Well, they are wed. What to say?
Congratulations to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, to start with. These big occasions in the Abbey are being done extremely well these days. The visit of the Pope last year and then this Royal Wedding are enormous set piece liturgies and they do come off very well. They even made Damian Thompson wish he was an Anglican, but only for the twinkling of an eye.
I liked the dress, liked the copes and loved the music. The words of the liturgy seemed pretty disappointing to me. The surprising thing was a return to exclusive language and all the thous and wilts of the prayer book tradition. I thought we’d moved on from that when Prince Charles and Camilla had their wedding blessing.
It felt to me as though the music was a living tradition – new music commissioned for the day mingled in with a lot of twentieth century music and some trad hymns. The words of the service however just seemed to be Common Worship Series 1 which is very similar to what we would recognise in Scotland as the wedding service from the Scottish Prayer Book 1929.
Actually, not many of us would recognise it at all as the new wedding service seems to be doing rather well. I love working on it with couples – they get loads of options to create a service which is not just an off the peg liturgy but one that they’ve crafted together into something which says what they want to say to one another.
There was a glimpse of that in the prayer that the Bishop of London quoted as having been written by the couple, I suppose.
There were no glimpses of Bishop David in the Abbey though. As we saw nothing to the contrary, we must hope and assume that he enjoyed himself and that gaiters were worn with style and panache.
It is funny, Ryan, that you mention that the couple have been “living together” for some time. I mentioned that at Padre Bosco’s Liturgy blog in a conversation about Kate’s private confirmation service and felt I was poo-pooed for being a traditionalist. I had mentioned that I felt the confirmation seemed like legalisms so that he could still be the future King and playing church for a couple who had been publicly cohabiting for some while already.
Agatha, you jumped to that conclusion by yourself, you naughty girl! I was suggesting just the opposite, that had Adam found a suitable companion there would not likely have been any hanky panky in the story.
BTW, what you hint about is illegal here also.
The primates of Ireland and Wales were invited, as well as, the Archbishop of York, but I have not noticed them in the BBC video.
What I did not realize by watching the Royal Channel feed directly from the BBC, was that folks who watched the feed on the TV networks were subjected to the mindless banter of ill informed news commentators, including the American Broadcasting Company’s insipid, cotton candy-ish Tournament of Roses Parade commentating team, whose repartee is usually constrained to such fascinating topics as the array of exotic barks and the number of celery seeds applied to a particular parade float!
On the Royal Channel there was no prattle, just the events as they unfolded with a crisp HD picture for my 24″ display, great color and excellent audio, the music was wonderful. I have raced through the on demand video and listened to the music and played it for others a few times now.
I certainly saw the Primate of All Ireland on the video. I think he was in the quire rather than by a tree, but I’m not sure now. It is turning into an Ecclesiastical version of Where’s Wally, isn’t it.
Whilst on the topic of the Archbishop of York, it’s worth taking in his comments on cohabiting, milk and cows.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8481736/Royal-wedding-Archbishop-backs-William-and-Kates-decision-to-live-together-before-marriage.html
any excuse, eh? 😉
Plus, evangelical churches (say) tend to be more MILFalicious than most, so I suppose that the scenario I describe could have happened to *some* clergyperson.
It appears that Kate also forgot an important family tradition! This was begun by the late Queen Mother at her wedding, and was followed by the Queen, as well as Princess Diana and it had been reported that Kate would also lay her bouquet on the Tomb of the Unknown on her way out of the church. But I recall that she still had it in the state carriage and at one point she had handed it to the Prince as she was climbing into the coach.
I believe that the plan was always to carry the bouquet back to Buckingham Palace and then send it back to the Abbey to be put on the tomb later.
I think it may be something to do with having the flowers for the official photographs.
@Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed – Diana would not have done on the way out after the service as her wedding was at St Paul’s – not the Abbey.
That will teach me to accept what Statesonian commentators say, rather than research it myself. The Wiki says that the brides send their bouquet that day after the wedding to the tomb.
That is right Stewart, Diana’s funeral was help in the Abbey.
I guess Kelvin, you have never met a bride who was marrying the second in line to the throne. Surely their marriage is all about procreation. Not to say they don’t love each other etc but it is a hereditary monarchy.