Playing Now



Michelle Jenneke

Get Happy w/Michelle Jenneke

Can't Get This Blog at Work?



Terrific stock and custom leather holsters, and you name it. 100% American by a 100% American

Prescription Machine Gun  For Better Mental Health


Free Juke Box

Wonder prolly makes the vitamins you're using now. Been using for 4 years. All fish oils are molecularly distilled. CLICK

The Web C&S

            Friday, August 14, 2015

Ribbed for her pleasure


            2 squirts Posted by Rodger the Real King of France | 8/14/2015 11:51:00 PM | PERMALINK Back Link (5) | Send This Post | HOME


Writing in Righteous Indignation, Breitbart noted that, “the left doesn’t win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the 21st century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media and narrative is everything.”
When Hamlet suggests lying in Ophelia's lap and has to clarify that he meant his head, not "country matters," she tells him "you are naught, my lord."

A pro pos to your baudy implications, ne?
Okay, Hamlet. Am I the only one who's ever spotted the giant hole in the plot?

When Hamlet's father is poisoned, the law of royal succession states that Hamlet (the king's son) must become king, not the king's brother. It's not like Hamlet's a tot and unable to reign, either -- he's in his late teens or early twenties, and perfectly capable of ruling Denmark.

So the whole setup is a load of old bollocks, and the story is nonsensical.

Or have I missed something?
^ So, what you're sayin', then, it that it was …
not to be.
Kim, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the law of succession for 12th Century Denmark. It certainly wasn't the case for the Viking era, which is when the story probably originated. Back then, it was by election. I think in in the Danish tale, Hamlet's mother Gerta is the one who is royal. Until she dies, whoever she's married to is of course king. But it's a confusing tangle.
According to an article in the Grauniad, Gertrude was “imperial jointress of our warlike state” (Claudius’ opening speech from Act 1, Scene 2) and entitled to inherit the crown from her husband. “Jointure” was “an invention of the Tudor legal system that allowed a man to leave his estate to his widow rather than his children.” (Thank you, Innertubes.)

And (according to me) why would Claudius have killed his brother (not nice) and married his sister in law (probably a woman of a certain age), unless it made him King?

Post a Comment

This page is powered by


Some of the blogs I like
Grouchy Old Cripple
Brian The Movie Guy
Hot Air
Parkway Rest Stop
Jawa Report
The O Club
American Digest
Watts Up With That
Moon Battery
Free Republic.com
Doug Ross
Best of the Web
Chicago Boyz
Aggravated DocSurg
American Thinker
House of Eratosthenes
Mychal Massie
View From The Porch
Mostly Cajun
Interested Participant

Defining Articles

Site Meter

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Amazon.com Widgets