Weird News
You finally took my hand
You finally took my hand
It took a nip of gin
But you finally
took my hand
You can’t afford no ring
You can’t afford no ring
I shouldn’t be wearing white and you can’t afford no ringDIXIE CHICKS ‘WHITE TRASH WEDDING’
(where’s that redneck wedding photo BMEWS had weeks ago? I thought the Dixie Chicks were appropriate here)
Posted by Oink
04/09/2005 at 10:23 AM
I figure she must spank him.
Posted by Steel Turman
04/09/2005 at 11:34 AM
I despised “St. Diana”.
-yeah we both suffered from bulimia...and?
As the great-grand daughter of a proud Londoner I say-
GOOD FOR HIM-and her too!
Congrats Charles and Camilia!Posted by Annoying Little Twerp
04/09/2005 at 01:20 PM
I agree ALT...leave the poor sods alone, as the monarchy should have let them marry 30 years ago.
Nobody is saying they shouldn’t get married. I’m only saying they should never be allowed to reproduce. Can you imagine the prodigy of these two? It beggers the imagination to conceive of a child that ugly. Queen Elizabeth must have seen this and predicted the British people would have to “bag” the next king if they were to allow him out in public. Way too much inbreeding in the royal families during the last few hundred years. At least Diana introduced some halfway human-looking features back into the royal bloodline.
Whinnneeeeeeeee!!!! Stomp, stomp!
Ohh… NOW I get it!
I couldn’t understand all those posts on TotalFark last night about Prince Charles and His Royal Mount...always wondered what the initials HRM stood for…
I have to echo the Twerp’s comments...with this caveat:
35 years! His love of 35 years and he’s just now tying the reins...er...knot? Charles should NOT ever be King.
A man who doesn’t even have the
ballsgumption to stand up for his woman against his family won’t have theballsgumption to stand up to Tony Blair.Hell, I doubt that Charles would have had more
ballsgumption than Maggie Thatcher during the Falklands War.Being a loyal member of both the British Commonwealth and Monarchist Societies, what grinds my ass is that under British law and the Church Of England, Charles is supposed to relinquish the throne - just like Edward did to marry Wallis Simpson. Therefore, Prince William should be the next monarch. THE Queen Mum must be spinning in her grave. Sweet old lady that she was.
Damn, damn, damn.
Dan D,
CanuckistanTHE Queen Mum must be spinning in her grave. Sweet old lady that she was.
Did Elizabeth II die while we were all distracted by the Pope’s funeral?
Prince William? (we were actually discussing this at work this morning… but we thought Harry was the oldest...I know, just a bunch of Yanks...)
Regardless, I agree, Charles should step aside and let a man whose
ballstemper are yet untried.Can’t you just imagine those two in bed? Yuck, yuck, vomit, vomit.................
Posted by Dottie
04/09/2005 at 08:26 PM
How in the hell could ANYONE possibly give a shit about this?
I say, ol’ chap! Pip-pip and cheerio! Len, my good fellow, you must realize the “royals” are so amusing to the yanks since they have none.
They’re the lucky ones!
Christopher: William was the first born; therefore proper heir to the throne. Also, THE Queen Mum was Elizabeth’s mother who died a couple of years ago at age 100 and was a sweet old lady. I met her.
Dottie: Charles has been likened to a VW viewed head on - with the doors open. Parker was/is often referred to as “the pit bull”. Don’t even want to think about them ‘doin’ the bump-ugly’ and what any offspring might look like! Hah!
Len: Some people in the Commonwealth countries DO care. Some people also have short memories or don’t care to remember all the ga-ga and hoopla over Diana’s visits to the US - front page news for days about every little thing she wore or did and the huge crowds. As well, there are still always large turnouts for visits by the Queen and Prince Phillip.
The Royal Family still holds a lot of sway over a good many Americans too. After all, The United States of America was (basically) founded by people from the British Isles. Your Constitution and laws, are based on British Common Law as set down by - British Royalty.Allan’s right. There is that tie to the “royals”. And all you got were the Kennedy’s, Ol’ Lurch and the Ketchup Queen instead. (grin)
“Deoch slainte ‘na ban Righ!”-
Dan D,
CanuckistanHey, Charles and Camilla are both in their late 50s. I don’t think they’ll be reproducing. And somehow I think the Queen will be around till she hits 100 just like her mum.
Perhaps Charles will take the hint and abdicate in favor of his son William.
Dan D
I apologize, had no idea that the Queen Mum was NOT QE2. And why isn’t QE2 the Queen Mum since the previous Queen Mum died a couple of years ago?
You are correct that the American Consitution was influenced by British Common Law. The Contitution has this advantage: it was written down.
Specifically, the several States (Colonies) insisted that a Bill of Rights be included. I further note that the British Common Law right to self-defense was revoked about 10 years ago… which results in travesties of justice that put a poor old sod in jail for shooting looters.
Guess that criminals have more rights to others’ property than the property owners.
No need for an apology at all. QE2 isn’t the Queen Mum now because she is the reigning monarch. Had her husband been King, she would then be the Queen Mum. O, the vagaries of the Royals.
As for defending oneself, and although banished in GB, we here in Canada still have the “Laws Of Blackstone"(qv) on the books which state that we can deal with any threat("by action, word or deed") as necessary including lethal force. It has happened many times. I was involved in such a situation back in the early 70’s, and didn’t even have to go to court. It was purely and legally self defence. As Kim would put it, “B&E + pissed-off home owner + Colt 1911 = Goblin-0”. Simple.
-Dan D,
Canuckistan
04/09/2005 at 03:35 PM
04/09/2005 at 06:52 PM
