.
I think he means "Reds" is "Worse than" Royals... and if he doesn't, he damn well should do!
Well looking at the list of ones that are worse, I think he means that The Royals is 'worse than' reds, etc...
by Compo's Hat » 10 Sep 2009 01:58
handbags_harrisSteveRoyalfloyd__streete Be honest, do you ever refer to the club by our nickname in conversation?
"Are you going to the Royals game Saturday?"
"I see the Royals have signed Jobi McAnuff"
etc.
No, of course you bloody don't.
I do.
My mates do.
The majority off fans do.
Get off your high horse.
One thing you have to understand about the thread starter is that, sometimes, his threads are very tongue in cheek. I think this one falls into that category...
by Rex » 10 Sep 2009 05:02
Ryn Nothing wrong with the Royals.
When was the last time you heard Manchester United referred to as the Red Devils in passing conversation?
by Ryn » 10 Sep 2009 07:48
royalexileRyn Nothing wrong with the Royals.
When was the last time you heard Manchester United referred to as the Red Devils in passing conversation?
There's me thinking they were the prawn sandwich brigadiers now.
by Thaumagurist* » 10 Sep 2009 10:17
Terminal Boardom How many Rovers....are there?
by Row Z Royal » 10 Sep 2009 10:19
Thaumagurist*Terminal Boardom How many Rovers....are there?
I can only think of Blackburn, Doncaster and Shamrock.
by Thaumagurist* » 10 Sep 2009 10:22
Row Z RoyalThaumagurist*Terminal Boardom How many Rovers....are there?
I can only think of Blackburn, Doncaster and Shamrock.
Roy of the.
by Dorset-Knob » 10 Sep 2009 10:37
by Sun Tzu » 10 Sep 2009 10:43
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 124 guests