[handmaiden]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

Yes, this is very true, dear Brother Mayor Hold. Prince Andrew married a fine, white woman and yet his family is pushing him out the door.

My dearest Sister in Christ, you know that I am loathe to contradict any member of our community, particularly one so esteemed as yourself. However much it pains me to do so, I feel the need to point out that, while Prince Andrew's former wife is, indeed, VERY white, (as evidenced by the extreme skin damage she has incurred despite a life lived under the perpetually cloudy skies of her native land) the question of how "fine" she may be is still available for debate. On the one hand, she has been very supportive of her ex-husband in general and seems to understand--like the Biblical Sarah and Leah--that an extra concubine or two is nothing to make a fuss over.

On the other hand, she did engage in adultery and by both Biblical and British historical standards she should have been put to death. Still, Jesus, Himself, was willing to spare an adulteress that particular fate, provided she refrain from any future sin. Thus we can conclude that Andrew was satisfied with her penance and didn't feel the need to trouble his mother with plans for an execution.


Of course, as you have so astutely pointed out, these matters are completely separate from the much more serious issue of marrying outside of one's race.

[handmaiden]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

There is so much criticism of Andrew. Let's remember it was Harry, not Andrew, who married out of the white race. While marrying a Negro was once against the law, sinful political forces made it legal. That doesn't mean God approves.

There are also politics at work in the widespread practice of declaring a legal age of consent whereby younger females can agree to sexual activity.

Throughout most of human history, from one corner of the world to the next, there was a simple standard at work regarding the sexual availability of females. When a female child began her menarche, she ceased being a child and was considered a woman. At that point, it was up to her father to limit/regulate/or secure her sexual ability.

The concept of "consent", vis a vis the young woman involved simply didn't enter into the matter. We see this reality demonstrated in Deuteronomy 22. If a young woman is ambushed and her virginity ended without ceremony, the legal options state that her father be compensated for the loss of her virginity or that she be put to death. No one asks for the young woman's opinion in deciding between the two choices and if there is evidence that the woman did consent to the sexual activity then the second option is legally mandated.

Now, regarding the Prince Andrew matter, if the females involved were past the age of their first menstruation, then the charge of pedophilia is politically manufactured, not Biblically prescribed. If the females involved were located in any sort of urban environment during the acts of alleged sexual encounters and they did not specifically cry for help, then they must be put to death. If these alleged acts took place in country houses, then Prince Andrew may be required to make some form of financial compensation to the fathers of the young women.

Finally, if these encounters meet the legal standard of prostitution, then a case can be made that the young women be burnt to death. Genesis 38:24.

I hope this helps to clarify matters. The fact that Prince Andrew has a history of enjoying sexual relations with nubile young women is not, by Biblical standards, a moral issue. Any number of Godly men with similar predilections appear in the Bible and have been held up as spiritual examples for centuries. The issues that concern Our Lord are whether or not the women involved are the legal property of their husbands or their fathers. If there is a husband involved then a sin has been clearly committed. If not, then we are dealing with a property crime that can be rectified through proper remuneration to the parties involved.

[Isabella White]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

There is so much criticism of Andrew. Let's remember it was Harry, not Andrew, who married out of the white race. While marrying a Negro was once against the law, sinful political forces made it legal. That doesn't mean God approves.

Yes, this is very true, dear Brother Mayor Hold. Prince Andrew married a fine, white woman and yet his family is pushing him out the door. It's like they can't wait to get rid of him. Now, I can see the Queen being very happy to be rid of that Me-Again woman who married Harry, but not her own dearly-beloved son!

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

There is so much criticism of Andrew. Let's remember it was Harry, not Andrew, who married out of the white race. While marrying a Negro was once against the law, sinful political forces made it legal. That doesn't mean God approves.

[Roland]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

First Harry, and now Andrew. Gee whiz, the Palace is really losing their princes! What will we call Formerly Prince Andrew? Andrew the Pervert? Peter-Happy Andy? Mr. I Killed Epstein and it Didn't Help?

Perhaps ¨Andrewls on little girls¨.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

From that article:

How can she have paid leave when she doesn't have a job? I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that "uppity wife of a defrocked prince permanently on holiday" cuts no ice with anyone, anywhere.

Sister Joanna, you have brought up an issue, a big picture issue, the press and Meghan/Harry all avoid. I'll state in the form of a question:

What can Meghan and Harry do to make themselves acceptable to the American public?

I asking this question because these two are taking up so much space in the U.S. and not giving back. They take up space on Oprah. Their victimhood uses news time. Yet, I have hope they may make the grade of acceptable residents of this great country.

Meghan and Harry could be adored as U.S. residents if they would simply express admiration and respect for Donald Trump. It's that simple.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

How Meghan Could Be Stopped From Running For US President

From that article:

she has recently been cold-calling US politicians to lobby for paid leave

How can she have paid leave when she doesn't have a job? I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that "uppity wife of a defrocked prince permanently on holiday" cuts no ice with anyone, anywhere.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

Let's hope this old law doesn't cause any problems for young Baron Trump when it's his turn to run for office.

[handmaiden]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

Have no fear, the Constitution is here!

And apparently, it includes a safeguard against uppity actresses-turned-princesses trying to run for President.


How Meghan Could Be Stopped From Running For US President.


Praise Jesus for forward-thinking legislators. We didn't need the Bonapartes bothering us and we don't need the Sussexes sticking their fingers into our business.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

PRIVACY ALERT! Ellen interviewing Meghan on television.

"We're just happy," she said.

She reflected on the joy of being a parent alongside her husband, as she promoted a children's book she has written that features illustrations based on Harry and Archie.

"Harry being a dad was the most beautiful thing to watch," she said.

"Suddenly we realised, 'Oh right,' everyone talks about what it's like for the second child but no-one talks about the adjustment for the first child when the second one comes along."

Meghan's last television interview was with the US broadcaster Oprah Winfrey in March, when she said it was "liberating" to be able to speak freely, away from the institution of the Royal Family.

The Sussexes announced they would "step back" as senior royals in January 2020.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

Prince Andrew, however, fell just a bit short of the mark this time.

Mistakes were made. Young women got slept with. It just goes to show you can't be too careful. So, lesson learned. Everyone needs to be more vigilant moving forward.

[WWJDnow]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

In Prince Andrew's homeland, the age of consent is 16 and has been for well over 100 years. So this is very much a case of move along, nothing to see here.

The problem isn't the girls' ages--they should, frankly, have been married off around 15, which is pretty old for marriage by Biblical standards. Nevertheless, Prince Andrew committed the sin of fornication. There aren't many powerful men who, like our Pastor Zeke, are completely immune to female wiles. Yes, the good pastor is that holy. Prince Andrew, however, fell just a bit short of the mark this time.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

Prince Andrew was viciously set up by those evil, underaged Jezebels.

In Prince Andrew's homeland, the age of consent is 16 and has been for well over 100 years. So this is very much a case of move along, nothing to see here.

[WWJDnow]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

Will the Prince face any legal repercussions for admitting he was masterminding the "attack"?

Or is this another Prince Andrew situation?

Prince Andrew was viciously set up by those evil, underaged Jezebels. What man wouldn't be tempted with young, attractive teen girls flaunting their nubile, barely clothed bodies all around? Yes, the Prince should have avoided the temptation entirely, but it would have been atrocious manners simply to leave the private island in the middle of a royal visit. Prince Andrew is a good Christian who fell temporarily into Satan's grasp, so he deserves our sympathy and our prayers. Jesus has forgiven him, so why shouldn't we? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And let's achieve justice by throwing those young harlots into prison!

Prince Harry and his negress wife, on the other hand, are tools of the Devil (as demonstrated by the flagrant anti-Trump activism discussed above), and therefore deserve our scorn.

[Unfalsifiable]

Re: Keep Meghan and Harry Over There

Will the Prince face any legal repercussions for admitting he was masterminding the "attack"?


Or is this another Prince Andrew situation?