The Royal Wedding - Dress & Veil - Hypocrisy

  • Thread starter Thread starter SusanneT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SusanneT

Guest
I don’t want to sound negative about what was a beautiful spectacle, but am I the only one who felt a little uncomfortable at a divorced woman wearing a white dress and a very demure veil ? It looked wonderful but it’s that rather hypocritical in terms of symbolism !
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by hypocrisy in terms ofof symbolism? I dont understand, what you mean by that.
 
Last edited:
I mean it is all designed to symbolise the purity of the bride, her modesty and her submission to Christ - but she is divorced !
 
The popularisation of the white wedding dress by Queen Victoria wasn’t done to symbolise the purity of the bride or anything else. I don’t see anything wrong with her wearing it.
 
SusanneT said:
I mean it is all designed to symbolise the purity of the bride, her modesty and her submission to Christ - but she is divorced !
Click to expand...
Is she immodest, impure, and not submissive to Christ ( through her baptism, which washes away all stain of sin) which she just receeved?
 
Last edited:
Allie1 said:
Is she immodest, impure, and not submissive to Christ ( through her baptism) which she just receeved?
Click to expand...
I think she generally dresses very nicely and it is commendable that she decided to be Baptised. But she was married previously so her ability to marry again must be questionable and she is certainly not pure unless her previous wedding was not consummated.

She is perfectly entitled to wear anything she likes but in this case the symbolism was very deliberate.
 
Lou2U said:
Why? Do you not think the Church of England would have made sure she was eligible for marriage before she did so?
Click to expand...
Legally yes - but morally ??? The Church of England allows divorced people to re-marry in Church but that does not make it right.

Also legal or not she was making a VERY clear statement.
 
I agree. Since it was her second marriage, another color would’ve been more appropriate.
 
SusanneT said:
I think she generally dresses very nicely and it is commendable that she decided to be Baptised. But she was married previously so her ability to marry again must be questionable and she is certainly not pure unless her previous wedding was not consummated.

She is perfectly entitled to wear anything she likes but in this case the symbolism was very deliberate
Click to expand...
Then I think ypu need to amend your intial response to me. She is both modest, through her dress and submissive to Christ through her baptism. However she is not a virgin and therefore a hypocrite.
 
Allie1 said:
Then I think ypu need to amend your intial response to me. She is both modest, through her dress and submissive to Christ through her baptism. However she is not a virgin and therefore a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Clearly you do not see it the same way, as is your right. However I think that the symbolism was very clear and more than that very deliberate, which I find hypocritical in a divorcee.

She could have worn an equally beautiful dress in a pastel shade and even a rather less ‘statement’ veil - but she chose to draw on those very deliberate ‘bridal’ symbols.
 
We are called to charity. To judge the state of this woman’s soul is not cool.
 
What happened wast he CoE version of the Peterine Privilege. The Catholic Church allows the same, for an unbaptized person’s former marriage to be dissolved in order for baptism/marriage to a baptized Christian.

This woman is a newly born Christian. Going in public and talking smack about her on a Christian forum is not exactly a “welcome to the family”
 
SusanneT said:
Also legal or not she was making a VERY clear statement.
Click to expand...
I think you’re putting too much into this. The tradition for a bride on her wedding day is to wear white. That is what she did - I doubt her thought process went any further than that.
 
SusanneT said:
Legally yes - but morally ??? The Church of England allows divorced people to re-marry in Church but that does not make it right.

Also legal or not she was making a VERY clear statement.
Click to expand...
Our own church allows the same after an annulment.
 
Customs change. The mere fact that the bride was biracial would have seemed impossible even thirty years ago.

The British Monarchy has been so successful precisely because it has been able to merge tradition and modernity. It’s a trait that it has had for centuries, and Queen Elizabeth is a true master of this. Doubtless she finds some of things that must be done as distasteful, but for her the propogation of the institution overrides small matters like the color of a wedding dress.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top