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.
Added: googling suggests that you are correct. For heavens sake, don’t tell my wife.
 
Duke is the highest rank of the peerage, he is therefore a peer. Norfolk is the oldest, and therefore most senior, non royal dukedom. The Howard family are sometimes said to be Britain’s second family, and are staunchly Catholic.
 
GKMotley said:
Again, treading softly based on my wife’s hobby of stuff like this, HRH is a title of Royalty and Harry was not a commoner, unless one may be both royal and commoner…
Click to expand...
Harry retains his Royal status and his HRH because he is the son of the heir to the throne. The Dukedom is a courtesy title bestowed by the monarch so his children can inherit their own titles in their own right.

Can’t say that I"ve ever heard that a prince is a commoner. A prince is royalty in the UK.
GKMotley said:
Treading on unfamiliar ground, how does that comport with his title until today, HRH, Prince Henry of Wales?
Click to expand...
He will be styled HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel. The “of Wales” was due to his father, but as he now holds a title in his own right, it won’t be in his style. Meghan is now HRH The Duchess of Sussex. She is an HRH because she is married to a child of the heir, who is one by virtue of birth.
 
Last edited:
that is probably why they had to have a civil wedding because I would say the relationship Charles continued with Camila
certainly attributed to their divorce later on.
mind you Diana was not an angel. it is too bad Charles could not have chosen someone more mature and older because I think their age difference caused for a lot of miscommunication and other problems.
I wish Harry and Megan much happiness.
she had a double major and a career and even though she is a little older, I hope they will settle in together and make a good team.
 
I watched his sermon. He spoke too long and the the royal family were laughing at him. His message was ok but he was goofy in manner. I kept waiting for him to knock the candles over. I think he wasn’t the best choice .
 
I was worried about the candles too and thought he repeated himself many times.
at least he didn’t’t put people to sleep!
he might have been nervous. I am sure this was a big moment for him.
 
We in the UK find overt religiousness rather taboo and over the top, hence why our Bishops and religious leaders tend to be rather more restrained in their message.

We can deal with over-arching themes of God and Jesus and mild Christianity, but very direct and serious religion is often regarded as uncomfortable and usually avoided at all cost.

I watched the wedding at a BBQ party today, and whilst we all applauded the fact the reverend was very passionate and charismatic, the over-riding consensus was that his sermon lasted too long and was distinctly ‘un-British’.
 
themonk86 said:
Sorry but from what we know publicly about her first marriage and the marriage ceremony today isn’t just guessing. I’ve taken the facts as we know them, and due to the fact this ceremony was done publicly it can warrant public criticism. That’s not good to just sit there and pretend for them just because it feels good, and we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Look I truly believe what Jesus said about marriage. I also know that marriage today is looked down by so many today.
Click to expand...
All of that is fine. What isn’t fine is when someone makes a declaritive statement as awful as calling someone else’s wedding a sham, as if the statement is true. No “I think” or “I believe” qualifying the statement. That is a problem because it a) can lead people to believe you know what you are talking about and accept what you say as fact, and b) put you in a pretty judgemental light, where you have no place being especially since you don’t know all of the information.

I see this often here. Not trying to pick on you, but feel it is important to discriminate between fact and opinion since people come here to learn.
 
Honestly? I think Harry, Meghan and the other young royals are not even religious in the first place and all of this is just them following protocol. Which is why I don’t really care about their valid marriages, baptism etc.

That’s just my opinion. That being said, the ceremony and Meghan looked beautiful. I wish the best for them.
 
Thank you for this post. I do not think the poster you are responding to is guilty of this but I do think many posters on here in all categories should realise the difference between fact and "their " opinion. (I have a few posters coming to me as I am typing this) And then construing it as fact based on “their” opinion again. I just guess it gets back to humility and realising you are a human like all others in here. (Regardless of the “truth police”)
 
_Ruby said:
We in the UK find overt religiousness rather taboo and over the top, hence why our Bishops and religious leaders tend to be rather more restrained in their message.
Click to expand...
_Ruby said:
his sermon lasted too long and was distinctly ‘un-British’.
Click to expand...
They’ll never survive all of those sermons in many Evangelical and Reformed churches, including a number of large CofE parishes and their church plants, where expository preaching is used. And they typically last from 30 to 45 minutes.
Which is quite sad considering the UK was where many of the traditions and practices in the English-speaking world came from.
 
Last edited:
Actually I think I wasn’t clear in my question. So I will make it clear.

If a certain Protestant denomination has an annulment tribunal, would Catholics accept this and not "have so many opinions " on marraige and its validity?

(Othersise it is tottally hypocritical. “We think you can have a valid marriage but not a valid annulment”)
 
Last edited:
If you thought that was too long, you never would have survived the 45 minute sermons I grew up with. And, of course it was un-British! He’s American, and African American at that!
 
Well, the reason we can (and do) see some non-Catholic marriages as valid is that in Catholic theology the ministers of the sacrament are technically the couple.themselves. The role of a religious minister is more akin to that of a witness to the fact that the couple have contracted a valid marriage.

An annulment, on the other hand, is more of a judicial investigation by competent authorities into the validity of the marriage followed by a legal (per church law) pronouncement of a finding that no valid marriage exists.

Similarly some civil marriages are subject to civil annulments. If I mistakenly married my biological brother there would be no.question of a divorce, which is a dissolution of a legally binding marriage. Because there would.be no valid marriage to dissolve - marriage is prohibited between brother and sister. Instead a court might issue a decree of nullity - a ruling that no valid marriage ever existed between us.

Being that an annulment is a judicial process, it is dependent, in a way the initial act of marriage is not, on whoever decides on the annulment having the appropriate judicial authority to do so. Marriage being a sacrament or quasi-sacrament, decisions about its validity, in Catholic theology, rely on the power given to the Apostles and their successors (Catholic.bishops) to.bind and loose.

As you know, the Catholic Church does not in general accept COE Bishops as having Apostolic succession and therefore power to investigate and decide on the nullity of marriages.
 
Last edited:
I’d like to offer you my apologies. I was in error yesterday. I’ve since had a chance to check and to see that I was wrong.
Children of peers use special titles called courtesy titles. The heir apparent of a duke, a marquess, or an earl generally uses his father’s highest lesser peerage dignity as his own. Hence, the Duke of Devonshire’s son is called Marquess of Hartington. Such an heir apparent is called a courtesy peer, but is a commoner until such time as he inherits (unless summoned by a writ in acceleration).
Click to expand...
source: Peerages in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Lesson learned 🙂 I should avoid getting involved in debates while on my phone as I miss many posts while replying to one, so probably missed an explanation.

I always thought the Spencer family, including the eldest son, were nobility as they have a rich and long history of nobility on both sides of the family. They’re still not ‘my idea of’ commoners but I accept that they are. Anyway, I was wrong and I’m sorry.
 
GKMotley said:
… if the CoE and/or the Monarch (I didn’t see the invitation), says come on over, it’s a done deal.
Click to expand...
Yep, I didn’t see the invitation, either. St George’s Chapel is a Royal Peculiar, of course, and therefore has a degree of independence from the episcopal hierarchy, and in any case I imagine that, as with a cathedral, the hospitality of the pulpit is in the gift of the dean. So my guess is that — after the appropriate consultation with the Queen, the archbishop, and the bishop — the invitation would have been in the name of the Dean of Windsor.
 
Technicalities, technicalities, I fear, Sudy. But you are right in that it would be quite correct to call the Spencers a noble family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top