Era Might Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Yes, that's a dodge or diversion of your inconsistency. I have no inconsistency. I don't have to fit everyone into my worldview. If England wants to be Anglican, then be Anglican. If I were an Anglican, I would comment on it. But I'm not, I'm Catholic, so I comment on Catholic matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I have no inconsistency. I don't have to fit everyone into my worldview. If England wants to be Anglican, then be Anglican. If I were an Anglican, I would comment on it. But I'm not, I'm Catholic, so I comment on Catholic matters. That's just another dodge. But if you would like to pretend you are consistence where you are not about this matter, you can be in a world of pure imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) That's just another dodge. But if you would like to pretend you are consistence where you are not about this matter, you can be in a world of pure imagination. lol. Ok. I have no idea what you're talking about, honestly. Your projection of "consistence" apparently means I'm inconsistent with your world views, or with your assumptions about my own. But anyway, I just joined this thread for the lulz, nothing serious. Edited July 25, 2013 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 lol. Ok. I have no idea what you're talking about, honestly. Your projection of "consistence" apparently means I'm inconsistent with your world views, or with your assumptions about my own. But anyway, I just joined this thread for the lulz, nothing serious. Standards that you apply to one Monarch that is also head of a Church, you do not apply to another. That's inconsistent, but I see no reason to further state that fact, since you are unable to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Standards that you apply to one Monarch that is also head of a Church, you do not apply to another. That's inconsistent, but I see no reason to further state that fact, since you are unable to admit it. Well I guess you won the argument that never was. Congratulations. Edited July 25, 2013 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Well I guess you won the argument that never was. Congratulations. I didn't win, my goal was to get you to take a similar position against the monarchy of England that you took against the Pope, or to get you to admit to your inconstancy. You didn't so we both failed lolol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I didn't win, my goal was to get you to take a similar position against the monarchy of England that you took against the Pope, or to get you to admit to your inconstancy. You didn't so we both failed lolol. Don't worry, it's a long life, I might come to my senses some day. Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound’s the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Britain has done more than just Shakespeare! Which is why I had hoped that they would name the new prince George John Paul Ringo... But alas.... they did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 A married woman of childbearing age has given birth to a baby boy. The event followed nine months of pregnancy. "Both mother and baby are doing well," a spokesman for the woman said. It is now expected that the baby will grow up. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/22/royal-baby-spoof_n_3634135.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Also found this twitter post to be amusing Peculiar that when gender equality is gaining momentum and there is no urgency to have a male heir to an obsolete throne, a male heir is born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anselm Posted July 25, 2013 Author Share Posted July 25, 2013 Yes, that's right Crosscut, they deliberately had a boy, just to thwart those pesky feminists... :covereyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Im not claiming anything :hehe2: I just thought it was funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneLine Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Don't worry Anne, I know American knowledge of British history ends with George III ;) He may actually be George VIII as I have heard in the past that the Prince of Wales may rule as George VII instead of Charles III because of the unpopularity of Charles I. I don't think that that would be necessary though as Charles II was very popular. I was hoping for James (which did seem to be a popular choice in the newspapers) as James II was the last Catholic monarch we had! Still, that's one of the reasons why James wasn't chosen, as it was only this year that an Act of Parliament was passed to make it legal for the monarch to even marry a Catholic. I knew one of the royal family at university and he was removed from the line of succession when he became a Catholic with his sister. (I am :paperbag: over getting the number wrong. And me with AnneLine's name and everything :paperbag: ) I was also hoping for James.... today would have been his feast day! That's interesting about the royal family member who became Catholic. I was jokingly suggesting that George might be a subtle homage to our new Pope, whose birth name was George (Jorge).... maybe there is more here than meets the eye! he he he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneLine Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 And yes, he may choose a totally DIFFERENT name if/when he becomes King... maybe... Francis? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anselm Posted July 25, 2013 Author Share Posted July 25, 2013 Haha, we can only hope! Still, the current Jacobite claimant to the throne is Prince Francis of Bavaria, so I doubt he'll choose that name! Sadly, there's no less Catholic and more Protestant royal British name than George - except perhaps William, whom we will have before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now