Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to preach at Henry and Meghan's Wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, they actually technically haven’t. Please go read the law. It’s a part of why Wallis wasn’t able to marry King Edward (there were other issues, but the marriage laws in England were part of it).
 
Yes, she did. But she and George would look awesome in burlap and wet paper bags. LOL.
 
Yes, as I understand he had a civil marriage and a church blessing. The Queen did not attend the civil marriage. It’s quite a mess. Divorce always is.
 
sudy said:
40.png
Pup7:
Charles was able to marry post-divorce (as was Camilla) because of the changes in the Matrimonial Act of 1973 as well as the change of the C of E position on divorce, which happened not long before his marriage, in 2002.
Click to expand...
I’m confused by this as I understood they had a civil ceremony and not a church ceremony.
Click to expand...
You still have to remember that Charles will be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Also, church law and civil law sort of converge in a way (that’s how my Brit spouse has always explained it).

This is from wiki, which I normally don’t like as a reference, but it explains what happened:

The wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles took place in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, on 9 April 2005. The ceremony, conducted in the presence of the couple’s families, was followed by a Church of England Service of Prayer and Dedication at St George’s Chapel, which incorporated an act of penitence. The groom’s parents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, did not attend the civil wedding ceremony but were present at the Service of Prayer and Dedication and held a reception for the couple in Windsor Castle afterwards.
 
Last edited:
So true! 🤣

Being a girl myself, I woke up at 4:30 to watch the coverage!

My other favorite look was Priyanka Chopra! The asymmetrical cut was beautiful, and her hat was perfect!! 😍
 
I agree.

I’m a huge Royal watcher though - I thought the Princess Royal looked amazing and the Countess of Wessex did as well (though I thought her daughter looked a bit casual in comparison, but that’s just me - Lady Louise is adorable nonetheless).
 
Pup7 said:
No, they actually technically haven’t
Click to expand...
King Henry didn’t want to be married to his first wife. That is what started the church. He had his marriage annulled by breaking from the authority of the Church and forming his own church where he was the head.
 
Pup7 said:
which incorporated an act of penitence.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s how I remember it.

My point is that they were refused a church marriage due to divorce so something is different in Meghan’s case.
 
exnihilo said:
40.png
Pup7:
No, they actually technically haven’t
Click to expand...
King Henry didn’t want to be married to his first wife. That is what started the church. He had his marriage annulled by breaking from the authority of the Church and forming his own church where he was the head.
Click to expand...
Please read the law.
 
The law won’t change history. The church may well prohibit divorce and remarriage, but it was born out of divorce.
 
sudy said:
40.png
Pup7:
which incorporated an act of penitence.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s how I remember it.

My point is that they were refused a church marriage due to divorce so something is different in Meghan’s case.
Click to expand...
Harry will never be the head of the Church of England - that’s one of the main reasons, I’m sure. It would take a heck of an incident to wipe out the line of succession ahead of him.
 
exnihilo said:
The law won’t change history. The church may well prohibit divorce and remarriage, but it was born out of divorce.
Click to expand...
That really doesn’t matter when it comes to the law. I do hear what you’re saying but I promise you the C of E doesn’t see it that way.

Here’s a snip:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Times changed, and one of the things that changed was the Act passed in 1973 that I noted above.
 
Last edited:
Another probable reason IMO is looking at what happened with Charles and Diana, and Princess Margaret and her marriage. A lot of problems come from royals not marrying a person they love - or being forbidden to marry who they did truly love.
 
The Princess Royal did look quite good, but her style is not my favorite. I will say that the choice of ruby red was a good one for her.

I do wish Zara had chosen a different dress, but bless her heart, she looks like she is at that uncomfortable stage of pregnancy. She gets a pass.

I was generally underwhelmed by the Royal ensembles with two expections. 1. I LOVED the Dutchess of Cornwall’s hat! I’ve never seen anything like it! 2. I loved the purple touches in the Queen’s hat and suit! 😍

The Dutchess of Cambridge looks radiant as always, but I was sad to see she shopped her closet for this event. It’s your brother-in-laws wedding! BUT, she just had a baby, and she wasn’t trying to steal the show. I’ll give her a pass this time.
 
It is a polite acknowledgement that Merckle is an American by inviting her Bishop, nothing more.
 
I have to be honest and say I didn’t like the Princess Royal’s dress at all. Looked too much like a dressing gown to me! I also felt sorry for Zara, she really did look uncomfortable.

I thought Sophie Wessex looked very nice, and Fergie too. I liked that she was invited.
 
Now Fergie did look fantastic! I’m so glad Harry invited her.

The countess looked nice. Not my favorite look though.
 
She was never Episcopalian. She joined the Church of England. He is in no way related to her life so far as I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top