They did. The people were starving to death. The woman’s complaint was that her friend had talked her into eating their sons… but to eat hers first. When the time came to eat the friend’s she played clueless about his whereabouts. The king was understandably upset at the state of affairs.
Both the title and the image seem to be misunderstanding what the story actually is saying, as if it were the king’s kid that got ate.
Can you explain for an ignorant person? Because to me it sounds like they just cannibalized someone.
They did. The people were starving to death. The woman’s complaint was that her friend had talked her into eating their sons… but to eat hers first. When the time came to eat the friend’s she played clueless about his whereabouts. The king was understandably upset at the state of affairs.
Ohhh ok. So it has nothing to do with the king’s son. She is just telling her story to the king. Got it, thanks!
Yeah I fucked up, had a shitty day and didn’t pay attention, but .eh, still funny tho, just I’m an idiot.