Board logo

Charlies engagment photo
mangogrooveworkshop - 23/2/05 at 08:20 PM



ned - 24/2/05 at 10:09 AM

charles & camilla
charles & camilla


200mph - 24/2/05 at 10:49 AM

was that one woof for yes??


cheers
Mark


Peteff - 24/2/05 at 11:39 AM

What do you say to that Camilla Rescued attachment ahorsey.jpg
Rescued attachment ahorsey.jpg


locogeoff - 24/2/05 at 01:04 PM

O.K. she's not exactly Diana, but why do we all rip the pi55 out of her?, at least she's not a publicity seeking tart! Chances are she's not going to take Dick from every Tom and Harry so maybee he'll be happy.

Being an ugly barsteward myself I feel I have to defend the cosmetically challenged, does that make me a hypocrit


clbarclay - 24/2/05 at 02:02 PM

Who cares, she may be queen but only as long as charles is king so apart from appere by his side (rather than 2 steps behind) what difference will she make?

The only (and very important) of the monarchy is to give tabloids something to talk about other which celeb is up the duff again.
I mean hundreds of people dressed as nazis go to sing a long sound of music every year, and do we care NO.

Mind you if tabloids where not constantly harasing royals for storys what would the purpose of the royal family be?


Peteff - 24/2/05 at 02:30 PM

Man alive, while we're taking the p!ss out of her we're leaving someone else alone .
what would the purpose of the royal family be.? You tell me, since they stopped being a part of the governing body they don't have a purpose any more.


DarrenW - 24/2/05 at 03:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
Man alive, while we're taking the p!ss out of her we're leaving someone else alone .
what would the purpose of the royal family be.? You tell me, since they stopped being a part of the governing body they don't have a purpose any more.


Maybe they are a EU tax fiddle??? The government can declare them as an expense and claim tax relief from the EU, or worse still for all we know Bush might be another Andy Hunter - he might claim 25% of the countries profits as protection money. Keeping the Royal family may be a stealthy way of keeping the cash in the UK. Perhaps they are actually doing us a favour.......


locogeoff - 24/2/05 at 04:16 PM

O.K. Lightening up

TWAAF
TWAAF


Peteff - 24/2/05 at 04:22 PM

They can put it in my account for a while instead of Maj's if they want. 2 or 3 weeks interest on it would keep me for the rest of mu natural I reckon.


clbarclay - 25/2/05 at 03:43 PM

The purpose of the royal family is like the question

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound.

Its the sort of question that has no true answer.


All the same i'm game for royal miky taking, just think theres usually better things to laugh at. Usually the current goverment, the oppositon or both at the same time.

[Edited on 25/2/05 by clbarclay]


chunkielad - 25/2/05 at 03:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by clbarclay
The purpose of the royal family is like the question


Tourism finances a lot of things - Americans in particular spend a fortune in London whilst seeing the palace/tower etc..
They seem to love castles too!!


clbarclay - 25/2/05 at 03:51 PM

Ah the upstart democracies/dictatorships (not sure which) that dream that they too might also have an empire one day.


carcentric - 26/2/05 at 12:01 AM

Whatcha mean?!

We got umpires . . . lots of 'em, stripey shirts and all!


clbarclay - 26/2/05 at 12:41 PM

Umpires in striped shirts, thats not right.

A propper umpire wears several layers of dirty white (they call it cream colour) and stand in the middle of the ground with one finger raised at the batsman.