I take it back, I wasn't exhausted before. Now I've spent a good 11 hours on my feet/the train/going around London zoo ... now I'm knackered.
It was good though. I haven't spent so much time with boy's Godmother in a loooong while. She loved spending time with boy too (even if we had the challenge of a two year old, a buggy and inner London's adversity to anyone who can't take stairs).
For the most part, the animals were awesome. Except the lions, since they did nothing. And the penguins because gulls kept stealing their fish and ruining their display. The gorilla's were hilarious and the meerkats ... oh man I want a meerkat. There was one, who was hugging another adult one and two kid ones and it had this look in it's eye like 'I'm so freaking lucky' and ... yeah, the compare the market ads don't do meerkats justice.
Oh and the giraffes ... their size intimidated me, but the patterns on their skin are just ... you can't get proper pictures of how detailed their skin patterns are. Ditto with the clown fish.
And bats are freakishly fast.
But ... why does the Regents Park branch of London zoo not have elephants? Why do I have to go to Colchester or Whipsnade?
The Elephants are too big (and probs too dangerous!) for the facilities at London Zoo. A big problem they have there is a lot of the buildings are listed, so they can't knock them down to make more room or modify them much.
ReplyDeleteThats if you wanted a theory on why they don't have elephants anyway. lol
I like that theory, because it's better than they just want us to pay to go to both the zoo's in the group. It's out of their hands ... thank you!
ReplyDelete