It was cruelly said of her cuckolded husband that there was nothing more noble than a man who would lay down his wife for his country.
Camilla -- or as I think we are now supposed to call her, the "Duchess of Cornwall" -- gave a speech to the London Press Club in which she puffed-up her enormous intellect to its greatest extent and patronisingly informed us that...
"I believe passionately in freedom of expression. I believe freedom of expression (so long as it doesn’t contravene the law, or offend others) to be at the heart of our democratic system. ... But just one note of caution: in our right to speak freely, please let us not become too politically correct, because surely political correctness is as severe a form of censorship as any."
Well, let's take her at her own word. She is clearly a sour-faced cunt of spectacular, horse-faced ugliness. Her truly evil, troll-like nature was revealed when she shafted her own husband -- the man she had sworn the most solemn oaths to cherish and love and respect -- by rutting with the brain-dead thicky known as "Prince" Charles (their most famous interaction involved him romantically wishing he was a tampon so that he could spend all day tucked up inside her).
Doesn't the stupid twat get it? "Political correctness" is precisely about being polite, about seeking not to offend. She calls it censorship. I'm happy not to censor my thoughts about her, the evil old bat, although frankly it goes against my natural predilection for political correctness -- or, as I like to think of it, "good manners".
Why can't she just keep her stupid wrinkly mouth shut, the ignorant old tart?
18 comments:
Out of gratitude for all your excellent and illuminating posts I'll bite off my fingers and let that pass without comment except to say that I disagree very strongly so let's leave it at that
But don't you see...? It's all part of my cunning plan to wean you all off my blogs.
I'm hoping that by the end of Adventures in Beige I will have offended all of my readers so deeply that their sense of self-righteous indignation will enable them to walk away from both me and my wretchedly politically correct blogs without any sense of personal loss.
I'm only thinking of you...
I'm trying to decide if you actually agree with her, because your post was anything but politically correct... which is something she would have applauded. Maybe I'm confused.
Or maybe you're confused. I haven't decided which!
Either way, there is such a thing as too much political correctness (*ahem* "freedom" fries comes to mind), but there is also such a thing as being polite and not referencing things like "Paki scalps" and "Jew gatherings" in London, as a certain Scots guard did very recently. Basically, I think the boundaries are somewhere between "Don't be ridiculous" and "Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/andotherists."
But this does completely reaffirm the belief that old Elizabeth is going to cling to life as long as her son is alive. Watch her depart from this world the minute Charles kicks the bucket.
I wasn't offended. Highly and amusing were the first two words that came to mind. 'Freedom of expression', C'mon Camilla, really? She wants to know what people think of her and the Royal Family she ended up in?
I love your blog with a passion and if you really do cease I'll miss it dreadfully - but I don't agree with you about the Duchess whom I find a really rather human and sympathetic figure and much more acceptable than the late Princess Diana. If only those pathetically would-be "trendy" courtiers had given better advice over the past 30 years we might not have seen the utter disgrace of three Royal divorces
Oh Stupendous! You excel yourself Mr LeDuc. I've never seen you so riled. And I just never liked the old trout and Big Ears just because of what they did to Diana. Perhaps you are an old sentimentalist at heart too? Don't you think the only way the monarchy will survive is if they skip Charles and go straight to William? How can that man ever command even a modicum of respect? But anyway, as far as policitcal correctness goes, don't you think it does go a bit too far sometimes and can be a bit silly. Eg having to call a blackboard a wipeboard - problem is some people just misunderstand the concept. Perhaps this is all she meant although I would much prefer to hate her anyway.
Actually, if the monarchy skips Charles and goes to William I think it is doomed -- it will legitimise the concept that the monarchy is not hereditary but is dependent on the qualities an individual brings to the job. As soon as you concede that point the whole edifice crumbles -- because if William is more suited than Charles, maybe there's someone else, from a different family, who is more suited than William?
Either we accept the ludicrous shebang on its own terms, or we act like grown-ups and abandon the very concept of hereditary power. As the great Thomas Paine said, you wouldn't accept a hereditary mathematician or a hereditary surgeon (I certainly wouldn't want to be operated on by one of them!), so why do you accept a hereditary head of state?
Wagwan me homies!
Wagwan me hommies? What the hell does that mean?..... And you could legitimately skip Charles actually if he did the sensible thing (which he won't because he's so damn stupid) and renounce the thrown. And in any case most of our leaders, surgeons, bankers and other top paid people did more or less inherit their positions. How many working class surgeons, or lower middle class come to that, cabinet politicans, City bankers etc are there. Almost none is the answer. Eg Virtually all cabinet mininsters on both sides have always been of the public school brigade with the most lieing, viscious, evil bastards the Conservative ones of course. Tiro PS For once I think I am actually more wise than you Mr LeDuc!
Actually you're not wiser than me!
Here's why: if Charles were to renounce the throne because he thought Wills would make a "better" king, the hereditary principle has still been subordinated to a judgement as to who is most capable of carrying out the role.
You either have to have hereditary succession, warts and all, or you concede the whole shebang. There is no middle ground on this: if you want to play kings and queens you have to accept the genetic lottery every time, come what may. The fact you don't like the jug-eared moron who's been thrown-up by this particular round of the game is just tough titties: man up, and accept that that utter wanker is going to be your head of state from the moment Liz pegs it until he is a drooling imbecile (although you may have trouble working out precisely when that condition afflicts him). "Wills", the Little Golden Princeling, is going to have to wait his turn, probably sometime in 2040 or 2050 or thereabouts.
Your other point, about the appallingly low levels of social mobility in this wretched country, is well made. But that doesn't make it right!
Oh, and "wagwan me homies" is that wretched slang jargon that today's yoof spouts.
I think "wagwan" is a contraction of "what's going on?" (originally contracted to "wa-gwaaan", though apparently even that took too much effort), while "me homies" translates as something like "my friends".
Therefore a crude translation would be: hello, my friends.
No, I have no idea why he posted it, either.
Mr LeDuc, although I am really impressed at your knowledge of youth lingo (really I am), I would hate for you to have the last word or appear to be right in this matter. Of course, Charles would not give the real reason for renouncing the thrown, he would say something like: "One wants to spend more time role playing as a tampon" or something equally as credible sounding for him such as "I am now 66 (or whatever age he will be as I think he's about 62 now) and I feel it is too late to start one's reign now so I'll hand over the guantlet to my son who is the right age and has the energy and drive, whereas I've got to the stage now where I am happy just talking to plants (although that has been the case for 40 odd years now). Anyway, I will continue to contribute to the comedic value of the monarchy as King Father and shall continue to be an embarassment for many years to come. Thank You, goodnight". Tiro
Ah ah! So I did get the last word! Obviously on reflection you realised I was right. Tiro PS Will not be coming back to this post now so even if you do post anything I will not know.
Excellent: that means I am guaranteed the last word!
You have simply restated what I have already put forward -- that Charles would have to undermine the whole basis of hereditary power by arguing either that someone else was better suited to the job (sic), or that he himself didn't feel up to it. Ie, that the hereditary system had thrown up someone completely unsuitable.
I have another problem with this system: these people live lives of appalling vacuity. They have no choice. I think it is not far off child abuse to impose these roles on babies, condemning them to live lives that we have determined for them, and in the vicious glare of the public gaze, rather than letting them choose their own destinies and, if they wish, having a right to a private life. What possible right do you have to insist that a baby should follow the life course you have plotted out for it?
Ugh...
And Camilla isn't even one of those chosen ones!
I loved this post. I loved the comments. I also, incidentally, love Camilla, because she's a total goer, like us, likes booze and fags, and got exactly what she wanted in life. Good on her. Now, on the topic of political correctedness, I can't really utter a word. I live with F, after all. You have heard the things that come out of his mouth...
Btw. This post reminded me of how much I will miss your blog, cocks aside...
The problem with political correctness, as I see it, is not that we try to be inoffensive...
The problem is that there are so many people who are absolutely and pathologically desperate for the chance to pretend to be offended.
Political Correctness isn't about politeness. Not using the word faggot is politeness. Not using the word "manhole" is political correctness.
Steve H: I think you are wrong. What you describe is clearly "political correctness gone mad". That phrase implies there is a state in which political correctness is in fact sane.
I agree with that: it is "politically correct" not to call a person with disabilities a "cripple" or "handicapped", but it is also polite.
If, however, you objected to the term "person with disabilities" and instead insisted on, I dunno, "super bionic human with added whizzy wheels" then I think you would be both guilty of "political correctness gone mad" and of being an idiot.
People who object to "black coffee" or "blackboard" (presumably also "blackbird"?) are also idiots.
But I am curious why not using the word faggot is just politeness and not political correctness. What exactly is your definition of "political correctness"?
Post a Comment