Fabulous news, I’m delighted for them 
they’ve made their official announcement and are expected to marry in the spring
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Lovely news, I’m really pleased for them. 💞
Would this mean he's effectively abdicating his line of accession to the throne?
El Loro posted:Saint posted:Would this mean he's effectively abdicating his line of accession to the throne?
No, as the Church of England (where the monarch is the head) has allowed divorcees to marry in the C of E since 2002.
Intersting.
Does that mean any 'commoner' (even someone from Jesmond) could become King or Queen.
And in the event of their partners death would become reigning monarch?
Saint posted:El Loro posted:Saint posted:Would this mean he's effectively abdicating his line of accession to the throne?
No, as the Church of England (where the monarch is the head) has allowed divorcees to marry in the C of E since 2002.
Intersting.
Does that mean any 'commoner' (even someone from Jesmond) could become King or Queen.
And in the event of their partners death would become reigning monarch?
In a word....NO!
Baz posted:Saint posted:Are you sure there Yoyo?
Bow to my eminence or orf with your head 
Baz posted:CDWM is from your neck of woods Renton
ooooh - where exactly?
Jessy??
Baz posted:Saint posted:Baz posted:CDWM is from your neck of woods Renton
ooooh - where exactly?
Jessy??
Not sure ...but not seen you yet ...I hope
I'm the cross dresser with the missing teeth 
For starter - well I always skip a starter so ...
Main - Macaroni Cheese (my signature dish)
Pud - there can only be one ... rhubarb crumble and custard
I thank you
Saint posted:Baz posted:Saint posted:Baz posted:CDWM is from your neck of woods Renton
ooooh - where exactly?
Jessy??
Not sure ...but not seen you yet ...I hope
I'm the cross dresser with the missing teeth
For starter - well I always skip a starter so ...
Main - Macaroni Cheese (my signature dish)
Pud - there can only be one ... rhubarb crumble and custard
I thank you
We will keep our eyes open
Had a look at CDWM
Don;;t we sound common !!!
Saint posted:Had a look at CDWM
Don;;t we sound common !!!
Are you the young guy? 
Yogi19 posted:Saint posted:Had a look at CDWM
Don;;t we sound common !!!
Are you the young guy?
I'm a little more sophisticated than him 
At first I thought they announced Harry was marrying Angela Merkel
Saint posted:Yogi19 posted:Saint posted:Had a look at CDWM
Don;;t we sound common !!!
Are you the young guy?
I'm a little more sophisticated than him
Of course, silly me
Saint posted:At first I thought they announced Harry was marrying Angela Merkel
You wouldn’t wish Merkel on poor Harry?!
Saint posted:Baz posted:Saint posted:Baz posted:CDWM is from your neck of woods Renton
ooooh - where exactly?
Jessy??
Not sure ...but not seen you yet ...I hope
I'm the cross dresser with the missing teeth
For starter - well I always skip a starter so ...
Main - Macaroni Cheese (my signature dish)
Pud - there can only be one ... rhubarb crumble and custard
I thank you
ROFL
I like macaroni cheese, book me a place at your table
Dunno how a Princess with an American accent suites the role
Hmmm . . .
Saint posted:El Loro posted:Saint posted:Would this mean he's effectively abdicating his line of accession to the throne?
No, as the Church of England (where the monarch is the head) has allowed divorcees to marry in the C of E since 2002.
Intersting.
Does that mean any 'commoner' (even someone from Jesmond) could become King or Queen.
And in the event of their partners death would become reigning monarch?
To be fair, would you want to be king. Personally I much prefer being able to do whatever I want when I want.
Also, knowing you are a devout atheist, you would struggle with the fact that the Monarchy and the church are so entwined.
Oh I dunno EC - people 'hide' a lot of things if it helps them
But I agree - I don't want to be famous or Royal
Enthusiastic Contrafibularities posted:
Interesting
Saint posted:Enthusiastic Contrafibularities posted:
Interesting
It's a shame they left the word 'rat' behind her head.
El Loro posted:Saint posted:Would this mean he's effectively abdicating his line of accession to the throne?
No, as the Church of England (where the monarch is the head) has allowed divorcees to marry in the C of E since 2002.
Well; Charles is still first in line...
~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:Fabulous news, I’m delighted for them
they’ve made their official announcement and are expected to marry in the spring
They seem so happy together.
Long may it continue.
Their 20 minute interview was lovely, I think she’s going to be a wonderful wife for Harry and a strong campaigner for charity 
He’s clearly very much in love and it’s fantastic for him. I hope we can all see the wedding on tv
~Sweet Sequins & Sparkles~ posted:I hope we can all see the wedding on tv
I was kinda hoping for a Bank Holiday
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
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.
Yeah, but as is usual for stuff like this......real news has been stifled again
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 👍👏
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!
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.
~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.
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 .
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 .
😂😂😂😂
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
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,
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.