Eugene's Lair posted:

scatterby posted:

I think it's lovely - I really think they make a lovely couple and I'm ignoring all of the miseries on Facebook with their horrible comments

I think that's advisable as a general life rule anyway. 

I agree Eugene .  And tbh the more negative people are , the more I go the other way...so it’s totally counterproductive 

Baz posted:

Eugene's Lair posted:

scatterby posted:

I think it's lovely - I really think they make a lovely couple and I'm ignoring all of the miseries on Facebook with their horrible comments

I think that's advisable as a general life rule anyway. 

I agree Eugene .  And tbh the more negative people are , the more I go the other way...so it’s totally counterproductive 

 I can soooo relate to that.

Yogi19 posted:

Baz posted:

Eugene's Lair posted:

scatterby posted:

I think it's lovely - I really think they make a lovely couple and I'm ignoring all of the miseries on Facebook with their horrible comments

I think that's advisable as a general life rule anyway. 

I agree Eugene .  And tbh the more negative people are , the more I go the other way...so it’s totally counterproductive 

 I can soooo relate to that.

😂😂😂😂

That’s why I love you girls  

~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:

That’s why I love you girls  

 We love you too 

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

Rexi posted:

~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:

I hope we can all see the wedding on tv  

I was kinda hoping for a Bank Holiday

It's already been announced that there won't be one.

Pffttttt

I just loved the pic of her outside Buck House many years ago ... I‘m hoping some clever pic poster will post it here !

Yogi19 posted:

~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:

Eugene's Lair posted:

scatterby posted:

I think it's lovely - I really think they make a lovely couple and I'm ignoring all of the miseries on Facebook with their horrible comments

I think that's advisable as a general life rule anyway. 

Well said 👍👏 

I agree! 

I don’t do FB but, in RL, I tend to ignore the Negative Nancy types and leave them to wallow in their self inflicted pool of negativity.

I hear ya sista

Rexi posted:

Yogi19 posted:

~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:

Eugene's Lair posted:

scatterby posted:

I think it's lovely - I really think they make a lovely couple and I'm ignoring all of the miseries on Facebook with their horrible comments

I think that's advisable as a general life rule anyway. 

Well said 👍👏 

I agree! 

I don’t do FB but, in RL, I tend to ignore the Negative Nancy types and leave them to wallow in their self inflicted pool of negativity.

I hear ya sista

Yogi19 posted:

~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:

That’s why I love you girls  

 We love you too 

Yes, we do

Rexi posted:

Yogi19 posted:

~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:

Eugene's Lair posted:

scatterby posted:

I think it's lovely - I really think they make a lovely couple and I'm ignoring all of the miseries on Facebook with their horrible comments

I think that's advisable as a general life rule anyway. 

Well said 👍👏 

I agree! 

I don’t do FB but, in RL, I tend to ignore the Negative Nancy types and leave them to wallow in their self inflicted pool of negativity.

I hear ya sista

I'm a republican (not in the IRA/Donald Trump sense) but to me, Harry seems the most down to earth likeable royal.  A man who appears comfortable in his own skin, affable and was far closer to the action in his military service than other contemporary royals.  The mixed race thing passed me by, I hadn't even noticed that Megan wasn't "white".  Also I wasn't unaware of the divorce thing. That said, so what!  Harry won't be king and so what if circumstances prevail that he becomes king.

I'm not a Catholic, I'm an atheist but I think in this day and age Megan should not be required to renounce her Catholicism and convert to our silly Church of England state so-called religion. 

It's the 21st century.  Only zealots give a flying one over what creed a royal belongs.  Does anyone really care what version of their imaginary friend a royal believes? 

Royalty should grow up and leave the 16th century behind.  It's  backward and humiliating for her to renounce her Catholic faith in order to become part of the firm.  I would hope that they will drop that requirement.

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

Saint posted:

Are you sure there Yoyo?

You've not been paying attention, have you?

 

The line of succession remains the line of succession regardless as to whether the current monarch has a partner or not.

 

I.E. If our present queen were to pop her clogs, Charles would become King, not Philip and if Charles  became King and then popped HIS, William would become  Monarch, not Camilla.......and so on.

Even if the next in line was a minor, they would still become King/Queen. A regent might well be elected until the new monarch became of age and this regent could well be the bereaved partner of the recently deceased monarch, but as the monarch no longer has direct rule it would be a position in name only.

 

Happy dreaming!

You cheeky !!!

I'd slap you about the chops - but you'd probably enjoy it 

Carnelian posted:

I'm a republican (not in the IRA/Donald Trump sense) but to me, Harry seems the most down to earth likeable royal.  A man who appears comfortable in his own skin, affable and was far closer to the action in his military service than other contemporary royals.  The mixed race thing passed me by, I hadn't even noticed that Megan wasn't "white".  Also I wasn't unaware of the divorce thing. That said, so what!  Harry won't be king and so what if circumstances prevail that he becomes king.

 

I'm not a Catholic, I'm an atheist but I think in this day and age Megan should not be required to renounce her Catholicism and convert to our silly Church of England state so-called religion. 

 

It's the 21st century.  Only zealots give a flying one over what creed a royal belongs.  Does anyone really care what version of their imaginary friend a royal believes? 

Royalty should grow up and leave the 16th century behind.  It's  backward and humiliating for her to renounce her Catholic faith in order to become part of the firm.  I would hope that they will drop that requirement.

 

 

Meghan attended a Catholic private school but isn’t Catholic so no renouncing required. She was brought up Episcopalian but not baptised in the faith and will now be baptised in the C of E.

Yogi19 posted:

Carnelian posted:

I'm a republican (not in the IRA/Donald Trump sense) but to me, Harry seems the most down to earth likeable royal.  A man who appears comfortable in his own skin, affable and was far closer to the action in his military service than other contemporary royals.  The mixed race thing passed me by, I hadn't even noticed that Megan wasn't "white".  Also I wasn't unaware of the divorce thing. That said, so what!  Harry won't be king and so what if circumstances prevail that he becomes king.

 

I'm not a Catholic, I'm an atheist but I think in this day and age Megan should not be required to renounce her Catholicism and convert to our silly Church of England state so-called religion. 

 

It's the 21st century.  Only zealots give a flying one over what creed a royal belongs.  Does anyone really care what version of their imaginary friend a royal believes? 

Royalty should grow up and leave the 16th century behind.  It's  backward and humiliating for her to renounce her Catholic faith in order to become part of the firm.  I would hope that they will drop that requirement.

 

 

Meghan attended a Catholic private school but isn’t Catholic so no renouncing required. She was brought up Episcopalian but not baptised in the faith and will now be baptised in the C of E.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.  If Catholicism isn't her faith then fair enough.  I do think it's still a bit much expecting her to be baptised into our backward political state religion.  This is largely because I feel that religion and the state shouldn't mix.  I see the C of E as a perversion and corruption of Christianity.  A nationalist political construct created to usurp power from another political construct of the Vatican. 

It's ironic in our country that we object to so much state interference or even EU interference yet are mostly chilled about the overbearing state having its own faith and putting a mortal monarch above its supposed omnipotent God.

Just my view.

Carnelian, I’m not an athiest so don’t share your opinions on religion but I can see that there comes a point when tradition might be viewed as archaic and antiquated.

Yogi19 posted:

Carnelian, I’m not an athiest so don’t share your opinions on religion but I can see that there comes a point when tradition might be viewed as archaic and antiquated.

Thanks Yogi,  I've liked your reply.  Although an atheist, I respect that people have faith and that while a faith in a god or gods cannot be proven false, the idea of elevating a mortal political figure such as a monarch as above God as the C of E does seems a nationalist and political perversion of Christianity and incredibly oppressive ....

However, I'm not stupid nor strident enough to assert that people of the C of E faith really do think the Queen has an elevated status in their god's plan.  They just see it as a harmless tradition and a continuity of part of our nation's culture.

I appreciate that in the modern UK those who define themselves as C of E, don't see the monarch in the spiritually elevated way Henry VIII intended so it's really the principle of the thing. 

I doubt the Queen nor anyone in the royal family really sees themselves elevated as closer to God than their 'subjects'.

So that considered, I think a conversion to the C of E is rather unnecessary and backward.  Today, no one really agrees with the premise of the C of E having the monarch elevated over the Christian God, even the Queen (probably).

Carnelian posted:

Yogi19 posted:

Carnelian, I’m not an athiest so don’t share your opinions on religion but I can see that there comes a point when tradition might be viewed as archaic and antiquated.

Thanks Yogi,  I've liked your reply.  Although an atheist, I respect that people have faith and that while a faith in a god or gods cannot be proven false, the idea of elevating a mortal political figure such as a monarch as above God as the C of E does seems a nationalist and political perversion of Christianity and incredibly oppressive ....

 

However, I'm not stupid nor strident enough to assert that people of the C of E faith really do think the Queen has an elevated status in their god's plan.  They just see it as a harmless tradition and a continuity of part of our nation's culture.

 

I appreciate that in the modern UK those who define themselves as C of E, don't see the monarch in the spiritually elevated way Henry VIII intended so it's really the principle of the thing. 

 

I doubt the Queen nor anyone in the royal family really sees themselves elevated as closer to God than their 'subjects'.

 

So that considered, I think a conversion to the C of E is rather unnecessary and backward.  Today, no one really agrees with the premise of the C of E having the monarch elevated over the Christian God, even the Queen (probably).

 

Thanks Carnelian, your post gave me food for thought.

I’m C of S but Mr Y is C of E and he agrees with the bits in bold.

Others may disagree, of course.