Yes, it's another round of that classic guessing game - Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, Abstract [or any combination thereof]. This effort - '03/'04 should address any queries, but then again, may just serve to confuse and baffle which some might say is the point of the game. Patience, integrity and a decent search engine may be useful ....
[Dujon] Friend of little people? NO, at least no more or less than anyone else, on average, I would surmise. [Raak] Talking-lion-abuser? NO (I'm pretty sure that would have been mentioned, if she had) [GL] Dead in fiction? NO
[Rosie] On reflection "literary" can be taken by some people to mean "from great works of 'Literature'", although I don't know how one would define them. The AotC is a character from fiction, and I have seen her mentioned as a "literary character", although I wouldn't rate the "literature" as "Literature", but some probably would. In all, she's a character from a book or books.
[Raak] In English? YES [GL] Mrs Hudson? When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is indeed Mrs Hudson. CORRECT. Congratulations!
Fictional animals of multiple species almost all of which are non-mammalian and in as far as they can be identified, are probably based on real animals but not UK natives (probably). They are not from a children's book and they don't talk. The character of the animals is important but is not likely to be guessed in a "____ as a [Name of animal]" sense.
I think everyone is as bored of this as I am. Here are some hints to push the game forward to less boring, more finishing moves.
1. The AOTC is two words. One of these describes the non-mammalian animals and the other is an attribute that sets them apart from the majority of their real world counterparts. The whole is the name of a 21st century abstract that was not originally literature but has since spread to various other media.
2. The mammalian animals are a less well known aspect of the AOTC and except with regard to colour, clearly represent an animal that is common in the UK, US and several other places. The primary animals are less easily identified.
And Knobbly scores a hole in one! Have this genuine Rosetta stone. My answer to the weightlifting question is explained by the fact that on Earth, it would weigh about 100 kg, which is more than I've ever bench pressed, but sitting on the comet it's estimated to weigh about 1 gram -- but you can't get there to lift it.
[Dujon] No, not edible (is the least misleading answer, although everything is edible once) [GL] Yes, alive [Phil] Yes, wooden *ripple of applause* [Tuj] Yes, unique (or at least specific) [Raak] No practical use
[Dujon] Not in Sherwood Forest [Raak] (Back from checking something I probably should have before starting) No, not unusually old [GL] Not a fruit tree
[Dujon] Do you know, I can't find out if there was any genetic continuity, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't... I'm going to unilaterally change your question and say yes it is a successor to a famous oak [Raak] Not that Royal Oak, no
[Phil] Yes, an extant oak tree [Dujon] Hmm... Well, the extant oak tree which is the AOTC was royally planted, but the royal connection was already there. I realise that wasn't a yes/no answer
It's gone a bit quiet, shall I re-cap? This Vegetable is a living oak tree, which is not itself unusually old, nor is it one of the Great British Trees. It was royally planted (although a royal connection already existed) and is neither the Royal Oak in which King Charles mk.2 hid, Merlin's Oak or in Kent.
[Raak] Not Queen Anne [GL] Yes, a British Royal [Dujon] Yes, the oak you could visit now was planted by our current Head of State but I'm not sure how helpful that is, she must have attended many tree plantings in her time... Keep finding out who the original connection was - I reiterate, she is a female British royal who is neither Queens Victoria nor Anne.
I think the answer must be what you find if you google "Queen Elizabeth I" and "oak", but I'm going to be away a lot in the next few weeks, so I'll leave it to someone else.
Absolutely right... you even chose the right Queen Elizabeth Oak (not the one in Cowdray Park). The current tree was planted by QE2 in 1985 on the site of the original tree, beneath which Elizabeth was sat when told that Queen Mary had died and she was now the queen. I really didn't think I'd chosen a hard one... I pass Phil the baton, made of exquisitely turned english oak.
[Knobbly] It happens. I remember setting Jeffrey Dahmer a few years ago, and was astonished to find no-one knew who he was. He's a household name in our family. But, thanks to Google, and Raak, I've know heard of Hatfield, its house, and its trees.
[Software] Human Construct? Ummm, no, I don't think so (although I've always been rather vague about what "human construct" means). [GL] Town or city? NEITHER [Tuj] Pstarted? NO
"Royal estate" woke the audience up, but it's not privately owned, and not owned by Prince Charles. It includes buildings and farmland, and is in an Area of Outstanding National Beauty in England.
[Rosie] Salisbury Plain? NO [Software] Uffington White Horse? NO (although I was there the day before I was at the AOTC, in Feb this year) [Chalky] Chequers? YES - the estate, that is, rather than just the house that lies within. And what splendid timing for me to hand over the leadership of this fine game to you, given that we don't yet know who'll be spending their weekends there for the next five years.
(Knobbly) Geological? NO. (Softers) The unseen and unheard tree? NO.
In a desperate bid to do something about the terrifying speed of this one I could mention that the AOTC is connected with an interest of mine, but not steam locos.
YAY, it be that. Say it again, louder. KNOBBLY is the winner. Take this conductor's baton and whack it on the music stand louder and louder until everyone else has woken up.
Actually I was trying not to win by not giving the AOTC, but since you've given me this baton I may as well wave it about a bit... OK, this is hopefully an easy MINERAL.
(Raak & GL) Smaller than IoW in area, which was surprisingly hard to find out. Strangely couldn't find it anywhere and had to work it out myself. (Rosie) Not sea-water (Software) Not Ayer's Rock
So, it's a volcano in the Southern hemisphere, between 1,000 and 20,000 ft high which isn't near the equator, in Antarctica, the Phillipines or Indonesia. It has erupted in the last 100 years, but not in 1956. It also isn't Mt Erebus or Puyehue-Cordón Caulle...
(GL) Erupted this century? YES. (Rosie) Much death and destruction? I'm not sure what the standardised scale of death and destruction is, but I would say no.
I'm not convinced that Pablo is the Pablo we think it is. Or someone (e.g. Gusset Login) typed 'Pablo' by accident instead of their own name, for reasons unknown.