Anorak

Anorak | Beckham Retires

Beckham Retires

by | 10th, September 2006

“WELL, I’m not a Wag any more, am I?” says Victoria Beckham.

Or should that be asked? These are early days in the existence of Wags and the definition is, well, less than definitive.

However, according to the Anorak Lexicon of Tabloid English (publishers who want to produce this authoritative text should contact us), Wag is defined thus:

WAG – INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To mix lemonade with brandy and ice. 2. To dance on tables in Baden-Baden with one hand raised above the head. 3. To shop for shopping bags. 4. To paint oneself a deep shade of orangey-brown (see Kilroy-Silk).

NOUN: To be the girlfriend or wife of a footballer.

Her Poshnesss might not do wagging but she surely remains a Wag – unless, of course, she plans to leave her Day-vid and become a Dwag (divorce) or Swag (separate)?

Or Dayvid gives up football. Which is he is not going to do because, as he tells the Sun, “I’ll be back”. Dayve’s been dropped from the England team but vows to return.

Says Dayve: “But it’s not all over for me yet with England – I’m working hard and I’ll be back.”

It seems that Vicky is a little premature in her self-reclassification from Wag to Dwag, Swag or Wigwag.

Might it be a case of wishful thinking? Indeed it might. As Posh says, no longer being a Wag “is no bad thing”.

She continues: “Everyone was going on about the Wags during the World Cup and me not hanging around with them all the time but I had three kids with me.”

She goes on: “My kids were getting car sick travelling on coaches so we had to travel to some matches by train, so that’s why I sometimes wasn’t with the other Wags.”

While the Wags were travelling by charabanc, Posh was riding German public transport, which although ruthlessly efficient nonetheless necessitates a meeting with the common volk.

This is a big sacrifice. Although Posh stresses: “But I haven’t got any problems with the other girls.”

Perish the thought. Although, now she mentions it…



Posted: 10th, September 2006 | In: Back pages Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink