LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Meghan Markle

SevMax2 said:
Jacobin, not Jacobite...:D Think French Revolution, the Terror, Madame Guillotine. The razor. Robespierre, Danton, Marat. The greats. :D
Click to expand...

A Jacobin is what they put the heads in. What did they teach you at school??:rolleyes:
 
One of the other shoes has dropped:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have finally admitted to The Daily Beast that they were not married three days before their official ceremony, as they had claimed in their interview with Oprah Winfrey.


The belated admission on the record, which follows several anonymous briefings to journalists, marks the end of a tortuous saga that began when Meghan told Oprah she and Harry tied the knot “in our backyard” three days before the $50 million public wedding on May 19, 2018.
Click to expand...
 
stickygirl said:
The Windsor-Saxe-Cobergs hated Diana. They are sticking to form
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The recent history and repeat makes me more inclined to side with Meghan and Harry. But truly how did she not know what she was getting herself into? That's just weird.
 
Gator66 said:
I agree with you. The recent history and repeat makes me more inclined to side with Meghan and Harry. But truly how did she not know what she was getting herself into? That's just weird.
Click to expand...

Exactly! She was an aristocrat! Was she that caught up in the whole Disneyfied fantasy version of royalty that she forgot the history of her own country's monarchy? Kings have mistresses. Princes have mistresses! And Charles made it clear through his questioning, skeptical tone that he wasn't too confident that this was a love match or anything but a traditional marriage of convenience and companionship.

"Whatever 'in love' means...." should have been a dead giveaway. Oddly enough, in the past, Charles and Diana could not have wed due to his prior relations with her elder sister, Sarah, which was another reason that she should not have been shocked as she had prior exposure to the man. But in the past, anyway, that marriage would be invalid due to the possibility that Sarah had "carnal knowledge" of Charles and vice versa. It would have been considered at least somewhat incestuous during the Late Middle Ages at least.
 
Dribble said:
How desperate is a poster to use the Daily Beast as source?
Click to expand...

Thought you neoliberals all loved the Clintonista Beast. :D It's us real progressives who usually can't stomach it. The Nation's a much better rag, anyway.
 
I got an email from an aged relation asking about the interview after having seem an article about it in the Economist.
Apparently said aged relations apparently believes that one should only be in the media at birth, marriage, death and to promote good deeds or work and did not understand why they did it since they did not use it to promote what their foundation work?
They also did not understand what the expected outcome was and found it a bit strange that they would do this during a pandemic since most of their issues were not time sensitive. I pointed out that Harry's grandfather was in hospital and the aged relative was even more confused by their actions.
I am confused as to why the Economist felt they should cover it.
 
Mental health...

That's fucking hilarious.

It's probably just a Hunter Biden-style job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Kidnap fantasy
Replies
3
Views
156
lifeis2short2b
lifeis2short2b
SissyBrandi19
Summer 2025 Reading List Challenge!!!
Replies
2
Views
432
SissyBrandi19
SissyBrandi19
jessIncognito
Rant about the scoring system and series system
Replies
2
Views
634
Diamondknight87
D
TwystedDzyre
Epstein Files Transparency Act: RELEASED! Link of records
Replies
1
Views
143
snide22
S
S
ASKING FOR HELP PLEASE!
Replies
6
Views
673
EvaLane
EvaLane
Back
Top