[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

martin14 martin14:

When it comes to children, 36 is 'pushing it'. There will be a call for children,
by the time that happens, she'll be almost 40.

Trump isn't a Royal. Standards are different. Like it or not, they are.
If you say they are not, then there is no need to keep the Monarchy.

'History' ?
That would require you to read. Difficult ask.
Wallis Simpson, Something more in depth than Wiki.

1) He’s #5 in line for the throne and it’s 2017, nobody gives a damn

2) Lots of people have kids after age 36 or even age 40, my wife and I did

3) Why assume they won’t have kids for another 4 or 5 years? People usually don’t wait that long

4). You’re right therre is no need to keep the monarchy. It’s a total waste of money.

5) re: wallis simpson: see #1

6) Your comments were that. YOU think she’s not a good catch, not that you worry she won’t be able to provide an heir to the throne.

1) be #6 soon. Thank God for small miracles.
2) Statistically, the risks go up. Your doctor didn't tell you that ?
3) Too busy doing the publicity tour. Also I don't think Megan is the 'stay at home mum' type.
4) For now, the Royals are a profit making machine. We'll see in the future.
5) thanks for outing yourself at reading nothing. No surprise, don't know why i waste my time.
6) Her chances of providing any kind of heir are basically zero.
Security on George just went up a notch.

stratos stratos:

I would have thought that being Catholic would be the biggest hurdle.

Used to be marrying a Catholic took you off the line to the throne.
Things have changed, except for the real heirs. Charles had to marry outside the Church,
because Camilla was divorced.

BRAH BRAH:

She's Hot and looks like she's a lot of fun. Harry will never be King so he picked a wife for himself not the Britsh establishment and that pisses them off.

I hear Wallis Simpson was 'a lot of fun' too.
Hopefully she is marrying Harry for Harry, and not the ultimate acting job.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... krupt.html

My guess, her and Kate are not going to get along. At all.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

History may record that marrying commoners was the beginning of the end of the Monarchy.

No, just the beginning.

My name is taken from a person in my history who was brother in law to a Harold I, King of England around 1035. I've found that same name in English military histories, as a bowman in many battles in the 11th century, including Agincourt.

'Commoners' have been in the 'Royal' bloodline for at least a millennia. It's unlikely to change anything.

[Tricks]

martin14 martin14:

No, I have noticed my own wife is better than Harry's in every category.
Except maybe money.

I wasn't saying jealous of Harry, I was saying jealous of Markle.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Commoners' have been in the 'Royal' bloodline for at least a millennia. It's unlikely to change anything.

Wrong.
Diana was the first Commoner to marry an heir for 300 years.

Tricks Tricks:

I wasn't saying jealous of Harry, I was saying jealous of Markle.

With those feet ?

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Commoners' have been in the 'Royal' bloodline for at least a millennia. It's unlikely to change anything.

Wrong.
Diana was the first Commoner to marry an heir for 300 years.

You do realize 300 < 1000, right?

I'm pretty much as common as it gets, and I am distantly related to the Royals. Prince Harry taking a 'commoner' into the family changes nothing, and certainly won't end the Monarchy.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Commoners' have been in the 'Royal' bloodline for at least a millennia.

Commoners may not be on the birth certificates or lineages but they're most assuredly in the bloodlines.

[Sunnyways]

stratos stratos:

I would have thought that being Catholic would be the biggest hurdle. Not a major one but probably the one the British public would react to most negatively towards. As for any of their children being elagabel for President, they only would be able IF they are born in the USA or in this case on US Military base in the UK. I don't think the royal family or British Gov. would allow such a thing.

The British public are post-Christian. It would only matter to a small minority. The legal impediment to marrying a Catholic was also recently removed:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Success ... n_Act_2013

So there's no problem with that now.

[martin14]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

stratos stratos:

I would have thought that being Catholic would be the biggest hurdle. Not a major one but probably the one the British public would react to most negatively towards. As for any of their children being elagabel for President, they only would be able IF they are born in the USA or in this case on US Military base in the UK. I don't think the royal family or British Gov. would allow such a thing.

The British public are post-Christian. It would only matter to a small minority. The legal impediment to marrying a Catholic was also recently removed:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Success ... n_Act_2013

So there's no problem with that now.

BREAKING NEWS - Harry and Meghan will marry at Windsor Castle in MAY in 'fun and joyful' ceremony paid for by the royal family: Bride-to-be will be baptised and take UK citizenship

Couple reveal date of their wedding and the venue in new announcement by Kensington Palace today
Meghan is set to take British citizenship and be baptised ahead of ceremony at St George's Chapel, Windsor
American actress, 36, is also said to be taking British citizenship and will become a dual national


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4zkJhEyVU


UK passport shopper.
Conversion to C of E..

Man, the Firm ain't wasting any time with this one.

[Sunnyways]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Commoners' have been in the 'Royal' bloodline for at least a millennia. It's unlikely to change anything.

Wrong.
Diana was the first Commoner to marry an heir for 300 years.

Lord, you're some strict on the aristocratic stuff. For most of us yobs the daughter of an earl would be considered a member of the nobility.

[DrCaleb]

Excellent! So she could one day be both Queen of England, and President of the United States!

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

martin14 martin14:

When it comes to children, 36 is 'pushing it'. There will be a call for children,
by the time that happens, she'll be almost 40.

Trump isn't a Royal. Standards are different. Like it or not, they are.
If you say they are not, then there is no need to keep the Monarchy.

'History' ?
That would require you to read. Difficult ask.
Wallis Simpson, Something more in depth than Wiki.

1) He’s #5 in line for the throne and it’s 2017, nobody gives a damn

2) Lots of people have kids after age 36 or even age 40, my wife and I did

3) Why assume they won’t have kids for another 4 or 5 years? People usually don’t wait that long

4). You’re right therre is no need to keep the monarchy. It’s a total waste of money.

5) re: wallis simpson: see #1

6) Your comments were that. YOU think she’s not a good catch, not that you worry she won’t be able to provide an heir to the throne.

1) be #6 soon. Thank God for small miracles.
2) Statistically, the risks go up. Your doctor didn't tell you that ?
3) Too busy doing the publicity tour. Also I don't think Megan is the 'stay at home mum' type.
4) For now, the Royals are a profit making machine. We'll see in the future.
5) thanks for outing yourself at reading nothing. No surprise, don't know why i waste my time.
6) Her chances of providing any kind of heir are basically zero.
Security on George just went up a notch.

stratos stratos:

I would have thought that being Catholic would be the biggest hurdle.

Used to be marrying a Catholic took you off the line to the throne.
Things have changed, except for the real heirs. Charles had to marry outside the Church,
because Camilla was divorced.

BRAH BRAH:

She's Hot and looks like she's a lot of fun. Harry will never be King so he picked a wife for himself not the Britsh establishment and that pisses them off.

I hear Wallis Simpson was 'a lot of fun' too.
Hopefully she is marrying Harry for Harry, and not the ultimate acting job.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... krupt.html

My guess, her and Kate are not going to get along. At all.

AGAIN your comments were that she’s not “a good catch” not that you’re worried she won’t be able to produce an heir or Harry will have to abdicate.

Oh and also I don’t know where you get the the Royals are a money maker, they’re directly and heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.

I don’t give a shit about celebrities, least of all Royals but you’re a hater and your motivation here is suspect.

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

AGAIN your comments were that she’s not “a good catch” not that you’re worried she won’t be able to produce an heir or Harry will have to abdicate.

Oh and also I don’t know where you get the the Royals are a money maker, they’re directly and heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.

I don’t give a shit about celebrities, least of all Royals but you’re a hater and your motivation here is suspect.

You have already outed yourself as a hater, so no one gives a crap about what you post ITT.

For someone who doesn't give a shit about celebrities, you sure post a lot of sophist
videos of Bill Mahr and Joe Oliver.

$1:

she won’t be able to produce an heir or Harry will have to abdicate.

Completely uninformed garbage.. discarded.


As far as the Royals making money, google your own fucking homework Skippy,
I tried to help you earlier, and you shit on it as usual.

[BeaverFever]

Are you trying to claim that I post about Maher or Olivers personal lives and spouse choices? That would be another lie in a long history of lying.

I shit on your comments because they are exactly that...shit. You are the one who shits on her as a spouse choice, then half ass back-pedals to god knows what your point is now.
You’re just a hateful person through and through

[CharlesAnthony]

I want to see the pre-nuptial agreement.

[Sunnyways]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

'Commoners' have been in the 'Royal' bloodline for at least a millennia.

Commoners may not be on the birth certificates or lineages but they're most assuredly in the bloodlines.

Gulliver's take on the British aristocracy:

$1:

...the productions of such marriages are generally scrofulous, rickety, or deformed children; by which means the family seldom continues above three generations, unless the wife takes care to provide a healthy father, among her neighbours or domestics, in order to improve and continue the breed.

Being a royal means endless photo-ops. An actor is perfectly suited for the role.