This is obviously a sad story, as it appears that a few of the Queens' dogs attacked one of Princess Beatrix's dogs.
Having said that, there are a few funny takeaways from the article linked to...
1 - An insider described the person walking the dogs as "The Queen's dog boy."
First of all, the "dog boy" is a person, right? England doesn't have half-human, half-dog things runnin' around, I presume.
Also, is that how the Queen refers to him (it?)... Dog Boy? Why am I picturing the Queen ringing a bell, while summoning him with, "Oh dog boy, come hither!"
2 - The title of the story puts quotes around the word "attack."
Is the editor telling us something here without saying it? Does he (or she) not believe that those bite marks were made by the dogs in question?
3 - To confirm my suspicions, the sub-heading uses the word "allegedly" while referring to the corgis "attack."
Are they saying allegedly as it hasn't been proven in a court of law that it was, in fact, the Corgis? I can't wait for that trial.
Maybe they can't believe it wasn't a pit bull, given England's feelings about pitties.
Or, is The Telegraph telling us they don't think it was the Queen's Corgis? Do they know something here? Maybe they did their own investigation, and though they don't have they think it was something else, or maybe someone else. Or maybe both... that's right...
Stewie to the Rescue