Wow, what a video. See all the faces react to his speech. Prince Charles was looking down. Touching speech.

Below are some British comments.


Royal Wedding: Rev. Michael Curry’s Full Sermon | TODAY

[www.youtube.com]


LDS
6 hours ago (edited)
We cringe because it’s not natural for us to see someone be so animated, especially at a royal wedding, but, this address (really was a sermon) was fantastic. He just preached the gospel to two billion people worldwide, and he did it well, as an understatement. Even though it was cringe for me at least because of being British, and that I am not used to this type of address, that doesn’t matter, the cringing comes from my own inexperience with the multiple types of worship. What matters was this sermon. It was brilliant I think.

EDIT: whether or not the address was bad, whether or not it was good or unplanned, he preached the gospel, and promoted love which at the moment, I think is what the world needs and what it continues to need throughout the decades. He used this opportunity to express God's love to people of faith and of none. Who knows? This address could have sparked faith in non believers around the globe, bringing others to Christianity which can be viewed as a success.?

183


Roberta Macneir
Roberta Macneir
5 hours ago
Well said. His sermon was what mattered and brilliant.?

9


m p
m p
5 hours ago
That was very well said?

6


StanChinedu
StanChinedu
5 hours ago (edited)
Who cares if you cringe, stuckup peasant!?

5


Irena
Irena
5 hours ago
Well said!?

4


SoCal Benji
SoCal Benji
5 hours ago
Very well said?

4


jml1958
jml1958
5 hours ago
StanChinedu Read the comment properly. He said we cringe because we are not used to it.
The royal family were sneering and so were guests. We are not used to happy clappy, praise the lord over the top scene stealing. It was cringeworthy.?

9


KR
KR
5 hours ago
Never cringe when its about Love!?

9


Ana Bana
Ana Bana
4 hours ago
he was trying too hard to impress! I can appreciate a lively speech but he was boring, everyone in that church was waiting for it to be over?

4


sevvy253
sevvy253
4 hours ago
You are so right! It clearly shocked the more traditionalist members of the Royal Family (and, in truth, probably put The Queen in a slightly difficult position in her role as head of the Church of England!!) but, hey! It was Harry and Meghan's day and the Rev. Michael Curry was a breath of fresh air! Hallelujah!!!?

10


Vanessa Audain
Vanessa Audain
4 hours ago
sevvy253 Amen its King Jesus who is the real head over the church!?

11


Eric Kosisaka
Eric Kosisaka
4 hours ago
Well said!?

3


katt dreamer
katt dreamer
4 hours ago
What? It was a load of rambling what has fire got to do with anything?? Ahhhhhhhh cringe.?

3


Puddylicks1
Puddylicks1
3 hours ago
I cringed because it was TOO LONG AND BAD! You think as a white brit ive not heard a sermon before?? This was badly planned repetitive, ive seen stuff on here 10x better but todays was awful. I had to turn away I cringed that hard.?



MsZoom55
MsZoom55
3 hours ago
I'm not British. I'm an American Black Female and I cringed. I'm use to this type of presentation of the Gospel and I love the Word of God but I was holding my breath for Harry and Meagan while I watched the address #RealTalk
Glad to know the Gospel went out to the world though. .?????????????

4


RoyalMasterpiece
RoyalMasterpiece
2 hours ago
Actually, the Queen is a strong Christian. Her advisor was the late Rev. Billy Graham. I pray all the Royals know Jesus and have a relationship with him, too. Not judging, just saying.?

5


Yoda Google
Yoda Google
2 hours ago
LDS

He couldn't stand upright...this was hilarious. Africans heritage spoiled the wedding.?

1


JAZZ MAN
JAZZ MAN
2 hours ago
Puddylicks1
He preached the truth and If that’s the kind of sermon that makes you cringe, it’s you own fault! He explained the reason for talking about fire if you listened. I found it hilarious watching the discomfort of the cringers. Some people like the Royal family were amused as was the bride but she seemed to like it just the same.?



blunty1
blunty1
2 hours ago (edited)
Christianity is not set in one style, thus he was both appropriate and brilliant. I thought it was a little repetitive at times, but he pulled it of wonderfully overall, and gave a legitimate message for everyone to think about.?

5


Joneseskid
Joneseskid
1 hour ago
He was amazing wasn't he. I believe the Lord used this man to make people sit up and listen today. The shock in that room was palpable. Praise God!?

3


Puddylicks1
Puddylicks1
1 hour ago
JAZZ MAN I got the message. It was the repetition over and over again that was bad.?



rrickarr
rrickarr
1 hour ago
There are many of us who did not cringe at all. We had to control ourselves not to jump up and shout hallelujah. Some of us, many of us, are well used to dynamic preaching by preachers who mean what they preach!?

2


JAZZ MAN
JAZZ MAN
1 hour ago
Puddylicks1
Actually, repetition is an often, and successful teaching technique.?



Christa Woods
Christa Woods
1 hour ago
the world needs this guy! very moving!?

2


Joneseskid
Joneseskid
1 hour ago
Absolutely! Amen.?

2


hilyfe01
hilyfe01
1 hour ago
LDS well written?

1


Johnny
Johnny
33 minutes ago
Puddylicks1
'Rhetoric' is nothing but saying the same thing in 10 different ways to reinforce it. It is by nature repetitive and uses different examples to connect with different audiences. This was a pretty classic sermon in that sense.?



G Moore
G Moore
6 hours ago
I loved this, so un-british but in the spirit of Diana too, well chosen by Harry and Meghan.?

131


manic hairdo
manic hairdo
5 hours ago
G Moore Dianna wasn't there but it seems her son was often emotional in memory of her.?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2018 07:12PM by Tai.

[www.youtube.com]

'Stand by Me' performed by Karen Gibson and The Kingdom Choir - The Royal Wedding - BBC

To each his own, but I'm so sick of seeing headlines (no way did I read any of the articles) about Merkle's - can't be bothered to look up the spelling - family since she and he got engaged. And I'm so glad it's over because I have zero interest in any wedding except that of someone I know. Especially celebrities/royals, whatever. Could care less about people I don't know who are 'famous'.

Prince Harry learns to think before he speaks.

Prince Phillip and Prince Harry used racial slurs

Prince Harry | WPA Pool/Getty Images

Four years after getting criticized for wearing Nazi attire, Prince Harry was involved in another royal controversy — one that his grandfather is also guilty of. Harry was heard on video (which he filmed himself), using racial slurs. Harry used the term “Paki” to describe a member of his own platoon. He then said that another fellow cadet looked “like a raghead.”
A swift apology was issued on Harry’s behalf. Many compared his casual use of racist terms to the language Prince Phillip has used in the past — including when he was in China and told some British students, “If you stay here much longer, you’ll go slit-eyed.”

Did you watch the sermon RHB?
I am not sure how isolated you are in Vietnam.
Do you know his wife Megan Markle is half-black?
Prince Harry is friends with the Obamas

Quote
Tai
Did you watch the sermon RHB?
I am not sure how isolated you are in Vietnam.
Do you know his wife Megan Markle is half-black?
Prince Harry is friends with the Obamas

No I did not watch no interest in Royals.
I did not know his wife is half black,
And he is half red on top anyway Glad the worlds getting so mixed up,
Not too much longer into the future race points will be obsolete.
I don't know anything about this modern day royal family.
I do know The British empire grew vast on slave and opium profits and the blood line what a thousand years?

Kings and queens cant go there.

maybe Harry has learned anyone can come about.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2018 06:09AM by riverhousebill.

I dare you to watch the sermon RHB.
It's a black preacher delivering a sermon about love, quoting Martin Luther King, quoting a black slave, quoting Jesus IN FRONT of all the royals. It's so epic.

It's so epic, Prince CHarles was looking down.

Because her father could not be there, Prince Charles walked Megan down the aisle part way.

Drawing the threads of his address together, he concluded: “If humanity ever captures the energy of love, it will be the second time in history that we have discovered fire.” Dr King, he said, was “right” in his belief that we must discover the redemptive power of love.

Tai i was surprised to find out she is a U.S. cit.
Nice speech, I liked the second time in history to discover fire.

5 minute interview with Bishop Curry about his experience. Everything he said was pre-approved, including mention of slavery.

[www.youtube.com]
Reverend Michael Curry, The Bishop At The Royal Wedding Of Prince Harry & Meghan Markle. | TODAY

Gotta throw this in -

Meghan Markle seems fake.

*******

This is the only article about the wedding that 'speaks to me'.

The Monarchy seems so tawdry now with all the celebrities and celebrity worship and celebrity gossip. Because Libs are all about status, they've hit the jackpot now. They've brought the Royal Family down to their level. Base.

And now the Lib Women have taken over and we're going to be hearing about the Royals forever. It's like the Libs are in high school still the way they carry on. Popularity contest/Cult of Personality.

And millions of stories about Meghan and Harry.

Like Who Cares!

For The Love Of God, Stop Modernizing The British Monarchy

[www.dailywire.com]

As Ben E. King’s “Stand By Me” bounced off the walls of St. George’s Chapel during this weekend’s royal wedding, cultural forecasters could envision the Ariana Grande processional to come at Prince George’s eventual nuptials. The songs sung at Harry’s grandmother Queen Elizabeth’s wedding declared, “We wait for thy loving kindness, O God” and “the Lord’s my shepherd.” Harry’s hymns in Britain’s modern monarchy instead begged the congregants, “darlin’, darlin',” to “stand by me, oh stand by me, oh stand by me, stand by me.”

Episcopalian bishop Michael Curry’s fizzy homily drew alternately bemused and horrified reactions from the aristocratic crowd but elicited unqualified praise from the cultural revolutionaries of the global mainstream media. New York Times and CBS News contributor Jodi Kantor gushed, “Gorgeous, moving display of African American culture and expression at the very seat of white Anglo power.” ABC News anchor T.J. Holmes hailed Curry as a “breakout star” of the wedding. In one particularly horrifying tweet, ATV News reporter Charlene White observed, “Reverend Michael Bruce Curry is bringing the spirit to St. George’s Chapel right now! I could be in my local Pentecostal Church right now.” Modernizing media elites seem unaware that the royal wedding is a display of neither African American culture nor white power. It is instead a sacrament before the God 'in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free’ and it did not take place at a local “Pentecostal” church but rather in the once-liturgically serious Church of England, over which the royal family is supposed to reign supreme.

@CharleneWhite
Reverend Michael Bruce Curry is bringing the spirit to St. George’s Chapel right now! I could be sat in my local Pentecostal Church right now. Love it. Iconic. #RoyalWedding

The new Duchess of Sussex, a self-proclaimed feminist who pledged her eternal commitment to film producer Trevor Engleson just seven years ago before divorcing him five years ago, walked herself down the aisle in a white dress. Of course Meghan Markle is a vision of beauty, and less-than-vestal lasses have indulged white weddings since the time of Queen Victoria, and the Church of England was founded by the most famous divorcé in history. Nevertheless, after Henry VIII, the royals avoided divorce for nearly three centuries until Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 to marry the divorced Americans socialite Wallis Simpson—because fickleness has no place in fairy tales.

Walt Disney Pictures has embraced the modernizing trend for the cartoon aristocrats of its own fairy tales. While classic Disney films portrayed princesses who long for their Prince Charming, in recent years culturally progressive Hollywood executives have deconstructed the genre and fashioned modern, feminist princesses. Sisterly affection takes center stage in Frozen. Motherly love wins the day in Maleficent. The central relationship of 2015’s Inside Out is the mere love of self. In recent years, only Disney’s live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast exalts the central human relationship of man and woman in marriage, and unsurprisingly that film trounced most of the studio’s other new releases.

Even we moderns long for the good and the true and the beautiful and the elevated. But modernity cannot tolerate aristocracy, and the royals' hope to modernize the monarchy can achieve nothing other than to destroy it. The word “aristocracy” derives from the Greek aristos (“the best”). Aristocracy represents not “the people” but the highest aspirations of the people: virtue, honor, nobility. When aristocracy modernizes to reflect the people it becomes “democracy,” from the Greek demos (“the people”). Perhaps modernity makes that transformation inevitable. But at some point it might dawn on the people to ask: if royalty lives like the rest of us, why should the people pay for the show?

******

Just realized - any man that would be into all this Royal/Celebrity/Gossip/Articles, that's just weird in my book. If Lib men are into this stuff, they're farther gone and more feminized than I thought.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2018 02:44AM by Jennifer.

Peace To The cottages, War on the Castles.
I find this Royal family stuff a little disgusting
knowing some Royal history.

How African slaves created a prosperous new Britain
Millionaires, new banks, profitable companies and wealthy cities were created by the eighteenth century Transatlantic slave trade
Written by S I Martin
23/08/2011 10:52 AM

SHIPPING AT DEPTFORD: The Royal Dockyard at Deptford, south east London, played a significant role in the slave trade.
ALTHOUGH OTHER Englishmen had been involved in selling human lives in Africa before John Hawkins, popular histories of Britain’s slave trade begin with his first voyage to West Africa in 1562.
He captured 300 people from what is now Sierra Leone to be sold in the Spanish Caribbean. The profit he made from that voyage enabled him to get backing and approval from Queen Elizabeth I for further slave trading ventures. The financial involvement of the Royal family and the country’s aristocracy were central to the growth of Britain’s slave trade and in 1660 the company known as the Royal Adventurers into Africa counted seven knights of the realm, four barons, five earls, a marquis, two dukes, King Charles II and his Queen amongst its backers.
A later corporation, the Royal African Company made London the only English city that would benefit from slavery until 1698. Bristol and Liverpool were soon to overtake London’s position as the leading slave-trading port, but the City of London had already grown rich, and its links ran longer and deeper than anywhere else. By this time London had profited from the forced removal of more than 100,000 Africans and the importation of over 30,000 tons of sugar from the Caribbean plantations.

ELIZABETH 1: Financed one of England’s earliest slave trading expeditions
The stranglehold of the slave traders and plantation owners over the City of London was powerful -15 Lord Mayors of London, 25 sheriffs and 38 aldermen of the City of London were shareholders in the Royal Africa Company between 1660-1690.
The risky and long-term nature of transatlantic slave trading required new banking houses that could offer credit for periods of between one and a half to three years. One bank that provided this service was run by Alexander and David Barclay. Their bank still carries their name. Another bank which arose from the profits of credit to slavers was Baring’s, whose founder Sir Francis Baring claimed to have made his fortune as a slave dealer whilst only 16-years old.
The Bank of England was also involved in the slave trade. Sir Richard Neave, who was the director of the bank for 48 years, was also the chairman of the Society of West India Merchants. Neave’s son-in-law, Beeston Long became governor of the Bank of England and like his father-in-law was the chairman of the Society of West India Merchants.
As a result of their financial power, it soon became very easy for the slave traders and plantation owners to influence Parliament directly. A writer for Gentleman’s Magazine wrote in 1766:
“…there are now in Parliament upwards of 40 members who are either West India planters themselves, descended from such, or have concerns there that entitle them to this pre-eminence.”
Slavery produced another phenomenon in British society: the first millionaire, William Beckford. Owning more than 22,000 acres in Jamaica, Beckford sat as a London MP for 16 years. His brother Richard was an MP for Bristol and another, Julines sat as MP for Salisbury.
Families such as the Beckfords used their money and influence to buy seats in Parliament, corrupt the course of justice and sway public opinion in their favour.
In Liverpool, the Heywood brothers, Arthur and Benjamin, made their initial fortunes in the slave trade. The bank they founded on their profits, Arthur Heywood and Sons & Co., would be absorbed in turn by the Bank of Liverpool, Martin’s Bank and Barclay’s Bank.
Another old high street bank with connections to the slave trade can be traced back to the launch of Thomas Leyland’s banking house in 1807. Leyland was one of the three richest men in Liverpool.
Between 1782 to 1807 he trafficked almost 3,500 Africans to Jamaica alone. He served as Mayor of Liverpool in 1798, 1814 and 1820. In 1901 Leyland and Bullin’s Bank would become part of the North and South Wales Bank, which in turn would be absorbed into the Midland Bank in 1908, which is now HSBC.
Several other Liverpool mayors and members of Parliament were also involved in the slave trade. Thomas Johnson, a slaver since 1703, was an MP from 1701 to 1723. His son-in-law Richard Gildart and cousin James Gildart were, between them, Mayors of Liverpool on five occasions from 1714 to 1750.
Despite the prominence of Liverpool, Bristol and London, most British ports profited from some involvement in the slave trade. Some, like Glasgow, benefited from the importation of slave produce. Others, like Whitehaven and Lancaster from direct trafficking in human lives. Between them, these two ports accounted for more than 43,000 enslaved Africans being taken out of Africa.
Black Londoners and the slave trade
A number of Black abolitionists came to prominence in late 18th century London.
The best known was Ignatius Sancho. Though born on a slave ship, he became a playwright, composer, writer and grocer. His grocery shop was just off Whitehall. His book Letters (published in 1782) was a bestselling work and gave an insight into the life of a black family in 18th century London.

BESTSELLING AUTHOR: Ignatius Sancho’s book Letters, published in 1782 proved very popular
More central to the fight against slavery was Olaudah Equiano. This abolitionist, who had been captured by slavers at the age of 12, settled in London and published his autobiography in 1789. Together with another writer Ottobah Cugoano and other black activists, Equiano was one of a group known as the ‘Sons of Africa’ who pushed for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and greater civil rights for black people in Britain.
There was also Mary Prince’s The History of Mary Prince; a West Indian Slave, published in London to great acclaim in 1831. She had run away from forced servitude shortly after arriving in England in 1828. Her account is one of the few to shed light on women’s experience of enslavement.
Robert Wedderburn, another Jamiacan, served many jail sentences and is believed to have died in jail in 1732 as a result of his revolutionary, anti-slavery writings and sermons.
Free and enslaved labour at sea
Given the huge manpower needs of the Royal Navy and British merchant fleets during the 18th century, it was inevitable that African labour, free and enslaved would be drawn upon.
“The numbers of Negro slaves employed in navigating the trading vessels in these seas seems to me to increase so much as to require the attention of the British Legislator, as it throws so many English seamen out of employment” Governor Parry of Barbados wrote to the Colonial Office in 1786.
Another observer wrote that many blacks, picked up in the West Indies or on the American coast “without hurting commerce,” were to be found on board our ships of war, where, when not incapacitated by climatic conditions, they made active, alert seamen and “generally imagined themselves free.”
*[Footnote: _Admiralty Records_ 1. 585—Admiral Donnelly, 22 Feb. 1815.]

Royal family blood of African slaves and American Indians.

When we celebrate the Royal family lets not forget history!

They say the British Empire is so vast the Sun never sets on her.
Ah but the real reason is God does not trust her in the dark.

besides the slave trade from Africa the British empire killed many American Indians.

The myth of the pioneer family or lone frontiersman venturing into
virgin forest to hack out a meager homestead is belied by the thoroughly
organized commercial nature of such adventures.

The main figure in the settlement of the west was the land company,
which frequently operated not only on the edge of civilization but on the
edge of legality as well.
One of the first was the Loyal Land Company, chartered in Virgina in
1749 to sell land to the south and west of the settled areas.
This followed in other years by the Ohio Company, the Vandalia Company, the Mississippi Company founded the Susquehanna Company, Lymans Mississippi
and the Ohio Company of Associates founded in New England.
These companys blazed a commercial trail through the frontier in
much the same way as the Massachusetts Company, Hudson's Bay Company, d Virgina Company had started the settlements on the coast.

As settlers killed or pushed back the Indians, their business concerns
changed from trading to starting plantations in the south or
large wheat farms in Canada.

The commercial interest of large banks and investment corporations of England
exercised a close control over the early plantations of both the Caribbean
and the north American mainland.

As Thomas Jefferson said, An American plantation is "a species of property
annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.

The Ameicans drove out many of these British companys in the American
Revolution, but the British companys soon found new soil in Latin America.

The Hudson Bay company is the oldest corporation in the world and sells the most animal furs world wide

almost forgot about the Opium, You know the history.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2018 12:08PM by riverhousebill.

Jennifer
The new Duchess of Sussex, a self-proclaimed feminist...
...Lib lib lib lib lib lib...

Tai:
Jennifer the way you write about guns, I see you as a strong feminist. I don't judge a woman for being a feminist or non feminist. Their unique life got them to that unique position. If a woman has the fortune to be a non feminist and fulfilled in life, beautiful; they have the fortune to enjoy the natural order of life. But not all women have that fortune and feminism arose for a reason...a great example is the burning of women in India.

For a woman to go to a shooting range, getting really good at shooting, developing a mindset to maim or kill a stranger or whoever, to me that's taking a male position and that is a feminist. Do I judge this kind of woman? No, because some women have been forced into this role by necessity. Look at how many women police there are. Those women police are feminists. There is nothing wrong with that in today's society, where women are forced to take care of themselves.

Feminists can be either liberal or conservative. Sarah Palin considers herself a pro-life feminist. You shouldn't judge a woman on the basis alone that they are a feminist. It's not fair. I don't judge you for being a feminist.

I don't judge your brand of feminism Jennifer, but I take issue with your compassion. It's one thing to take action to defend lives but it's another to celebrate it. Taking lives, even against criminals, or just severely wounding/maiming them should be times of grieving not celebrating.

Jennifer's position on guns:
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Southworth homeowner shoots, wounds man trying to break into his home

Jennifer's comment: Yay!

Armed man charges at mothers with kids until one mom whips out her concealed gun and fires away

Jennifer's comment: Another feel-good 'guns saving lives' news story -

Reserve constable fools armed robber, shoots him

Jennifer's comment:
Another heart-warming account of Defensive Gun Use - Yeah! smiling bouncing smiley



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2018 04:17AM by Tai.

lol

Yes, Yay! If a criminal is in the act of attacking someone and he gets shot - yay!

Your idea of feminism and mine are very different. And yes, most feminists are libs.

Yes - lib, lib, lib, lib and more because they've ruined most all the countries now and ours is the last country that's not been taken over by their nonsense. Plus they've ruined children and killed unborn babies. Plus they're bullies. And yeah, I've got to set the record straight when one of them spins, twists and lies.

Quote
Tai
Taking lives, even against criminals, or just severely wounding/maiming them should be times of grieving not celebrating."

If a criminal kills someone, he should be killed. If he's stopped from attacking/killing people, that's cause for celebration.