1
   

Prince Charles to marry his slag

 
 
Don1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 07:03 am
ossobuco wrote:
Yes, isn't it. What is the analogous term for a male who will sleep with any woman, do you remember, Dlowan?


The term slag isn't gender specific, prince philip is a slag he ended his marriage around 1955 when the queen found out about his extra marital activities, charlie boy is a slag, his affair with parker bowles ran for the entire of his marriage to Diana from day one.

The Americans have the Simpsons we have the windsors, the difference being the Simpsons dont cost the American taxpayer tens of millions a year to live in luxury for doing **** all.
0 Replies
 
Don1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 07:52 am
eoe wrote:
What is a slag, exactly. Slut/hag?


slag is the stuff that floats to the surface when you melt iron ore, it's another word for dross.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 12:23 pm
http://www.londonslang.com/db/s/


slag - a very common word for a loose woman or generally a rough looking bird. e.g. "She is a right old slag". Used by men and women. It can also be used amongst men as an insult and can be heard in 70's and 80's police drama's ("Shut it you slaaag !").

Ah, the archaeology of vocabulary.

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



EhBeth, I agree with your observation. The poor woman went looking for love in all the wrong places.
0 Replies
 
dancingnancy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 02:30 pm
I love learning about the evolution of vocabulary. And - slag is a new fave word man! Good one.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 02:37 pm
Oh come on - he is marrying the one he loves. What is wrong in that ? Leave the poor sod alone - he gets enuff trouble from him mom and dad !
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 02:39 pm
And that is why I love The Prince :wink:
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 02:41 pm
Hey gorgeous !!! Whatever happened to yr avtaar ?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 02:44 pm
Yep - we are all just fellow miserable bastids trying to find a little joy - conspiracy theories aside.

Not that I have any truck with monarchies - but for pete's sake!
0 Replies
 
Don1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 04:38 am
the prince wrote:
Oh come on - he is marrying the one he loves. What is wrong in that ? Leave the poor sod alone - he gets enuff trouble from him mom and dad !


Then why didn't he marry the one he loves in 1981 instead of ruining the life of Diana?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 04:56 am
Lol - I NEVER thought I would ever end up defending royalty!!

THing is, Don, they are ordinary - albeit rich - schmucks who make the same stupid and unpleasant mistakes we all make.

Only they do it in the full glare of a media which megnetizes fault, just as it creates stupid idolatry, and feeds upon what it helps create - in what seems to me an endlessly tightening and collapsing spiral, from what I can see.
0 Replies
 
Don1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 05:45 am
dlowan wrote:
Lol - I NEVER thought I would ever end up defending royalty!!

THing is, Don, they are ordinary - albeit rich - schmucks who make the same stupid and unpleasant mistakes we all make.


You may be right Deb

The difference is that you and I dont get paid tens of millions per annum to be the worlds biggest **** ups. THEY DO!
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 05:51 am
I don't really mind if he marries her, as long as:-

1. They don't spend my tax-pounds doing it.
2. They don't interrupt the TV schedules to show the whole ridiculous pomp & farce live on the box.

And as neither of my wishes will come true, I'm with Don1 on this one.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 06:04 am
Don1 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Lol - I NEVER thought I would ever end up defending royalty!!

THing is, Don, they are ordinary - albeit rich - schmucks who make the same stupid and unpleasant mistakes we all make.


You may be right Deb

The difference is that you and I dont get paid tens of millions per annum to be the worlds biggest **** ups. THEY DO!


Indeed.

I do it for relatively bargain basement prices.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 04:08 pm
Dlowan--

I'm with you. Fortunately the glass is cloudy in my goldfish bowl.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 04:50 pm
... and in canada we still put up with this farce of "royalty" ! i think it's a pretty sad reflection on our status as a nation. hbg
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 12:38 pm
I thought she would just be the Royal Consort ... but this just in ...


Quote:
Parker Bowles in Line to Become Queen

Mar 21, 5:13 PM (ET)

By ROBERT BARR

LONDON (AP) - In the latest twist in a royal wedding saga that has been full of flip-flops, the British government revealed Monday that like it or not, Britons will have to get used to Queen Camilla.

That's because Camilla Parker Bowles will, by law, automatically become queen when Charles is crowned.

While the public has come around to supporting the marriage, opinion polls still show strong opposition to Parker Bowles taking the title of queen.

But any attempt to change the rules to bow to popular sentiment would be exceedingly difficult: It would require not only a new law in Britain, but also legislative changes in 15 other nations where the British monarch is head of state.

Ever since Prince Charles' office announced the wedding in February, preparations have been riddled with reversals that have prompted many observers to liken the nuptials to a farce.

Charles and Parker Bowles were initially to get married at Windsor Castle, but were forced to choose a decidedly more downscale venue - town hall.

Then Queen Elizabeth dropped her plans to attend her son's wedding, immediately prompting speculation of a royal snub.

On Monday, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said in a written statement responding to a lawmaker's question that the royal marriage would not be "morganatic" - in which the spouse of inferior status has no claim to the status of the other.

"This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he becomes king," said Andrew Mackinlay, the lawmaker who raised the question.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation, saying legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of queen.

"I'm perfectly happy for the Prince of Wales to marry whoever he likes, but altering the constitution is parliament's business and this does require an alteration to the constitution," Mackinlay said.

"It shouldn't be done for one man and one man alone," he added.

Prime Minister Tony Blair was in no hurry to deal with the issue.

"The position at the moment is limited to what the title would be on her marriage. In terms of any future events, let's wait until future events arise," Blair's official spokesman said.

Announcing his wedding plans last month, Charles said his future wife would be known by the lesser title of Princess Consort when and if he becomes king.

Immediately after their April 8 wedding she will become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall, and will not be called Princess of Wales - the title used by the late Princess Diana.

In making the wedding announcement, the prince subtly left the door open for changing his mind about Parker Bowles' future status, saying "it is intended" that she would use the title HRH the Princess Consort.

Some commentators believed that Charles was seeking to buy time to win over public acceptance of his wife as queen. After all, for years he had been saying he had "no plans" to marry Parker Bowles.
0 Replies
 
Paaskynen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 01:10 pm
The Scandinavian countries have been monarchies ever since they invented kings (Finland is a republic, but then again Finland is technically not a Scandinavian country, though it is often ranked as such). You do not do away with such a long tradition overnight. A monarch brings stability to a democracy where other leaders come and go as the voters decide. As long as the function is merelt ceremonial and without any real power, It is better and often cheaper than having a president (how much did the presidential candidates in the Us spend on their election campaigns? I bet it was enough to run all the monarchies of Scandinavia for a decade! (In Scandinavia the royals are a kind of special civil servants with salaries like everybody else, not like the British or Dutch royals).

People in power have been sleeping around since time immemorial, nothing new under the sun. As to Charles marrying his lady, so what? That is about as much a non event as nipplegate was to me. You might even say it is positive show of character, since he seems to really love her. Whether he is a sufficiently good example to the people to warrant being king is another thing.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 02:06 pm
Must admit to really enjoying your comments folks. Charles has got himself into a right royal pickle over this. He naturally wants to be king. He wants to be Head of the Church of England. And he wants to marry a divorcee which the Church won't allow who is a catholic (which the royal family are not supposed to do). It is beyond farce, much to be enjoyed...except at the centre of it are two miserable people. Diana was a naive girl who didn't understand what she was getting into. She did her bit by producing an heir and spare, if she only realised the game she was supposed to play, she could have had a comfortable life as Charles's "official" wife, whilst doing what she wanted and allowing Charles to do the same. But for some inexplicable reason she wanted her husband to be hers. Quite sad really. Was she murdered? Her death was certainly convenient. But accidents do happen.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 04:31 pm
if charlie boy would have the guts to simply say :
" you can stick it. i'll marry camilla and don't care wether i ever become a king or not" , he would at least show some backbone. of course he has no intention of giving up his position and wants to continue sponging. GRRRR ! hbg
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2005 05:57 pm
Since they've banned dog hunts there, he'll never be able take her hunting again.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 05:36:04