“Recollections may vary”. Harry and Meghan (again - I know!)

Charles and Camilla could have married in the Church of England as he was a widower and she was married in the Church of Scotland, but they chose not to because of the controversy it would provoke.
As for H&M I have no idea but if she married in the Jewish faith perhaps that would not count. Divorced couples can marry in the CofE in exceptional circumstances but only if the priest agrees.

The Duchy sell very nice biscuits, mind you.

I don’t think it was a case of them not being ‘allowed’ to marry in church, I think it was just felt more appropriate that they did it how they did, if that makes sense. Plus several years had elapsed by the time Harry and Meghan married, times change.

Charles has said he will be ‘defender of faiths’ not ‘defender of the faith’ when he becomes King.

As for Camilla being Princess Consort, I read in the Telegraph magazine only this morning in a feature about Camilla, that In 2018, Clarence House removed all references to ‘Princess Consort’ from its website. ‘He will 100 per cent insist on her being Queen’ says a former courtier. ‘The references to Princess Consort infuriated the Prince.’

I think Charles will have the final say on how his wife will be titled, when the time comes.

Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles were married in the Guards Chapel in London, not Scotland .

Princess Anne’s second marriage took place in Scotland.

Do you think people will have respect for Charles to be 'king' as they had for his mummy?

Lots of countries have republics and are doing very well by the way, there is a better alternative for our country.

It’s an unquantifiable question.
Enough ‘people’ will have respect for Charles, though it’s quite likely that those who don’t will be the ones who get their voices heard in the press and on the media. I expect there’ll still be the around the same number of royalists and anti-royalists as there are now, still saying same-old, same-old things. Each group thinking they represent the majority.

Yes Grany plenty of people will have respect for Charles, just as they do for his ‘mummy’.

How are the banners/posters/signs going BTW? Haven’t heard much about them lately.

Mollygo

It’s an unquantifiable question.
Enough ‘people’ will have respect for Charles, though it’s quite likely that those who don’t will be the ones who get their voices heard in the press and on the media. I expect there’ll still be the around the same number of royalists and anti-royalists as there are now, still saying same-old, same-old things. Each group thinking they represent the majority.

I'm a Republican and am under no illusions that I represent the majority. Most people, I'm sure, still think its a good thing to have an unelected Head of State with unknowable influence on our laws and society.

Not majority - that'll teach me to pay attention.

...that I represent the minority!!

Does that mean that you think a political appointee, even if he goes through an election process will not have unknowable influence on our laws and society. How delightfully trusting.

In fact Presidents only mean something if they have political clout, as in US or France. Can anyoone tell me who the President of Germany is, what sort of international presence he has, how much clout he has? How many people in his own country let alone outside, even among his near neighbours know who he is or is she. I haven't got a clue. Whoever the president is they will be political nonenity. The only person who matters in Germany at the moment and for at least a decade is Angela Merkel. How do you fancy a country, where the only persosn who counts and who wields total power is the resident in No 10 Downing Street.

Give me a gool old fashioned monarchy anyday.

Hear, hear, me too.

In fact Presidents only mean something if they have political clout

No, no, no; that's Presidents who are Heads of Government as well as being Heads of State. I suspect most Germans could name their President, and most of them don't care if you or I can. ?

And the last part, do I want a country where the person who wields total power is in Number 10? Two things about that; the PM is mean to be answerable to Parliament, not to have total power, but Johnson would really like Parliament to disappear in a puff of smoke so he can do as he likes.

And if the Queen does have some influence on what the PM does, that's not what they say about her, is it? She's meant to be politically neutral. Surely she can't be wielding power over the elected Prime Minister? Surely not!

Meghan for President of the UK!! Just to see what happens on GN ???

Oh but actually, now I come to think about it....

I want the person who wields power to be resident in Bute House

Alegrias1 ??. I thought you were slipping a bit there-forgetting your Scottish roots.

? Mollygo

Time the Queen moved into Bute House and evicted that little upstart occasionally resident there!

Aveline

Time the Queen moved into Bute House and evicted that little upstart occasionally resident there!

That's what we need! The democratically elected leader of a country ousted by a medieval dictatorship who believe they have a divine right to be at the top of the tree.

Why does that sound familiar right now....?

Because in Scotland we're stuck with a wee besom who thinks she's the Queen!

A wee besom? That's a good balanced political assessment of a female politician....

What’s a wee besom?

1. obstreperous girl or woman; female upstart (as in “Dinnae pou’ yer brither’s hair, ya wee besom“)
2. woman of low moral standing; a hussy (“Thon yin’s a right mucky besom“).

Oh okay. Gosh!
Thanks for explanation Alegrias.

Scottish word of the day: Besom,
Contemporary usage of the term tends to be more lighthearted, and is more synonymous with someone with a bit of attitude, ie. “ya cheeky wee besom.”

Totally disagree with Aveline’s assessment of Scotland’s first minister. “Thinks she’s Queen “ ? What nonsense

The self important way she carries on is extremely illustrative of how she sees herself. I've met her.