To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Cookies may be used for personalisation of ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Posted by 
You do realize that 4 of the original 8 had royalty associated with their names right ?
What an indictment of the IPL.
What are us dyed-in-the wool Royals fansto do now?
Also, I’m fairly sure that being offered the throne as a practical joke is also acceptable.
Spells doom for the jonny-come-lately, rajasthan bitches of hampshire. Hopefully.
Lalit is putting the boot into the Super Kings – furiously tweeting “All illegal things done by CSK amd its owners have been over looked by BCCI. Why ? Who is running the show. What has Srinivasan got om them” and then a whole barrage of anti royalist re-tweeting. Much fun to be had
So is that actually how it happened? Back in January 2006 I was only 3 years old, so I can claim no recollection of them oldy days. I just assumed that King Cricket became manifest on the Earth fully formed, title and all, causa sui, long before the internet came along. And if it is true, why were you talking in the first person plural even then, if it wasn’t something to do with being royal?
And why was Shahid Afridi in your top ten of cricketers?
Yes, that is how it happened.
We spoke in the first person plural because we were trying to project a style of voice as if our shod were produced by an editorial team. Then about three days in we started talking about ourself and got in a tangle and have regretted it daily every since. (The official line is that it’s the royal ‘we’ though).
Shahid Afridi would still be in our top ten. We absolutely love Shahid Afridi.
When the historians of cricket come to write their sections on peripheral blatherings (twenty-eight volumes) they are going to be mighty disappointed at this prosaic genesis. If I were you, I’d burn those old pages, then invent a decent origins myth –
“At lunch on the third day Cardus got together with Arlott to discuss a plan. They decided that the game of cricket simply couldn’t survive without their style of comments. What they needed was a method of preserving their minds for all eternity, probably in some sort of jar, together with a way of disseminating their thoughts across the whole world. Cardus, attempting to convey the sense of the conversations that go on during cricket practice sessions in his native Manchester, coined the term “In-t’-net” for his system. Only the very best cricket minds would be preserved in the jars, and the comments that they made would be issued as joint statements, indicated by the use throughout of the first person plural…”
See. Much better.
Someone has typed it. It is now true.
Never mind all this cricket bollocks, “bacon and cheese Staffordshire oatcakes” sounds fabulous. Where do you get them from, O King?
As for the demise of the Royals, does that mean that Hampshire can go back to being called the Hawks or whatever they were, leaving the Royals name alone for Worcestershire?
I always thought you were Brian Lara.
How disappointing.
Staffordshire oatcakes can be found in supermarkets as far north as Cheshire, as far south as Staffordshire, as far east as Staffordshire and as far west as Staffordshire.
I can confirm that Staffordfshire oatcakes can be found in Tescos in Stafford. Which is in central Staffordshire.
You can get oatcakes in south Manchester some of which used to be in Cheshre, then was part of Greater Manchester but is now just Manchester. Sometimes it says Lancashire as well in those online address generators but parts of south Manchester used to be in Lancashire but aren’t anymore and Lancashire play at Old Traffod which is in Trafford. I think neither Aigburth, Lytham nor Blackpool are in Lancashre anymore but I don’t know if you can get oatcakes there. You can get them in Cannock which is in Staffordshire.
But you have to add your own filling.