|
30 Dec 03 - 05:57 PM (#1082728) Subject: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Arnie Honestly, the Royal family must think the British public are a bunch of suckers. The story so far - Princess Anne's Staffordshire bull-terrier Lottie savages one of the Queen's corgis at Sandringham so badly that the poor dog is put down. Now Lottie has already attacked two kids in the park recently and the magistrate hearing that case said that Lottie should be put down if he attacked again. So for a week over Christmas the RSPCA and others are all clamouring for Lottie to be put down. Then surprise surprise!! After a week of saying nothing, the Royals put out a press release informing us that it was not Lottie that killed the corgi after all - it was one of Princess Anne's other Staffs that had not previously attacked anyone or anything. So Lottie now gets a reprieve. Obviously Princess Anne had difficulty recognising the dog that attacked the corgi and so it was just a case of mistaken identity after all - yeah right!! You'd think after the Paul Burrell affair they would have learned something about telling the truth in order to avoid embarassing revelations later, but obviously not....... |
|
30 Dec 03 - 06:15 PM (#1082743) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell They told us it was DOTTIE (?Dotty maybe) here on the ABC. Maybe they are all called names like Lottie, Dottie, Pottie, Hottie etc. so as to sew confusion in the minds of witnesses. Poor old Corgi. I forget the name but they did tell us. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 06:32 PM (#1082755) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Nemesis Apparently the Queen has called in an independent witness (?) |
|
30 Dec 03 - 06:35 PM (#1082758) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha Poor Corgi..... |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:05 PM (#1082782) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell An independent witness? A horse? A Corgi? A Staffordshire Bull-terrier? |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:08 PM (#1082788) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha OK, which is it? A Staffordshire Terrier or a Bull Terrier?? Different breeds....Bull Terriers have Barbara Streisand noses.... |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:22 PM (#1082799) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: McGrath of Harlow Pretty rough to have a favourite pet killed by your daughter's dog, for anyone. Not a good start for a family Christmas. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:37 PM (#1082811) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Liz the Squeak The dog is called Dotty, it was indeed involved in an altercation earlier this year, with two boys, although there was never any evidence that the dog was not provoked in the way that small boys do with any four legged creature. Regardless of that, had it been any other persons' dog, it would have been destroyed the next day. It's the way that the press announced it as Dotty 'murdered' the corgi (nasty yappy things in my experience) that got me peeved. LTS |
|
30 Dec 03 - 08:18 PM (#1082830) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Sian Update all things dog.......Now ITN are reporting that the terrier that killed the corgi was called FLORENCE. Yesterday however FLORENCE, not understanding the two strikes and you're out rule, bit a Royal maid at Sandringham and a doc was called...no comment has been issued re putting FLORENCE down, but they have hinted she will be sent on "behavioural training"??? Don't you just love 'em? |
|
30 Dec 03 - 08:31 PM (#1082834) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Peace Will there be DNA testing? |
|
30 Dec 03 - 08:52 PM (#1082841) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Jon The case is simple. If Dotty was guilty of both crimes Anne has one dangerous dog. If that is not the case an another dog was the attacker, Anne has 2 dangerous dogs... Jon |
|
30 Dec 03 - 08:53 PM (#1082844) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha LIZ!! YOU INVOKE MY WRATH!!! Corgis are the nicest, sweetest, most perfect dogz in the world!! Honestly, I have never, ever met a biter or agressive Corgi and I have met hundreds.... Sorcha, the Corgi Mom..... |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:01 PM (#1082850) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Sian There have been 3 dog crimes only: A. Two kids attacked in Windsor Great Park. B. Queen's corgi killed. C. Royal maid bit on knee. Lottie we know did the first,had she also done the second she would be put down. So, suddenly they report that the second attack was actually done by Florence. So both dogs have one offence apiece, and neither get put down. However, Florence, obviously having no sense of timing, went and sunk her gnashers into Royal Maidy yesterday... So Florence now has two convictions, and Lottie only the one. Which is technically a dangerous dog, and half a dangerous dog. Like someone pointed out above, had these dogs been owned by mere mortals, they would be far removed from this mortal coil by now. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:02 PM (#1082851) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Peace I think that at least one other dog should be named Bess. Think of the headlines! |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:29 PM (#1082866) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha Good one, Bruce! Well, IF the news can be relied upon (Dotty, Lotty, Florence...etc) Anne's dogs are Bull Terriers, NOT Staffordshire Terriers....and, I can't tell if the Corgi or the Maid was the first injured, or if it was the same dog.....I DO have to disagree that Corgis are agressive...yes, they are 'feisty'...they are herding dogs. That is what is expected of them. AND, terriers in general are pretty scrappy....that is what is expected of them....In the US at least, a LOT of terrier show judges will check for 'scrappiness' before selecting a winner..... Since Bull Terriers were bred for scrapping with bulls, what do you expect? I expect that any terrier owner (bull or otherwise) will keep the dog/s under control at all times...whether voice or manual...my dogs are under control....but, then, I am the Alpha Bitch around here.....going to look for pics of Bull and Staff Terriers...will post link. NOT same... |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:32 PM (#1082869) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: McGrath of Harlow Actually there's no automatic two strikes and you are dead law in existence - and if the victim is a dog, and the owners don't make a formal complaint the law doesn't get involved. Whether those involved involved are royal or not. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:40 PM (#1082875) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha Pics...and breed descriptions....if you want to bother... Bull Terrier Ok,ok, it IS a Staff Bull, but different from a Bull Terrier..Staffordshire And, just for the sake of completeness, the American Staffordshire Terrier..Am Staff Now, the question is, which breed are Anne's dogs? (I know, I know, only a Dog Person would care...) |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:41 PM (#1082877) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell What was the maid doing to expose her knee? Of course the maids' advice goes "Never let a sailor lad an inch above your knee" no mention of dogs as far as we know, and of course it was ON the knee and not an inch above. Does anyone know the name of the poor dead corgi? Regardless of which dog started the whole thing the corgi was killed, and it was the one that was at its home. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:46 PM (#1082881) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha And, just for the sake of completeness. Pembroke Welsh Corgi which is what the Queen has... |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:49 PM (#1082884) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha Corgi's name was Pharos. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:52 PM (#1082888) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Sian CNN is just calling them "bull terriers", which isn't much help I think, but they showed photos of them, and not being a terrier spotter I can only say that they look like the dog owned by Bill Sykes in Oliver...Any help? The corgi was killed about a week before the maid was bitten. There is no law re two strikes and you are out, but the RSPCA, of which the Queen is the patron, has said that it is standard practice for dogs to be put to sleep after two attacks. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:57 PM (#1082893) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha Again, Bull Terrier I've met a lot of them, including Miniature Bull Terriers. NOT ONE was 'overly agressive' if you read the Terrier standards....but, they MUST be controlled. Even the cute little terriers like Yorkshires...they ARE Terriers, after all. Anne must be an idiot....just my take on it. Owners are ALWAYS responsible for their dogs. Even the Princess and the Queen. If a dog shows this kind of behaviour often, it should be kenneled or put down. Been there, done that....I have NO sympathy for anyone but the Corgi Pharos. What a horrible way to die.... |
|
30 Dec 03 - 10:02 PM (#1082895) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell Poor Pharos. Thanks Sorcha. Quite right too. Poor dogs all of them. with such irresponsible owners. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 10:39 PM (#1082924) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Gypsy Don't call em 'terrors' for nuthin. Terriers need a job, and training. They like to be busy. Anne was a fool for allowing this to happen. Poor corgi...........neat little dogs they are. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 10:46 PM (#1082927) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Clinton Hammond How is this news in any way??? |
|
30 Dec 03 - 10:55 PM (#1082934) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Jon Still trying to get my head round this... Back in the 70s - must have been as we lived in Speldhurst nr Tunbridge Wells at the time... A kid walked in UNIVITED into our our house and Portia, our by then about 16 yr old lab/retreiver cross managed to get up and nip only enough to bruise the kid's bum. My parents got cautioned over this and warned about keeping a dangerous dog and the rest of the riot act... a dog so old and unwell would be put down if ever she tried to defend our house from what was effectively an intruder. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 06:47 AM (#1083026) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Dave Hanson All corgies should be killed immeadiately, fecking useless stupid dogs. Love, eric |
|
31 Dec 03 - 08:11 AM (#1083059) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Roger the Skiffler Today's papers carry the Canis horribilis story and also a story about a 50 foot record python caught in Indonesia that is fed on a dog every three or four days.... Is it only me who sees a possible solution to both problems here? RtS (Running and hiding in the dog house) |
|
31 Dec 03 - 08:38 AM (#1083070) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: C-flat I see the purpose of having a "three strikes" policy on domestic pets as being aimed at the owner. There can be many circumstances in which a family pet attacks and it is up to the owner to ensure it doesn't happen. It would appear that Princess Anne is not a responsible owner and shouldn't have dogs. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 08:51 AM (#1083077) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Sian Quite agree,she should be banned from keeping a dog for life. But....it ain't going to happen. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 09:11 AM (#1083094) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Les in Chorlton Florence is innocent! She is clearly taking the rap for Dotty(?) Under what circumstanceswas evidence extracted? I think we should be told. This cover up will not work. they never do and in the end the cover up will be worst tan the original crime. Sorry, I can't help this........ have the Police got a feash lead? |
|
31 Dec 03 - 09:12 AM (#1083096) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Les in Chorlton Ok, I met fresh. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 09:14 AM (#1083099) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Sian There's an inquest pencilled in for 2009, but the findings have already been written, and the person holding the lead was under the influence. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 09:26 AM (#1083106) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Les in Chorlton Surely if someone really got their teeth into this the culprit would soon be found......... and why are so many big dogs called Prince . no coincendence of you ask me. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 09:49 AM (#1083129) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Sian And why don't they keep King Charles Spaniels? |
|
31 Dec 03 - 10:06 AM (#1083139) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Cluin Because that will never happen. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM (#1083148) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Les in Chorlton For those who know the other meaning of'Spaniels' it will be obvious that Princess Dianna did infact keep King Charles 'Spaniels' and look what happened to her. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 10:48 AM (#1083173) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: wysiwyg If it's a Bull, it oughtta be Bullgate not Corgigate. If it's a Staff, and it's like Am Staffs, that's the foundation for Pit Bulls. Knew a family of Am Staffs once, sweet dogs. ~S~ |
|
31 Dec 03 - 11:42 AM (#1083215) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST It shows a bloody awful set of priorities when the attaack on the corgi gets a bigger press than the attack on a child. Dangerous dogs must be put down - at once. (Name withheld because of the real risk of physical attack from so called animal lovers) |
|
31 Dec 03 - 11:51 AM (#1083222) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Jon Susan, the dogs in question are English Bull Terriors. As for nice ones... When I went out with someone who bread bulldogs and these creatures, she used to say "there is no such thing as a bad dog, just bad owners". I don't agree as I think there can also be rogue dogs. Either way, some dogs will turn and you would not want to get into a fight with one of these... Jon |
|
31 Dec 03 - 12:45 PM (#1083264) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Chief Chaos In the interest of harmony between our two great nations and from heartfelt condolences to the Queen, I would like to offer her majesty her majesty's pick of our next litter from our pair of Corgis. Voodoo (Mama's Bayou Voodoo Lady) a tri-color and Sparky (Errin's Little Man Sparky) a golden (forgot the official term for his coloring). One word of warning though. Should Her Majesty select a female and should it turn out like Voodoo, Her Majesty may find herself outranked in her own castle. This is a sincere offer from a corgi owner who would probably fall apart should the same thing happen to one of mine. Peace and Happy New Years |
|
31 Dec 03 - 01:34 PM (#1083311) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Les in Chorlton I suspect running dogs of the establishment of contributing to this thread whilst seeking to remain anonymous! Brenda (Madge Windsor) et all have a track record on cover ups. Who started that fire at Windsor Castle? A dog? I bet it was. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 05:21 PM (#1083473) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell Re name-withholding guest's remark - Please let's not get into another fight about whether children are better loved than dogs. I've always thought that Red Herrings were better loved than either. In fact better loved than almost anything when it comes to outrage! |
|
31 Dec 03 - 07:43 PM (#1083546) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Peace I agree with GUEST above: Any unprovoked attack by an animal on a person has one result: the dog (etc) goes to the dump. I actually did that to a dog that growled at my daughter when she was still a toddler. No argument from me on that, GUEST. However, I'm using my name because real animal lovers will recognize that I'm an animal, too. BM |
|
31 Dec 03 - 10:22 PM (#1083645) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell I don't mean to make light of the whole thing but I couldn't help myself. On the Killing of Her Majesty's Corgi,Pharos, by Princess Anne's Terrier, Dotty It came upon the Christmas time in the last days of the year The Queen she wrote her happy speech to bring her subjects cheer And all the while, her darling Prince, he nibbled on her ear Sing hey for the merry, ho for the merry, hey for the merry Old Dear There beside her on the floor, her sleek grey hounds they lay No matter that they were not hounds, just take that as you may Of course they were but Corgis fat, who bark but cannot bay. Sing hey for the merry, ho for the merry, hey for the merry and gay Just then, upon the midday bright, there came a fearful yell. Princess Anne, she ran inside, a bat right out of Hell. "Oh, Mother, dear, I bring sad news! The truth to you I'll tell." Sing hey for the merry, ho for the merry, hey for the merry Blue Belle The Queen, she sat herself upright, all in her high hall chair. "What is it, Child, that ails Thee so? To guess I do not dare." "Come hie us quick to yon courtyard, for a sight too stern to bear." Sing hey for the merry, ho for the merry, hey for the merry and fair Red blood it stained the welcome mat, a sorry sight to see. "Anne, your dog has done for mine. Pray tell how that can be! A sorry case of Dog Eat Dog, my dear, it seems to me." Sing hey for the merry, ho for the merry, hey for the merry and free Naughty naughty Dotty Dog, to maul your canine host Especially since he was the one the Queen she favoured most! Poor Pharos, now he's gone to Dog/God -- a hairy Corgi ghost Sing hey for the merry, ho for the merry, hey for the merry and most a little piece of Doggerel, by Joy |
|
01 Jan 04 - 09:20 AM (#1083829) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Les in Chorlton Joybell, thanks for bringing amusment and cheer on a day on which many of us feel dog-rough. |
|
01 Jan 04 - 10:49 AM (#1083858) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Van Headline - Anne's dog bites corgi. Later on we hear it also bit a servant. Strange priorities. The pair of them Anne and her maj should be banned from owning animals - and humans. It would save the taxpayer a few bob. As they both enjoy killing animals for fun why so sad over one little dog? They hunt foxes don't they, when the queen's racehorses break the odd leg she doesn't bat an eyelid when they're shot, a year or two back we had a shot of her maj's approach to dealing with a wounded pheasant (she didn't call the vet or Rolf Harris) - confine the buggers to history and get rid of these news stories. |
|
01 Jan 04 - 10:55 AM (#1083860) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST Telegraph Cartoon Click on the icon to the right of page for "Matt" If later than 01/01/04 then click on 'Previous' Nigel |
|
01 Jan 04 - 05:06 PM (#1084115) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell Les, A Bit of the Hair of the Dog helps. Better than a Bit of the Tooth of the Dog anyway. Thank you for the complement. Took me the better part of the morning. Should have been doing other things. Joy |
|
01 Jan 04 - 05:18 PM (#1084128) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Blackcatter simple - put down the owner. |
|
01 Jan 04 - 05:18 PM (#1084129) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Les in Chorlton It's a good one Joy but what will you do if Florence is not redeemeed? What a strange family though? Dysfunctional or what? They really are a throw back to pre-industrial revolution times when land was wealth and inhertance of such was all. |
|
01 Jan 04 - 05:33 PM (#1084148) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell I thought about that Les, but Florry could be slotted in where Dotty now is. Doesn't sound as good but it works. ...naughty, naughty Florry dog.... The Queen is carrying on the tradition of naming her dogs grandly, while Princess Anne seems to aiming a class below. I think the royals should set an example and name their pets: King, Queen and Duke. Good straight forward Royal names. |
|
01 Jan 04 - 05:41 PM (#1084154) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell We could call ours: Serf, Peasant, Humble-a-foot, Underling, Everydog, Beg-a-bone, Blot, Beg-pardon-I'm-just-a-dog, or Spot. |
|
01 Jan 04 - 07:53 PM (#1084251) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Gypsy When breading a bulldog, be certain to cover with ample egg batter, and coat thoroughly with bread crumbs..........runningandduckingforcover,butcannotresisttypos! |
|
01 Jan 04 - 09:51 PM (#1084309) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha Several years ago, I met a fawn Minitature Bull Terrier I would have ran away with, if I thought I could run fast enough....(fawn is a light brown....) |
|
01 Jan 04 - 11:06 PM (#1084338) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha OK, it's me again...Susan (and others...) I am going to say it one more time...there is NO breed called a Pit Bull....not by any recognized Kennel Club. American Staffordshire Terriers and (English) Staffordshire Terriers are often called so.....BUT!!! there are NO PIT BULLS!!! Nobody ever seems to call English Bulldogs, Bull Terriers, Min. Bull Terriers, Boston Bull Terriers, French Bull Terriers, etc.... PIT Bulls..... The Staff and AmStaff are NOT foundation stock for anything, YET, because there are NO PIT BULLS!!! OK, rant off.....but this is one of my pet peeves...Oh, there is another recognized breed, the American Bulldog....but, that is NOT a PIT BULL either...because there is no such thing....Sorry again... |
|
01 Jan 04 - 11:29 PM (#1084350) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Cluin I guess kids, adults and other dogs are attacked by figments of their imagination then. |
|
02 Jan 04 - 07:47 AM (#1084460) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Nigel Parsons Sorcha: sorry, but lack of recognition by any established kennel club does not mean a breed does not exist! The Kennel Club has only recognised 'Jack Russell Terriers' (or Parson Jack Russells) in recent years. Pedigrees now published by The Kennel Club often show early forebears as registered with the "Jack Russell Terrier Club" because these dogs were not then of an 'accepted' breed. However, their decendants are. It seems likely that public outcry may prevent there ever being a recognised breed standard for 'Pit Bull Terriers' with any of the kennel clubs. This does not mean that they don't exist! CHEERS Nigel |
|
02 Jan 04 - 08:41 AM (#1084489) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Mickey191 Sorcha, In this area of N.Y., dogs thought to be pit bulls, or those that resemble the stereotype of pit bulls have been renamed. The ASPCA calls them St. Francis terriers. This, in the hopes of getting people to take a more kindly attitude toward these dogs and adopt them. I do not know how wide spread the practice is. As I quickly read the story of Royals & their dogs, I thought the maid's name was Florence. Last line in th paper was: The royal family has not decided if Florence will be put down. I thought that crap went out with Henry the eighth. |
|
02 Jan 04 - 10:03 AM (#1084547) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Chief Chaos You know you're right there. I've never heard my Corgi's bay. Voodoo does a good hair raising Yodel though. One of these days I'll record it and post it. |
|
02 Jan 04 - 10:37 AM (#1084557) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha All of the 'pit bulls' I've ever seen, live, TV,etc, have been either Staff. Terriers or Am. Staff. Terriers....good luck with the St. Francis thing....(and Jacks/Parsons were recognized for years in the UKC) |
|
02 Jan 04 - 11:59 AM (#1084609) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Nigel Parsons Sorcha: a quick check of the 'Terriers' listing for The Kennell Club shows that 'Parson Russell Terriers' have a breed standard whilst 'Jack Russell Terriers' do not. Although the differences are small (like Pembroke/Cardigan Corgis, or Norfolk/Norwich Terriers) they are sufficient to say that one breed is not officially recognised CHEERS Nigel |
|
02 Jan 04 - 08:47 PM (#1084983) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: JennieG Why don't they keep cats instead? Just imagine the headlines: "Queen's Pussy Savaged By Princess Anne's Pussy"! Oh dear...... Cheers JennieG |
|
02 Jan 04 - 08:47 PM (#1084984) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell Chief Chaos, I'd like to hear Voodoo's yodel. A relief to find that my poem's accurate on that point. I'd have a hell of a time finding another good rhyme. Of course there's Trey, Stephen Foster's dog. Trey rhymes. What I've been wondering is - what happened to Foster's first and second dogs? Were they less faithful and kind? I'm glad he found Trey anyway. A gentle, kind dog is a valuable friend. |
|
02 Jan 04 - 08:50 PM (#1084986) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Joybell Jenny, You are wicked! What a great headline. Joy |
|
02 Jan 04 - 09:53 PM (#1085013) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Sorcha Well, for a long, long time, no Russels have been AKC, while Jacks and Parsons were diff. varieties of the same breed in UK. Now, the ACK has finally recognized Jacks, just in time for the US breed club to change the name to Parson Jacks....but, I will go read that...and, I do know that here are hundreds, if not thousands, of pure breeds world wide that are not recognized by any club....but, I still say that there are NO 'pit bulls'....any dog 'pitted in the ring to a bull' was a 'pit bull'..... |
|
09 Jul 04 - 05:18 AM (#1222009) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: GUEST,Thomas W Maguire thomaswolfgang@yahoo.com Hey what the heck are you all bad mouthing the royal family it was mistaken identity ok it was utter confussion and had to recollect their thoughts after all HM The Queen had her thoughts on Christmas and not that |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM (#1222265) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Dave Bryant I think you'll find that there was a mistake about the corgi which was killed. It was not one those diminutive welsh dogs, but Mr Cyril Hackstraw a CORGI (Council for Registered Gas Installers) gas fitter. The princess sent a nice bunch of flowers and an invitation to one of her garden parties to his widow who wrote back saying that she didn't really mind as her husband had a very large life insurance policy. Since everything has worked out fine (and Mrs Hackstraw has gone on a world cruise with a young lad she met through a dating agency), I don't see why people must keep harping on about the incident - after it's not as if it was a poor dumb animal that got killed. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 12:53 PM (#1222386) Subject: RE: BS: Royals involved in Corgi-gate From: Bert I hate to have to disagree with my darlin' Sorchie, but I was bitten by a corgi when I was a kid. And why all the bloody fuss, I thought it was part of growing up that you had to get bitten by a dog and scratched by a cat and pecked by a bird and so on. That's what pets are for, to teach kids about life. |