Hey, I noticed that too. But I have seen a bunch of brown shod feet with dress clothes.
And no socks. These young whippersnappers! My Daddy is probably turning over in his grave.
Yes, I don’t think that’s a US thing. William and Kate had such things attached to their car when they drove off for the evening reception.
Scotland has had different rules for centuries, hence the quaint and charming fame of Gretna Green as a place for runaways to get snap marriages.
As for St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, yes, sometimes the country houses of the aristocracy did have their own chapel, but one might note that Windsor Castle is not so much a house as a sort of campus, a collection of buildings that’s more like a fortified town, much of it dating back nearly a thousand years. The size of the place is just stunning.
Explaining what St George’s Chapel is would be easier if its status wasn’t so unlike that of any other Anglican church. It is a royal peculiar, independent of the jurisdiction of the local bishop, but it isn’t one of the Chapels Royal. Its nearest equivalent is Westminster Abbey.
The earliest chapel, of which fragments survive embedded in the fabric of the Albert Memorial Chapel, which has the same footprint, was built as a chapel for the Royal Family and the royal household. But since at least the fourteenth century there has been a Chapel Royal for their use in the royal apartments in the Upper Ward. Since then members of the Royal Family have used St George’s only on special occasions, such as weddings, funerals and the Garter service.
Just as importantly, Edward III gave the old chapel to the Order of the Garter and this was later extended to form the present chapel. As the chapel of the Garter, St George’s became a collegiate chapel served by a college comprising the Dean and some Canons. It had no congregation and it has never been a parish church. Its purpose was simply the performance of the daily round of church services. In a sense, it was a huge chantry chapel. So it was exactly the sort of religious institution that got closed down at the Reformation. Other royal collegiate foundations, such as St Stephen’s at Westminster, were suppressed. St George’s survived only because Henry VIII was keen to continue the Order of the Garter.
The idea of the castle as a campus is a good one. But it is really two campuses split between the Upper and Lower Wards. As has been the case for centuries, the Lower Ward is very much the domain of the Dean and Canons. Most of the buildings in that bit of the castle are houses for them, for other staff of the Chapel and for the Military Knights.
There have been several chapels in the Upper Ward over the centuries. The one built for Queen Victoria was completely destroyed by the 1992 fire, which had in fact started there. This was then replaced by a much smaller one, which was inserted at the north-east corner of the Upper Ward. But it is said that the Queen usually attends All Saints in the Great Park. I think some of the members of the royal household who live in the castle prefer to use St George’s, but that’s mostly because it is closer.
It was presumably the banner of Lord Boyce.
Neat.
What if you get chosen and don’t happen to have heraldic arms?
ETA: Thanks, APB, for the time spent on providing cites.
Just head off down to The College of Arms and design one. http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/
You get them granted to you. One of the two most recent appointments to the Garter, Lady Mary Fagan, doesn’t yet appear to have a coat of arms. But she’s doubtless already having discussions with the heralds so that she has one in time for her installation next month. One of the implicit conditions in accepting the Garter is that, if necessary, you apply for a coat of arms (which don’t come cheap).
There better not be. Marriage laws are state. No federal laws exist.
If your sentences can be parsed, I think the answer to the question you’re asking is that all marriages in the U.S. in all states are civil. Church officials can be officiants, as can non-church people, but all marriages are legally the same, secular, civil affairs.
Nitpick: Homosexuals can marry. Federal law.
Your snark, repeated over the years almost exactly with these words is not appreciated and it gets in the way. If you parsed something wrong, either I or another poster, if so moved, will tell you.
Nitpickier: A Supreme Court ruling prevents *states *from restricting their marriage laws to mixed-sex couples.
I think you’re getting me confused with Colibri.
Leo, you talk about parsing as if it’s a bad thing. I’m currently having an entire 150,000-word book read sentence-by-sentence to ensure that every one of them is easily parsed by the potential reader. A bumpy sentence is bad in a book. A lone question that can’t be figured out can’t be answered, and that sorta defeats the entire purpose of GQ.
ElvisL1ves is right, BTW. Supreme Court rulings on marriage are not federal law. They are interpretations of state laws, a totally different thing.
It could’ve been worse.
I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly, but idiomatically, that is how it’s said:a priest marries a couple. Religiously, yes, it’s different, but that’s how it’s normally said in American English, at least. I’m Catholic, and fellow Catholics will ask “which priest married you?” not “which priest celebrated your wedding?” which sounds odd to my ears. Or is this some UK English or Anglican thing I’m not aware of?
In Anglican canon law and sacramental theology, the couple marries each other. The priest leads them through the vows, but it is their exchange of vows which creates the marriage.
When the priest says “I now pronounce you husband and wife,” the priest is acknowledging that all has been done according to canon and civil law by the couple to marry each other. It’s not the priest who makes the marriage. It’s the couple themselves.
I’d be surprised if Catholic canon law and sacramental theology is different. Nava’s post suggests it’s the same.
It’s the same. The ministers of marriage are the spouses and the priest’s role is to assist (which includes marriage preparation, making sure “all the boxes are checked” and presiding over the liturgy) and be a witness. In fact, a lay person can be authorized to perform the functions normally fulfilled by a priest. The following article is about a wedding presided over by a nun with the permission of the Holy See.
Now sure, American Catholics will frequently ask “Which priest married you?” but that doesn’t mean the same colloquialism exists in other English-speaking countries or other languages.
It is the same, hence my “religiously, yes, it’s different” (meaning that, yes, canonically the couple marries each other) and my wondering whether in other dialects of English (or even in other American dialects) the phrase is not used colloquially in this manner. I thought I had covered all those possibilities in my post, but if it was unclear, that is what I meant.
The original meaning of marry in England was “to take a husband or wife”; the word came in with the Normans, largely supplanting the Anglo-Saxon euqivalent, which is wed. It still has this sense; John married Jane in 1974 and, after her death, he married Mary. It also has this sense in many compound phrases, e.g. to marry into [a particular family]; to marry up, or above oneself, to marry out [of a particular social group]; to marry well; to marry money.
It soon developed a second sense; to bring about, or be instrumental in arranging, a marriage; the wealthy merchant married his elder daughter to a duke and his younger daughter to an earl. And from this the sense of officiating at a marriage developed by about 1530. Shakespeare uses it in this sense (“You shall be the Priest, and marry us”).
Both senses are current in most varieties of English. We rely on context to distinguish them.
If I understand your question, an image or shape within a flag or a coat of arms is called a “charge” while the background color or pattern is a “field.”
And yes, the Manx flag has a triskelion of three (armored) legs (on a red field).