1
   

Prince Charles to marry his slag

 
 
View Profile Don1
 
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 12:28 am
After the most repugnant family on earth arranged the marriage of Charlie and Diana Spencer for no other reason than to breed heirs to the throne of England, Diana was then murdered because her usefullness was used up,

we are now told that Charlie's long term shag bag Camilla Parker Bowles is to be his next wife and we are supposed to say hooray.

The sooner we get rid of this family of parasitic trash the better.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link/Embed
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 8,669 • Replies: 568

 
View Profile smorgs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 05:03 am
I agree Don 1...burn the buggers. They're fit for nowt! Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
View Profile msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 05:23 am
I'm by no means a royalist, but Shocked.
So you guys REALLY don't like them, huh? :wink:
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 05:49 am
I suppose that the folks in Britain WOULD be better off if they would have to stop paying for that crowd. I don't think that Charles, if he ever were made king, would do much for public relations in merrie old England.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 06:01 am
I wish the US Congress were as literate and funny as Parliament. Now I know why Monty Python had to only come from England.

Question:
If you do away with the royal family, what will you substitute? All those buildings and all the guys in gay suits will be pointless. We put up with guys dressing up in Civil War costumes and blowing each other up every few months here in the US, but after their done, they go out drinking and shoot pool. What will a beefeater do? or the palace guards ? whats a footman to do? we better get Lord Ellpus to sign in on this.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 07:15 am
It's time to follow the French. I know it's a couple of hundred years later but better late then never. Give them an ultimatum - resign or listen for the squeaky wheels of the tumbrils. Oh alright then, no tumbrils Rolling Eyes But they should be made to resign. All of them. Including 'er indoors.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 07:23 am
It's amazing how long some anachronisms can survive. But, if British royalty is dispensed with, how will the Scandinavians and the Dutch justify theirs?
0 Replies
 
View Profile ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 08:08 am
I hope everyone here is happy with the slags they've chosen to marry, or be with.
0 Replies
 
View Profile Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 08:53 am
Merry Andrew wrote:
It's amazing how long some anachronisms can survive. But, if British royalty is dispensed with, how will the Scandinavians and the Dutch justify theirs?


And Spanish?

<although spanish monarchy is not viewed this way, not in Spain at least!)
0 Replies
 
View Profile eoe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 11:01 am
What is a slag, exactly. Slut/hag?
0 Replies
 
View Profile eoe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 11:01 am
What is a slag, exactly? It sounds really nasty.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 11:22 am
eoe wrote:
What is a slag, exactly? It sounds really nasty.


In British slang, it is a "lewd or promiscuous woman".
0 Replies
 
View Profile ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 11:46 am
Walter's being polite.
0 Replies
 
View Profile eoe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 11:52 am
I'm thinking slut/hag. And that is pretty nasty.
0 Replies
 
View Profile Don1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 03:12 pm
eoe wrote:
What is a slag, exactly. Slut/hag?


It's a woman who has no understanding of morality, a woman who will spread her legs for anyone.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 05:28 pm
Francis wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
It's amazing how long some anachronisms can survive. But, if British royalty is dispensed with, how will the Scandinavians and the Dutch justify theirs?


And Spanish?

<although spanish monarchy is not viewed this way, not in Spain at least!)


Spain is a strange country. From a republic to a Fascist dictatorship, back to a monarchy, all in the space of 50 years or so. Somewhat regressive politically, wouldn't you say?
0 Replies
 
View Profile ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 05:37 pm
Don1 wrote:
eoe wrote:
What is a slag, exactly. Slut/hag?


It's a woman who has no understanding of morality, a woman who will spread her legs for anyone.


ahhhh, you're speaking of the fella's first wife

<nods>
0 Replies
 
View Profile dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 06:08 pm
It is amazing how long such anachronisms as "slag" remain in people's minds.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 06:34 pm
Yes, isn't it. What is the analogous term for a male who will sleep with any woman, do you remember, Dlowan?
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 06:35 pm
I may be remembering wrong, but I seem to recall that slag was originally a coal mining term.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Paul Newman, Hollywood Legend, Is Dying - Discussion by Stray Cat
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
The noose in the news - Discussion by boomerang
Hundreds of Dogs Saved from Puppy Mill - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Palin and the Christianist tradition - Discussion by InfraBlue
Google Does It Again/ International News - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Plane crashes into Hudson River - Discussion by Region Philbis
 
  1. able2know
  2. » Prince Charles to marry his slag
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.36 seconds on 11/24/2009 at 07:41:34 Top End