Yes. Mitchell at the end of last series, Nina over hiatus, and George in the premiere

George and Nina's baby is still around and not a werewolf (she's the "War Child"). We had a flash forward to the war with the vampires. There's a prophecy, and a whole thing. Upshot is, she died in the future, and is now trying to get herself killed as a baby, as that, apparently, is how she'll save the world.

Thanks, DebetEsse. I'm glad to know; now I can never watch the series ever and not regret it.

we actually don't know that the flash forward is supposed to be the baby. it's heavily implied, but never stated outright.

honestly, i was worried about the new series because i'd kind of stopped caring about it last season. this reboot is really clever and the new guys are great. very anti-George and Mitchell.

Fair point, tiggy. It's weird that they haven't said one way or the other on who she is. If it's Eve, then that's hardly surprising. If it's not, I don't know who else it would be (no one we've met, presumably).

I do wonder about the fate of Our Heroes in the flash-forward.

I was halfway through series 3, and I'm not sure I'm motivated to finish it now.

Sorry, Dana.

If it helps, it sounds like Mark Gatiss will be showing up later this series.

Dana,

I think the season finale for BH Season 3 is incredibly. Really raw, emotional fitting.

It would have been a fitting end to the series. I think you should (at minimum) finish the series.

I have only seen 2 eps of 4, so I can't yet comment. The second ep of 4 left me in tears (allergies maybe), so I hope I don't continue to be a wreck the rest of the series.

So I just read this (horrendous) article about religious objection to same sex marriage in the UK: [link] by the country's most senior Catholic. Note to the choir--avoid the comments.

Anyway--I wanted to be sure of GB's laws--civil partnership is okay, but not religious weddings? Church weddings? Some church weddings? I'm not fully sure of the distinction between legal union and marriage that's being drawn at the start of the heinous diatribe, which goes on to draw way too close a parallel between gay marriage and slavery.

Okay, I stopped reading at "the tyranny of tolerance." I thnk I need a shower. And possibly a drink.

Current UK law allows opposite-sex marriage registered either by the appropriate religious figure or the registry office, and same-sex 'civil partnerships' only through the registry office (there are slight differences, e.g. no religious content is allowed in a civil partnership ceremony, the legally significant act is of signing a register rather than taking verbal vows, etc.). Some civil rights groups - e.g. Peter Tatchell's organisation - think this unfair to everyone, and the Equal Love campaign are asking for the law to extend to allow all combinations: same-sex marriage, both civil and religious, and opposite-sex civil partnerships. (Some gay rights people thought the 'civil partnership' compromise was a silly fudge from the start, especially since nobody ever calls it anything but 'marriage' in casual conversation.)

Some religious groups - e.g. Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews - think the current situation is unfair and are campaigning for a change in the law to allow them to perform same-sex partnerships/weddings within their religious frameworks, as currently used for opposite-sex marriage. I think it's mostly this bit which has some people's knickers in a twist.