|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Royal Wedding Watching
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
The Daily Mail is speculating that the taller of the two nuns was, in fact, a decoy body guard in disguise....
Ninja Nun
Am a bit tickled that the article pulls a verbatim paragraph directly from a Yahoo! Answer I wrote on the subject.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
When they returned from the signing of the registers, the couple did not bow to the alter (representing Christ) but they DID bow/courtsey to the Queen.
Just as one would expect loyal Anglicans to do. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I don't think it's yet compulsory for all Anglicans to reverence an altar - or even bow to the Holy Table ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) . But it probably is required somewhere for the newly married royal couple to do civil obeisance to Grandma.
Wouldn't agonize over it too much though. Brenda would probably be the first to say she herself is the servant of the King of kings. So I don't think she was trying to diddle God out of his dues!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oreophagite
Shipmate
# 10534
|
Posted
Review of the video shows that the Praecentor appears to have on a black tonsure-style shirt (possibly a collarette) with dog collar (and a narrow gap), and a red cassock with the correct collar gap for his bands, which hang over his white surplice (the neck of which is a bit hiked up). The bands are shorter than those of the Dean.
What's the medal that the Dean is wearing in lieu of a cross?
At the Marriage, ++Rowan's assistant wears a gold stole priest-wise with a simple dark blue cope, later serving as the Abp's crucifer.
Some others standing in the chancel had no part in the service, but were wearing copes and bands. They processed out at Blest Pair of Sirens.
The lace bands on the boys of the Chapel Royal choir are very nice looking.
David (Buller) Cameron had on a light grey double-breasted waistcoat.
I mostly like the fast tempo of the abbreviated opening of Crown Imperial.
Finally, to the ringers of the Abbey, a quote from Christopher Smart:
And let the lads of gladness born,
The ringers be renewed;
And as they usher’d in the morn,
Let them the day conclude.
Posts: 247 | From: The Klipoth | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Not part of the wedding service itself, but something that I was pleased to note...
On the way to and from the Abbey, sitting in the car and carriage, Princes William and Harry very properly acknowledged the salutes they received (from the guards bands, for example), and returned the salutes. They also, very properly, saluted the Cenotaph. Which is what one would expect of them.
Ah, he did do that! I was trying to work out where the salutes were directed and wondered if one might have been to the Cenotaph. I am glad to hear it!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gregory's Girl:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
A tangent to the ecclesiantical regalia, but is Catherine's tiara a duchess' tiara, or just a tiara with no significance beyond beauty?
I think they said it was made for the queen in 1936 and lent for the occasion. Do you think that counts as "something borrowed" or "something old"?
Yes, I think it would qualify as both. It is known as the "Scroll" or "Halo" tiara and was made for the Queen Mother before she was Queen. Her present Majesty received it as a gift on occasion of her 18th birthday but has rarely worn it. Princess Margaret and the Princess Royal both borrowed it as young women before receiving other tiaras for their own use.
It was on my personal shortlist of "what tiara will she wear?" Definitely did not compete with the dress or her glorious hair.
[/tangent]
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
What I saw was splendid. The Church service was magnificent . The 2nd reading I believe was I Cor.13 . When they played the National Anthem I automaticaly came to attention, almost a plavonic response . And the outfits were beautiful both the military uniforms , formal dresses, and hats The Duke of Yorks daughhters proving they are their mothers daughters showing,slightly, over the top hats.
The Bride was exquiste a case of not too over the top or too common .Bet there will be many copies of that dress.
I thought HM the Queen looked fantastic & HRH the Duke of Edinburgh as well. Bet they were remembering their day in 1947 same place a very different England & London.
As for that verger doing cartwheels . That was either pure joy or total insanity . It looked fun any way it happened.
I see the Cambridges are heading back to RAF Valley he to return to operational duty as a pilot . Just taking a brief week end away nice touch . As oppossed to other Royals who went away on a certain now former Royal Yacht.
The whole wedding was tasteful, with decorum and very British >To the moanser who say why do it time of restraint ? I have an answer. This is a tight time fiscally BUT when HM the Queen married in 1947 it too was an time of austerity and rationing and it was decided people needed something to cheer about. Well that latter point still holds true to day.
So heres to the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge.
God Save the Queen ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Japes
Shipmate
# 5358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
What I saw was splendid. The Church service was magnificent . The 2nd reading I believe was I Cor.13
No, not 1 Corinthians 13.
Romans 12: 1-2, 9-18 was the reading.
--------------------
Blog may or may not be of any interest.
Posts: 2013 | From: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Japes
Shipmate
# 5358
|
Posted
Romans 12. 1-2, 9-18 as in the Revised Standard version, as read (superbly) by James Middleton at his sister's wedding.
--------------------
Blog may or may not be of any interest.
Posts: 2013 | From: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
And no, I don't understand it either. Why not use one or the other?
I'm not (as of 1955!) CofE so it's all very arcane to me, but does it not have something to do with Series 1 Marriage more or less being the (deposited 1928) "Book of Common Prayer" rite?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Here is Series 1
Which is linked as 'Form used for Royal Wedding' on the CW website.
Haven't tooth combed it for variations.
I didn't watch the ceremony but was impressed with the sermon. What I have seen of the dress bodes well for covered shoulders in Church!
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jigsaw
Shipmate
# 11433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I'm not sure about the rules for episcopal headgear either, but I noted with appreciation that with ++Rowan, a serious case of mitre-head doesn't seem to make much difference. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Bishops REMOVE their hats to pray but put them on to BLESS.
Thanks - and to Gracious Rebel.
And wasn't the way he wrapped their hands in his stole absolutely beautiful?
--------------------
You are not alone in this.
Posts: 743 | From: Snorbens, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrMusicMan
Shipmate
# 16343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
So heres to the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge.
God Save the Queen
So say we all.
Posts: 167 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
[very shallow tangent (because we really don't need another wedding fashion commentary)]
Okay. Here comes a bit of heresy: I wasn't wild about the dress. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
On the one hand, I like simple and elegant; I also dislike this recent American craze for strapless gowns and blingity-bling-bling sewn all over wedding dresses. So far, so good. But. If you are going to go simple and elegant, it better be tres elegant from head to toe. Catherine's dress had a pretty shape, but the lace of the bodice seemed disjointed from the look of the rest of the gown. I went back to Grace Kelly's wedding dress: one part, one shape in the ensemble flowed into and enhanced the others. I didn't see that much in this wedding gown.
It certainly wasn't ugly. And it certainly proved how very beautiful the bride was, since she wore the bridal dress, it didn't wear her.
[/very shallow tangent (but then it could have been about hats) ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
And no, I don't understand it either. Why not use one or the other?
I'm not (as of 1955!) CofE so it's all very arcane to me, but does it not have something to do with Series 1 Marriage more or less being the (deposited 1928) "Book of Common Prayer" rite?
Reference also to Edward Green's post...
I haven't checked absolutely every word, but it seems to me that the whole service was ' Alternative Services Series One'. This being the case, why was the Book of Common Prayer mentioned at all?
Unless ( ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ) it was to appease the groom's father - whom, IIRC, is an ardent supporter of BCP!!
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
I think you're right in your last sentence there Tony.
Series 1, which was published in the 60s, was basically the same as the 1928 Prayer Book which was never officially authorised. This is usually the form used today for people who want services in traditional language. If people ask for a BCP wedding or funeral, what they are usually getting is 1928 and they usually don't argue because they probably aren't aware of the fact that the two are totally different. All they know is that it uses thee and thou a lot so they are happy.
[ 30. April 2011, 22:43: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChippedChalice:
... how many couples will now want to decorate their wedding churches with small trees?
That question was posed by our Dean with a very worried expression on his face; I suspect he was imagining the reaction of the president of the Altar Guild ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
I haven't checked absolutely every word, but it seems to me that the whole service was ' Alternative Services Series One'. This being the case, why was the Book of Common Prayer mentioned at all?
Maybe Psalm 122 was the copyright 'extract' from the BCP - it is not part of the Series 1 order?
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Unless ( ) it was to appease the groom's father - whom, IIRC, is an ardent supporter of BCP!!
Do I remember correctly, too, that the Parry was quoted a few times as 'a great favourite' or 'favourite composer' or something of the Prince of Wales?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Indeed.
If I was a cynic, I may be thinking that all that Parry at the wedding was a subtle way of publicising his documentary
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
The BCP [Coverdale] Psalter appears to have no copyright protection other than as part of the BCP itself. The only way to acknowledge use of a single psalm, therefore, would be to use the formula "Extract from The Book of Common Prayer, the rights in which are vested in the Crown . . . ".
.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Er... current music? How about the three pieces of music written within the last year or so, including two pieces specifically written for the service itself?
I think the person who asked is more attuned to charismatic worship. So while choral works would have been written - it was still a Trad Service.
But my question does hold - would be interesting to see a Royal Praise-Up...
I take your point- I was just being a bit pedantic, really! But it's interesting that the division between "old" and "new" worship is blurring- there are new pieces written in a trad style, and I'm sure there must have been relatively free-form band-led worship twenty or thirty years ago.
Could that style ever be transported to a big state occasion? Hmm. I don't see why there shouldn't be different styles of music at state occasions, like at the funeral for Princess Diana. If Westminster Abbey can have an orchestra doing big Romantic music by Verdi, then Elton John, then unaccompanied Anglican chant, then there's no musical reason why they couldn't have a praise band.
(I suppose one objection might be that the over-riding tone at these state events is "solemn"- even when everyone's happy!)
So yes- I think it's likely that we'll get an increasingly wide range of musical influences at royal weddings, funerals etc., but still within a strict formal liturgical setting. Traddy with a twist, possibly.
[ 01. May 2011, 08:23: Message edited by: Laurence ]
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
So at some point, we might hear a count-in from a drummer before kickoff?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Save that for the hotel room on the honeymoon ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anon four
Shipmate
# 15938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
Er... current music? How about the three pieces of music written within the last year or so, including two pieces specifically written for the service itself?
I think the person who asked is more attuned to charismatic worship. So while choral works would have been written - it was still a Trad Service.
But my question does hold - would be interesting to see a Royal Praise-Up...
I take your point- I was just being a bit pedantic, really! But it's interesting that the division between "old" and "new" worship is blurring- there are new pieces written in a trad style, and I'm sure there must have been relatively free-form band-led worship twenty or thirty years ago.
Could that style ever be transported to a big state occasion? Hmm. I don't see why there shouldn't be different styles of music at state occasions, like at the funeral for Princess Diana. If Westminster Abbey can have an orchestra doing big Romantic music by Verdi, then Elton John, then unaccompanied Anglican chant, then there's no musical reason why they couldn't have a praise band.
(I suppose one objection might be that the over-riding tone at these state events is "solemn"- even when everyone's happy!)
So yes- I think it's likely that we'll get an increasingly wide range of musical influences at royal weddings, funerals etc., but still within a strict formal liturgical setting. Traddy with a twist, possibly.
Except for the acoustics which turn even the most percussed worship beat into soup by about the time it reaches the fifth pillar on the left....
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Ό δε ανεξέταστος βίος ου βιωτος ανθρώπω.
Posts: 82 | From: Sunny South Coast, UK | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924
|
Posted
It is at times like this my ADHD tendencies manifest themselves - did anyone else notice:
The armed policemen on the streets (sub-machine guns????)
The fact that none of the royal family was wearing a seat belt....
--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.
Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Low Treason:
It is at times like this my ADHD tendencies manifest themselves - did anyone else notice:
The armed policemen on the streets (sub-machine guns????)
The fact that none of the royal family was wearing a seat belt....
The Heckler & Koch MP5 variant CO19 use is a semi-auto version... but is still 9x19mm rounds...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
The BCP [Coverdale] Psalter appears to have no copyright protection other than as part of the BCP itself. The only way to acknowledge use of a single psalm, therefore, would be to use the formula "Extract from The Book of Common Prayer, the rights in which are vested in the Crown . . . ".
.
Thank you, Sacred London.
One can always rely on a knowledgeable shipmate to provide a reasonable explanation, rather than one's paranoid imaginings.
I did rather like my explanation, though ...
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
I loved the dressing of the abbey in greenery - it was a wonderful symbolism - the greening of the Royal family with a bit of ordinary common and garden variety British family.
I was wondering about why the Queen would choose to be dressed in primrose and saffron colours until I saw her, with Prince Phillip, being met at the door of the abbey by the clergy.
That photo moment was obviously choreographed extremely carefully by the designers working on the project. Think about it: the ecclesiastical party all dressed in red and gold copes on a red carpet. Phillip (like his grandson) in a bold red uniform. Brenda needed to be gold from top to toe to complement it all and to stand out against the red around her. As about a billion of the viewers were Asian, yellow, the colour of good fortune sends a strong message; and red and gold are imperial colours understood by everyone from Hogwarts to Beijing.
It was a powerful visual message to the world, as was the ancient and beautiful language of the liturgy. It makes me wonder how many brides won't just be wanting 'that dress' for their weddings, but 'that service' and in a church, no less!
Kate seemed to be far more engaged with what was being spoken over them than the groom; but I guess that would be fairly normal...
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
From the bits I caught, the service sounded very like what Mrs PD and I used when we got hitched - which was Series One. The music was splendid - as expected. Kate Middleton's hair style and dress were lovely. It really was the whole establishment royalty thing at its best. Unlike 1981!
++Rowen was, for my taste, over-dressed as usual, but then I remembered it was the Abbey, therefore copes, if not wafer cakes are the order of the day. +Chartres did a good job on the sermon, which I expected. The poor Dean looked ready to shit a brick, but it isn't every day, etc....
I am a monarchist, but not really a royal watcher and decided from the bits I watched that everything had been done decently and in order. More remarkably Mrs PD and PD's mother agreed!
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
We got Crown Imperial as the voluntary yesterday and the organist did reckon he was practising for the inevitable requests - but that it would need a lot of abbreviation.
We've also got space for trees in one of the churches - we're not sure we want to be braced for this.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
quote:
Originally posted by Low Treason:
It is at times like this my ADHD tendencies manifest themselves - did anyone else notice:
The armed policemen on the streets (sub-machine guns????)
The fact that none of the royal family was wearing a seat belt....
The Heckler & Koch MP5 variant CO19 use is a semi-auto version... but is still 9x19mm rounds...
If I have read that right, that translates to 'looks inpressive; but bloody useless if the shit really hits the fan." Mrs PD used to carry a 9mm with 1 in the clip and two spare clips when she was working. Even with 39 rounds available her comment was "Not much use when the opposition has AK-47s. I's probably get shot dead reloading."
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
The Heckler & Koch MP5 variant CO19 use is a semi-auto version... but is still 9x19mm rounds...
If I have read that right, that translates to 'looks inpressive; but bloody useless if the shit really hits the fan." Mrs PD used to carry a 9mm with 1 in the clip and two spare clips when she was working. Even with 39 rounds available her comment was "Not much use when the opposition has AK-47s. I's probably get shot dead reloading."
But probably appropriate in the UK rather than the US context. Our criminals are unlikely to be armed with AK47s or M16s or Uzis. If they have firearms, they are much more likely to be handguns or (less likely) shotguns. With a crowd of half to one million milling about, we wouldn't want our police carrying too much firepower.
quote:
Originally posted by Low Treason:
It is at times like this my ADHD tendencies manifest themselves - did anyone else notice:
The fact that none of the royal family was wearing a seat belt....
I'm guessing that, if challenged, the police would say the non-use of seat-belts is a consequence of security concerns - in the event of one of the cars being attacked, the occupants can more easily be removed from the situation if they are not wearing seat-belts. And it's not as though they were likely to be involved in a road-traffic accident. There was remarkably little traffic in central London, even for a Saturday.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
Beg to differ!
The Real IRA and other UK 'undesireables' are pretty well tackled up, so you an reasonably expect AK-47s and various automatics in any well orchestrated terrorist attack. The fact fact that one can get away with small capacity semi-automatics in most situations is thanks to MI-5, MI-6 and Counter-Terrorism Squad.
Sorry, I know most of you hate spooks, but they are the reason you can sleep in peace. On the other hand, I am all in favour of keeping the honest people honest - i.e. accountable - simply because I am not an optimist about human nature.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There will have been snipers on the roofs, and there were plain clothes officers in the crowd.
You wouldn't want additional machine gun fire in a crowd. You'd want accurate fire, H&Ks have lazer gun sights.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
I disagee with the judgement that Archbishop Rowan Williams was overdressed.I always admire his good liturgical taste.
Many Anglican bishops could learn a lot from him.
The Canons of the Abbey, who did not have any liturgical function, were certainly overdressed, they should have worn surplice with stole.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
This may go some way to explaining the "Ninja Nun" story ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
PD
Moving such weaponry around in the run up to the Royal wedding would almost certainly result in a quick arrest under anti-terrorist legislation. Yes they are well tackled, yes they can surprise us with attacks, but in order to do that they have to times when we are not expecting attacks. British police count it a failure if they have to use force on the day for anything but minor pickpocketing.
Remember the last time a major event was subject to a terrorist attack was in 1984 almost twenty years ago. I suspect that it was only successful because party conferences were not seen as major event by security in those days. Since then the ones that have happened either weren't at major events (e.g. bombs at stations, firing missiles at business building) or were the lone activist.
Recently Liberals had a party conference in Sheffield. I happened to want to catch a train during it. It is a walk through the back streets of Sheffield to the train station from my flat. While walking there and going nowhere near the party conference I passed half a dozen policemen just standing around. I suspect their job was to check out anything they thought suspicious. That was just the visible security.
When you realise that they were doing this on just searches, do you really imagine all traffic into and out of quite a wide area around there has not been monitored, all known suspects of connections with terrorism checked out and any unusual activity at ports of entry noted in the last three months or so. It would not surprise me if security services actually knew who the majority of people were in the crowd.
The biggest risk is indeed the lone activist or the semi-spontaneous action, large planning activities will have been spotted long before. The problem with AK47s and such is you have to get them into a controlled area and doing that is likely to give away the notion of the attack.
Big planned terrorist attacks are far more likely to succeed if they can find somewhere routine and not particular supposed to be a target but which will catch the public eye. That is why train stations and such are so popular. Attacks on Royals are more do-able when they are going around doing their normal business.
Actually if I was a terrorist organisation I would do something like try and blow up Balmoral during the pageant. It would make the headlines and maybe slightly easier than usual as security eyes will be directed elsewhere.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
The service (Series 1? my ASB is in the loft) wasn't that differant from 1662 - following along in the BCP it seemed like they'd just edited out the "carnal passions" and "brute beasts" etc.
Would 1928 (again my copy in the loft) have beeen designed to make the service seem somehow more sacramental?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Series 1 and 1928 are pretty much the same thing. It has much more emphasis on the love between husband and wife than the 1662 which seems more like a "contract" between two people and, of course, all the stuff about "brute beasts" and "satisfying man's carnal lust"
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
++Rowen was, for my taste, over-dressed as usual, but then I remembered it was the Abbey, therefore copes, if not wafer cakes are the order of the day.
Precisely - copes are the nominal rig at the Abbey. I think that may have been an Abbey cope. Thankfully, he didn't wear his yellow number.
quote:
+Chartres did a good job on the sermon, which I expected.
Yes, first rate.
quote:
The poor Dean looked ready to shit a brick, but it isn't every day, etc....
I think that's his normal look
quote:
Utrecht Catholic opined:
The Canons of the Abbey, who did not have any liturgical function, were certainly overdressed, they should have worn surplice with stole.
Their liturgical function was to be there, as the Chapter, appropriately dressed i.e in copes.
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
quote:
The poor Dean looked ready to shit a brick, but it isn't every day, etc....
I think that's his normal look
It is. I knew him years ago when he was a Parish Priest in South London.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Series 1 and 1928 are pretty much the same thing. It has much more emphasis on the love between husband and wife than the 1662 which seems more like a "contract" between two people and, of course, all the stuff about "brute beasts" and "satisfying man's carnal lust"
Marriage is a contract between two people. Series One 'slightly' changes the terms of the contract by allowing the woman to agree to cherish her husband rather than obey him.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatherRobLyons
Shipmate
# 14622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
++Rowen was, for my taste, over-dressed as usual, but then I remembered it was the Abbey, therefore copes, if not wafer cakes are the order of the day.
Precisely - copes are the nominal rig at the Abbey. I think that may have been an Abbey cope. Thankfully, he didn't wear his yellow number.
The cope was a custom piece made by Watts & Co. They have a brief snippet about it up on their homepage.
Nothing like a royal wedding to boost business
Rob+
Posts: 321 | From: Bargersville, IN | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophicleide16
Shipmate
# 16344
|
Posted
Funnily enough, I was in Cambridge when I saw the wedding. We went to a hotel where they had set up a fancy screen outside and had coffee while we watched, and then left without paying for the coffee, as you do.
The Parry was good, except for Jerusalem which I dislike intensely, and I'm not keen on Rutter either. The descants were excellent though. I feel they should have lined the central aisle with trees properly, not just the few they had.
Posts: 79 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I read something that seemed to indicate that the now-Duchess of Cambridge's bouquet was not placed on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier until after the wedding service, but I do not know whether she returned to the Abbey to place it herself or whether someone else took it there. I definitely did not see her place it there as she walked out of the Abbey with the now-Duke of Cambridge after the service. All of which leads me to ask:
What has become the traditional time and manner of a royal bride placing her bouquet on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? I believe that the Queen Mother, who I think started the practice, was the only one who placed her bouquet on the Tomb as she walked into the Abbey at the beginning of her wedding, and that all subsequent royal brides who have been wed at the Abbey have left their bouquet at the end of the wedding. Prior to seeing this wedding (the first I have watched), I thought that the bride would actually place the bouquet on the tomb herself as she walked out of the Abbey at the end of the ceremony but since that did not appear to be the case in this wedding I am wondering exactly what the sequence of events has been in previous royal weddings at the Abbey.
Note: I know this is not exactly a liturgical question, but I hope it is permissible to discuss it on this thread.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Not part of the wedding service itself, but something that I was pleased to note...
On the way to and from the Abbey, sitting in the car and carriage, Princes William and Harry very properly acknowledged the salutes they received (from the guards bands, for example), and returned the salutes. They also, very properly, saluted the Cenotaph. Which is what one would expect of them.
Ah, he did do that! I was trying to work out where the salutes were directed and wondered if one might have been to the Cenotaph. I am glad to hear it!
Salutes to war memorials by uniformed servicefolk are customary. I see it all the time in Confederation Square in Ottawa. One even sees a (very) occasional man in civvies remove their hat in passing.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I read something that seemed to indicate that the now-Duchess of Cambridge's bouquet was not placed on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier until after the wedding service, but I do not know whether she returned to the Abbey to place it herself or whether someone else took it there. <snip> I thought that the bride would actually place the bouquet on the tomb herself as she walked out of the Abbey at the end of the ceremony but since that did not appear to be the case in this wedding I am wondering exactly what the sequence of events has been in previous royal weddings at the Abbey.
I agree with the theory already advanced on this thread that the Duchess needed the bouquet directly after the ceremony for the official photos (or portraits, being Royal). Of course, it should not have been beyond the wit of man to have provided a duplicate! I don't think she would go back later to place it herself - on honeymoon one is generally assumed to be too Busy for that sort of thing!
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I read something that seemed to indicate that the now-Duchess of Cambridge's bouquet was not placed on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier until after the wedding service, but I do not know whether she returned to the Abbey to place it herself or whether someone else took it there. I definitely did not see her place it there as she walked out of the Abbey with the now-Duke of Cambridge after the service. All of which leads me to ask:
What has become the traditional time and manner of a royal bride placing her bouquet on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?
I heard before the wedding that she would hold on to it for pictures at the palace, and then it would be returned to Westminster Abbey.
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And here I am, just wondering what the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will wear.
With Scottish Presbyterian moderators, robes are de rigueur and I think will be present fully robed. A free church minister who is unaccustomed to robing, I don't think will be required to do so.
Aftar all was said and done, it appeared he was simply wearing a suit with white shirt and clerical collar.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I read something that seemed to indicate that the now-Duchess of Cambridge's bouquet was not placed on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier until after the wedding service, but I do not know whether she returned to the Abbey to place it herself or whether someone else took it there. <snip> I thought that the bride would actually place the bouquet on the tomb herself as she walked out of the Abbey at the end of the ceremony but since that did not appear to be the case in this wedding I am wondering exactly what the sequence of events has been in previous royal weddings at the Abbey.
I agree with the theory already advanced on this thread that the Duchess needed the bouquet directly after the ceremony for the official photos (or portraits, being Royal). Of course, it should not have been beyond the wit of man to have provided a duplicate! I don't think she would go back later to place it herself - on honeymoon one is generally assumed to be too Busy for that sort of thing!
I think that leaving the bouquet at the Grave of the Unknown Warrior (please note proper terminology) is not a formal requirement. What is a requirement is that nobody ever walks on the grave. Even at state funerals or coronations they walk around it. On this occasion the red carpet was split to go round each side.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Not part of the wedding service itself, but something that I was pleased to note...
On the way to and from the Abbey, sitting in the car and carriage, Princes William and Harry very properly acknowledged the salutes they received (from the guards bands, for example), and returned the salutes. They also, very properly, saluted the Cenotaph. Which is what one would expect of them.
Ah, he did do that! I was trying to work out where the salutes were directed and wondered if one might have been to the Cenotaph. I am glad to hear it!
Salutes to war memorials by uniformed servicefolk are customary. I see it all the time in Confederation Square in Ottawa. One even sees a (very) occasional man in civvies remove their hat in passing.
The Princes saluted the Cenotaph and whenever they received the royal salute en route. Not being the monarch they only have the first three lines of the National Anthem played as they go pass, but they salute it nevertheless: i.e. "God Save our Gracious Queen, Long Live Our Noble Queen, God Save The Queen." But they salute anyway, and Catherine bowed her head. It was interesting to see William and Harry suddenly go into ultra-formal mode at these times during the procession. When The Queen passes the whole anthem is played. But then she gets more horses accompanying her cariage as well.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
