Posted on 05/20/2018 9:46:25 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
The ceremony itself featured an African-American bishop who cited the American civil rights movement and quoted Martin Luther King Jr. as often as he did Jesus. The couple opted for a secular song, “Stand by Me,” performed by a predominantly black gospel choir—jaws literally dropped—in addition to old-school Christian hymns sung by the congregation. The traditional Anglican vows were altered slightly to allow the outspoken feminist Markle to opt out of the traditional promise to obey her husband.
While the acceptance of people of color into the royal fold is a welcome and long-overdue change, the acceptance of divorce and immorality by the Church of England is another thing altogether. That the Church blessed the union at all, coming as it did after the couple had been openly cohabitating and in light of Markle’s divorce, signals a radical departure from the traditions of the church headed by Queen Elizabeth, who inherited the title “Defender of the Faith” on the day of her coronation. That designation was first granted to King Henry the VIII by Leo X in 1521. Henry VIII, you will recall, famously left the Catholic church after the Pope refused to annul his marriage to first marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He later appointed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England and went on to wed five more women.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Based on her story that she didn't start with him until after Harry was born? The testimony of the adulteress is not exactly probative on the issue.
Or are you suggesting that we should be looking at one of the other lovers. He wasn't exactly the first, was he?
Like the Sikhs? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/first-sikh-guardsman-to-be-given-permission-to-wear-a-turban-instead-of-a-bearskin-8374240.html
Now, that's a beard.
Yes, she was; but no, she didn't sit with the Royal family. Andrew sat to the left of William and Catherine, with his daughters on his left, and Eugenie's fiancé on her left, and then the friend of the famly, Mrs. van Cutsem.
So what? I merely posted a correction to the assertion that she wasn’t at the wedding, when in fact, she was.
No, I did, in error. Then I posted a correction to my own mistake.
You previously wrote: "Diana could have put a Muslim on the throne of England...."
Of course Diana's sons are in the line of succession. Wiliam is next after Charles, then his three children, then Harry. Catherine and Meghan are not in the line of succession, and neither was Diana.
How does any of that add up to Diana being able to "put a muslim on the throne"?
I am suggesting that from the time of Harry’s birth until four years ago, i.e. almost 30 years, Harry was third in line to the throne, based on bloodlines. Do you seriously think for one minute that if there was any possiblility that he is not Charles’ biological son, the royal family wouldn’t have bothered to get a DNA test? Be real.
You don’t think dopey Diana might have converted to Islam to make Dodi happy? Or Dodi’s daddy? I think she might have and could have influenced her sons.
I submit she very well could have. And she liked to do things her “own way”.
She was even stupid enough to call for removing the mines at the 38th parallel.
Even Bill Clinton, at the time, knew how foolish that was and told her no way.
I can’t prove it, of course. But I imagine some were concerned the way England was (and IS) turning.
The Sikhs may have been recently given permission, but apparently it doesn’t apply to white Christians. The British press today has mentioned the beard issue and noted that Harry had to get permission from the Queen to break that rule.
So you have no evidence.
Dodi wasn't her first Muzzi. There were at least a couple before him. https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/news/g4337/princess-diana-lovers/?slide=1
The British monarchy has rules governing who may sit on the throne and what they may and may not do; and there is no possibility that Diana could have influenced William and/or Harry to convert to islam because she had a relationship with a muslim, and then for either of them to take the throne. None.
Similarly to the way that our President is Commander-in-Chief of the military, one of the centuries-long established duties of the British sovereign is to be “Defender of the Faith”, meaning the Anglican Church of England.
The British sovereign is not allowed to marry a Catholic, for instance. It would take an act of Parliament for such a marriage to take place, and likewise for a King or Queen to convert to another religion than Church of England. Even when Charles married Camilla, they were not allowed to marry in the Church of England because they were both divorced, and thus had a civil ceremony.
In other words, UK isn’t California.
Would certainly hope so, since the Brits have OUR missiles on their submarines.
Plus One
I don’t need evidence to evaluate the known facts of this situation, such as UK law of succession. Obviously you would rather belief salacious gossip than use common sense to figure this out. The monarchy would be in danger collapse if they did not perserve bloodlines, because that is their primary claim to the throne. If Harry were not a biological son, some disgruntled hospital employee with a dirty mind who likes to stir the s*** would test his DNA against Charles’ and call the tabloids. Be logical.
Sounds like your resentment that Diana had affairs AFTER Charles resumed his ongoing affair with Camilla AFTER Harry was born has blinded you to common sense.
Not hard to see why Elizabeth keeps working, at age 91.
I can only hope she’s much more sane than the rest. Probably is.
She's much more committed, that is for sure.
Yes, Camilla did it right. Megan is no virginal bride at age 36. The whole thing seemed awkward to me and she was a little too confident. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.