Thread: Campaign for Real News Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005721
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
So many important issues and events in the world.
100,000 people evacuated from near a volcano.
Terrorist attacks killing hundreds of people on a regular basis.
Refugees drowning in the Med.
The UK government destroying the country. President Trump looking like a rank amateur in comparison.
Regular mass murder in the US.
etc. etc. etc.
And what do we have? Extended news coverage because two young people decide to get married.
Come on newsrooms, get real.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
And there was me thinking this was about the investigations into the way the news is being influenced by Russian controlled social media accounts.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I take it this is about Megan and Harry?
Have you read Terry Pratchett's novel "The Truth"? It's about the very first newspaper that starts up in Ankh-Morpork. (Partly inspired, I think, by William Randolph Hearst, head of an American newspaper-publishing family.)
Anyway, it takes some time to figure out what the A-M folks want to read. Someone says that people want to read "olds", not "news". Helps reinforce their view of reality, and makes them feel comfortable.
Good book, BTW.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And there was me thinking this was about the investigations into the way the news is being influenced by Russian controlled social media accounts.
Ah, but that's Real News. International political shenanigans that affects real lives ... hoodwinking people into voting Leave or Trump to the detriment of their own nation but the advantage of Russia. The BBC spending half an hour of their flagship news programme on revealing how we've been lied to would be very welcome.
[ 28. November 2017, 09:00: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Or that a mere 21 minutes after the engagement announcement, HM government took another £300 off of those on benefits.
Posted by Diomedes (# 13482) on
:
Bread and circuses
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
And pretty horrific racism
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The royal engagement is a pretty minor offender in this league.
I read the BBC's page on the UK papers' front pages most days, and it's really depressing. Admittedly today's are plastered with royals, but most of the coverage is usually about the antics of reality TV contestants of one form or another. Bake offs, dancing, and islands I've never heard of.
When it's not about how x cups of y beverage a day will give you cancer / help you live longer / prevent dementia / hasten memory loss (that's the range of outcomes for the same beverage, rotated regularly).
This really is a UK-specific blight.
[ 28. November 2017, 09:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I saw Ink a couple of weeks ago. it's a thought-provoking play about the beginnings of the tabloid The Sun in 1969 and Larry Lamb's attitudes about providing news, partly forced by how few staff he had - versus Cudlipp talking about informing the public. There's a line in that play about how this is a turning point for the press in the UK.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It seems to me that there is very little interest in another royal engagement outside of the media.
Good luck to them and all that, but really this is the least important piece of news around at the moment - on a par with a Council's broken photocopier and the resulting debate about whether or not it might be time to buy a new one.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Prime Minister's convoy goes wrong way at roundabout!!!!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
a Council's broken photocopier
That link, like the photocopier, is broken.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Prime Minister's convoy goes wrong way at roundabout!!!!
It's nothing new in Berkshire. The Queen keeps some of her horses at a stable that's local to where I grew up. Being forced into a hedge by the Royal Protection Squad is one of rural life's little inconveniences.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That link, like the photocopier, is broken.
Sorry pardon. This is working for me.
But y'know. It's a story about a broken photocopier.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Newsflash: residents joy at watching paint dry could be premature.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So many important issues and events in the world.
100,000 people evacuated from near a volcano.
Terrorist attacks killing hundreds of people on a regular basis.
Refugees drowning in the Med.
The UK government destroying the country. President Trump looking like a rank amateur in comparison.
Regular mass murder in the US.
etc. etc. etc.
And what do we have? Extended news coverage because two young people decide to get married.
Come on newsrooms, get real.
With the possible exception of the volcano, none of those other things are new. In fact most of them are pretty much "business as usual" these days. At least the news of the royal engagement had the virtue of telling us something we didn't already know.
It seems to me that you don't want news, you want wall-to-wall opinion pieces and editorials that support your political stance.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
With the possible exception of the volcano, none of those other things are new. In fact most of them are pretty much "business as usual" these days. At least the news of the royal engagement had the virtue of telling us something we didn't already know.
The only people who didn't know that this was about to happen would be those who are already dead, I suspect.
quote:
It seems to me that you don't want news, you want wall-to-wall opinion pieces and editorials that support your political stance.
I'm sure there are some who are interested in celebrity weddings: that's what Hello is for. I'm fairly sure that the Radio 4 audience is not generally that interested in wall-to-wall celebrity engagement news.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It seems to me that you don't want news, you want wall-to-wall opinion pieces and editorials that support your political stance.
I wouldn't mind wall-to-wall opinion pieces that inform my political stance (which includes opposing opinions, of course). I don't even object too much about pieces of celebrity news, tedious though it is.
I guess it's the wall-to-wall opinion pieces and editorials about an engagement that's going too far. And that this is going to go on for months. Followed by months of retrospective on how beautiful the bride was on her wedding day and so on ad nauseum.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I'm afraid Meghan's surname just reminds me of Mrs. Merdle, who, as enny fule kno, is a character in Charles Dickens' Little Dorrit, and who 'hated fuss'.
(Dorothy L. Sayers also used the name for Lord Peter Wimsey's car in various novels).
BTW, Ms. Markle seems to have had quite an illustrious career as a Slebritty and a Nactress. Is she highly thought of in USAnia?
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
She's not exactly Helen Mirren, but she is well regarded as an actress in a mild way.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.
Amen, sister.
I think we're all longing for some happy news for a change... something that won't overwhelm us with the feeling that we're helpless in the face of so many ongoing disasters.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Jeez! Now I'll never be a princess!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.
Though Donald's endless tweets are not trivial. When the President of the United States tweets something thoughtless, ignorant, offensive or just stupid then that affects many people. Especially when they appear to be statements of policy. Careless Tweeting Costs Lives. He needs to be held accountable for his idiotic and infantile use of Twitter, and that can only happen if the US electorate are informed about what he has said.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The press wouldn't cover the Royal Family if it didn't sell papers.
Blame the consumers who buy "Hello" Magazine and the entertainment tabloids.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I'd rather hear about the royal engagement than hear anything at all about the Kardashians.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd rather read about Harry and Meghan than the Donald's endless ridiculous tweets.
Though Donald's endless tweets are not trivial. When the President of the United States tweets something thoughtless, ignorant, offensive or just stupid then that affects many people. Especially when they appear to be statements of policy. Careless Tweeting Costs Lives. He needs to be held accountable for his idiotic and infantile use of Twitter, and that can only happen if the US electorate are informed about what he has said.
No problem there. We get every jot and tittle, God help us.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
No problem there. We get every jot and tittle, God help us.
Is he grabbing jots as well as tittles now?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Markle...hmmm....reminds me of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, and also, of course, the German Chancellor, Frau Merkel.
I need to get out more. I'll fetch me coat.
IJ
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Markle...hmmm....reminds me of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, and also, of course, the German Chancellor, Frau Merkel.
I need to get out more. I'll fetch me coat.
IJ
Someone beat you to that one.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thanks for that!
IJ
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Just noticed that BBC News has interrupted its Royal Arselickfest to report on North Korea's latest missile test.
All is well, and the world is back to normal...
IJ
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
I know it's understandable that the BBC would go to town on the royal engagement - it's what they do, after all. But at one point today, the top story on their website was that Princess Catherine (Kate) was delighted at the news - like she was going to say anything else. This was then replaced as the top story by the world-stopping revelation that the wedding would be held at St George's Chapel in Windsor; which, as Bishop's Finger has pointed out, remained the top story until news of NK's latest test.
Really, BBC? Have these really been the two most important stories today?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Quite so - I guess they think Kim Wrong-Trim's missiles are unlikely to disrupt the Royal Wedding, even though said missiles may destroy a fair portion of the world's un-royal population.
But that Won't Matter, as they're all Foreigners.
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is an especially fine wedding-announcement story. I particularly like the description of the groom, as "a former soldier but now unemployed."
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
LOL!
She does have a delightfully cheeky smile - young Harry W. is indeed a lucky man. He should be taking every opportunity to get a Proper Job, though.
IJ
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though Donald's endless tweets are not trivial. When the President of the United States tweets something thoughtless, ignorant, offensive or just stupid then that affects many people. Especially when they appear to be statements of policy. Careless Tweeting Costs Lives. He needs to be held accountable for his idiotic and infantile use of Twitter, and that can only happen if the US electorate are informed about what he has said.
Ahh-men.
I also agree that Mr. Windsor should find gainful employment.
Otherwise, while I agree with the OP, the fact is that news organizations are desperate for revenue, which means attracting online eyeballs for clicks on content.
Not being a sportswriter, I normally don't get a ton of clicks - but I got over 20,000 for a story about a contest to sing the national anthem for a sports team. Write what sells, I suppose.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Outfit crashes internet supposedly.
In reality a few shopping websites. Or 1 even.
And this from a once-respected broadsheet.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is an especially fine wedding-announcement story. I particularly like the description of the groom, as "a former soldier but now unemployed."
Unemployed former soldier marrying successful actress -- he's obviously marrying her for her money.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Unemployed veteran.
There are support organizations for that sort of problem.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Oh, and this will make the fur fly. Some American presidents will be invited, but not all!
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
to the OP:
"In the war of circulation it sells newspapers..."
B.Bragg, singing about page 3 girls.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, and this will make the fur fly. Some American presidents will be invited, but not all! [/QUOTE
Trump wouldn't want to go if he can't ride in the gold carriage.
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on
:
And who'd want POTUS at the wedding making offensive Pocohontas jokes and telling his tedious bragging lies while his wife's stony-faced body double creeps out the guests?
When you could get the Obamas looking good, enjoying themselves and charming everyone?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Just because it has been unavoidable knowing this, should I want to hear any news, the aforementioned marriage ceremony will be held at St George's Chapel, Windsor, next May, which limits the guest list to 500.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Presumably Windsor Castle chapel is a Royal Peculiar.
Damn, I wish I didn't know that.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just because it has been unavoidable knowing this, should I want to hear any news, the aforementioned marriage ceremony will be held at St George's Chapel, Windsor, next May, which limits the guest list to 500.
If recent weddings in my family are anything to go by there will be an awful lot of #disappointed non-invitees.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
The Chapel is indeed a Royal Peculiar, and offers traditional services of a high standard of music and liturgy, which are all open to the peasantry...sorry... public.
I do hope the Obamas accept the invitation (they've met HM the Q already). The crowds lining the streets will be cheering for them, as much as for Harry and Sparkle.
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, they very kindly declined to go to the last one (William?) because of security concerns. Can we imagine the current incumbent declining to go to a splashy event because he might upstage the bride or groom? Naah.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
But presumably now that Obama is no longer president , the security issues are somewhat less stringent (if that's the word I'm looking for)?
I certainly can't see The Gruesome Grabber refusing a chance to be in the orangelight....
IJ
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
But, since Harry is neither heir apparent nor heir presumptive, it isn't going to be a State occasion, merely a royal wedding, so there is no obligation on the royal family to invite foreign heads of state. Of course, some will be there because they are related to HM and her family but others, such as Macron, Merkel, etc, etc, aren't related so won't be invited.
And The Orange One falls into that category.
Or put another way: if the Obamas are there it will be because the family like them, not because he was once POTUS.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The Chapel is indeed a Royal Peculiar, and offers traditional services of a high standard of music and liturgy, which are all open to the peasantry...sorry... public.
I was reflecting that the CofE's (let's say) ambivalence to the marrying of divorcees probably doesn't apply to a Royal Peculiar.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I assume that because they're churches run under the direct authority of the Queen, the usual notes of permission are not needed.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
My impression is that an interview with the clergyperson officiating in which the considerations set out in the House of Bishops' Advice to the Clergy are taken into account is all that is required in any parish setting.
Legally it is a decision for the incumbent or officiating minister.
In St. George's Chapel, it would presumably be a matter for the Dean of Windsor.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Ambivalent, indeed.
I hadn't realised (shame on me for not keeping up!) that The Sparkle had been married before.
IJ
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
My impression is that an interview with the clergyperson officiating in which the considerations set out in the House of Bishops' Advice to the Clergy are taken into account is all that is required in any parish setting.
Legally it is a decision for the incumbent or officiating minister.
Mmm. I'm not sure if all that applies to a Royal Peculiar.
Another point is that if this were a parish church, they'd need a special license because neither had been living in the parish.
quote:
In St. George's Chapel, it would presumably be a matter for the Dean of Windsor.
Dunno. I suspect he's appointed by the Queen, so is hardly likely to disagree if she's decided that the wedding is to take place in Windsor chapel.
Anyway, that's all academic - it's happening.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yes, and, as L'organist says, it's a Royal Wedding, and not a specifically State Occasion.
That's not to say that there won't be wall-to-wall coverage for aeons before and after. It's a good job The Sparkle is an actress - she'll need all her skills to keep that smile looking genuine all the time!
IJ
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another point is that if this were a parish church, they'd need a special license because neither had been living in the parish.
I'm pretty sure they'd meet at least one of the qualifying connections.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
'Qualifying connections' is such a delightfully flexible term, no?
IJ
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The Sparkle
Aaarrrgghhh!!
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Prince Harry was christened in St. George’s Chapel which is a Qualifying Connection under the Marriage Measure (in the old days it would have been part of the grounds for granting a Special Licence.)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
O dear. Sorry, but she does have a delightfully Cheeky Smile, and Sparkly Eyes, as seen here.
IJ
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Prince Harry was christened in St. George’s Chapel which is a Qualifying Connection under the Marriage Measure (in the old days it would have been part of the grounds for granting a Special Licence.)
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
I suspect the reality is that the Royal Peculiars can marry whoever they damn well want to marry.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
All Royals are Peculiar. Goes with the job.
IJ
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Prince Harry was christened in St. George’s Chapel which is a Qualifying Connection under the Marriage Measure (in the old days it would have been part of the grounds for granting a Special Licence.)
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
I suspect the reality is that the Royal Peculiars can marry whoever they damn well want to marry.
As extra-parochial places they can only conduct weddings by Special Licence so they can marry whoever ++Canterbury will licence.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Actually under s.21 of the Marriage Act 1949, the diocesan bishop can authorise an extra-parochial place for banns and marriages. Royal Peculiars are, however, not only extra parochial, but also extra diocesan. An Archbishop's Special Licence can of course authorise a marriage at any convenient time or place anywhere in England or Wales.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
An Archbishop's Special Licence can of course authorise a marriage at any convenient time or place anywhere in England or Wales.
As could the Queen as head of the Church -- or am I misunderstanding her powers?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Actually under s.21 of the Marriage Act 1949, the diocesan bishop can authorise an extra-parochial place for banns and marriages. Royal Peculiars are, however, not only extra parochial, but also extra diocesan. An Archbishop's Special Licence can of course authorise a marriage at any convenient time or place anywhere in England or Wales.
So we know for sure that a wedding in a Royal Peculiar requires an Archbishop's license?
If it is extra-diocesan, does it come under the authority of the Archbishop?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Well. This seems to be authoritative and suggests that an archbishop's license would be needed, but doesn't directly address the question of whether he has authority in a peculiar. But seems to imply that he does - at least in terms of marriage licenses.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
A couple of digits have been transposed in the link (it has happened to an internal link within the site itself as well). I think this should work. It’s still not entirely clear to me that a Special Licence is required. It would depend, I think, on whether any of them have been authorised for marriages, or possibly have that status by some kind of residual rights quirk.
I think the reason a Special Licence would cover Royal Peculiars is that it is a continuance of what was originally a papal power, and the Pope’s authority would have included Royal Peculiars.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Both links are exactly the same. One of you is an idiot.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Don't rule out the possibility that both are idiots.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Well hands up here for being an idiot! I’m sure that when I clicked the link this morning I got some sort of page not found message. I obviously misdiagnosed the problem. Apologies to mr cheesy Doc Tor and all.
[ 02. December 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
'Twas ever thus. Anyone else reminded of this little ditty from 31 years ago:
quote:
Sex jibe husband murders wife
Bomb blast victim fights for life
Girl Thirteen attacked with knife
Princess Di is wearing a new dress
Jet airliner shot from sky
Famine horror, millions die
Earthquake terror figures rise
Princess Di is wearing a new dress
New Dress by Depeche Mode, from the 1986 album Black Celebration.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
As an idiot, I've always tried not to worry about it.
Village Idiot by Python
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
4 weeks off-air for erroneous reporting.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
4 weeks off-air for erroneous reporting.
Of course, the Fartletter-in-Chief's reply tweet is a complete non-sequitur.
As for Ross, why at age 69 has he not retired? Surely his 401K is healthy enough to support the lifestyle to which he is accustomed.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
As for Ross, why at age 69 has he not retired? Surely his 401K is healthy enough to support the lifestyle to which he is accustomed.
Why hasn't He Who Must Not Be Named retired by 71? I would assume he has the financial means to do so (but we'll never know since he won't show his tax returns).
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
But it's only HWMNBN's orange body that's 71 - his mind is that of a fractious toddler.
IJ
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why hasn't He Who Must Not Be Named retired by 71? I would assume he has the financial means to do so (but we'll never know since he won't show his tax returns).
Why would he retire? I know plenty of people older than that who are still working, because they enjoy their job. What would he do all day if he "retired"?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What would he do all day if he "retired"?
Tweet. Play golf. Be obnoxious.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What would he do all day if he "retired"?
Tweet. Play golf. Be obnoxious.
You mean just like he does now...
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Rosa Gallica oficinalis quote:
As extra-parochial places they can only conduct weddings by Special Licence so they can marry whoever ++Canterbury will licence.
Sorry, but not quite correct.
True, royal peculiers are not covered by the legislation for qualification by residency as in a parish church.
False that the Archbishop of Canterbury can decide: the person who decides what goes on in a peculier is the Dean who is appointed by the sovereign. When, for example, ++Justin does a service in Westminster Abbey he does so at the invitation of the Dean.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rosa Gallica oficinalis quote:
As extra-parochial places they can only conduct weddings by Special Licence so they can marry whoever ++Canterbury will licence.
Sorry, but not quite correct.
True, royal peculiers are not covered by the legislation for qualification by residency as in a parish church.
False that the Archbishop of Canterbury can decide: the person who decides what goes on in a peculier is the Dean who is appointed by the sovereign. When, for example, ++Justin does a service in Westminster Abbey he does so at the invitation of the Dean.
I'm no canon lawyer, but unless I'm misreading you, aren't you conflating two questions?
First, there is the question of preliminaries to marriage - for which I would assume Royal Peculiars work in the same way as other extra-parochial places, and thus a Special License issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think for both the Provinces of Canterbury and York, and possibly still for the Church in Wales too).
Second, there is who officiates at the service, which I believe you rightly state is officially to be determined by the Dean.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
FWIW, I agree with Tom.
The basis of the Royal Peculiars appears to be that they're not under the authority of any bishop. On the other hand, they're not parish churches and so do not have the ability to issue a general license to marry people.
It seems unlikely that they're ability to marry is dependent on the state registrar system, and therefore it seems that the only other possibility is that they need a special license from the archbishop.
Which seems a bit contradictory - the archbishop is being asked to issue a marriage license within a church which is outwith of his own jurisdiction.
But I can't see any other explanation - unless the Queen herself has a special power to issue marriage licenses. She might well do, but I don't see anything in the legislation saying so.
This seems like a different thing to the general spiritual management of a Royal Peculiar - where bishops and archbishops attend services at the invitation of the Dean and/or whoeverelseisincharge.
In practice this is a bit irrelevant - given that there is clearly very little separating the Royal Peculiars and the senior members of the rest of the Anglican hierarchy in England.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Parish churches don't have a power to issue a "general licence" to marry people. I don't think any such thing exists. People can get married in a parish church after banns, by Common Licence (issued on behalf of the diocesan bishop), by Archbishop's Special Licence, or by Superintendent Registrar's Certificate, issued by a civil Registrar under the civil preliminaries for marriage.
I've not previously considered the possibility, but I suppose it might be possible for a person to be married in a Royal Peculiar by Superintendent Registrar's Certificate since the discretion there lies with 'the incumbent', and the civil Registrar isn't AFAIK affected by the questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction that otherwise arise.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I didn't realise that a Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate was even a possibility in an Anglican church.
The Archbishop's faculty office has this:
quote:
From 2nd March 2015, the marriage of non-European nationals in the Church of England must take place by Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate. (The only exceptions to this are in cases where a Special Marriage Licence is instead required, or where the ‘transitional arrangements’ apply to a particular couple who have previously applied for a Common Marriage Licence.)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
It is provided for under Section 17 of the Marriage Act, 1949. I'm not sure why it hasn't been a more widely used procedure. There is much less need/demand for it since the Marriage Measure, 2008 came into force.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Is it intentionally ironic that we started with the Campaign for Real News and ended up with a discussion on obscure points of ecclesiastical law that no-one with any sense of proportion gives a shit about?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
When the thread started going that way I wasn't surprised. I've been around the Ship long enough to know there is a sizable group of people who are interested in the minutia of ecclesial law. They do tend to hang out in Ecclesiantics without bringing their obsession onto other boards.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Mea culpa. Hands up for that. Royal Peculiars are out of my field, but I regularly have to deal with the quirks of marriage law, both in relation to couples getting married in my place, and to queries from colleagues, as well as stuff about Common Licences. Superintendent Registrar’s Certificates OTOH I refer to the Registrar. It’s a bit nerdy, although that’s not generally how it seems to couples planning to get married. I so often meet misconceptions about the legalities from couples that I find it hard to pass them by, even on a ship Hell thread.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Fun and educational.
Now bugger off, the lot of you.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When the thread started going that way I wasn't surprised. I've been around the Ship long enough to know there is a sizable group of people who are interested in the minutia of ecclesial law. They do tend to hang out in Ecclesiantics without bringing their obsession onto other boards.
And they think Trekkies are weird...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The entire front page of France Info is currently devoted to articles about the death of Johnny Hallyday. All 16 main stories. All 16.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Did he die?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
about the death of Johnny Hallyday.
Although admittedly he was rather like Hotblack Desiato in around 2009.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Sorry. I shall rephrase.
Has he died for the last time?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Hmm. See here:
quote:
Johnny is dead
But the business is alive and kicking.
if we put castors on it, could we carry on touring?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
This one's pretty good too:
quote:
Blasphemy! They've done a cartoon of the Prophet!!
(More here).
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I can’t help feeling wall-to-wall Johnny is what France gets for guillotining its monarchy.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0