It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Now now... Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens, but a dog and a cat is better than a slab of tarmac and a bloke wearing some astroturf with a flower pot on his head.
The animals have no connection to us. You could have a fridge and a kangaroo named Floyd and Harvey and it would have just as much relevance
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.
Take the knight. There are no knights in the Charlton story, except for Bertram Knight who played three games back in 1922 (and yes, I had to look that up). I'm guessing that the connection in most peoples' heads is that the knight carries a sword and there's a sword on the Charlton badge. That sword may have been with us for fifty years, but it wasn't really ours. We culturally appropriated it from the City of London. They didn't really own it either, they copied it from the church. The church didn't have to copy it though, because their whole stock in trade is just making things up; if they want to invent a sword they'll just invent one and a saint to carry it. Anyway, the knight is called Sir Valiant. So perhaps that's the connection. But that's the nickname that is never heard anymore because that has been roundly rejected by most Charlton fans.
Then take the robin, or as it is known for some reason, Robyn. Why are were Charlton The Robins? Because they come out to the song The Red Red Robin? Possibly. Because they wear red shirts? More likely, but why do they play in red shirts? There's no known historical reason and certainly nothing of any great meaning. Maybe it was someone's favourite colour. Maybe when they went to the haberdashers it was the only colour they could get in sufficient quantities. We'll probably never know the exact answer but ultimately the only reason red is the Charlton colour is because we think it is.
Based against this, rejecting Floyd and Harvey because they have no connection to our history seems very harsh. I'm beaconing to thing Henry's fishmonger mascot is the only true way to go.
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest. I stand to be corrected but I'm not making it up. I've read something along these lines in one of many football history books I've read.
I think a fishmonger mascot is a good idea as long as he is partnered by a trainspotter mascot holding a thermos flask and blanket.
Stand corrected. No evidence for that wild theory whatsoever @jimmymelrose
Pretty sure you've never read it in any Charlton book either
From Wikipedia: Forest were a multi-sports club. As well as their roots in bandy and shinty, Forest's baseball club were British champions in 1899.[6] Forest's charitable approach helped clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Brighton & Hove Albion to form. In 1886, Forest donated a set of football kits to help Arsenal establish themselves – the North London team still wear red. Forest also donated shirts to Everton and helped secure a site to play on for Brighton.
No mention of Charlton getting their shirts from Arsenal which was your unique theory. The players bought the first set of shirts in a department store in Woolwich and dyed them red.
And Arsenal historians dispute the story that Forest gave them their first set of shirts.
It wasn't my 'unique theory.' It was one of two things I said, and I accept if one of them is wrong. Arsenal historians also dispute that they got promoted by corruption, so I'm not sure we can believe them.
Comments
Arsenal historians also dispute that they got promoted by corruption, so I'm not sure we can believe them.