The Power of One
The Ocean's Surpri
The last mile is c
This was going wel
The Most Deserving
that's not a unico
The Merge
The Marooning
Sinister
they too me home a

An example of lewd
Lewd conduct inclu
The Sole Survivor
The Tides are Turn
The Twist
The Underdogs
The Winds Twist
The Young and Untr
Thy Name is Duplic
Too Little, Too La
<<      >>
The Princess Lulu" (1919) by George Bernard Shaw The only "princess" in the movie is Princess Lulu (Margaret Dumont). Lulu is not, however, a princess in the sense used by the song. Dennis Farina: "Sophie's Choice" (1982) by William Styron The only prince in the movie is Sophie's own son (Alexandra Paul), who was forced to divorce her to claim the British crown. A: You may be confusing "princes" and "princelings". Princess Lulu was a character created by George Bernard Shaw. There are other "princes" in the movie; The Prince Regent played by Kenneth More, the young prince played by William Russell, and his advisor, Mr. Higgins, played by Derek Farr. All three princes are princes of the realm, while a princes' sons would not necessarily be princes. Princes are of noble blood, have noble titles, and are entitled to a place of privilege in the nobility. Prince Albert (William Edward Farel), the Duke of York, is the son of the Queen. The title "Prince of Wales" comes with the crown; the only other person who bears this title is Charles, the Prince of Wales. There are other people in the kingdom whose sons hold royal status, but they don't necessarily have princes' titles. The Prince Regent (King of England) in England has no title to speak of. Prince Albert's two brothers, Duke Arthur and Duke Frederick, and his nephew, His Highness The Prince Frederick, (not to be confused with the Crown Prince) don't have a title, but they are princes. The princeling can refer to the son of a duke, prince or other person of noble blood, such as Princess Lulu's son (Spencer Selwyn). A: In a comment to the question, BrianBrumage pointed out this very interesting answer from a user with the username bryanjoshuas on the site Literature, where the OP was asking about the expression "princes in the wind": [...] is there any historical basis for this, or is this just the author's poetic licence? Bryanjoshuas: This comes from Shakespeare’s Pericles, where he has a song that he calls "The Prince’s in the wind, how sweet the while," meaning a moment’s happiness. He has a character call out "O, where is this old Bohemian? He told me once, a prince in his life would make him four-and-twenty, seven." BrianBrumage: It’s a line repeated by one character to another, that is a way of saying, 'wow, that guy’s got it made.' But what it might mean is that you’re glad you’re not a prince, because it's not always that way. That line could mean, "I'm glad I'm not a prince, because if I was I might be dead." Or, "O look at that guy, he's made it, and I'm not happy." But it's really a matter of interpretation. Here's the entire exchange: Cathy: Hi, so this is a question I've been wondering about a long time... and not sure if anyone knows, but is there any historical basis for this, or is this just the author's poetic licence? [...] Bryanjoshuas: This comes from Shakespeare’s Pericles, where he has a song that he calls "The Prince’s in the wind, how sweet the while," meaning a moment’s happiness. He has a character call out "O, where is this old Bohemian? He told me once, a prince in his life would make him four-and-twenty, seven." BrianBrumage: It’s a line repeated by one character to another, that is a way of saying, 'wow, that guy’s got it made.' But what it might mean is that you’re glad you’re not a prince, because it's not always that way. That line could mean, "I'm glad I'm not a prince, because if I was I might be dead." Or, "O look at that guy, he's made it, and I'm not happy." But it's really a matter of interpretation. A: It is likely that she meant princes in the wind, which is a way of saying that something is "right". The Wikipedia article "Princes in the Wind" is worth reading if you're unsure what it means. The author includes this quotation: Prince's in the wind, how sweet the while. A jest's prosperity lies in the ear Of him that hears it; I have writ my part In a book, every word may be thought upon; If your fine wit think it any groat, 390 You will not stick to spend a sou or two To buy the reader a good roasting-fire. The most important sentence is the last, where the author says that if you are witty enough, you will buy your readers (who are presumably your readers because they have just paid for you to tell them about a joke), "a roasting-fire". The last words on the page of a book can be worth a lot, especially when they are made by an expert. A roasting-fire (a term used by Shakespeare, too) is also explained here: a book that has been printed and published is a Roast Fork, it is as good as burnt and may be bought by any one. I have found no evidence that either Shakespeare or Webster had any ideas about royalty in their work. I think it was just a way of saying something good about the book. If I understand your last paragraph correctly, I think I have found the book which mentions princes in the wind. From The Life and Character of Thomas Otway, Esq. Mr Otway was at that time the first rising dramatist of his time; and wrote first to please himself, and succeeded so well, that his plays were much admired by the best judges in the age. The only objection to them was, that he seemed to take so much delight in writing things to expose the weakness of the times, as to be generally called a satyr. But here, as well as elsewhere, he was a good hand at the game. To show his genius in a point of wit, that would do him no honour now-a-days: but then it was of use to him: he makes two ladies boast of a book one of them is reading, the other is admiring, and both are sighing, that it is something better than it is. One says to the other, I believe they have put the preface out of the book, it is worth more than all the verses. "No, it's something better: 'tis a book that has been printed and published, it is as good as burnt and may be bought by any body." At the same time a little satyr of a comedy was brought upon the stage, a satyr that shews the foibles of the times, and shows the reader how vain it is to attempt to set bounds to their rage and pleasures. It happened that the very day this comedy was acted, there was a person well known to him, who came to visit him, and could not forbear making some reflections on the authors, because it seemed to him that it would have been more modest, to have said no more than that the piece was good for nothing. So he is saying it was the best thing to do at the time, since he was going to have a play called "The Prince's in the Wind" later. We have no record of him ever writing about princes in the wind.