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.
I agree Don 1...burn the buggers. They're fit for nowt!
I'm by no means a royalist, but
.
So you guys REALLY don't like them, huh? :wink:
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.
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.
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
But they should be made to resign. All of them. Including 'er indoors.
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?
I hope everyone here is happy with the slags they've chosen to marry, or be with.
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!)
What is a slag, exactly. Slut/hag?
What is a slag, exactly? It sounds really nasty.
eoe wrote:What is a slag, exactly? It sounds really nasty.
In British slang, it is a "lewd or promiscuous woman".
I'm thinking slut/hag. And that is pretty nasty.
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.
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?
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>
It is amazing how long such anachronisms as "slag" remain in people's minds.
Yes, isn't it. What is the analogous term for a male who will sleep with any woman, do you remember, Dlowan?
I may be remembering wrong, but I seem to recall that slag was originally a coal mining term.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace