Tumgik
#legitimacy
Text
Clarence Thomas and the generosity of a far-right dark-money billionaire
Tumblr media
Clarence Thomas has set some important precedents in his career as a Supreme Court justice — for example, the elevation of the unrepentant rapist Brett Kavanaugh to the bench could never have occurred but for the trail blazed by Thomas as a sexually harassing, pubic-hair distributing creep boss:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/01/30-years-after-her-testimony-anita-hill-still-wants-something-from-joe-biden-514884
If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas/#harlan-crow
Today, Thomas continues to steer the court into new territory — for example, he’s interested in banning same-sex marriage again:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
And of course, he’s set precedent by hearing cases related to the attempted overthrow of the US government, despite the role his wife played in the affair:
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089595933/legal-ethics-experts-agree-justice-thomas-must-recuse-in-insurrection-cases
Thomas is not alone in furthering the right’s mission to destroy the morale of constitutional law scholars by systematically delegitimizing the court and showing it to be a vehicle for partisan politics and dark money policy laundering, but he is certainly at the vanguard:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes
Today, Propublica published an expose on the vast fortune in secret gifts bestowed upon Thomas by the billionare GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, who is also one the most significant funders of political campaigns that put business before Thomas and the Supreme Court:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
The story, reported by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski is a masterwork of shoe-leather investigative journalism, drawing on aviation records, social media posts and other “open source” intelligence to expose the illegal, off-the-books “gifts” from a billionaire to an unaccountable Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment.
Here are a two of those gifts: a private jet/superyacht jaunt around Indonesia valued at $500,000; and a $500,000 gift to Ginni Thomas’s Tea Party group (which pays Ginni Thomas $120,000/year).
On top of that are gifts that are literally priceless: decades’ worth of summer vacations at Camp Topridge, Crow’s private estate, with its waterfall, great hall, private chefs, 25 fireplaces, thee boathouses, clay tennis court, batting range, 1950s-style soda fountain and full-scale reproduction of Hagrid’s hut.
Summer retreats to Topridge allow business leaders like Leonard Leo — the Federalist Society bankroller and mastermind who set Trump up to pack the Supreme Court — to coordinate in private with Thomas:
https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/29/betcha-cant-eat-just-one/#pwnage
They also allow top execs from PWC, Verizon and other corporations who may have business before the court to establish a warm, collegial relationship with a judge whose decisions can make billions for their employers. In its reporting, Propublica points out that Thomas got to hang out on Crow’s superyacht with Mark Paoletta, who was then general counsel for Trump’s OMB, and who has opposed any tightening of ethics rules for Supreme Court judges: “there is nothing wrong with ethics or recusals at the Supreme Court.”
Crow and Thomas also hobnob together at Crow’s Texas ranch, and at the Bohemian Grove, the Bay Area’s ultra-luxe retreat for rich creeps. Crow bought Thomas a private superyacht cruise through New Zealand, another through the Greek islands, and a river trip around Savannah, GA. He also traveled around the country on Crow’s private jet — even a short private jet trip is valued around $70,000.
Crow also makes many donations on Thomas’s behalf, from a $105,000 donation to Yale Law School for the “Justice Thomas Portrait Fund” to paying for a 7 foot tall, 1,800 lb bronze statue of the nun who taught Thomas in the eighth grade, which now stands in a New York Catholic cemetery.
This is without precedent. No Supreme Court justice in US history received comparable gifts during their tenure on the bench. Federal judges quoted in the story call it “incomprehensible,” noting that US judges bend over backwards not to owe anyone any favors, going so far as to book restaurant reservations without using their titles.
Virginia Canter, a former US government ethics lawyer of bipartisan experience said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations,” adding “it makes my heart sink.”
The Supreme Court’s own code of ethics prohibits justices from engaging in conduct that gives rise to the “appearance of impropriety,” but the code is “consultative,” and there are no penalties for violating it. But US judicial officers — including Thomas — are legally required to disclose things like private jet trips. Thomas did not. In general, justices must report any gift valued at more than $415, where a gift is “anything of value.” This includes instances in which a gift is given by a corporation whose owner is the true giver.
Crow is a Red Scare-haunted plutocrat who says his greatest fear is “Marxism.” He was a key donor to the anti-tax extremists at the Club For Growth, and has served on the board of the American Enterprise Institute — climate deniers who also claimed that smoking didn’t cause cancer — for 25 years.
Crow is a proud dark-money source, too, whose $10m in acknowledged donations to Republican causes and candidates are only the tip of the iceberg, next to the dark money he has provided to groups he declines to name, telling the New York Times, “I don’t disclose what I’m not required to disclose.”
Crow claims that the vast sums he’s lavished on Thomas — who, again, presides over the test cases that Crow is helping to put before him — are just “hospitality.” Crow called the private retreats with business leaders and top government officials “gatherings of friends,” and added that he was “unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas” while at his private estates or on his superyacht or private plane.
For his part, Thomas publicly maintains that he hates luxury. In a Crow-financed documentary about Thomas’s life, Thomas tells the camera, “I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”
Judges often have to make determinations about conflicts of interest, and lawyers have an entire practice devoted to preventing conflicts from arising. I doubt whether Thomas himself would consent to have a dispute of his own tried in front of a judge who had received millions in gifts from his opponent.
The Supreme Court’s power comes from its legitimacy. The project of delegitimizing the court started with the right, and Democrats have been loathe to participate in any activity that would worsen the court’s reputation. As a result, the business lobby and authoritarian politicians have had free rein to turn the court into a weapon for attacking American workers, American women, and LGBTQ people.
It doesn’t have to be this way. When the Supreme Court blocked all of FDR’s New Deal policies — which were wildly popular — FDR responded by proposing age limits for Supreme Court judges. When the Supremes refused to contemplate this, FDR asked Congress for a law allowing him to appoint one new Supreme Court judge for every judge who should retire but wouldn’t.
As the vote on this bill grew nearer, the Supremes reversed themselves, voting to uphold the policies they’d struck down in their previous session. They knew that their legitimacy was all they had, and when a brave president stood up to their bullying, they caved.
https://theconversation.com/packing-the-court-amid-national-crises-lincoln-and-his-republicans-remade-the-supreme-court-to-fit-their-agenda-147139
The Supreme Court has moved America further away from the ideals of pluralistic democracy than we can even fathom, and they’re just getting started. They are taking a wrecking ball to the lives of anyone who isn’t a wealthy conservative, and they’re doing it while accepting a fortune in bribes from American oligarchs.
Have you ever wanted to say thank you for these posts? Here’s how you can: I’m kickstarting the audiobook for my next novel, a post-cyberpunk anti-finance finance thriller about Silicon Valley scams called Red Team Blues. Amazon’s Audible refuses to carry my audiobooks because they’re DRM free, but crowdfunding makes them possible.
Image: Mr. Kjetil Ree (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Supreme_Court.JPG
CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
[Image ID: An altered image of Clarence Thomas, standing in gilded judicial robes on the steps of the Supreme Court. Looming over the court is a line-drawing of a business-man with a dollar-sign-emblazoned money-bag for a head.]
160 notes · View notes
empirearchives · 3 months
Text
The concept of ‘legitimacy’ as a matter of sovereignty first enters English discourse as a response to Napoleon
Excerpt from British Radicals and 'Legitimacy': Napoleon in the Mirror of History by Stuart Semmel
———
The introduction of ‘legitimacy’ into British political discourse seems to have been directly connected to the peculiar case of Napoleon. His superficial similarity to a king, in the wake of France’s republican experiment, made it necessary to distinguish him from other monarchs by dwelling on the quality he lacked, that of hereditary descent from a line of kings. Perhaps the earliest appearance of the new usage came in 1801, when the True Briton newspaper contrasted the ‘obtrusive upstart’ Napoleon with France’s ‘legitimate Monarchs’. The adjective occurred frequently in discussions of Napoleon (an 1803 broad-side, for example, called on the French to remove Bonaparte from ‘his usurped station . . . and hail the return of their legitimate prince’). The ultra-loyalist journalist Lewis Goldsmith employed the word frequently — as when he bemoaned Napoleon’s placing members of his own ‘bastard family on the thrones of ancient legitimate monarchs’. Goldsmith, in accusing the entire Bonaparte clan of bastardy, was not claiming that every member had been born out of wedlock. The new meaning rather accused Napoleon and his siblings of having been born outside of dynasty. Even as we chart the emergence of the new usage, however, Goldsmith’s language should remind us that the older meaning lurked underneath the surface (as it perhaps still lurks). The double meaning was present in contemporaries’ minds, as occasional wordplay suggested — not least because it was a common loyalist tactic to question the purity of Napoleon’s mother, and thus Napoleon's paternity. . .
As far as its critics were concerned, the virtue now trumpeted by continental dynasts amounted to nothing less than the ‘old doctrine of Divine Right, new-vamped up’, as the radical journalist William Hazlitt put it. ‘Legitimacy’ seemed an anachronism to Hazlitt, a ‘mock-doctrine’ dug up by ‘resurrection-men’. Thomas Babington Macaulay, in a similar spirit, would write in 1825 of ‘the doctrine of Divine Right’ having ‘come back to us, like a thief from transportation, under the alias of Legitimacy’. To those who worried about the strength of the executive, the new term ‘legitimacy’ seemed a bare-faced admission of a plot, on the Stuart model, against British liberties. Necessity had often been invoked, during the French wars, to justify infringements on traditional freedoms. Many now shared Hazlitt’s foreboding, expressed as news of Napoleon’s 1814 fall reached Britain, that ‘The restoration of the Bourbons in France will be the re-establishment of the principles of the Stuarts in this country’.
17 notes · View notes
aegor-bamfsteel · 6 months
Note
What if Robert pulled an Aegon IV and legitimised all his bastards?
I don’t think Robert, despite his hatred of Joffrey, would legitimize his illegitimate children because it would encourage factionalism against his Lannister-packed court, which may potentially destabilize the realm he helped bring together after the Tàrgs were deposed; he told Ned to teach Joffrey to be a better king on his deathbed, so he wasn’t looking for alternate heirs so long as he believed Cersei’s children were biologically his. However, Cersei was already having them killed without them being legitimized, and heavily implied to Robert that his daughter (Mya) would suffer “an accident” if he followed through on the idea of bringing her to court (recounted in AFFC). These are the children of peasant women, thus wouldn’t have an independent faction behind them if they were legitimized, but Cersei had them murdered anyway due to her interpretation of the prophecy. Legitimization could mean inviting these children to court, in which case they’re all likely to die; but even not inviting them, it’s putting a target on their backs for Cersei. Edric Storm could be the one exception because his mother Delena Florent is noble born, plus he’s at Storm’s End in canon, but it could be Cersei would try harder to assassinate him were he legitimized (though your question doesn’t specify when Robert was making his decree); say he lives after Robert’s death but is still in Renly’s care. If Renly’s actions wrt Robert/Margaery indicate he’s aware of the incest but doesn’t want to be king, then it’s possible he puts his support behind Edric and brokers a betrothal with one of Margaery’s cousins (saying cousin because Edric is still legitimized thus the daughter of a lord Paramount may not be suitable, plus the Florent/Tyrell rivalry). It’s not clear though, if legitimization puts Edric ahead in the line of succession over his uncles or behind them; in the case of the latter, maybe nothing much would change. But again, I don’t see Robert legitimizing his children at any time, since he and they would be in danger of Lannister reprisals (plus he’s lazy and conflict averse)
15 notes · View notes
indizombie · 1 month
Text
One of the paradoxes of Narendra Modi is this: The more he is accused of impunity, the more his attraction grows, because the criticism ultimately acknowledges and reinforces the fact of his power, even as it seeks to question its legitimacy. Marx had written perceptively of Victor Hugo's critique of Louis Bonaparte II. Even criticisms, such as Hugo's, that ascribe the subversion of democracy to one man, "ended up making that individual great", against the author's own intentions, "by ascribing to him a personal power of initiative unparalleled in world history". The permanent revolution of this government is the constant deployment of power till all countervailing power is extinguished. The disquieting question is: What is the social condition that makes putting personality in the place of a constitution attractive?
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘Constitutional Collapse’, Indian Express
5 notes · View notes
agentrouka-blog · 1 year
Note
Lord Samwell Tarly aka Savage Sam wielded Heartsbane to fight in Vulture Hunt. He slewed many Dornishmen with it which made the sword appeared red with blood. Sam was allowed to hold Heartsbane by husband father Randyl when he was young but Sam was scared because he didn't wanted to hurt his sisters with it. Sam believe that this sword will pass on to Dickon. How do you think Heartsbane will involved in Sam story in future? Will he yield the sword as Savage Sam or he is going to reject it?
I don't think Sam is going to emulate either of his bold namesakes, be that Savage Sam or Lady Sam.
His thoughts on the sword are given to us in AGOT, Jon VIII, in the context of Jon receiving Longclaw from Lord Commander Mormont.
"Sam." Jon stood. "What is it? Do you want to see the sword?" If the others had known, no doubt Sam did too. The fat boy shook his head. "I was heir to my father's blade once," he said mournfully. "Heartsbane. Lord Randyll let me hold it a few times, but it always scared me. It was Valyrian steel, beautiful but so sharp I was afraid I'd hurt one of my sisters. Dickon will have it now." He wiped sweaty hands on his cloak.
Sam has no desire for this dangerous sword, no more than he has ever shown a desire to be able to fight at all. He is not mourning his lost inheritance, either. It's his father's cruelty that traumatized him.
This is a marked contrast to Jon's relationship with blades and inheritance.
When Jon had been Bran's age, he had dreamed of doing great deeds, as boys always did. The details of his feats changed with every dreaming, but quite often he imagined saving his father's life. Afterward Lord Eddard would declare that Jon had proved himself a true Stark, and place Ice in his hand. Even then he had known it was only a child's folly; no bastard could ever hope to wield a father's sword. Even the memory shamed him. What kind of man stole his own brother's birthright? I have no right to this, he thought, no more than to Ice. He twitched his burned fingers, feeling a throb of pain deep under the skin. "My lord, you honor me, but—" [....] "Yes, my lord." The soft leather gave beneath Jon's fingers, as if the sword were molding itself to his grip already. He knew he should be honored, and he was, and yet …
He is not my father. The thought leapt unbidden to Jon's mind. Lord Eddard Stark is my father. I will not forget him, no matter how many swords they give me. Yet he could scarcely tell Lord Mormont that it was another man's sword he dreamt of …
Which picks up a thread introduced even earlier:
"A wolf with a fish in its mouth?" It made her laugh. "That would look silly. Besides, if a girl can't fight, why should she have a coat of arms?" Jon shrugged. "Girls get the arms but not the swords. Bastards get the swords but not the arms. I did not make the rules, little sister." (AGOT, Arya I)
He gets a sword and the arms in one from Mormont, but it is not The Sword he truly wants. The sword that marks his father's heritage, his legitimacy.
Given the cruel deeds attached to Heartsbane, Samwell seems wise to reject the sword in his heart. It's not his father or his sword that represents home to him, it is his mother and his sisters.
I have a suspicion that Jon will emulate Sam there, and have no desire to wield his "true" father's ancestral family weapon, either, should he have the chance to bond with a dragon. He may not be Ned's son, but he is the man who raised him, and it is his mother who is his tie to his home.
He already has the true symbol of legitimacy:
Ghost was curled up asleep beside the door, but he lifted his head at the sound of Jon's boots. The direwolf's red eyes were darker than garnets and wiser than men. Jon knelt, scratched his ear, and showed him the pommel of the sword. "Look. It's you." Ghost sniffed at his carved stone likeness and tried a lick. Jon smiled. "You're the one deserves an honor," he told the wolf … and suddenly he found himself remembering how he'd found him, that day in the late summer snow. 
Samwell doesn't need the validation of Heartsbane, and I don't think the text will seek to validate the sword itself, either. Samwell has plenty of heart on his own, and since GRRM has Ice put through the blender, I don't think he's out there looking to glorify these swords so much as asking us to question the purpose and worth of carrying weapons. Ancestral vanity blades (no matter the high quality) mean little. Brienne has made better use of Oathkeeper in the short time it has existed. I wouldn't bet on Heartsbane surviving.
28 notes · View notes
Text
HOTD 1x06: Family tie
Imagine if Rhaenyra would have taken Daemon as her lover during her marriage with Laenor, no one would have questioned their legitimacy. 
56 notes · View notes
poypan · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
Text
--prompt from @nosebleedclub "myrrh" (9 December)
Two drops of myrrh, one drop of oil, and only enough rain to wash it away.
Your coronation cannot arrive soon enough; but any sliver of solidarity slips away when you announce your name into the void.
It echoes back to the mountains where you've retreated to find gold, only to have foil wrap around your hands as you seek it out from the cold.
The thread ties around your fingers, but you bind yourself neither to the crown nor to the people.
No--you choose your own sanctity above all, with two drops of myrrh and one drop of oil. --Elda Mengisto
15 notes · View notes
taazaofferss · 9 months
Text
Earn Unlimited Cash Daily Survey [$20 Guaranteed] AttaPoll Survey App
Earn Unlimited Cash Daily Survey AttaPoll Survey App Referral Code Complete Daily Survey Earn Unlimited Cash Using AttaPoll Survey App Referral Code : enkho AttaPoll Survey, AttaPoll Survey App, AttaPoll Survey Referral Code, AttaPoll Referral Code, AttaPoll App Payment Proof, AttaPoll App Withdrawal Proof, AttaPoll App Unlimited Survey Trick, AttaPoll App Unlimited Survey – Hello Coolz…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
3 notes · View notes
eaglesnick · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
13 notes · View notes
taiwantalk · 8 months
Text
given the way that history are distorted by autocratic countries, people today should always be questioning when someone is asserting historical legitimacy.
the first simple question is, where are you going with that argument about legitimacy.
who had what land for how long is always about the past legitimacy.
what legitimacy did americans have in declaration of independence? freedom? equality? representation? so they're mentioned in textbooks.
americans' cause was essentially wanting to be their own boss and not be controlled and be told what the laws are by colonial lieutenants of an island country full of aristocrats who knew nothing about building a new country.
and my words of wisdom for taiwan and ukraine, legitimacy is for losers. stand up and be your own boss. that is what you're fighting for. not be a secondary citizen of someone brutal. not bend your knees for evil. fight for the land and the people not because of legitimacy but because, otherwise, your path to be your own boss will be forever jeopardized by the enemy closer to you by 1 inch.
2 notes · View notes
aegor-bamfsteel · 1 year
Note
usually kids have father's surname. but if jon snow marries sansa stark, for example. their kids will have legitimate born parent's surname? so stark? because "snow" is basically not a surname but a badge of illegitimacy? otherwise there would be legitimate born snows and it would lose the meaning.
Children born to a legitimate marriage usually have the name of the higher status parent, which is usually the father. However, Anya Waynwood, Arwyn Oakheart, and Maege Mormont are the ruling ladies of their respective lands, and all of their descendants (not just the heirs) have their surname. If Sansa the Queen of the North/Lady of Winterfell were to marry, her legitimate children would be Starks, just like the cited examples. If she was not the heiress (say, Rickon is king and she’s regent) then it may be more complicated.
As I mentioned with the Lady Charlton/Walder Rivers’ marriage, there are legitimate Rivers’ at least, considering their son Aemon is surnamed rivers (though quarters the sigils of his parents on his personal arms, which helps distance him from the Rivers name). However, after a generation or two the family often takes a different name to show they’re legitimate, either one that points to their origins (House Longwaters originated from Jon Waters’ son, House Oldflowers probably originated from an illegitimate son of House Gardener) or an entirely different one, but still keeps the same inverted colors of the father’s sigil with a bendy sinister (possibly House Cassel for House Stark, House Vikary for House Reyne, Houses Bolling and Wensington for House Durrandon). That’s why in some of the older fics before the ending was known you have Jon/Sansa founding their own House with a unique but wolflike sigil, in order to prove they’re not threatening Rickon’s claim to Winterfell. But as it stands in the show’s ending with Sansa as queen, her children would be regular Starks.
26 notes · View notes
soolegal · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻'𝘀 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗧𝗼 𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗼𝗹𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗢𝗳 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁: 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗢𝗻 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗼 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 '𝗗𝗡𝗔 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁'
For further information, refer to this News Report By SoOLEGAL.
2 notes · View notes
agentrouka-blog · 2 years
Note
I think Robb's will is on its way north via Howland Reed who also knows Jon's parentage. I highly doubt he won't reveal it. So maybe there'll be a case of both things revealed simultaneously, presenting two names as a choice for Jon, (though admittedly not much of a choice). The north will prefer Jon Stark, legitimized son of Ned Stark who can lead and command them, over a girl and even a boy of six (if he is alive by then). But will they prefer a Targaryen? And if they don't, whom will they crown? Sansa? Rickon? Neither is preferrable to Jon. Million dollar question. Northern succession will be a mess. What do you think? (I think it will be Jon).
I kind of love that proposed scenario.
There is no way Howland Reed can present both things openly. One contradicts and cancels the other. He can only reveal both to Jon privately, and ask him to choose according to his conscience.
It's a Faustian bargain in every way.
Choose Northern kingship and legitimacy, the Stark name, the lordship of Winterfell, and the power to lead the North in the way he thinks is best in the coming fight against the Others? All the while knowing it is based on a lie, on denying the one person he has longed to know about all his life (his mother) and on usurping his siblings?
But would it be selfish to choose his honor, knowing that the North would be left reeling for clear leadership with only underage heirs available? Could he even credibly be regent for Bran or Rickon at his young age? Who else then would wield the power to decide Sansa's and Arya's future?
(In this context, Sansa's marriage to absent Tyrion is a blessing in disguise, preventing pressure to marry her off for an alliance, but Arya could be in jeopardy in that regard when she arrives.)
Still, in this scenario, I have a strong suspicion that Jon would choose Lyanna, the truth and his own identity over a lie, no matter how seemingly convenient. **
The Lordship of Winterfell would be Rickon's. (I doubt Bran will be back that early.) And the rule would be wielded by an appointed guardian or council. There are some established, older Stark loyalists like Manderly (should he live), Maege Mormont, Galbart or Robett Glover, even Howland Reed himself... Jon could even be part of that council. 
I just have an extremely hard time imagining a scenario where Jon would be willing to erase the truth about his mother in order to accept the Northern throne that could go to one of the trueborn Starklings instead. It’s two things that go against his established core values. 
But anyway, that's mostly wild speculation. I don't have a solid scenario in mind for how the Northern succession drama will go down in detail, how RLJ will be revealed, etc.
(**Did you notice that I kept to the subject of succession and completely refrained from bringing Jonsa into this? That's because I think thematically GRRM will handle it parallel to the political drama of the Northern succession, not entwined with it, so it is utterly clear that their relationship is personal and emotional first and foremost.)
64 notes · View notes
ranjit7853 · 2 years
Text
Shotgun Wedding
Shotgun Wedding is a wedding which is performed by a family to avoid the embarassment caused by pre-marital sexual relationship usually resulting in the pregnancy. To keep the pregnancy a secret and give it a legitimacy the girl’s parents has to resort to this kind of wedding. Such a thing was considered a taboo almost all over the world for one reason or another. The marriage date if fixed is…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
2 notes · View notes
arthropooda · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
3 notes · View notes