religion and the royal wedding

lady of shallot · Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:52 am

William and Kate's wedding in Westminster Abbey was certainly very beautiful. Since mostly men post here I don't expect too many of them would have gotten up early in order to watch this, as I did.

The service is very familiar (mostly) as it is the same that I was married under. Of course it is a religious service but still I find the religious theme too heavy handed. Esp for instance when they were advised to bring their children up in fear of the Lord or God etc. One good thing is that one of the officiants (forget who) did make reference to the lack of religious participation currently. I certainly hope this trend continues and that when Kate & William's grandchildren (should they have them) get married we will see as big a social change in the marriage ceremony as we have in their living together and the virginity demanded of William's father's bride.

Robert Tulip · Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:11 pm

I watched the Royal Wedding. It was on in the early evening in Australia. I mostly liked the Christian language at the ceremony, but some of it expresses obsolete ideas.

Was I right that Catherine did not give William a ring? He wasn't wearing one after the wedding. And yet they made a show of him putting a ring on her finger.

I had this letter published in The Australian


	Quote: Congratulations to William and Catherine. I hope their wedding discourages Australian moves towards a republic. Discarding the heritage of Australia's institutions of state would bring no benefit and much risk. The monarchy is part of the Anglosphere alliances that enhance Australia's national security. Republicanism is a front for political agendas that scorn our British roots.

Penelope · Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:14 pm

They seem like a very nice young couple and I wish them well.

They broke with tradition and failed to invite the two labour ex-prime ministers, Tony Blaire and Gordon Brown - I have no particular affection for these two, but it was a very 'untoward' omission. Our Royal family are meant to show no political bias.

There were all the proletariat in hoards.....cheering and whooping.....all the pomp and ceremony. Dancing to the required tune

I enjoyed seeing the beautiful dress on the beautiful bride, and I enjoyed looking at the wedding outfits of the guests......but it left a very sour taste.

History is unfolding.....and will unfold....whether we approve of its unfolding or nay.

lady of shallot · Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:02 pm

Robert Tulip:


	Quote: Was I right that Catherine did not give William a ring?

You were right. He does not want to wear a ring. My husband does not wear one either. He really dislikes jewelry except for a wrist watch.

Penny, Of course we would not pick up on the missing P.M.'s as I had trouble with the royal family! Also other notables. I did see Elton John and his partner. Not to be too negative but I thought Fergies two young daughters could have made (or have made for them) better dress choices.

I really liked the dress Catherine wore. Liked it very much. I dislike sleeveless wedding dresses which seems to be the norm now in this country. So much more design in a more complete dress.

Penelope · Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:50 pm

I thought the dress was just perfect LofS. And she is a lovely looking girl - well, he's rather dashing too.

I also had a great rush of affection for our queen, in her yellow. You can't help but feel..'Awe, bless her, it's not her fault'.

It is having a terrible affect on our little girls - who all want to be princesses and marry their prince now. Womens' Lib has just taken a blow.

It is all very silly - but we are very good at pomp and circumstance aren't we? I just think of it as 'theatre', because it is all very theatrical.

Didn't seem to have anything at all to do with religion. But I did like all those trees down the aisle. That was very reminiscent of Fraser's book 'The Golden Bough', where he traces the origin of religion to rituals carried out in sacred groves of trees.

That is meant to be the origin of the columns in all our churches and cathedrals, replicating the trees of sacred groves.

lady of shallot · Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:11 pm

Penelope:


	Quote: It is all very silly - but we are very good at pomp and circumstance aren't we? I just think of it as 'theatre', because it is all very theatrical.

You do an absolutely smashing job of it! It is thrilling to us in America. I am kind of an anglophile. Of course I don't like any religious message. . . but realize that is asking a bit too much in Westminster Abbey with the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London etc. etc. I would just keep in all the good bits, you know like be nice to each other, try not to cheat, I would leave out all references to other non-visible beings, but that is asking too much I know.

Penelope · Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:29 am

And of course, we wouldn't then be able laugh at the Archbishop of Canterbury's Hat - his Mitre.

My grandson watched the ceremony with me......'Why's he wearing that on his head?'

'Because he has to look important and be taken seriously, Isaac'.

'Well, he looks like a clown, and he's wearing a frock.'

Precisely!! :lol:

lady of shallot · Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:09 am

Why laugh at the mitre when there were so many ridiculous hats on the guests? For instance Fergies girls. Of all the things I criticize about religion, the dress would be the last thing. Well except for the burqa etc as I consider that repressive.

Even our local paper had a front page pic of the newly weds. And inside a full page spread and I understand there was a dress up party (hats included) at a local club.

BTW I love the English hats. Had I had time enough in Sept while there I would have bought my granddaughter one.

Penelope · Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:34 am


	Quote: LofS: Why laugh at the mitre when there were so many ridiculous hats on the guests?

I think it was because he was a man and obviously of some solemnity and importance.

Through a child's eyes, I suppose he looked most peculiar.

Isaac loved the military jackets on the Royals, expecially the red ones. He was most impressed of all with the horse guards, he loved the horses, and the daft hats too.

lady of shallot · Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:57 am

I forgot Isaac is only 9. Guess he isn't being taken to church! LOL

Penny do you know if Diana's sisters and brother were there? I don't remember hearing anything about their attendance.

William looks like a younger version of my nephew who just had the open heart surgery. Of course my nephew is almost completely bald now where poor Will is just starting. We had lots of newspaper coverage today. I think this wedding is good for everyone. Renewal, rebirth etc. etc.

Also Penny can you tell me off the top of your head, which two Queens are buried in Westminster? (I mean around time of Henry V111. I am reading a book about the queens of England and this is mentioned in the section on Mary Tudor. I can't seem to re-locate it.

Guess I could google it!

Penelope · Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:15 am


	Quote: The full list of Kings and Queens buried inside Westminster Abbey is as follows: Anne, Charles II, Edward the Confessor, Edward I, Edward III, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, George II, Henry III, Henry V, Henry VII, James I, Mary I, Mary II, Mary Stewart, Richard II and William III. But most poignant of all is the Innocents’ Corner – containing the bones of the two princes murdered in the Tower of London.

I didn't hear any mention of Diana's relations attending. Of course, they may have been treated discreetly, but I don't somehow feel that her brother would have been able to face it.

Saffron · Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:46 am

Penelope wrote:


	Quote: The full list of Kings and Queens buried inside Westminster Abbey is as follows: Anne, Charles II, Edward the Confessor, Edward I, Edward III, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, George II, Henry III, Henry V, Henry VII, James I, Mary I, Mary II, Mary Stewart, Richard II and William III. But most poignant of all is the Innocents’ Corner – containing the bones of the two princes murdered in the Tower of London.

I didn't hear any mention of Diana's relations attending. Of course, they may have been treated discreetly, but I don't somehow feel that her brother would have been able to face it.

Brother was indeed in attendence. I saw a photo of him. Boy, those hats were something. I understand Alice in Wonderland in a whole new way.

stahrwe · Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:00 pm

I liked the runaway horse.

Penelope · Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:08 pm


	Quote: Saffron wrote: Boy, those hats were something.

They all seemed a bit 'Lady Gaga' to me. Princess Anne's was voted the worst in our newspaper. I didn't agree.

This is a good link if you fancy another look.

http://blogs.walesonline.co.uk/catwalkh ... dding.html

My favourite was that little tiny bridesmaid with her grumpy expression and her hands over her ears on the balcony. Bless...

http://cdn.babble.com/famecrawler/wp-co ... alcony.jpg

lady of shallot · Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:03 pm

Penny:


	Quote: My favourite was that little tiny bridesmaid with her grumpy expression and her hands over her ears on the balcony. Bless...

She must have been exhausted! (we always say that about such children in our family!)

Sadly she will probably be quite embarrassed in years to come.

Well I think the author of my book may have made an error then. Because while I don't dispute those you mention, I don't think it includes those she mentioned. Do you mean Mary Tudor and Mary of william & Mary. Who is Mary 11? The book I am reading is about only those Queens who ruled in their own right, not consort Queens.

Forum rules

religion and the royal wedding Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!