Camilla Parker-bowles Satire

Adventures in Beige: Gratuitous abuse for satirical purposes

"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). 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."

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?

The Bigfib Book of Bollocks, The Best Satire from Bigfib.com 2005

The Windsor knot

The offensive art, political satire and its censorship around the world from Beerbohm to Borat

Allusions in the press, an applied linguistic study

London