From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Fergiegate
Keywords: fat tart
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:12:23 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

I think it's fair to say that Al hit a number of prominent nails
fairly and squarely on their shiny round heads with his recent
posting on the subject of the royal family. There are, however, a
number of other bits of hardware aching to be driven into the woodwork.

My major peeve is that, far from making the Great Unwashed of the British
public a little bit more aware of what a ludicrous institution the royal
family is, all they can think of doing is leering at Fergie's rather
horrible body. Now I'm not making any claims to be a perfect non-sexist
PC-man, but surely if you want to look at photos of tits, all you have
to do is direct your attention to the top shelf at your local newsagents.
Hell, if you're desperate you could even go and look on Babs's office wall.
But surely what you *don't* do is scour the town for a copy of the
Sun. And what do Mr. and Mrs. Normal think of the affair? Well, they're
shocked that someone should sunbathe topless, and gallivant around with
someone who isn't her husband - showing a fine disregard for the general
state of affairs in the 20th century, and not a little hypocrisy, since
most of them would probably give their eye-teeth (what *are* they??) for
the chance of a spot of hanky-panky in San Tropez.

It should surely be obvious to anyone that the royal family should be
guillotined at our earliest possible convenience. What useful purpose do
they serve? It's said that they are a tourist attraction. This is true,
up to a point. But what are all those tourists thinking? They certainly
aren't looking with envy at a bankrupt squalid little island that even
in the depths of catastrophe finds the odd 100million or so to give to
a failed experiment in genetics. No, they're desparately trying to
understand why this family, this completely unproductive and repugnant
family, should be subsidised to continue their lifestyle of grotesque
opulence by a suffering population of grey-faced imbeciles.

Where exactly do these people come from that are supposed to serve as a
model for the population? They come from a long line of layabouts, the
worst segment of Sloane society, who contribute absolutely nothing and
are concerned only with themselves. The ring-leader is, of course, the
old bag Brenda herself. Seen recently on a TV documentary, she was chatting
away to His Forgetfulness Sir Ronnie Reagan at a party on that well-known
part of the British Navy, the Royal Yacht Britannia. His Mendaciousness
was, as usual, yapping away about welfare mothers and other enemies of
society. Now I realise that it wouldn't be diplomatic for Brenda to have
replied by nutting Reagan in the gob and dousing him with napalm, but the 
old fool not only humored the ghastly thespian, but kept chipping in with
little anecdotes of her own about how these dreadful lower class people had
brought a lot of problems on themselves. Nobody is in any doubt about the
stupidity of the American electorate (stay tuned this November, for additional
proof) but at least the Founding Fathers figured out that 8 years is enough
for any country to have to suffer at the hands of one senile fugurehead.
The Queen has been in there for FOUR DECADES!!!

Now take a quick look at Charlie. This insipid fool is, as anyone can tell
in an instant, completely insane. There are those, however, who protest that
this insanity is of a relatively benign nature, and that it is compensated
by an interest in architecture and painting. This interest in architecture
is unfortunately completely phoney. Prince Bigears may talk up a storm
about saving London's buildings, but that didn't stop him from destroying
the front of his Georgian London house, a listed building supposedly to be
preserved for the country. It didn't stop him from keeping quiet about the
amazing replica of Southfork erected in Green Belt land to house his 
moronic younger brother and his trollop of a wife. And as for his painting..
It's a curious thing that the British seem to ascribe painting ability to
well-known persons who are otherwise profoundly objectionable. A prime
example is Winston Churchill. Now Winny was nothing but an unadulterated
fascist, amateur of genocide and advocate of chemical warfare. But instead
of being informed of the way he consigned millions to their death in post-war
Europe, and dabbled in the use of napalm on helpless Greek villages, the
press prefers to tell us about his water-colours. As a matter of interest,
Winnie's work was once compared with that of Hitler, an accomplished artist,
and the expert concluded that "at least Hitler had a few lessons". 

I will spare you a discussion of the people these morons chose to marry,
from Phil the Greek (the German), via the primary school teacher, to the 
fat tart. Just wake me up when it's time for the revolution. More armed
mobs, that's what we need. It's all very well to make fun of the Froggies,
but they worked this out 200 years ago!

-- 
==================================================================
-Jeremy Henderson            |  Une souris verte
 egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk	     |  Qui courrait dans l'herbe
==================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.peeves