About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

James · 01-01-2018, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks

This is no ordinary male, he is a royal and she is a divorcee. We had this issue in 1936, do people ever learn? If we must have this anachronistic obsolete system of governance then we have to do it properly

The Church of England didn't allow divorced people to marry in church in 1936, unlike now.

Sticks · 03-01-2018, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

The Church of England didn't allow divorced people to marry in church in 1936, unlike now.

I think it might have been more than the church of England's rules about divorce's marrying back in 1936, although there was that issue with Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend. In 1952 whereby the Church of England refused to countenance marriage to a divorced man.

According to Wikipedia

Quote:

Simpson was perceived to be politically and socially unsuitable as a prospective queen consort because of her two failed marriages. It was widely assumed by the Establishment that she was driven by love of money or position rather than love for the King.

Meghan is divorced

There is an ex out there, so what kind of tabloid stories will surface from this ex? What kind of pictures are out there which could cause scandal and embarrassment to the Royal Family?

This is why, usual convention was that brides came from European royals as they would be drilled in the art of discretion and the avoidance of scandal

They tried bringing in two commoners, Diana and Sarah, and they were unmitigated disasters.

I still don't understand how Kate managed to get through, what were the courtiers thinking of, and around the time she was getting married I believe I also pointed that out, that bringing in commoners seldom worked!

For the moment with regards to Kate, they may have got lucky, but that was one large risk, especially with the Duke of Cambridge, the second in line to the throne.

Getting back to HRH Prince Harry, it seems incredulous, given what went before with Princess Margaret and Edward VIII that an American divorcee was allowed anywhere near him.

If we are to have this outdated and anachronistic system, then we should do it properly. There is still time for the old way of doing things to reassert itself, and for someone with less chance for scandal and political embarrassment to be substituted for this particular choice of bride.

Cherie · 02-01-2018, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks

This is no ordinary male, he is a royal and she is a divorcee. We had this issue in 1936, do people ever learn? If we must have this anachronistic obsolete system of governance then we have to do it properly

What about Charles and Camilla? they are both second hand goods in your world and Charles will be King, Harry is a minor Royal in terms of ever getting his bottom on the throne

Niamh. · 02-01-2018, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherie

What about Charles and Camilla? they are both second hand goods in your world and Charles will be King, Harry is a minor Royal in terms of ever getting his bottom on the throne

H's a man though.......... seems only women can be second hand goods

Niamh. · 01-01-2018, 08:51 PM

The poor girl, jeez

Kazanne · 02-01-2018, 09:16 AM

I like Harry and I like Megan fair play to them ,she looks lovely in her 'posh' frocks ,who cares how much her clothes cost ,she earns her money so don't see a problem,Kate also always looks lovely and stylish.

bots · 02-01-2018, 10:37 AM

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

smudgie · 02-01-2018, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

Yes. Very well said.
I am sure we all try to look our best for special occasions, whatever we can afford. There is no law about us all having to spend a set amount on clothes, we are all different and can spend our money on what we prefer.
We also have no clue as to if these richer people do actually give to the poor and keep quiet about it.

jaxie · 02-01-2018, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

Good post.

Kazanne · 02-01-2018, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

Brilliant

Kizzy · 03-01-2018, 06:38 PM

As with most things in the UK they only have the image of being British, but they are quintessentially not.... Bit like the royals

As a PLC it's not a solely UK concern nor do we own the infrastructure it is housed in.

What we are being sold is a facade of 'Britishness' that just does not exist.

Niamh. · 03-01-2018, 07:43 PM

Bringing commoners in lol

Kizzy · 03-01-2018, 11:42 PM

Wasn't the real reason he was made to abdicate because of his political leanings, we couldn't have a king who was siding with the enemy could we?

Livia · 04-01-2018, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Wasn't the real reason he was made to abdicate because of his political leanings, we couldn't have a king who was siding with the enemy could we?

That's a very unusual slant. Most people believe it was because Wallace Simpson was a divorcee... but I'd be really interested to see your evidence.

Kizzy · 04-01-2018, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

That's a very unusual slant. Most people believe it was because Wallace Simpson was a divorcee... but I'd be really interested to see your evidence.

Google is your friend.

Livia · 04-01-2018, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Google is your friend.

No... it's YOUR friend.

Sticks · 04-01-2018, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Wasn't the real reason he was made to abdicate because of his political leanings, we couldn't have a king who was siding with the enemy could we?

That was 1936 and the war was still in the future. At that time, Germany was not seen as an enemy, that came later after 1939 and the invasion of Poland.

Livia · 04-01-2018, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks

That was 1936 and the war was still in the future. At that time, Germany was not seen as an enemy, that came later after 1939 and the invasion of Poland.

Shush Sticks, Google told her.

Kizzy · 04-01-2018, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

Shush Sticks, Google told her.

Mock all you like Livia.

bots · 09-01-2018, 07:15 PM

Ms Markle wore a Marks & Spencer sweatshirt to the royal engagement in Brixton

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42619509

Kizzy · 09-01-2018, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Ms Markle wore a Marks & Spencer sweatshirt to the royal engagement in Brixton

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42619509

Aw why not wear the 56k dress for a toby round Brixton? To talk about the rise in knife crime.. That was the focus of the article wasn't it? Not megs jumper...