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.
Lou2U said:
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.
Click to expand...
The law, though, was different when Margaret wanted to marry. The times were really different too - and the sting of the abdication was still felt by the Queen Mother (most likely in some ways until her death). I totally agree with the problems coming from not marrying for love - the right kind of love, the kind of love we all think you should marry for. I think Harry and Meghan and Kate and William and Zara and Peter and that whole generation has managed to do that, and the monarchy will certainly benefit.
 
Pup7 said:
I think Harry and Meghan and Kate and William and Zara and Peter and that whole generation has managed to do that, and the monarchy will certainly benefit.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But the whole claim of royalty rests on blood privilege. They undermine the essence of the aristocracy.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Now Fergie did look fantastic! I’m so glad Harry invited her.

The countess looked nice. Not my favorite look though.
Click to expand...
The Queen always looks magnificent to me, I must admit. And I thought the Duchess of Cornwall looked amazing.

I was struck by how much the Duchess of Cambridge’s brother looks like, of all people, a young King George V.
 
exnihilo said:
40.png
Pup7:
I think Harry and Meghan and Kate and William and Zara and Peter and that whole generation has managed to do that, and the monarchy will certainly benefit.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But the whole claim of royalty rests on blood privilege. They undermine the essence of the aristocracy.
Click to expand...
Oh good grief. You know Diana was essentially a commoner, right? As was the Queen Mother? The children of Earls are commoners.

The whole claim of royalty rides on the line of succession and the security of heirs. No more and no less. As neither Kate nor Meghan will ever rule in their own right, it’s irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I would have personally preferred a Catholic bishop. My mom is obsessed with the Royals though, so she’d prefer it this way. My best wishes to them. My only hope is for the English to return to Rome.
 
Diana was from nobility. Her father was Earl Spencer.
Pup7 said:
The whole claim of royalty rides on the line of succession and the security of heirs. No more and no less. As neither Kate nor Meghan will ever rule in their own right, it’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The aristocracy is much more than that. One may not believe in it of course.
 
Why would Catholic bishop be invited to a CoE wedding when neither bride nor groom is Catholic?
 
No, Diana was a commoner.

An Earldom is an inherited title originally bestowed by a monarch as payment for a favor.

Diana and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore) were commoners as far as the British line of royalty is concerned.
 
Last edited:
I would have just preferred the wedding to be Catholic. I should have worded my reply better. Is that better?
 
Why would an Episcopal bishop be when neither is or was Episcopal? Though I’d agree a Catholic Bishop is out of the question as far as the Church of England is concerned.
 
Nope. Not the least.
Why would the wedding be Catholic when neither is Catholic?
 
Much better response:

I would have preferred them to be Catholic. Though I suppose you’ll have a problem with that as well.
 
exnihilo said:
Why would an Episcopal bishop be when neither is or was Episcopal?
Click to expand...
A nod to Meghan being an American.

The Episcopal church is called Episcopalian because, among other reasons, to be called the C of E or Anglican during the American Revolution wasn’t the best strategy.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, the Spencer family aren’t my idea of commoners, but I’m out … I’ve no desire for a debate about it 🙂
 
sudy said:
Honestly, the Spencer family aren’t my idea of commoners, but I’m out … I’ve no desire for a debate about it 🙂
Click to expand...
They aren’t our idea - but they are as far as the British aristocracy is concerned. It’s not a debate, it’s how the peerages work. Earls are peers but are not royals, therefore they’re commoners.
 
Last edited:
I’m not an expert in this but Diana was from the aristocracy. I think you are right that she was a commoner. But I thought she was nonetheless from the aristocracy.
 
exnihilo said:
I’m not an expert in this but Diana was from the aristocracy. I think you are right that she was a commoner. But I thought she was nonetheless from the aristocracy.
Click to expand...
Yes, she was - but not royal. She was the daughter of a peer. She was still aristocracy, but that doesn’t make her royal. She was only royal because she married one, and once she was divorced, she wasn’t an HRH any more, as her title was dependent on her husband.

She kept the de facto Princess of Wales because she was still mother to the heir presumptive.
 
Last edited:
Does his church and he himself perform gay marriages within the church, and actively promote this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top