The previous year her father-in-law, the 11th Duke of Argyll, had been involved in an infamous divorce case with his third wife, Margaret, who appeared in a Polaroid photograph wearing nothing but her signature triple string of pearls while fellating an unidentified “headless man”.
It’s long been obvious what was happening in the headless man piccie. But I tjink that’s the first time – in an august publication at least – that I’ve seen it spelt out directly.
O Tempora, eh?
The episode has no relevance to the life being recorded and is merely a salacious tit-bit for the modern Times reader. The notion of Iona Campbell being at one time one of four duchesses of Argyll walking this earth is of course nonsense.
Perhaps The Times is trying to keep up with The Torygraph’s current obsession with sexual matters. Yesterday the DT was recommending ‘ethical’ porn sites for their middle-aged female readers to enjoy.
What Womby says. The Times has being upping the sex content lately. Sometimes they try to dress it up as intellectual content (“The Science of a Better Sex Life”); and sometimes it’s voyeurism (“I Spent a Year Having Casual Sex – This is What I’ve Learnt”) (sic). Sex sells, but at what cost to their reputation?
A headless man? That seems to be not very choosy.
Oh, you mean the photo does not show the man’s head? Well, that makes a difference.
Is it really fellatio if the head is still visible?
Nearly Headless Dick?