Legitimacy of Burger King's Crown Called Into Question
on 7/8/2005 (0)
For years Burger King has laid claim to being the King of Burgers, but a recent report from a Philadelphia research center has indicated that not only may Burger King not be the King of Burgers, but it may have no link to any legitimate royalty.
|Just because it looks like a King and smells like a King... |
"Over the past five years, we have traced the bloodline of Burger King back thousands of years and we have found no indication that at any point any relative of Burger King was of royal decent," said food historian Michael Regale. "It is our findings that the title of King should not be used on this restaurant."
Regale was responsible for leading a team of hotshot researchers at the Philadelphia Institute for Unnecessary Research. Their goal was to prove once and for all if Burger King is truly of royal blood.
The earliest know relative of Burger King is 14th century peasant Eduard the Poor. Eduard's father was a blacksmith and while he forged swords, horseshoes, and medieval staplers, Eduard used the open flames to cook delicious meals of burgers, the largest of which he referred to as whoppers, and thinly cut potatoes, which he referred to as medium fries.
"Eduard was a kind and caring boy and loved to cook for the other peasants," said Regale. "His value priced meals, speedy service, and encouragement for patrons to ask to 'have it your way' made his meals the hit of the town, much to the chagrined of his arch-nemesis Frideswid McDonald."
Yet while no one disputes that his meals were delicious, this did not make him of royalty.
"Eduard was born poor, to a poor family," said Regale. "The bloodline of a King would never have been forced to live such an impoverished life."
Also called into question was the land that the Burger King line was supposedly ruler over.
"Eduard was of English origin, in the time when the land was ruled over by the powerful King Arthur and his Merry Men," said Regale. "He was not King there, nor could his family have been in the years before or since."
The report also indicates only one know land free from monarch rule in recent times, located in Canada and most likely ruled over by Yetis, polar bears, and the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa.
"I do not believe the Burger Kingdom could have been here in Canada," said Regale of this location. "Especially since there were no Burger Kings in North America until 1954, long after the ice city of Edmonton was constructed and placed under the rule of the Dutch."
Despite the findings, sources at Burger King will not be changing the name of the store to reflect it's lack of true royalty.
"We're not the King of any land, we're the King of Burgers," said Greg Brenneman, chairman and chief executive officer of Burger King Corporation. "It's a marketing thing, the name is meant to imply that we have the best burgers around, which we clearly do."
"That's totally ridiculous, this is like Budweiser claiming to be the King of Beers without having ruled over the island of Beeroria for several thousand years," said Regale upon hearing the comments from Brenneman.
Regale and his team are currently petitioning the Federal Government to force Burger King to c
page has been viewed 9442 times