quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And there was me thinking this was about the investigations into the way the news is being influenced by Russian controlled social media accounts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
a Council's broken photocopier

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Prime Minister's convoy goes wrong way at roundabout!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That link, like the photocopier, is broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So many important issues and events in the world.

100,000 people evacuated from near a volcano.

Terrorist attacks killing hundreds of people on a regular basis.

Refugees drowning in the Med.

The UK government destroying the country. President Trump looking like a rank amateur in comparison.

Regular mass murder in the US.

etc. etc. etc.

And what do we have? Extended news coverage because two young people decide to get married.

Come on newsrooms, get real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
With the possible exception of the volcano, none of those other things are new. In fact most of them are pretty much "business as usual" these days. At least the news of the royal engagement had the virtue of telling us something we didn't already know.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that you don't want news, you want wall-to-wall opinion pieces and editorials that support your political stance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It seems to me that you don't want news, you want wall-to-wall opinion pieces and editorials that support your political stance.

---

I wouldn't mind wall-to-wall opinion pieces that inform my political stance (which includes opposing opinions, of course). I don't even object too much about pieces of celebrity news, tedious though it is.

I guess it's the wall-to-wall opinion pieces and editorials about an engagement that's going too far. And that this is going to go on for months. Followed by months of retrospective on how beautiful the bride was on her wedding day and so on ad nauseum.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm afraid Meghan's surname just reminds me of Mrs. Merdle, who, as enny fule kno, is a character in Charles Dickens' Little Dorrit, and who 'hated fuss'.

(Dorothy L. Sayers also used the name for Lord Peter Wimsey's car in various novels).

BTW, Ms. Markle seems to have had quite an illustrious career as a Slebritty and a Nactress. Is she highly thought of in USAnia?

IJ
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
She's not exactly Helen Mirren, but she is well regarded as an actress in a mild way.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.

---

Amen, sister.


I think we're all longing for some happy news for a change... something that won't overwhelm us with the feeling that we're helpless in the face of so many ongoing disasters.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Jeez! Now I'll never be a princess!
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.

---

Though Donald's endless tweets are not trivial. When the President of the United States tweets something thoughtless, ignorant, offensive or just stupid then that affects many people. Especially when they appear to be statements of policy. Careless Tweeting Costs Lives. He needs to be held accountable for his idiotic and infantile use of Twitter, and that can only happen if the US electorate are informed about what he has said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
No problem there. We get every jot and tittle, God help us.

---

Is he grabbing jots as well as tittles now?
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 


Markle...hmmm....reminds me of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, and also, of course, the German Chancellor, Frau Merkel.

I need to get out more. I'll fetch me coat.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:


Markle...hmmm....reminds me of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, and also, of course, the German Chancellor, Frau Merkel.

I need to get out more. I'll fetch me coat.

IJ

---

Someone beat you to that one.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 


Thanks for that!

IJ
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just noticed that BBC News has interrupted its Royal Arselickfest to report on North Korea's latest missile test.

All is well, and the world is back to normal...

IJ
 

---

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
I know it's understandable that the BBC would go to town on the royal engagement - it's what they do, after all. But at one point today, the top story on their website was that Princess Catherine (Kate) was delighted at the news - like she was going to say anything else. This was then replaced as the top story by the world-stopping revelation that the wedding would be held at St George's Chapel in Windsor; which, as Bishop's Finger has pointed out, remained the top story until news of NK's latest test.

Really, BBC? Have these really been the two most important stories today?
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Quite so - I guess they think Kim Wrong-Trim's missiles are unlikely to disrupt the Royal Wedding, even though said missiles may destroy a fair portion of the world's un-royal population.

But that Won't Matter, as they're all Foreigners.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is an especially fine wedding-announcement story. I particularly like the description of the groom, as "a former soldier but now unemployed."
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
LOL!

She does have a delightfully cheeky smile - young Harry W. is indeed a lucky man. He should be taking every opportunity to get a Proper Job, though.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though Donald's endless tweets are not trivial. When the President of the United States tweets something thoughtless, ignorant, offensive or just stupid then that affects many people. Especially when they appear to be statements of policy. Careless Tweeting Costs Lives. He needs to be held accountable for his idiotic and infantile use of Twitter, and that can only happen if the US electorate are informed about what he has said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is an especially fine wedding-announcement story. I particularly like the description of the groom, as "a former soldier but now unemployed."

---

Unemployed former soldier marrying successful actress -- he's obviously marrying her for her money.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Unemployed veteran.

There are support organizations for that sort of problem.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, and this will make the fur fly. Some American presidents will be invited, but not all!
 

---

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
to the OP:

"In the war of circulation it sells newspapers..."
B.Bragg, singing about page 3 girls.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, and this will make the fur fly. Some American presidents will be invited, but not all! [/QUOTE


Trump wouldn't want to go if he can't ride in the gold carriage.
 

---

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
And who'd want POTUS at the wedding making offensive Pocohontas jokes and telling his tedious bragging lies while his wife's stony-faced body double creeps out the guests?

When you could get the Obamas looking good, enjoying themselves and charming everyone?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Just because it has been unavoidable knowing this, should I want to hear any news, the aforementioned marriage ceremony will be held at St George's Chapel, Windsor, next May, which limits the guest list to 500.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Presumably Windsor Castle chapel is a Royal Peculiar.

Damn, I wish I didn't know that.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just because it has been unavoidable knowing this, should I want to hear any news, the aforementioned marriage ceremony will be held at St George's Chapel, Windsor, next May, which limits the guest list to 500.

---

If recent weddings in my family are anything to go by there will be an awful lot of #disappointed non-invitees.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The Chapel is indeed a Royal Peculiar, and offers traditional services of a high standard of music and liturgy, which are all open to the peasantry...sorry... public.



I do hope the Obamas accept the invitation (they've met HM the Q already). The crowds lining the streets will be cheering for them, as much as for Harry and Sparkle.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, they very kindly declined to go to the last one (William?) because of security concerns. Can we imagine the current incumbent declining to go to a splashy event because he might upstage the bride or groom? Naah.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But presumably now that Obama is no longer president , the security issues are somewhat less stringent (if that's the word I'm looking for)?

I certainly can't see The Gruesome Grabber refusing a chance to be in the orangelight....

IJ
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
But, since Harry is neither heir apparent nor heir presumptive, it isn't going to be a State occasion, merely a royal wedding, so there is no obligation on the royal family to invite foreign heads of state. Of course, some will be there because they are related to HM and her family but others, such as Macron, Merkel, etc, etc, aren't related so won't be invited.

And The Orange One falls into that category.

Or put another way: if the Obamas are there it will be because the family like them, not because he was once POTUS.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The Chapel is indeed a Royal Peculiar, and offers traditional services of a high standard of music and liturgy, which are all open to the peasantry...sorry... public.

---

I was reflecting that the CofE's (let's say) ambivalence to the marrying of divorcees probably doesn't apply to a Royal Peculiar.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I assume that because they're churches run under the direct authority of the Queen, the usual notes of permission are not needed.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
My impression is that an interview with the clergyperson officiating in which the considerations set out in the House of Bishops' Advice to the Clergy are taken into account is all that is required in any parish setting.

Legally it is a decision for the incumbent or officiating minister.

In St. George's Chapel, it would presumably be a matter for the Dean of Windsor.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ambivalent, indeed.


I hadn't realised (shame on me for not keeping up!) that The Sparkle had been married before.


IJ
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
My impression is that an interview with the clergyperson officiating in which the considerations set out in the House of Bishops' Advice to the Clergy are taken into account is all that is required in any parish setting.

Legally it is a decision for the incumbent or officiating minister.

---

quote:

---

In St. George's Chapel, it would presumably be a matter for the Dean of Windsor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another point is that if this were a parish church, they'd need a special license because neither had been living in the parish.

---

I'm pretty sure they'd meet at least one of the qualifying connections.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
'Qualifying connections' is such a delightfully flexible term, no?



IJ
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The Sparkle

---

Aaarrrgghhh!!

 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Prince Harry was christened in St. George’s Chapel which is a Qualifying Connection under the Marriage Measure (in the old days it would have been part of the grounds for granting a Special Licence.)
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O dear. Sorry, but she does have a delightfully Cheeky Smile, and Sparkly Eyes, as seen here.



IJ
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Prince Harry was christened in St. George’s Chapel which is a Qualifying Connection under the Marriage Measure (in the old days it would have been part of the grounds for granting a Special Licence.)

---

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I suspect the reality is that the Royal Peculiars can marry whoever they damn well want to marry.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
All Royals are Peculiar. Goes with the job.



IJ
 

---

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Prince Harry was christened in St. George’s Chapel which is a Qualifying Connection under the Marriage Measure (in the old days it would have been part of the grounds for granting a Special Licence.)

---

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I suspect the reality is that the Royal Peculiars can marry whoever they damn well want to marry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
An Archbishop's Special Licence can of course authorise a marriage at any convenient time or place anywhere in England or Wales.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
Actually under s.21 of the Marriage Act 1949, the diocesan bishop can authorise an extra-parochial place for banns and marriages. Royal Peculiars are, however, not only extra parochial, but also extra diocesan. An Archbishop's Special Licence can of course authorise a marriage at any convenient time or place anywhere in England or Wales.

---

quote:

---

Sex jibe husband murders wife
Bomb blast victim fights for life
Girl Thirteen attacked with knife

Princess Di is wearing a new dress

Jet airliner shot from sky
Famine horror, millions die
Earthquake terror figures rise

Princess Di is wearing a new dress

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
4 weeks off-air for erroneous reporting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

As for Ross, why at age 69 has he not retired? Surely his 401K is healthy enough to support the lifestyle to which he is accustomed.

---

Why hasn't He Who Must Not Be Named retired by 71? I would assume he has the financial means to do so (but we'll never know since he won't show his tax returns).
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But it's only HWMNBN's orange body that's 71 - his mind is that of a fractious toddler.



IJ
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why hasn't He Who Must Not Be Named retired by 71? I would assume he has the financial means to do so (but we'll never know since he won't show his tax returns).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What would he do all day if he "retired"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What would he do all day if he "retired"?

---

Tweet. Play golf. Be obnoxious.

---

quote:

---

As extra-parochial places they can only conduct weddings by Special Licence so they can marry whoever ++Canterbury will licence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rosa Gallica oficinalis

quote:

---

As extra-parochial places they can only conduct weddings by Special Licence so they can marry whoever ++Canterbury will licence.

---

Sorry, but not quite correct.

True, royal peculiers are not covered by the legislation for qualification by residency as in a parish church.

False that the Archbishop of Canterbury can decide: the person who decides what goes on in a peculier is the Dean who is appointed by the sovereign. When, for example, ++Justin does a service in Westminster Abbey he does so at the invitation of the Dean.

---

quote:

---

From 2nd March 2015, the marriage of non-European nationals in the Church of England must take place by Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate. (The only exceptions to this are in cases where a Special Marriage Licence is instead required, or where the ‘transitional arrangements’ apply to a particular couple who have previously applied for a Common Marriage Licence.)

---

 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
It is provided for under Section 17 of the Marriage Act, 1949. I'm not sure why it hasn't been a more widely used procedure. There is much less need/demand for it since the Marriage Measure, 2008 came into force.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Is it intentionally ironic that we started with the Campaign for Real News and ended up with a discussion on obscure points of ecclesiastical law that no-one with any sense of proportion gives a shit about?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
When the thread started going that way I wasn't surprised. I've been around the Ship long enough to know there is a sizable group of people who are interested in the minutia of ecclesial law. They do tend to hang out in Ecclesiantics without bringing their obsession onto other boards.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Mea culpa. Hands up for that. Royal Peculiars are out of my field, but I regularly have to deal with the quirks of marriage law, both in relation to couples getting married in my place, and to queries from colleagues, as well as stuff about Common Licences. Superintendent Registrar’s Certificates OTOH I refer to the Registrar. It’s a bit nerdy, although that’s not generally how it seems to couples planning to get married. I so often meet misconceptions about the legalities from couples that I find it hard to pass them by, even on a ship Hell thread.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Fun and educational.

Now bugger off, the lot of you.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When the thread started going that way I wasn't surprised. I've been around the Ship long enough to know there is a sizable group of people who are interested in the minutia of ecclesial law. They do tend to hang out in Ecclesiantics without bringing their obsession onto other boards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
about the death of Johnny Hallyday.

---

quote:

---

Johnny is dead

But the business is alive and kicking.

if we put castors on it, could we carry on touring?

---

quote:

---

Blasphemy! They've done a cartoon of the Prophet!!

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0