I sort of understand complaints about the length, if some people were expecting a five-minute homily. That’s nearly unheard of in the US, where a 15 minute homily is considered pretty tidy (and typical for Episcopalians), and sermons of 30 minutes or longer are not unheard of. But what I don’t understand at all is the criticism that he made the ceremony about himself. Where does that come from? I’m pretty sure he did not mention himself at all. He talked about the royal couple, Martin Luther King Jr, a French Jesuit, a old slave spiritual, fire, God, and mostly about love. I thought it was one of the most moving and inspirational homilies I have ever heard at a wedding, where you usually get trite cliches and pablum. Can someone explain why people are accusing him about making it about himself?
Okay, but you acknowledge that this wedding was in a church, and therefore a little preaching was entirely appropriate, right? And by preaching, I mean encouraging people to spread love in the world, not telling people they would go to hell if they didn’t invite Jesus into their hearts. (The “holy roller” comment also makes me laugh. He quoted MLK Jr. more than the bible and didn’t spend much time dwelling on Jesus either).
Appropriate - maybe. But doesn’t mean I have to enjoy it, either way.
Still telling people what to do. Preferable to religious preaching, to me, but I wouldn’t want to hear about doing my bit to mitigate climate change, either. Even if it’s a message I agree with.
For me, keep it to “couple love and support each other, work through difficulties, listen to each other” maybe toss in some “blending of families.” Then again, I don’t actually like weddings, and mostly only go because it’s expected.
First, the preacher was chosen by said bride and groom (or did you think that someone other than Meghan Markle was really interested in getting the African-American head of the United States’s Episcopal Church to speak the homily at the Royal Wedding?). Second, it’s a Christian wedding ceremony in a Cathedral - it most definitely is not just about the bride and groom, but about the bride, groom, and God.
Personally I don’t think the sermon would have been as powerful if it was only 5 minutes or even just 10. And it was only 3 minutes more than 10mins. People are all so upset over the length of a pop song! From the way that people were complaining, I thought it was 30 mins (not rare in the African-American preaching tradition). I thought it was quite perfect the way it was, as apparently did Meghan Markle’s mother (and everyone on my Facebook page - I am, though, an American and a Christian, Lutheran to be specific).
I was suckered into watching the wedding. It’s amazing to think that Harry has the same blood of Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, and John Lackland.
Meghan Markle was the ultimate middle finger to King George III. :D:D:D Go, Meghan, Go!!!
In all seriousness, though, I’ve always had a special place in my heart for Harry – goofy, stupid Nazi costumes, drinking, and all. I’ve always related to him more, and he’s more like his mum in the sense that he reveals more of an everyman quality than others in the royal family.
Can’t sing or vote. Were I monarch I would try to get that tempo moving a bit more. If they go with Jerusalem or land of hope and glory she can join in.
On the clooney yellow, perhaps she, like the lovegoods believe yellow is a lucky colour for weddings.
As for the Queen not singing the anthem, of course she doesn’t. It’s honoring her,so she couldn’t.
For the protocol of leaders and the anthems of their countries, Heinlein did it well in a scene from his book Stranger in a Strange Land, when Mike Smith is introduced to Joseph Douglas, leader of the world Federation.
Compare the sermon at William and Kate’s wedding at Westminster Abbey in 2011.
• Just over 7 minutes.
• Focused on marriage in general, and this marriage in particular.
• No grandstanding, drama, and theatrics.
• No rambling on at length about his own pet issues.
• A soothing voice so that the congregation can take a peaceful nap instead of listening if they prefer.
In general, it’s interesting to see how much more grand and formal the wedding of Kate and William was.
William will almost certainly be King one day. His wedding was a formal affair of state, with geopolitical implications and appropriate pomp and circumstance.
Harry is sixth in line to the throne, and has virtually no chance of ever being King. His wedding was a celebration of Harry and Meghan’s love, and the great affection that the British people and people worldwide have for Harry.
I doubt Harry and Meghan gave any thought whatsoever to the U.S. President.
The sermon was too long for my tastes but I’m sure the bishop delivered what was ordered. You don’t fly a special caterer 4,000 miles to bring you a side dish.
Not really. There was never any serious expectation that Trump would be invited; this wasn’t a state wedding. Obama wasn’t William & Kate’s wedding since it was only a semi-state wedding. Staging the wedding & reception at Windsor Castle made the logistics and security arrangements much simpler (hence cheaper).
I loved the American bishop. I thought it was sweet that they blended their traditions and that she didn’t ignore her heritage. I am pretty sure she was brought up going to an African-American church and wanted to bring some of that spirit to her wedding. It was great to see the looks on the faces of the British guests as opposed to the American ones. Of course I am Jewish and our rabbi used to speak for 45 minutes or more so that sermon didn’t seem long, just a little repetitive. Also remember that not only is William likely to be King one day but Catherine is also British so of course they went more traditional.
Now for the most important part, the dress. While it’s not my style I think that on its own it was lovely but it almost seemed not to fit well. The bodice seemed too big, like she had lost weight and looked like it was going to fall off. I assume that it was perfectly fitted especially since it stayed on without a visible means of support. It certainly looked good from a distance. I loved the veil because I love lace and I love the Queen Mary tiara. ( Not such a huge fan of the big stone in the middle but I am a sucker for Art Deco). Meanwhile, her second dress was everything. Not appropriate for the ceremony of course, but classic and simple with a beautiful silhouette and gorgeous on her. I hate hairstyles that have pieces falling in people’s faces so I didn’t like her hair and somebody needed to either tell Harry to stop touching his face or get him a tissue.
As for the guests, everyone looked great. Meghan’s mother looked elegant, nose stud and all and Camilla rocked an awesome hat. I just wanted to see more smiling. The bride and groom kept breaking into lovely grins but nobody else seemed happy at all. Maybe church is supposed to be more serious in Britain but it’s a wedding which is a happy occasion (I’m looking at you Catherine-although she might just have been tired with two kids in the wedding party to wrangle and a newborn at home).
I just love little Charlotte, she has mastered the royal wave.
Finally, I couldn’t help thanking that their kids are going to have tons of freckles. No way they escape those genes.
Nitpick. It was not a cathedral. Many people think “cathedral” means just a really big church, but a cathdral is a church building that is the seat of a bishop. This wedding was held in St. George’s chapel, part of the Windsor Castle complex.
Of course it’s a really BIG chapel, larger than many regular churches.
I know it may seem weird, but not everything in the world is Because Of Trump.
Harry isn’t going to be King, so this wasn’t a state occasion and therefore No serving politicians were invited, not even our own Prime Minister.
On the fuss about the US preacher (who I personally lived) - you have to understand that Brits don’t like religion or melodramatics in church. It’s a bit of a standing joke that half the priests in the C of E don’t believe in God.
