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

[QContinuum]

Why would Catholic bishop be invited to a CoE wedding when neither bride nor groom is Catholic?

A point of interest for me as well.

 

[sudy]

‘The Spencer family is one of Britain’s preeminent aristocratic families.’.
From wiki, not necessarily a reliable source. Anyway, I’m out

 

[themonk86]

I see where you are coming from, but I am in agreement with exnihilo. In the end it doesn’t matter what the C of E declares to be law in regards to marriage because they don’t have any real authority. They have no more authority on the matter then did King Henry VIII to declare himself the earthly spiritual and supreme leader of the Catholic church in England. Just because he declared it and basically changed it into the C of E overnight doesn’t mean the King or Queen is actually the earthly spiritual leader. The prohibition on divorce and remarrying comes from Christ himself. So to get the correct guidance we need to look to His Church which is the Catholic Church. The Church declares there are two types of marriages: sacramental and valid. Sacramental marriages can only be done by two baptized Christians who have no impediments to marriage. On the other hand, anyone else can have a valid marriage as long as there are no impediments to marriage.

 

[Pup7]

‘The Spencer family is one of Britain’s preeminent aristocratic families.’.
From wiki, not necessarily a reliable source. Anyway, I’m out

Doesn’t make her royal. Therefore she is a commoner.

The Lord Mayor of London is a knight and therefore considered aristocratic. But he’s also a commoner.

Read Burke’s and Debrett’s and the rest of Wiki on Diana. An Earl is titled, but is not royal in any sense of the word.

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, is royal, because he is the son of the Queen. But Earl Spencer isn’t.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

It is an odd not to me whatever the reason.

As a CoE clergy you were also obliged to pray for the King of England. Obviously that was a problem when so many of your parishioners were in armed rebellion against him.

 

[Pup7]

Yep. Many of them that adhered were either Tories, were branded as such, or were torn between allegiance to the only mode of worship they knew and that of the new republic being born.

They had it rough.

 

[Pup7]

I see where you are coming from, but I am in agreement with exnihilo. In the end it doesn’t matter what the C of E declares to be law in regards to marriage because they don’t have any real authority. They have no more authority on the matter then did King Henry VIII to declare himself the earthly spiritual and supreme leader of the Catholic church in England. Just because he declared it and basically changed it into the C of E overnight doesn’t mean the King or Queen is actually the earthly spiritual leader. The prohibition on divorce and remarrying comes from Christ himself. So to get the correct guidance we need to look to His Church which is the Catholic Church. The Church declares there are two types of marriages: sacramental and valid. Sacramental marriages can only be done by two baptized Christians who have no impediments to marriage. On the other hand, anyone else can have a valid marriage as long as there are no impediments to marriage.

They don’t consider divorce an impediment. What we think on the matter doesn’t matter to them, or to me, for that matter. This isn’t directed at you, but I just don’t like seeing the muckraking about fellow Christians. I didn’t do it to Catholics as a Protestant - again, likely because my dad was one.

 

[sudy]

Doesn’t make her royal. Therefore she is a commoner

Royalty aren’t the only non-commoners over here, all the peerage are nobility. It’s similar to how the two parliamentary houses work, the house of Lords (the peerage - titled people aka nobility) and the house of commons (commoners).
Anyway, I really do have to go.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

Doesn’t make her royal. Therefore she is a commoner

Royalty aren’t the only non-commoners over here, all the peerage are nobility. It’s similar to how the two parliamentary houses work, the house of Lords (the peerage - titled people aka nobility) and the house of commons (commoners).
Anyway, I really do have to go.

They are commoners. Nobility does not equal royalty. Aristocracy doesn’t mean royalty.

Like I said, go look it up, preferably on DeBrett’s website. And even Wiki has it right.

House of Commons means “these people are not titled”. Not “The House of Lords is royal”. After 20 years of living among and around Brits I’ve got a grip on this. (Even though I knew this when Diana married Charles as it was all over the papers and magazines how he wasn’t marrying anyone from a Royal Family of any ilk, but a commoner.)

Royals are not political in any way by their very title.

 

[sudy]

Commoner - Wikipedia

 

[Pup7]

You really are killing me here.

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

Please go look up why this is true.

Diana was a commoner. She was not royal until she married Charles. Once they divorced, she was no longer a royal family member. She was not even an HRH. As her brother said at her funeral, “she needed no royal title”…she was a commoner, and was left with the “Princess of Wales” style (not the title) out of respect for Prince William, the heir to the throne.

That’s why she was “Diana, Princess of Wales” and not “HRH Princess Diana of Wales” (which isn’t really accurate, but that’s really delving into styles and titles) post-divorce.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Only the holder of the title is noble. In Diana’s case, Her father Earl Spencer was noble. She and the rest of her siblings were commoners. She was styled Lady Diana Spencer, but it was a title of mere courtesy. It did not carry with it any nobility or rank.

 

[Pup7]

Yep. She was a “member” of the nobility class because of her father. Had she not been married to Charles, but to Joe British, when the Earl died, she would’ve remained Lady Diana, but she could not pass on the title to any children.

 

[sudy]

I actually agree. Going back to my first point though …I was speaking of her family.

Honestly, the Spencer family aren’t my idea of commoners, but I’m out … I’ve no desire for a debate about it

Her family are extensively titled aristocrats … therefore not ‘my idea’ of commoners.

 

[themonk86]

Hey I agree with you about muckracking, but at the same time true charity sometimes confronts and corrects for the benefit of everyone involved. I understand that the C of E doesn’t consider divorce an impediment, but Jesus Christ differs from the C of E. So all I wanted to point out is that instead of celebrating this marriage it appears to be a sham where two people appear to be committing adultery with public approval. For the sake of their eternal souls we should, in charity, point this out and pray for them. I also agree that we don’t know the whole details, but from what we do know, it appears this is a marriage between a still married woman and another man (adultery). So I feel (which I know doesn’t really matter) they should have come out publicly and cleared things up so as to avoid the sin of scandal. Also I would agree with you that we shouldn’t have said or judge them in anyway if this would have been a secret ceremony, but since this whole ceremony was made publicly then I think there is nothing wrong with public condemnation.

 

[Pup7]

And I said that…

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.

And you responded with:

‘The Spencer family is one of Britain’s preeminent aristocratic families.’.
From wiki, not necessarily a reliable source. Anyway, I’m out

All I said was, she wasn’t Royal until she married, and then when she divorced, she wasn’t.

 

[Pup7]

Also I would agree with you that we shouldn’t have said or judge them in anyway if this would have been a secret ceremony, but since this whole ceremony was made publicly then I think there is nothing wrong with public condemnation.

I don’t agree that doing something publicly means it’s okay to judge the person’s soul.

 

[Lou2U]

We don’t know any of the details around Meghan’s first marriage, so there should be no sort of condemnation. It’s far more charitable to not speculate.

 

[sudy]

They aren’t our idea - but they are as far as the British aristocracy is concerned.

And this is where I got tangled up in this debate …we were both initially talking about ‘they’ and not her. ‘They’ are part of the British aristocracy.

Anyway, God bless. I hate arguing

 

[Pup7]

They’re still not royal, and they are considered commoners. Nobility does not equal royalty. Aristocracy does not equal royalty. The terms are not interchangeable down the chain. A monarch cannot bestow royalty. You’re either born into it or you marry into it (and earls aren’t royals). It’s not an argument, it’s the way peerages work. Again - DeBrett’s. And good day to you as well.