Thread: Eccles: Royal Wedding Watching Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000821

Posted by ChippedChalice (# 14057) on :
 
Here's a thread for those of us who care more about what the Archbishop of Canterbury will be wearing than what the bride's gown will look like.

Does anybody know what channels in the U.S. are most likely to broadcast the wedding WITHOUT any annoying commentary -- so that we can appreciate the choral music, etc. uninterrupted?

[ 29. September 2011, 07:37: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on :
 
I too care more about seeing the Liturgy at the Abbey than really what the bride will be wearing. I dread the uninformed chatter we will have to endure to watch this. I doubt many US anchors will have any idea what the CofE actually is, or who Rowan is in relation. Yes, they are that stupid.
 
Posted by Chap (# 4926) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChippedChalice:
Here's a thread for those of us who care more about what the Archbishop of Canterbury will be wearing than what the bride's gown will look like.

Does anybody know what channels in the U.S. are most likely to broadcast the wedding WITHOUT any annoying commentary -- so that we can appreciate the choral music, etc. uninterrupted?

Rarely watching TV myself, I have only heard of BBCA telecasting it. I am sure it will be completely voiced over by them. What about a webcast - it seems there ought be at least one that will not include commentary.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Apparently YouTube will be streaming it live without commentary.
 
Posted by ChippedChalice (# 14057) on :
 
Thanks Amanda!
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
I would expect the folks on NBC to be well prepped about the CofE. Matt Lauer and Meredith Viera are pretty decent journalists. As for ol' Katie Couric on CBS, expect her to be lost. "You mean it's not a Catholic church?"
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
I'm fairly sure Katie Couric is (was?) Episcopalian. I am likewise fairly sure that she will chatter relentlessly.
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
Just because she is something doesn't mean she knows anything.

I once ran into her on a tour of Rockerfeller Center, and she was complaining about the abundance of tour groups getting in the way that day to a colleague. Her language was not ready for prime time.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Some of us are mighty curious about rumored music commissioned especially for the service.

Anybody know anything on that front? Who might composers be, what the pieces will be, etc.?

Inquiring minds are dying to know.

(BTW, what rite are they using? Or is that a stupid question....?)
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrMusicMan:
I would expect the folks on NBC to be well prepped about the CofE. ...

The U.S. announcers made hash of the broadcast of Diana's funeral. They had no idea of what was going on or who was who or how to pronounce anything -- which didn't keep them from holding forth anyway. PBS aired the BBC broadcast; why any American chose to watch an American version was beyond me.

I'm also hoping that the wedding will be an opportunity for the world to see Anglicanism at its best. (Unfortunately, Diana's funeral was not. I don't remember as much about Charles' and Diana's wedding, though I did watch it.)
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Will the marriage service be from Common Worship or the 1662 Book of Common Prayer? Will it include a celebration of Holy Communion?

Those are the liturgical questions that interest me.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
Will Canons be in scarlet and choir dress, or in copes? And how many bishops are expected?

I will watch the BBC World broadcast, although CNN is probably a good pick as well. I dread watching it on local TV because they (local networks)wouldn't know what to expect even after having strained their eyes reviewing footage from royal weddings past.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Will the marriage service be from Common Worship or the 1662 Book of Common Prayer? Will it include a celebration of Holy Communion?

Very likely to be1662/1928, and definitely no Holy Communion.

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known:
Will Canons be in scarlet and choir dress, or in copes? And how many bishops are expected?

Choir dress, I'd have thought. There will be about 10 Bishops present (from various branches of the church) but most of these will be there purely as guests. The service will be conducted by the Dean of Westminster Abbey, the marriage ceremony by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the address given by the Bishop of London. A list of the religious types attending is:


The Archbishops of Canterbury and York seem have been among the few who got a '+one' on their invitations. [Biased]

[ 26. April 2011, 05:42: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
Thank you, Chapelhead! [Big Grin]

Yes, the CofE Archbishops got to bring their spouses, it appears. Privilege, perhaps?
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Is Mrs. Williams not herself in Holy Orders, or else a doctor or something?
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Some of us are mighty curious about rumored music commissioned especially for the service.

Anybody know anything on that front? Who might composers be, what the pieces will be, etc.?

Inquiring minds are dying to know.


There was a delightful piece in Private Eye soon after the wedding date was announced saying that the organist of Westminster Abbey (James O'Donnell) woke up that morning with an inbox full of emails from hopeful composers just busting to write something. But I've heard nothing more. I actually met a choir parent at the weekend but he said his son had been sworn to secrecy about the music list and hadn't said anything.

[ 26. April 2011, 09:43: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known:
Will Canons be in scarlet and choir dress, or in copes? And how many bishops are expected?

Choir dress, I'd have thought.
I would think it will be cassock, surplice and cope. I would be very surprised if they're not coped up.

Something like this.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known:
Will Canons be in scarlet and choir dress, or in copes? And how many bishops are expected?

Choir dress, I'd have thought.
I would think it will be cassock, surplice and cope. I would be very surprised if they're not coped up.

Something like this.

I suppose it might depend on what, if anything, they are doing. Tne Dean will be coped, but will the other canons be involved - I've no idea?
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
They usually turn up in their posh frocks whether they're doing anything or not.
 
Posted by earrings (# 13306) on :
 
quote:
Is Mrs. Williams not herself in Holy Orders, or else a doctor or something?

Jane Willams is a theologian, but not herself ordained. She doesn't appear styled as Dr anywhere I've seen.
I do get a bit irritated, though I know it is "correct" at Mrs Rowan Williams and Mrs John Sentamu - these women have names!
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by earrings:

I do get a bit irritated, though I know it is "correct" at Mrs Rowan Williams and Mrs John Sentamu - these women have names!

Of course they have names - one is Mrs Rowan Williams and the other is Mrs John Sentamu. [Biased]

On a similar line, unless Branda dishes out a dukedom or somesuch, I believe the bride will become Princess William of Wales. Which might give the tabloids a decision as to whether to call her Kate or Princess WoW.
 
Posted by earrings (# 13306) on :
 
Chapelhead wrote
quote:
Of course they have names - one is Mrs Rowan Williams and the other is Mrs John Sentamu.
Chapelhead [Big Grin] It's just my general irritation at such matters - not aimed at anyone in particular.
 
Posted by Low Treason (# 11924) on :
 
The Abbey Chapter will be coped up to the eyeballs, you can depend on it. I suspect they wear copes even for popping round the corner to the off-licence..... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
The day comes that I'm ordained a clergyman in whatever denomination will put up with my antics, I'll definitely be wearing a cope to the liquor store -- just to cover my face so they don't know it's me!
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by earrings:
Jane Willams is a theologian, but not herself ordained. She doesn't appear styled as Dr anywhere I've seen.

Jane Williams has a Doctorate and is styled as such on the staff list of S Paul's Theological Centre here.

[ 27. April 2011, 08:48: Message edited by: +Chad ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Some of us are mighty curious about rumored music commissioned especially for the service.

Anybody know anything on that front? Who might composers be, what the pieces will be, etc.?

Inquiring minds are dying to know.


There was a delightful piece in Private Eye soon after the wedding date was announced saying that the organist of Westminster Abbey (James O'Donnell) woke up that morning with an inbox full of emails from hopeful composers just busting to write something. But I've heard nothing more. I actually met a choir parent at the weekend but he said his son had been sworn to secrecy about the music list and hadn't said anything.
Thanks very much for this interesting tidbit!

[Biased]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
So what do people think about the way the beautiful Abbey Church is to be decorated?
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
I know thw Abbey is always looking for new ways to make money, but I never thought they'd turn it into a garden centre.

Will there be patio furniture on the Cosmati pavement?

[ 27. April 2011, 11:00: Message edited by: +Chad ]
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
I predict that +Rowan will be wearing cope and mitre; I don't think he is a great one for wearing the rochet, rather he will wear a vestment similar to the alb with narrow sleeves, plain at the cuffs. Other robed Anglican bishops I predict will wear choir dress, as will other visiting robed Anglican clergy. Clergy of other denominations will robe according to custom, unless they choose to wear lounge suits.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I predict that +Rowan will be wearing cope and mitre; I don't think he is a great one for wearing the rochet, rather he will wear a vestment similar to the alb with narrow sleeves, plain at the cuffs. Other robed Anglican bishops I predict will wear choir dress, as will other visiting robed Anglican clergy. Clergy of other denominations will robe according to custom, unless they choose to wear lounge suits.

He wore a rochet for Charles and Camilla - I thought it was a bit of a snub for the remarriage of divorcees.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So what do people think about the way the beautiful Abbey Church is to be decorated?

Hmmm. I'd thought I'd responded to this, but it seems not; perhaps I never clicked "Send."

I would think it would be beautiful with trees lining the aisle. Of course, I've never been to Westminster Abbey, so don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing in actuality....
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I predict that +Rowan will be wearing cope and mitre; I don't think he is a great one for wearing the rochet, rather he will wear a vestment similar to the alb with narrow sleeves, plain at the cuffs. Other robed Anglican bishops I predict will wear choir dress, as will other visiting robed Anglican clergy. Clergy of other denominations will robe according to custom, unless they choose to wear lounge suits.

Hmmm... let's just say that the other Anglican clergy on the guest list vest instead of wear choir dress. Will Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor be allowed to wear his pallium? Will the Orthodox bishop wear his omophor? And will they be confused by all the virgers and their bowing and sheepdog-like behaviors?
 
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on :
 
I believe Rowan may have worn rochet for Charles and Camilla, as he was blessing a marriage rather than performing it, as they were married in a civil ceremony from what I remember, so perhaps different circumstances? As to the trees decorating the Abbey, it seems rather unnecessary as it's such a magnificent place as is. My own parish only allows flowers at the altar for weddings, as a wedding is a service of Christian worship, which I find proper and sensible.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrMusicMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I predict that +Rowan will be wearing cope and mitre; I don't think he is a great one for wearing the rochet, rather he will wear a vestment similar to the alb with narrow sleeves, plain at the cuffs. Other robed Anglican bishops I predict will wear choir dress, as will other visiting robed Anglican clergy. Clergy of other denominations will robe according to custom, unless they choose to wear lounge suits.

Hmmm... let's just say that the other Anglican clergy on the guest list vest instead of wear choir dress. Will Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor be allowed to wear his pallium? Will the Orthodox bishop wear his omophor? And will they be confused by all the virgers and their bowing and sheepdog-like behaviors?
And here I am, just wondering what the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will wear.
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
Liturgical pomp and shenanigans fascinates me. To a fault, a fault, a most grievous fault.

I will be taking lots of notes. I hope.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by MrMusicMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I predict that +Rowan will be wearing cope and mitre; I don't think he is a great one for wearing the rochet, rather he will wear a vestment similar to the alb with narrow sleeves, plain at the cuffs. Other robed Anglican bishops I predict will wear choir dress, as will other visiting robed Anglican clergy. Clergy of other denominations will robe according to custom, unless they choose to wear lounge suits.

Hmmm... let's just say that the other Anglican clergy on the guest list vest instead of wear choir dress. Will Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor be allowed to wear his pallium? Will the Orthodox bishop wear his omophor? And will they be confused by all the virgers and their bowing and sheepdog-like behaviors?
And here I am, just wondering what the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will wear.
I did say, "According to custom" and that is the all-impotant phrase.

It isn't a plain straightforward case of Once a pallium wearer, always a pallium wearer; rules of protocol make it more complicated than that - but that is a matter for another thread. With the serving and retired Archbishops of Westminster, I think they will be in choir dress; I am open to correction, but I don't think the pallium is part of choir dress.

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.

I cannot speak for Eastern Orthodox bishops and I will leave it to others more knowledgeable than me to post about that.
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
I would expect that the non-CofE affiliated clergy will simply dress in their choir dress/cassocks.

However, I have seen instances where non-affiliated clergy have vested for events. When Abp. Dolan was installed in Milwaukee some ten years ago, there were ELCA, and, I believe, LCMS clergy present who vested in albs, white stoles, and cinctures. Obviously they didn't take a liturgical role, but they still vested and were seated prominently in the nave.

And that's why I'm looking forward to the event!
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
The Anthem is "This Is the Day" by Rutter.

Not my favorite composer, but he's entirely capable of writing something that will soon be sung by all choirs in Christendom, plus the occasional Reform Temple.

It might even be pretty good.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
All the details can be found here.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Full running order has been released...

as posted on the Telegraph

Oh - it's come to light that a few clangers could be dropped around the event - Kay Burley is fronting Sky's cover.

[ 28. April 2011, 12:40: Message edited by: Alex Cockell ]
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Despite what the Telegraph says, this is not BCP - Series 1 I think (haven't time or inclination to check).

And if the theme of the wedding is 'Britishness' as the Telegraph alleges, then it's not a Christian wedding - but an examination of the service shows how wrong the Telegraph is. Don't these papers have any staff who are educated?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
The Anthem is "This Is the Day" by Rutter.

Not my favorite composer, but he's entirely capable of writing something that will soon be sung by all choirs in Christendom, plus the occasional Reform Temple.

It might even be pretty good.

It's odd about Rutter; he can be really, really good.

Or the other thing.....

(What about that "Ubi Caritas"? Is that well-known? I don't know anything about it....)
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I cannot speak for Eastern Orthodox bishops and I will leave it to others more knowledgeable than me to post about that.

Going on past form, I'm guessing that Archbishop Gregorios will dress in this manner.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Despite what the Telegraph says, this is not BCP - Series 1 I think (haven't time or inclination to check).


Looks like 1928/Series 1 to me
quote:

Don't these papers have any staff who are educated?

I think you already know the answer to that one!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So what do people think about the way the beautiful Abbey Church is to be decorated?

Couldn't they just have be-ribboned pew-ends like most other couples?!
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrMusicMan:
I would expect that the non-CofE affiliated clergy will simply dress in their choir dress/cassocks.

That's what I said, perhaps in a different way.
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
"What about that "Ubi Caritas"?"

Mealor writes in a Whitacre-Lauridsen style. (Again, not my cup of tea, but much better than Jolly Rutterkin's writing in the "Shepherd's Pipe Carol" bubblegum style.

Some of Mealor's music has been recorded by the Con Anima Chamber Choir. One is called "Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal."

I look forward to hearing the new piece.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
"What about that "Ubi Caritas"?"

Mealor writes in a Whitacre-Lauridsen style. (Again, not my cup of tea, but much better than Jolly Rutterkin's writing in the "Shepherd's Pipe Carol" bubblegum style.

Some of Mealor's music has been recorded by the Con Anima Chamber Choir. One is called "Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal."

I look forward to hearing the new piece.

Yes, I see what you mean; I found his Locus Iste online. I like that style, myself.

If you don't favor the Parry "Procession of the bride" piece, I must add that I don't have any idea what your taste could be, though!

[Biased]

[ 28. April 2011, 17:03: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
My guess is that the Mealor will sound fabulous in the acoustic of the Abbey.

I adore Parry's "I Was Glad," and (of course) "Jerusalem." A bit less fond of "Blest Pair."

Walton's "Crown Imperial" is a solid choice.

I've been singing "Bread of Heaven" all morning - adding the obligatory "WANT-NO-MORE" etc.

Sartorially, my guess is that anyone with the right to be coped, will be coped. I wonder who will have the largest set of bands.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
The RC clergy, I am reliably told, will be wearing abito piano, not choir dress.

Only reigning Metropolitan Archbishops wear the pallium and then only over Mass vestments.

The RC clergy are not taking any leading part in the service (prayers or readings or the like). They are simply in attendance in the congregation.

One other RC cleric who will be there is the Apostolic Nuncio, but as one of the Diplomatic Corps rather than as a church leader.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
For a few minutes after I saw the music list, I said "Two of those hymns are to the same tune" but then I looked it up and found I was concatenating "Hydrofyl" and "Cwm Rhondda" (which are the tunes I know for those hymns, and two of my favorites). If this is one of those things where the commonly-used tune in the UK is different, please let me know.

I have about ten minutes here to decide when to set my alarm! I think I'll set it for the early hour and then decide if I want to stay up and watch. Start time is 3 am in my time zone! Nighty night!
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Amazing Grace, I've gathered from other discussions in Eccles that Blaerwern is the common tune for "Love Divine" in the UK. It is in some Protestant denominations in the US as well. Like you, I'm used to it being to Hyfrodol and prefer it that way.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It said on the news that Mealor's Ubi Caritas was premiered by St Andrews University Choir last year.

Talking about St Andrews University Choirs, here's an enjoyable little titbit while you wait for the wedding to start. It's a tribute to Kate and William unusually linked to from the (usually much more dry and academic) university front page.
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Sartorially, my guess is that anyone with the right to be coped, will be coped.

If you put it in those terms, that probably limits it to the Dean and Chapter, and Minor Canons.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Gosh, I was impressed with the way James Middleton read the lesson - as though it meant something, and wasn't just a text to get through. He largely seemed to be doing it from memory as well; he hardly seemed to look down at the words at all.
 
Posted by FatherRobLyons (# 14622) on :
 
Am I the only person who finds it annoying when individuals wear a tab collar shirt (of a different color!) beneath a cassock? Both +Rowan and +Richard are wearing black shirts beneath colored cassocks.

I realize it may be more comfortable or convenient, but it doesn't look nearly as good as when one wears a proper collar beneath the cassock.

On the other hand, I found Bishop Chartes homily to be outstanding, and have really enjoyed the service. I have to leave now to get to work, though, so I will just have to catch the rest tonight when they recap it on the telly.

Rob+
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Chapelhead, I agree. He had clearly put great effort into preparing.

I liked the Ubi Caritas.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
IIRC, +Richard has a reputation as an excellent preacher.

Re copes - according to The Blessed Percy, copes can be legitimately worn by lay people e.g. Readers, chaunters, rulers of the choir etc., and not just by the clergy, chapter et al.

I haven't watched the service, but we did pray devoutly for God's blessing on William and Kate (and all the Royal Family) at Matins earlier this morning.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on :
 
Who were the young boys in front of the choir, wearing the red uniforns??
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
I believe they were a different choir, Photo Geek. There were two choirs present.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
This is a serious question and not intended to be snarky, but, why in the final prayer before the blessing do they pray for the wife to be faithful, and not the husband as well? Also, what is the origin of the prayer -- has it been in the liturgy since forever, and is it said in normal marriages or just royal ones?

[ 29. April 2011, 11:25: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Nice to see such a prominent place given to representatives of the Sisters of the Church - I wonder what the significance of that placement is.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Who were the young boys in front of the choir, wearing the red uniforns??

The choir of the Chapel Royal.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
This is a serious question and not intended to be snarky, but, why in the final prayer before the blessing do they pray for the wife to be faithful, and not the husband as well? Also, what is the origin of the prayer -- has it been in the liturgy since forever, and is it said in normal marriages or just royal ones?

It's from BCP 1662, and also in the proposed 1928 book (which is largely what the service was). The 1549 book had something similar, but asked that the woman should be loving and amiable as Rachel, wise as Rebecca and and faithful and obedient as Sara.

[ 29. April 2011, 11:38: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Who were the young boys in front of the choir, wearing the red uniforns??

The choir of the Chapel Royal.
And amongst the men of the choir, the ones wearing the white bow ties were from the Chapel Royal and the others from the Abbey choir.

[ 29. April 2011, 11:51: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Gosh, I was impressed with the way James Middleton read the lesson - as though it meant something, and wasn't just a text to get through. He largely seemed to be doing it from memory as well; he hardly seemed to look down at the words at all.

Me too. And I reckon he did memorize it mostly.

But for the life of me I couldn't figure out what the first reading was.

It sounded like Paul but it wasn't quite right.

An FB friend said Romans 12.

Looked it up. Indeed it was there, but heavily edited.

Most interesting. The rest of the service was so formal, why edit the reading?

Did anyone catch the second reading?

I was out having a smoke.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Nice to see such a prominent place given to representatives of the Sisters of the Church - I wonder what the significance of that placement is.

I noticed this too. Who were they?
 
Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :
 
Argh. I woke up exactly one hour too late to see anything.

If/when somebody knows of some place I can watch the whole ceremony unedited and not commented, could you please post it?
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But for the life of me I couldn't figure out what the first reading was.

It sounded like Paul but it wasn't quite right.

An FB friend said Romans 12.

Looked it up. Indeed it was there, but heavily edited.

It was Romans 12:1-2, 9-18. It wasn't really edited, they just left out a bit in the middle about being different members but one body, which seems less relevant to a wedding.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Did anyone catch the second reading?

There wasn't one.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Oh, me too please. I got up in time, and then dozed off on the couch, waking up only occasionally to see a few small bits.

A tangent to the ecclesiantical regalia, but is Catherine's tiara a duchess' tiara, or just a tiara with no significance beyond beauty?

(cross-posted)

[ 29. April 2011, 12:35: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Episcoterian:
Argh. I woke up exactly one hour too late to see anything.

If/when somebody knows of some place I can watch the whole ceremony unedited and not commented, could you please post it?

Well, The Royal Channel on YouTube showed the whole thing, and they say the video will be available again.

There was no commentary on the live feed.....

[ 29. April 2011, 12:38: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
I think the praecentor's bands were wider than his collar gap.

I did like the Ubi Caritas, in that acoustic and with those choirs. I think our choir would have intonation difficulty, and I think our basses might have trouble with the low notes. A D perhaps, or even a C.

The Rutter? Well. Back to his 1980's style.

The fanfare before the National Anthem was from the Coronation. I don't think the Coronation fanfares were ever published.

I loved the last stanza of Cwm Rhondda, and hope that it becomes available.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
(And as a matter of fact, a "rebroadcast" is starting right now....)
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
The Rutter? Well. Back to his 1980's style.

I have to agree; really disappointing and not in any way memorable.

I did like the Parry thing sung while they were off signing the whatever - that was great!

And I loved the trees! Of course, I want to do this in my own parish, every week, so that probably explains it.....
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I enjoyed watching the service. Unfortunately the emphasis was on watching. Both my ears are blocked and I've gone deaf (hopefully only temporarily), so even with the sound turned to maximum I could barely hear any words or music. (My lip-reading skills came on leaps and bounds, though.)
Oh well, I expect I can catch up later on the music with youtube etc.
I could hear the trumpets, they sounded good.
 
Posted by Gregory's Girl (# 16275) on :
 
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"?
I agre with Chapelhead that James Middleton did the reading particularly well. Berkshire's only just up the road from me, do you think he could be persuaded to come and read the lesson at my church? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But for the life of me I couldn't figure out what the first reading was.

It sounded like Paul but it wasn't quite right.

An FB friend said Romans 12.

Looked it up. Indeed it was there, but heavily edited.

It was Romans 12:1-2, 9-18. It wasn't really edited, they just left out a bit in the middle about being different members but one body, which seems less relevant to a wedding.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Did anyone catch the second reading?

There wasn't one.

Thanks Chapelhead. [Smile]
 
Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Nice to see such a prominent place given to representatives of the Sisters of the Church - I wonder what the significance of that placement is.

I noticed this too. Who were they?
I can't comment on the placement, but one of the Sisters is Chaplain to the Abbey.(The Community of the Sisters of the Church are an Anglican Community)
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Nice to see such a prominent place given to representatives of the Sisters of the Church - I wonder what the significance of that placement is.

I noticed this too. Who were they?
I forget the name of their order, but they are part of the staff of the Abbey, I think serving as chaplains.

(A wee cross-post there!)

[ 29. April 2011, 13:18: Message edited by: +Chad ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
I loved the change-ringing afterwards. Here's what the Telegraph article said it was:

quote:
The bells of the Abbey Church are rung by the Westminster Abbey Company of Ringers in a peal of Spliced Surprise Royal comprising 5,040 changes, conducted by David Hilling.

 
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on :
 
Got up early to watch, and was able to see the whole thing before leaving for work. Thought it was very beautiful, the best of Anglicanism. Was happy that it was allowed to play without any comments from idiot talking heads, very unusual for US journalists to give up the opportunity to natter on. Not sure about the trees as the people in the forest, probably really felt out of it, but they did lighten up the Abbey. James Middleton did an outstanding job reading, made me sit up and actually listen. Loved seeing the Sisters next to William and Kate, that was a nice touch and the music was generally very good. Well done all around.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
I watched the BBC U-Tubes, and chose The Entrance, first. From the first 2 notes of the processional ("I Was Glad") I decided then and there, that the whole thing was just fine. I can't get the exit procession one to play [Frown] . I assume from an earlier post it was the Walton piece. Great!
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
This is a serious question and not intended to be snarky, but, why in the final prayer before the blessing do they pray for the wife to be faithful, and not the husband as well? Also, what is the origin of the prayer -- has it been in the liturgy since forever, and is it said in normal marriages or just royal ones?

It's from BCP 1662, and also in the proposed 1928 book (which is largely what the service was). The 1549 book had something similar, but asked that the woman should be loving and amiable as Rachel, wise as Rebecca and and faithful and obedient as Sara.
I hadn't heard the extraordinarily grim warning to those who might have a 'lawful impediment' to marriage before - but thought it must be 1662.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
I watched the BBC U-Tubes, and chose The Entrance, first. From the first 2 notes of the processional ("I Was Glad") I decided then and there, that the whole thing was just fine. I can't get the exit procession one to play [Frown] . I assume from an earlier post it was the Walton piece. Great!

Walton's Crown Imperial. I was playing 'air cymbals' all through it, embarrassingly, as that was my part in the school orchestra [Smile] .
 
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
My friend and I spend a lot of time trying to work out who the Sisters were, particularly as they spent a lot of time in shot.

I'm assuming that one of them was Sister Judith CSC. Neither of them was Linda Mary , the Mother Superior.
 
Posted by FatherRobLyons (# 14622) on :
 
I do have to ask, not being all that flamiliar with the royal bits (seeing as I live in the states), if it is normal to turn the Lord's Table into a curio cabinet for fine metalware for royal occassions.

I am sure the stuff displayed has royal signifigance, but my sense of liturgical snobbery wanted to scream "If it isn't a Eucharist, than nothing should be upon the Altar except a cross and two candlesticks!!!"

Rob+
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
We had a short discussion on whether they were going to take up the collection using those plates!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As well as the trees there was plenty of greenery in evidence along the rood-screen too.

I thought the whole thing was cool. The Anglicans still do this sort of thing very well.

I wasn't sure whether the Orthodox Metropolitan (Bishop Gregorios?) was signing along to Cwm Rhondda as I couldn't discern whether his lips were moving beneath his beard.

I tend to feel a bit sorry for the RCs, Orthodox and the various representatives of other religions - the Chief Rabbi etc - on these occasions as they have little to do but look decorative. But then, it's an Anglican service after all ...
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:
I do have to ask, not being all that flamiliar with the royal bits (seeing as I live in the states), if it is normal to turn the Lord's Table into a curio cabinet for fine metalware for royal occassions.

Apparently yes. Something similar happened at Charles and Camilla's bash in St George's, Windsor. You get a pretty good view from about 2.18 in this clip (if it works in your location).

[ 29. April 2011, 16:03: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on :
 
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"?
BBC says:
quote:
The earrings were the bride's "something new". For her "something blue", a blue ribbon was sewn into the interior of her dress, while her "something old" was the traditional Carrickmacross craftsmanship used to create the bridal gown.
So I'm assuming the tiara is the "something borrowed", but am I the only one who finds it finds it a bit strange for the "something old" to be a technique rather than a physical item?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Arrggghhh!!!

Must edit my posts.

I meant 'singing along', not 'signing along.'

[Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to feel a bit sorry for the RCs, Orthodox and the various representatives of other religions - the Chief Rabbi etc - on these occasions as they have little to do but look decorative. But then, it's an Anglican service after all ...

That's not always the case, though. As I recall, the Archbishop of Westminster and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland both said prayers at Charles and Diana's wedding.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Nice to see such a prominent place given to representatives of the Sisters of the Church - I wonder what the significance of that placement is.

I noticed this too. Who were they?
I can't comment on the placement, but one of the Sisters is Chaplain to the Abbey.(The Community of the Sisters of the Church are an Anglican Community)
you may like to read S. Judith's Wedding in Cana sermon here.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
I think the praecentor's bands were wider than his collar gap.

I did like the Ubi Caritas, in that acoustic and with those choirs. I think our choir would have intonation difficulty, and I think our basses might have trouble with the low notes. A D perhaps, or even a C.

The Rutter? Well. Back to his 1980's style.

The fanfare before the National Anthem was from the Coronation. I don't think the Coronation fanfares were ever published.

I loved the last stanza of Cwm Rhondda, and hope that it becomes available.

Yesterday, I was trying my best to explain to the Queen of Bashan why Anglican music snobs like myself instinctually sniff when we hear the name “Rutter.” The best I could do was say that Rutter is to us what Oasis is to rock snobs. He writes some fine melodies, and is quite accessible, but he doesn’t do much that is particularly interesting. The piece did a better job of explaining his style than I could. I am sure that it will have a long life of performances in diverse settings, but if I never sing it, I will not feel that I am missing something.

I thought the Ubi Caritas was fantastic. I think it has potential to become part of the repertoire at churches with more accomplished choirs. I don’t want to get too carried away, but were my choir to use that setting some Maundy Thursday in place of the Durufle (not every year, certainly, but every once in a while), I wouldn’t complain. I have a reminder in my calendar to download the recording of that cut on the 4th.

The other highlight, I thought, was the sermon. The opening about how every wedding is a royal wedding was particularly good. I thought it was both moving and inspiring, and did a good job of addressing the couple in particular, but at the same time speaking to the audience as a whole.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
Walton's Crown Imperial. I was playing 'air cymbals' all through it, embarrassingly, as that was my part in the school orchestra [Smile] .

That piece seems essential in my mind to this time of year, or especially June, as I played saxophone in this piece every year at high school commencement, then inflicted it on my high school band when I went off to teach music (but it highly impressed the district superintendent).

I hasten to add that I love Crown Imperial. The title on our printed music bore the quotation, "In beauty bearing the Crown Imperial."

[ 29. April 2011, 16:49: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
I liked the hymns and the choir songs (wonderful little boys singing soprano), but a couple of things I didn't like were the using the Lord's Prayer missing out the end bit most of us use, and not saying, Holy "Spirit" which IMO is more sensible than "Ghost". Going backward to years ago? Or did the two getting married choose these phrases?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Did anyone catch the second reading? I was out having a smoke.

There wasn't one.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
a couple of things I didn't like were the using the Lord's Prayer missing out the end bit most of us use, and not saying, Holy "Spirit" which IMO is more sensible than "Ghost". Going backward to years ago? Or did the two getting married choose these phrases?

The 'for thine is the kingdom.....' isn't in the 1928 wedding service, nor is it in Morning and Evening Prayer at that position, as part of the responses.

'Holy Spirit' didn't come in until Series 2 in the 1960s.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I set my cable box to record the whole thing before going to bed last night, and watched it after breakfast this morning.

Lovely!

Pretty much what everyone above said. I was surprised, though, that the visiting clergy sat outside the quire.

The music was grand. I like Rutter's Requiem* -- have sung it -- but I haven't found anything else of his that I like, including the piece they did today.

"Guide Us O Thou Great Jehova" -- oops, I mean "Redeemer" -- was thrilling.

_______________

* Adventuresome arrangers of choir music please note: "Jesus Joy of Loving Hearts" fits the tune and mood of the Pie Jesu movement perfectly.
 
Posted by TE Brown (# 11920) on :
 
I too, got up to watch (it wasn't too much earlier than usual anyway), and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I thought the choirs sounded very good, and really liked the Mealor. The Rutter sounded, unfortunately in my opinion, like Rutter at his cheapest, most crass. Sugar-pretty at first hearing but no real substance. Which was disappointing, as I think some of his stuff is quite good. But choirs here in the States will no doubt rush to buy copies. My choir, however, will be attempting the Mealor next Maundy Thursday!

And I also thought James Middleton's reading of Romans was stellar. He really understood the idea of proclaiming the reading, not just mumbling it out loud. It came alive to me. And the sermon was definitely one of the better wedding sermons I've heard (and I've heard many). Short, sweet, to the point, and contemporary, but without falling into the trap of common ("and when you hurt each other, as you inevitably will..." blech.)

Here's an important thing to nit-pick over: What was up with Beatrice's/Eugenie's (don't know who's who) hat?! [Biased]

Much good pomp and circumstance - I'm still wallowing!

TEB
 
Posted by FatherRobLyons (# 14622) on :
 
One thing I will say is that, from my perspective, this may wind up being one of the greatest events of Christian evangelism in the history of the world.

The Liturgy itself was filled with elements of the Gospel call, and the sermon by Bishop Chartes was amazingly prepared.

The press has stated that nearly 2 billion people worldwide were projected to watch the ceremony on TV. How wonderful that it was a moment of Christian worship, uninterrupted by talking heads.

Rob+
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Quoth Og of Bashan:

quote:
Yesterday, I was trying my best to explain to the Queen of Bashan why Anglican music snobs like myself instinctually sniff when we hear the name “Rutter.” The best I could do was say that Rutter is to us what Oasis is to rock snobs. He writes some fine melodies, and is quite accessible, but he doesn’t do much that is particularly interesting. The piece did a better job of explaining his style than I could. I am sure that it will have a long life of performances in diverse settings, but if I never sing it, I will not feel that I am missing something.
I've had the opposite experience. The first thing I ever heard (and sung) by Rutter was the Requiem - and I really loved it. I think it's just about perfect, actually - perfectly expressive without bombast. Very beautiful, in fact.

And ever since, with the exception of "What Sweeter Music," I've been disappointed. I can't figure out how a guy who can write such wonderful - occasionally even transcendent - music can also write such schlock at times.

It's a puzzlement to me, really. An odd phenomenon to say the least....

[ 29. April 2011, 17:33: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:
I do have to ask, not being all that flamiliar with the royal bits (seeing as I live in the states), if it is normal to turn the Lord's Table into a curio cabinet for fine metalware for royal occassions.

Apparently yes. Something similar happened at Charles and Camilla's bash in St George's, Windsor. You get a pretty good view from about 2.18 in this clip (if it works in your location).
It is quite common at royal events in Westminster and St. George's, Windsor to dress the altar up with the best plate. Some of the stuff apparently dates back to Charles II and some of the large trays are still used at the Royal Maundy Services held every year.

At Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953, you can see pictures of the altar (and the side tables) loaded down with plate. Look at this video (around 3:50) and you can see it. Talk about Altar Guild burnout!

Elizabeth II Coronation Procession

A curious tradition, but I kind of like it. . .
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
quote:
Rutter is to us what Oasis is to rock snobs
to the quote file
Genius [Overused]
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
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.

What was perhaps less expected was that the Duchess of Cambridge also acknowledged the salutes (I believe there were some occasions when she failed to notice a salute, which is perhaps understandable). In her case her smiley face became a serious face and she nodded her head in acknowledgement.

Given the excitement of the moment and novelty of her situation, this was perhaps one in the eye for those who seem to think that the Middletons are a bunch of chavs with no idea how to behave (as was James's reading of the lesson).
 
Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :
 
I saw that too, Chapelhead! I thought it was very appropriate and nicely done.

And I thought her brother's reading of the lesson was magnificent. If only all readers did such a job!

[ 29. April 2011, 18:24: Message edited by: NatDogg ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
They did well, both of them. And Harry too, looking after the nippers after the service. I used to have my doubts about him but he seems to have turned out alright.

I thought the salutes and the bowing of the head at the Cenotaph etc were nicely, and I'm sure, sincerely done.

But then, I'm turning into an old softee ...
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TE Brown:
Here's an important thing to nit-pick over: What was up with Beatrice's/Eugenie's (don't know who's who) hat?! [Biased]
TEB

I expect you mean Beatrice. The hat (or at least the Tinky-Winky contraption on top) made the very loud statement: 'For once the biggest thing about me is not my eyes'.

I expect Kate's mother was very nervous. But it looked for all the world as if she was turning her back on the Abp. who very much wanted to talk to her as well as shake her hand.

Goodness, it must be one of the hardest things to walk into the Abbey and act normally with 2bn people the world over watching you. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
Amanda write, "I like Rutter's Requiem* -- have sung it -- but I haven't found anything else of his that I like, including the piece they did today."

Do check out "I Will Lift Up Mine Eyes" and "The Lord is My Shepherd." Many an oboist has made car payments from playing the latter in church. Also, "God Be in My Head" and (perhaps) "The Lord Bless You and Keep You." (To me, the latter is the best of his treacle compositions.)

More on topic, I covet the Archbishop's and Dean's golden copes and stoles. They probably didn't come from an online vestment shop.

And, we do need to put out the best silverware on the altar for the next Evensong.

I don't think we need to line the nave with trees, though. Gotta wonder whether that was one of the Prince of Wales's Druid-things.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
... a couple of things I didn't like were the using the Lord's Prayer missing out the end bit most of us use, and not saying, Holy "Spirit" which IMO is more sensible than "Ghost". Going backward to years ago? Or did the two getting married choose these phrases?

Both of these are correct in the Prayer Book setting. If you're going to use trad language, then it needs to be done properly [Smile]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Amanda write, "I like Rutter's Requiem* -- have sung it -- but I haven't found anything else of his that I like, including the piece they did today."

Do check out "I Will Lift Up Mine Eyes" and "The Lord is My Shepherd." Many an oboist has made car payments from playing the latter in church.

Though orginally written separately I believe, Rutter's "The Lord is My Shepherd" is part of his Requiem.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:
I do have to ask, not being all that flamiliar with the royal bits (seeing as I live in the states), if it is normal to turn the Lord's Table into a curio cabinet for fine metalware for royal occassions.

I am sure the stuff displayed has royal signifigance, but my sense of liturgical snobbery wanted to scream "If it isn't a Eucharist, than nothing should be upon the Altar except a cross and two candlesticks!!!"

Rob+

That did seem a bit strange looking. I think I heard a comment that some of the plate had been gifts from Elizabeth and Philip on the occasion of their marriage, so maybe that was a connection?

I preferred the 'Ubi Caritas' to the Rutter. And the Parry was excellent.

Good sermon from the Bishop of Chartres, too. And another thumbs up for the excellent reading from Catherine's brother.
 
Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :
 
quote:
For a few minutes after I saw the music list, I said "Two of those hymns are to the same tune" but then I looked it up and found I was concatenating "Hydrofyl" and "Cwm Rhondda" (which are the tunes
quote:
Amazing Grace, I've gathered from other discussions in Eccles that Blaerwern is the common tune for "Love Divine" in the UK. It is in some Protestant denominations in the US as well. Like you, I'm used to it being to Hyfrodol and prefer it that way.
[PEDANTIC NITPICK] It's Hyfrydol, not 'Hydrofyl' (?Rolls-Royce brake fluid), or 'Hyfrodol' (?royal wedding anti-hysteria sedative), or even 'Hydrofoil'. [/PEDANTIC NITPICK]
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

Adventuresome arrangers of choir music please note: "Jesus Joy of Loving Hearts" fits the tune and mood of the Pie Jesu movement perfectly.

[tangent]
To make such an arrangement would be illegal, being a violation of Rutter's copyright, unless either you get permission or Rutter does that adaptation himself (and you buy the copies thereof).

I don't hold a brief for JR (or his music), but he's a commercial animal and can pay lawyers to "look after his interests". [/tangent].
 
Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Quoth Og of Bashan:

quote:
Yesterday, I was trying my best to explain to the Queen of Bashan why Anglican music snobs like myself instinctually sniff when we hear the name “Rutter.” The best I could do was say that Rutter is to us what Oasis is to rock snobs. He writes some fine melodies, and is quite accessible, but he doesn’t do much that is particularly interesting. The piece did a better job of explaining his style than I could. I am sure that it will have a long life of performances in diverse settings, but if I never sing it, I will not feel that I am missing something.
I've had the opposite experience. The first thing I ever heard (and sung) by Rutter was the Requiem - and I really loved it. I think it's just about perfect, actually - perfectly expressive without bombast. Very beautiful, in fact.

And ever since, with the exception of "What Sweeter Music," I've been disappointed. I can't figure out how a guy who can write such wonderful - occasionally even transcendent - music can also write such schlock at times.

It's a puzzlement to me, really. An odd phenomenon to say the least....

Whatever Rutter writes is skilfully crafted and lies well for the voices. Few would deny that he tends to recycle successful formulae rather a lot, but the answer to that is to be sparing in how much of his music one programmes. I've played for one or two Rutterfest Christmas programes and it all got rather boring, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to down him as a composer.

Apart from 'What sweeter music', I particularly like 'As the Bridgegroom to his chosen', and in the Shepherd's Pie category, 'Jesus Child'.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
"The Lord is My Shepherd." Many an oboist has made car payments from playing the latter in church.
Though orginally written separately I believe, Rutter's "The Lord is My Shepherd" is part of his Requiem.
Yes, it is. I've done it both separately and as part of the Requiem. It's a lovely movement. But Leonard Bernstein's setting of Psalm 22 in Chichester Psalms trumps it, I think. But I digress.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morlader:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

Adventuresome arrangers of choir music please note: "Jesus Joy of Loving Hearts" fits the tune and mood of the Pie Jesu movement perfectly.

[tangent]
To make such an arrangement would be illegal, being a violation of Rutter's copyright, unless either you get permission or Rutter does that adaptation himself (and you buy the copies thereof).

I don't hold a brief for JR (or his music), but he's a commercial animal and can pay lawyers to "look after his interests". [/tangent].

Ah, but we're only taking note, not arranging anything. I do wonder, though, how Rutter would react if he realized that "Jesu" would fit the tune. Perhaps I'll write him to let him know.
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TE Brown:
Here's an important thing to nit-pick over: What was up with Beatrice's/Eugenie's (don't know who's who) hat?! [Biased]

TEB

Darllenwr thought it was bunnies ears.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Apparently there's a whole group on Facebook discussing (i.e. dissing) Beatrice's hat - word on the street says it's a uterus. [Eek!]
 
Posted by TE Brown (# 11920) on :
 
A friend of mine thought it looked like a cat toy. That and Beatrice's eye makeup together gave me the giggles. Good thing I lost my invitation and couldn't go, or I would have disgraced myself. [Disappointed]

TEB
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mettabhavana:
quote:
For a few minutes after I saw the music list, I said "Two of those hymns are to the same tune" but then I looked it up and found I was concatenating "Hydrofyl" and "Cwm Rhondda" (which are the tunes
quote:
Amazing Grace, I've gathered from other discussions in Eccles that Blaerwern is the common tune for "Love Divine" in the UK. It is in some Protestant denominations in the US as well. Like you, I'm used to it being to Hyfrodol and prefer it that way.
[PEDANTIC NITPICK] It's Hyfrydol, not 'Hydrofyl' (?Rolls-Royce brake fluid), or 'Hyfrodol' (?royal wedding anti-hysteria sedative), or even 'Hydrofoil'. [/PEDANTIC NITPICK]
[Big Grin]

You are quite right, and I know better, it being my favorite hymn tune. I attribute it to the late hour and my attempt to get one more post in before retiring.
 
Posted by Jigsaw (# 11433) on :
 
Forgive my ignorance, but can anyone tell me why Archbishop Rowan removed his mitre for certain prayers and put it on again for other parts of the service?

Even after 5 years as a Christian there are still some things I haven't got to grips with. I suppose that one's Christianity, like one's garden, will always be a work in progress.

Thanks.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
And the award for Best Vicar in the Anglican Communion Of The Day goes to this guy.

If he gets in trouble (which I suspect he will) I suggest the defense that one was merely physically expressing one's exuberance in the Lord.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Re the liturgy:

According to the official programme the first part of the service, up to the address, was:
quote:
Extract from The Book of Common Prayer, the rights in which are vested in the Crown,
is reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press.

At the end of the service sheet the copyright notice was:
quote:
Alternative Services Series One: A Form of Solemnization of Matrimony from Common Worship: Pastoral Services
is copyright © The Archbishops’ Council 2005 and is reproduced here with permission.

And no, I don't understand it either. Why not use one or the other?
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
I do not think cartwheels are liturgically correct. And I think I recognize the guilty verger. He led a tour of the Abbey I was in a few years ago.

Yes, he was, and apparently still is, rather exuberant. [Biased]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And the award for Best Vicar in the Anglican Communion Of The Day goes to this guy.

He's not a vicar
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
One person on a DigitalSpy Wedding-watch thread asked about the possibility of current music etc in a Royal Wedding.

Do you think it might ever be likely that we could see Tim Hughes or whoever leading worship at a Royal Wedding in the future?

You know - like HTB, Kingsgate, Hillsong...?
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
... Good sermon from the Bishop of Chartres ...

[another pedant alert]
I think his surname is Chartres and he's the Bishop of London.[/pedant alert OFF]

Another yea and amen for Mr. Middleton's reading of the lesson and a huge [Confused] for Princess Beatrice's hat. British Shippies of A Certain Age might have thought it was inspired by the Vision On logo.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And the award for Best Vicar in the Anglican Communion Of The Day goes to this guy.

He's not a vicar
Funny, 'cause the website I got the clip off of said at first it was a verger and then everyone started screaming he's a vicar.
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Apparently there's a whole group on Facebook discussing (i.e. dissing) Beatrice's hat - word on the street says it's a uterus. [Eek!]

No, it's the complete set.
 
Posted by ChippedChalice (# 14057) on :
 
I'm certain that the Duchess of Cambridge's wedding dress will inspire many imitators -- but I wonder, how many couples will now want to decorate their wedding churches with small trees?

In a building the scale of the Abbey, I thought they looked quite pretty -- especially this time of year when the new leaves are such a vibrant green. (And they stood out nicely against the red carpet.)

If I were a wedding planner, I'd buy a couple dozen saplings now to meet the coming demand.

[ 30. April 2011, 05:35: Message edited by: ChippedChalice ]
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
I am thankful that there is only one honest-to-goodness Gothic church in my neck of the woods that will come close the the Abbey's ambience.

Which reminds me of a wedding where I was "stand up; sit down" barker, which was done in one of those wedding venues. Chapel had bad acoustics made worse by the overgrown and dense flora and "natural" fountains.
 
Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
One person on a DigitalSpy Wedding-watch thread asked about the possibility of current music etc in a Royal Wedding.

Do you think it might ever be likely that we could see Tim Hughes or whoever leading worship at a Royal Wedding in the future?

You know - like HTB, Kingsgate, Hillsong...?

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?
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChippedChalice:
I'm certain that the Duchess of Cambridge's wedding dress will inspire many imitators -- but I wonder, how many couples will now want to decorate their wedding churches with small trees?

In a building the scale of the Abbey, I thought they looked quite pretty -- especially this time of year when the new leaves are such a vibrant green. (And they stood out nicely against the red carpet.)

If I were a wedding planner, I'd buy a couple dozen saplings now to meet the coming demand.

The Abbey is such a huge space that to use conventional floral arrangements would have denuded every florist in the Home Counties in order to provide arrangements of sufficient scale that they weren't lost. I think the trees worked well.

And I do hope that the Duchess's dress marks the death-knell for strapless dresses. They suit so few ladies.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
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? [/QB]

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...
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Reflecting on yesterday's events, another aspect that comes to mind is the splendid way that, despite all that needed to happen, everyone seemed to allow time.

When the various parties arrived at the west door there was time for some chat with the Dean, Chapter and Bishops. When Prince William and Prince Harry arrived at the lantern there was time to exchange a few words with some of the guests. As each part of the service ended there was a moment of pause before the next thing. Things didn't seem hurried (and again, I would single out James Middleton for particular note - he was entirely calm enough to allow space for the reading).

In a world where there is often a dreadful rush to get from one thing to the next, even in church services, and no time, for example, to allow the music to end before the applause starts (or the Classic FM presenter leaps in with another jarring banality - they're getting worse at it), it was delightful.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
... Good sermon from the Bishop of Chartres ...

[another pedant alert]
I think his surname is Chartres and he's the Bishop of London.[/pedant alert OFF]

[/URL]

Yeah, I know. [Hot and Hormonal] I don't know why I wrote him like that. Slip of the synapses.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw:
Forgive my ignorance, but can anyone tell me why Archbishop Rowan removed his mitre for certain prayers and put it on again for other parts of the service?

Even after 5 years as a Christian there are still some things I haven't got to grips with. I suppose that one's Christianity, like one's garden, will always be a work in progress.

Thanks.

I see no one has answered this one. I'm probably as ignorant as you about all things Anglican, but I assumed that it was simply that while praying men should have their heads uncovered (Yes I may be fairly clueless about Anglican traditions, but I was a Brethren girl, so I know all about what 1 Corinthians says about head coverings for the different sexes!!)
As to why a bishop wears a head covering in church anyway, I haven't a clue, hopefully someone more knowledgeable will elucidate. (I noticed William collecting his own hat on the way out of church by the way, I think his gloves must have been inside the hat: - all these little touches that had to be organised and went so smoothly!)
 
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
Pippa's buttons.

[Overused]

If there were 39, surely we should be told.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
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... [/QB]

Or even something like this?

[ 30. April 2011, 10:19: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
Spiffy, the fellow doing the cartwheels appears (to me) to have on a black cassock and white bow tie. I don't think he's wearing a dog collar.

Hence, probably a verger.

As for clerical headgear, the rules can be intricate, especially in Anglo-Catholic circles. They are indeed worn indoors, and taken off and put back on again at certain times.

For non-Anglo-Catholic clergy, the easiest thing is to go hatless. For bishops, the pointy hat is expected. I think ++Rowan was the only mitered bishop at the wedding. By the time one gets to his position, one would know when to put it on and take it off.

<tangent>There was a flap last year when the US presiding bishop, who is female, visited London and presided at a Eucharist at Southwark. She was allowed to carry her miter in a service, but not to wear it.</tangent>
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
We don't get many weddings at our place (for reasons too numerous to mention), but there is one planned for August. I now await the request to bring trees into the church........in fact, we do have room for a couple, so who knows?

The whole thing seems to have been done extremely well, and one is happy for Wills and Kate. What a pity that much of the subsequent comment on TV has been about trivia, slebs* etc., but such is the way of the world.

Ian J.

*the correct spelling of the diminutive of 'celebrities', I am told.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
I've been reading some comments on other (non-religious) boards. People were struck by the wrapping of hands in the stole, BTW; some found it beautiful. I'm sure they'd never seen it before, or even thought of it. Nice to have that kind of symbolism and ritual make a worldwide appearance.

Same for Rowan's removal of the miter, I think. Wasn't there a thread here recently about when bishops removed the miter - that it symbolized their humility before God, and was a ritual enactment of the "abdication" of worldly power as a symbol of submission to God?

Anyway, I was glad for Rowan being Archbishop and for doing things like these....
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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]

Bishops REMOVE their hats to pray but put them on to BLESS.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:
I do have to ask, not being all that flamiliar with the royal bits (seeing as I live in the states), if it is normal to turn the Lord's Table into a curio cabinet for fine metalware for royal occassions.

Apparently yes. Something similar happened at Charles and Camilla's bash in St George's, Windsor. You get a pretty good view from about 2.18 in this clip (if it works in your location).
It used to be quite common to display plates and chalices on the alter for special; occasions.

In my teens, at Holy Trinity Weymouth, it was done for Festal Evensong on Easter Sunday, Pentecost etc.
 
Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :
 
The Daily Mail is speculating that the taller of the two nuns was, in fact, a decoy body guard in disguise....

Ninja Nun

[ 30. April 2011, 15:28: Message edited by: Inanna ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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] [Disappointed]
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
A bow to the altar would have been lovely, however the bow and curtesy to The Queen after the signing of the registers was the best bit for me. I had to stand up at that point.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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] [Disappointed]
I don't think it's yet compulsory for all Anglicans to reverence an altar - or even bow to the Holy Table [Razz] . 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!
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
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] [Angel] [Smile]
 
Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Japes (# 5358) on :
 
Romans 12. 1-2, 9-18 as in the Revised Standard version, as read (superbly) by James Middleton at his sister's wedding.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Jigsaw (# 11433) on :
 
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]

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?
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
So heres to the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge.
God Save the Queen [Votive] [Angel] [Smile]

So say we all.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
[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]

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) [Razz] ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
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] ) it was to appease the groom's father - whom, IIRC, is an ardent supporter of BCP!! [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
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!] [Eek!]
 
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Unless ( [Paranoid] ) it was to appease the groom's father - whom, IIRC, is an ardent supporter of BCP!! [Paranoid]

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?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
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 [Big Grin] [Angel]
 
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 
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 . . . ".
.
 
Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
So at some point, we might hear a count-in from a drummer before kickoff?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Save that for the hotel room on the honeymoon [Snigger]
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Low Treason (# 11924) on :
 
It is at times like this my ADHD tendencies manifest themselves - did anyone else notice:

The armed policemen on the streets (sub-machine guns????) [Eek!]

The fact that none of the royal family was wearing a seat belt.... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
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????) [Eek!]

The fact that none of the royal family was wearing a seat belt.... [Disappointed]

The Heckler & Koch MP5 variant CO19 use is a semi-auto version... but is still 9x19mm rounds...
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
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 ... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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????) [Eek!]

The fact that none of the royal family was wearing a seat belt.... [Disappointed]

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
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
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.... [Disappointed]

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. [Biased]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This may go some way to explaining the "Ninja Nun" story ...
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
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"
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
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 [Big Grin]

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.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
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 [Big Grin]

It is. I knew him years ago when he was a Parish Priest in South London.
 
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by FatherRobLyons (# 14622) on :
 
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 [Smile]

Rob+
 
Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:
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.
Here's hoping he wears it often!
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
If the embroidery of the angel belongs to the Archbishop (as it says on the Watts & Co site), to whom does/will the cope belong? Is it his personally, or does it belong to + Cantuar (irrespective of who occupies that office) or does it belong to either the Abbey or maybe the Diocese of Canterbury?
 
Posted by sacerdos (# 8790) on :
 
I, too have always failed to understand the CofE's cult of the alms dish, and the cluttering of its altars with irrelevant "bling".

One wonders how many of those invited to state functions must wonder why CofE churches HAVE an altar at all. Indeed I suspect the majority of merely nominal anglicans in these islands see the altar as merely a shelf for a cross and two candlesticks - if not just for the exposition of that Sacred Alms Dish!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacerdos:
[QB] I, too have always failed to understand the CofE's cult of the alms dish...QB]

Dixolatry, I suspect.

The collection (which is a pragmatic part of church administration) is universally confused with the Offertory (which is a liturgical and symbolic act)

Dix taught the Anglo-Catholics that that was the proper liturgical action of the people in his fourfold scheme. So they stretched it to the max because it was pretty much the only thing that most lay people were allowed to do in those churches and they were bloody well going to do it.

The MOTR and low-church took it over, not really getting the liturgical function of the Offertory and so drawing needless attention to the physical movement of money around the worship space.

Doesn't help that "offertory" and "offering" are such similar words. I wouldn't be surprised if every single worshipper in our parish thought they meant the same thing. Probably including the clergy.

So, when dressed up in my reader's tat while the vicar is getting on with getting ready to celebrate, I have to stand at the front of the church holding a big plate, the people who have collected the money process up and put it on the plate, and I say a little prayer over it before handing it to a churchwarden (who goes and locks it away in the safe). And lots of people would be upset if we didn't do that. A classic example of a functional act becoming a ritual one - the people who have collected the money have to take it somewhere, after all.

Yes, if we had a concept of liturgical deacon, which we don't in our place, that would be a very proper action for such a person. Who would probably be me in our setup. But I do not think it should obscure or over-ride the start of the liturgy of the Eucharist. I'd much rather do it a little earlier and keep it separate from the liturgical Offertory.

Sorry, Mr Dix.

[ 03. May 2011, 16:55: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
I don't think it has to do with Dix at all. I'm familiar with the custom of the Consecration of the Cash mostly in lower Protestant churches (the Congregational and Baptist churches my family attended when I was a boy, e.g.). I'm pretty sure that none of those people were familiar with Dom Gregory, and if they had been they'd have made a point of doing the exact opposite of anything he suggested.

Supposedly non-liturgical churches have all kinds of little ceremonies that have developed because, when you get down to it, people *like* ceremonies. And if you've excluded a number of liturgical practices because they look "Catholic" to you or your church, then at some point vacuum-abhorring Nature will rush to fill the void. Hence the Consecration of the Cash, the Solemn Lighting of the Unity Candle, the Charismatic Manual Acts, etc.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacerdos:
I, too have always failed to understand the CofE's cult of the alms dish, and the cluttering of its altars with irrelevant "bling".

One wonders how many of those invited to state functions must wonder why CofE churches HAVE an altar at all. Indeed I suspect the majority of merely nominal anglicans in these islands see the altar as merely a shelf for a cross and two candlesticks - if not just for the exposition of that Sacred Alms Dish!

Nevertheless, for those of us who know why these things are the way we are, we shall struggle to cope with the possibility that not everyone visiting an unfamiliar process in an unfamiliar building with unfamiliar ways, will probably not be able to understand everything entirely.

For my own part, I find asking a few intelligent questions here and there - if I'm really that bothered about something I see - usually de-mystifies things.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Doesn't help that "offertory" and "offering" are such similar words. I wouldn't be surprised if every single worshipper in our parish thought they meant the same thing. Probably including the clergy.

I once remarked that my sister, a staunch atheist, is so averse to Mass attendance that she'll probably take the Judas walk at the offertory at my own wedding, having seen the relevant legal bits. My mother, chagrined, replied, "You're not going to have an offering at your wedding, surely?"
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So, when dressed up in my reader's tat while the vicar is getting on with getting ready to celebrate, I have to stand at the front of the church holding a big plate, the people who have collected the money process up and put it on the plate, and I say a little prayer over it before handing it to a churchwarden (who goes and locks it away in the safe). And lots of people would be upset if we didn't do that. A classic example of a functional act becoming a ritual one - the people who have collected the money have to take it somewhere, after all.

Do you mean you don't elevate it? shocking. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
People at my place firmly believe that "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow" (Old 100th) is an immutable part of the Ordinary of the Mass. And yes, the money basin is lifted up.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I once remarked that my sister, a staunch atheist, is so averse to Mass attendance that she'll probably take the Judas walk at the offertory at my own wedding, having seen the relevant legal bits. My mother, chagrined, replied, "You're not going to have an offering at your wedding, surely?"

I've seen offerings taken at two weddings, both for charity purposes.

As for your sis, why bother leaving? If she's atheist, then she doesn't believe anything relevant is going on anyway, so she might as well just sit there to avoid distracting her brother.
 
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Supposedly non-liturgical churches have all kinds of little ceremonies that have developed because, when you get down to it, people *like* ceremonies. And if you've excluded a number of liturgical practices because they look "Catholic" to you or your church, then at some point vacuum-abhorring Nature will rush to fill the void. Hence the Consecration of the Cash, the Solemn Lighting of the Unity Candle, the Charismatic Manual Acts, etc.

I played at a wedding at a low, low Episcopal Church in the mid-South some years ago. The Rector was known for celebrating the Eucharist in swimming pools for the parish youth group. At the wedding, there was a Eucharist, with Rector in cassock and stole, and dialogue and preface omitted. But as I left the ceremony, I noticed the sexton was vested.
 
Posted by Ger (# 3113) on :
 
I would remind shipmates concerning the money that they are in effect criticising a modern (post WW2, if not post-1962) practice.

The 1662 Communion service clearly differentiates between "the money" and "the bread and wine". The "money" was dealt with in the prayer for the "Church militant here in earth" having been collected by "the Deacons, Churchwardens, or other fit person appointed for that purpose" during the sentences recited immediately before that prayer. The "decent bason" is placed "upon the holy Table."

Having placed the decent bason only then "the Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine, as he shall think sufficient." The bread and wine then have to wait until the Invitation, Confession, Absolution, Comfortable Words and so on have been said/sung before the Prayer of Consecration. In other words, "Cranmer" and the boys clearly differentiated between money (alms) being collected and the bread and wine.

I have been unable to find any "1662 rubrics" supporting the taking up of money during Mattins and Evensong. Certainly in one significant anglican parish church and the pro-Cathedral here in Wellington NZ they seemed pass the hat from about 1847. There were interminable and inconclusive debates about using bags or plates.
In the pro-Cathedral, where the choir was in a transept gallery, the bag was put on a long pole and passed up to the singers. It was noted in the Vestry minutes that on more than one occasion the bag came back down somewhat lighter than when it went up!

In other words the modern liturgist has managed to confuse the "bread and wine" with the "alms and oblations".
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Back to the music.

The Rutter was banal and tedious and reminded me of Disney movie music not written by Alan Menken.

The choirs were tremendous, though, and the setting of Ubi Caritas was spectacular.
 
Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :
 
Yes, I totally agree. The Rutter was absolutely lacking in any imagination or refinement. Terribly boring, it was.

The other music was spectacular--the descants on the hymns especially.

I liked "I Was Glad" better than I liked the later Parry piece, but I'm partial to anything played at a Coronation. [Biased]
 
Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :
 
When the 1662 Prayer Book was adopted, there was no need to take a collection at Matins. The standard Sunday routine was Morning Prayer, Litany, and Ante-Communion, treated as a single service. In the USA, permission to use these three components as separate services was first given in the 1892 edition of the Prayer Book, but I suspect that the Prayer Book was only catching up with actual parochial practice.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FatherRobLyons:
I do have to ask, not being all that flamiliar with the royal bits (seeing as I live in the states), if it is normal to turn the Lord's Table into a curio cabinet for fine metalware for royal occassions.

I am sure the stuff displayed has royal signifigance, but my sense of liturgical snobbery wanted to scream "If it isn't a Eucharist, than nothing should be upon the Altar except a cross and two candlesticks!!!"

Rob+

It's an old tradition to display the plate on state or other significant occasions. Here's the Abbey decked out for Queen Victoria's coronation and the Chapel Royal for George III's wedding both showing the sideboards of plate.

As someone mentioned upthread, you often get a similar display at patronal feasts. Exeter Cathedral heaves uot seemingly every gilt and silver vessel they have for the Feast of the Dedication.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
As for your sis, why bother leaving? If she's atheist, then she doesn't believe anything relevant is going on anyway, so she might as well just sit there to avoid distracting her brother.

She's mellowed since the vintage of that anecdote, and very graciously turned up when I took my first Sunday service even though she clearly hadn't been home from her usual Saturday night social whirl in the interval.

quote:
Originally posted by Ger:

In other words the modern liturgist has managed to confuse the "bread and wine" with the "alms and oblations".

I've understood them to be identified with the
oblations
, and distinguished from the alms. So, when interceding at the weekly college BCP Mass (which takes no collection) I omit "alms" whereas I would leave out the oblations at a Sunday morning Ante-Communion (which seems to be more common in Lutheran churches, with Anglicans who want to alternate something with HC preferring Mattins)
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Okay, I'm going to be the one to ask. "It is convenient ["fitting" in 1962] that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage," sez the BCP. Does the royal family keep to this? We know they can't do it with us plebs milling about (at least not after they're crowned) but can they get +Richard to pop by with a portable Communion set (special effects by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland)? Inquiring minds want to know (or ought that to be enquiring - my trans-Atlantic circuits are overloading!)
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Perhaps they did a 'drive thru' at St. James's Palace?
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Back to the music...

I would agree that the Rutter was nothing special, though it will probably make a lot of money. I thought there were some nicer passages toward the end, but the beginning was pure cheese.

I'm perhaps alone in not being smitten by the "Ubi Caritas". I did not actually hear it until Saturday, when I watched the wedding. It had generated enough facebook buzz, though, that I went to youtube and listened to a number of his other pieces before the wedding piece was available. I enjoyed the "Locus iste" and the "Ave Maria", and felt the "Ubi Caritas" disappointing in comparison when I heard it.

There is also a bit of a sameness to all the pieces of Paul Mealor I've been able to hear so far--they are well crafted, but not strikingly original. It may be my American provinciality showing through, but he seems to write in a style reminiscent of Lauridsen and Whitacre without the sustainable interest of those two moderns.

I loved the Parry--and I'm going to go against the crowd again and say that I loved "Blest pair of sirens" because I hear it much less frequently than "I was glad". Both, though, are personal favorites.
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
It's an old tradition to display the plate on state or other significant occasions. Here's the Abbey decked out for Queen Victoria's coronation and the Chapel Royal for George III's wedding both showing the sideboards of plate.

As someone mentioned upthread, you often get a similar display at patronal feasts. Exeter Cathedral heaves uot seemingly every gilt and silver vessel they have for the Feast of the Dedication.

Our bling comes out on high days and holidays. When it's all out, we can cover the High Altar and Lady Altar,

The present building is the third church on the site since the 13th Century, so we've accumulated a substantial collection (for a Parish Church) of mediaeval, Jacobean, Georgian, Victorian and 20th Century plate.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
Our bling comes out on high days and holidays. When it's all out, we can cover the High Altar and Lady Altar,

The present building is the third church on the site since the 13th Century, so we've accumulated a substantial collection (for a Parish Church) of mediaeval, Jacobean, Georgian, Victorian and 20th Century plate.

Back when I was in Norwich, we would mark special occasions by recovering the best plate from the Cathedral treasury (where it was normally displayed) and place it on the altar in like manner. In our case, this consisted of several ewers and chalices, so was more overly Eucharistic - there was an alms-dish, but I don't believe this was used.

This usually happened on the Octave of Easter and our Dedication Festival, although it slightly depended when a it was convenient for it to be collected - issues of both security, and sheer weight!

This
 
Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :
 
Sounds magnificent!
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
Just a comment about the Rutter bit - I found it surprising and out of place - like the kind of thing one would find in a musical (I'm guessing it will probably be used thousands of times over in town and village shows now). But then, maybe that kind of popular appeal was exactly what he was aiming for - lowbrow, and more accessible to most? Is that a fair comment?
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
To me, Rutter's popular style is some fusion of Faure, Lloyd Webber, and Gaither. There seems to be a hint of traditional English choral writing style always lurking in the background.

To me, this popular style (including the Royal Wedding anthem) comes across as "writing down" to American Protestants, as a way to make ends meet. Nothing wrong with making some money, I suppose.

I once knew a Protestant church musician who would get written and telephone complaints if he didn't have the choir sing "A Gaelic Blessing" at the end of each and every service. This naturally invited parody - both musical and verbal.

He's entirely capable of serious composition, and is gifted with melodic invention, and arranging. His choral lines are easy to sing.

I think he'll be remembered for Carols for Choirs, and for the choral-orchestral arrangements of familiar Christmas carols. Maybe "God Be in My Head" and Psalm 23. Oh, and his performing edition of the Faure Requiem.

Folks who have seen him conduct are amazed that anything happens as a result. Nonetheless some of the Cambridge recordings are very good, no doubt a tribute to the assembled singers.

Furthermore, he visited a very conservative Protestant church in Denver some years ago, and gobsmacked them by openly sharing his lack of Christian faith with them.

Still, he's got a CBE, and the Royal Wedding anthem, and that's nothing to sneeze at.
 
Posted by +Chad (# 5645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
Our bling comes out on high days and holidays. When it's all out, we can cover the High Altar and Lady Altar,

The present building is the third church on the site since the 13th Century, so we've accumulated a substantial collection (for a Parish Church) of mediaeval, Jacobean, Georgian, Victorian and 20th Century plate.

Back when I was in Norwich, we would mark special occasions by recovering the best plate from the Cathedral treasury (where it was normally displayed) and place it on the altar in like manner. In our case, this consisted of several ewers and chalices, so was more overly Eucharistic - there was an alms-dish, but I don't believe this was used.
Ours are almost entirely Eucharistic vessels. There's a silver alms bason and a silver trowel from the foundation-stone-laying ceremony [Roll Eyes] , other than that it's chalices, communion cups, patens, flagons - most of which are in regular use through the year.
 
Posted by David Powell (# 5545) on :
 
For me, it was a glorious mixture of Anglican ritual and military pageantry, but also displayed a moving intimacy. By the way, full marks to the BBC for its unobtrusive coverage. I could have wished for less Parry, but rather some Purcell and Handel, whose bones lie very nearby. My three favourite hymns, with a nice Welsh bias.
It would be nice to think a lot of viewers might think, (literally), OMG there's actually an awful lot that is good about Christianity.
How good to believe this is a young couple who will embody notions of honour and service. There are a lot of very rich people in the world who seem to do precious little for their fellow human beings.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
I duly watched the proceedings on television and got a good impression that way.

I have it on good authority that the bellringers were confined to the north-west tower for eight hours from 8.00 to 16.00 hours. After doing the ringing they had to do before the service, they rang the peal of three hours or more after the service, having to wait during the service. They had a bucket for necessary relief!
 
Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
The fabric for ++Rowan's cope is called "Pugin Gothic Tapestry."

The original 19th century Pugin cope, with a different hood, is in the Victoria and Albert museum.

Some internet searching will teach you more than you need to know about Pugin and his fabric design. He was from Kent, so ++Rowan made a wise choice from that perspective.

Watts have the fabric, and I'm sure they will make up a very nice vestment set at their customarily small price, just as Princess Kate's wedding dress is now being copied.
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
On a semi-tangent, after hearing The Crown Imperial at the wedding, I decided that my band would play it this year at Graduation for the faculty's procession into the ceremony.

Having downloaded the official wedding version on iTunes, I say, a splendid version was done for the wedding, and I hope we can play the Bocook bastardization with somewhat the same pomp and nobility.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrMusicMan:
On a semi-tangent, after hearing The Crown Imperial at the wedding, I decided that my band would play it this year at Graduation for the faculty's procession into the ceremony.

The Crown Imperial was the standard for the procession at my college's commencement ceremonies.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Did they play Crown Imperial?

Damn! I like that music. I vaguely intended to buy a CD with it on. Now if I do they'll think I heard it on the TV wedding and I'll be too embarrassed to buy it!
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
Where I went to high school, the procession in was the Wedding March from Tannhaueser and the procession out was Meyerbeer's Coronation March from the Prophet.

I did my undergrad at UW, so the platform party processed in to some goofy fanfare-y thing. There was no procession out, but immediately following the ceremony, if the crowd begged for it, Mike played You've Said it All.

Where I teach now, it was Hope and Glory in, Hope and Glory out. We changed the processional out to Superman several years ago, and added a processional of the faculty last year (in silence). We'll do Crown for them this year.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Did they play Crown Imperial?

Damn! I like that music. I vaguely intended to buy a CD with it on. Now if I do they'll think I heard it on the TV wedding and I'll be too embarrassed to buy it!

It was the recessional for the bride and groom.

quote:
I did my undergrad at UW, so the platform party processed in to some goofy fanfare-y thing. There was no procession out, but immediately following the ceremony, if the crowd begged for it, Mike played You've Said it All.
For us in college, it was Crown Imperial in and Clifton Williams' The Sinfonians out. Some of us were particularly partial to the latter choice. [Biased]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Of course being a Brit I have no idea at all what a procession at a college commencement is. Or even a college commencement, really. We don't do that stuff here.
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have it on good authority that the bellringers were confined to the north-west tower for eight hours from 8.00 to 16.00 hours.

Serves the buggers right... making all that noise!

Slightly more seriously, having discussed what they might ring, I was amused on the news that evening to discover that they rung rounds as the bride arrived (well, if people are going to book their weddings after I've booked my holiday in the Lakes, they've got to expect me to be yomping round the hills somewhere!).

AG
 
Posted by MrMusicMan (# 16343) on :
 
Ken, if you have access to iTunes, you can download multiple versions of The Crown Imperial, including the one played at the Royal Wedding, direct from the Royal Wedding album. I am a bit partial to the cuts they used as well as the obnoxious timpani cracks to start the "A" sections.

The Sinfonians... Wisconsin didn't have a Sinfonians Chapter when I was an undergrad, so I never had the chance to join. I do happen to LOVE the march though.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Did they play Crown Imperial?

Damn! I like that music. I vaguely intended to buy a CD with it on. Now if I do they'll think I heard it on the TV wedding and I'll be too embarrassed to buy it!

If you buy something like this instead you also get Orb & Sceptre and Belshazzar's Feast and get to look much more highbrow.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course being a Brit I have no idea at all what a procession at a college commencement is. Or even a college commencement, really. We don't do that stuff here.

Commencement is the ceremony at which degrees are formally awarded. The processional is the entry of the faculty and graduating students in academic regalia -- one of the few times such regalia is worn here. While those on your side of the pond may associate Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1 with "Land of Hope and Glory," people on this side automatically think of high school and college graduations when they hear it.


quote:
Originally posted by MrMusicMan:
The Sinfonians... Wisconsin didn't have a Sinfonians Chapter when I was an undergrad, so I never had the chance to join.

I admit -- I was wondering. Sorry you didn't have the chance at UW.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have it on good authority that the bellringers were confined to the north-west tower for eight hours from 8.00 to 16.00 hours.

Serves the buggers right... making all that noise!

Slightly more seriously, having discussed what they might ring, I was amused on the news that evening to discover that they rung rounds as the bride arrived (well, if people are going to book their weddings after I've booked my holiday in the Lakes, they've got to expect me to be yomping round the hills somewhere!).

AG

If they were ringing rounds when the bride arrived that makes sense, so that they were ready to stop ringing when they weren't in the middle of ringing a method and ready to stop instantly when required to do so.

I do not have results to hand, but for the peal afterwards taking about 3-1/4 hours of non-stop ringing (without repeating any change) of 5,000+ changes of spliced surprise royal. Royal means rung on ten bells - the Abbey ring consisting of ten bells.

Before the service, they were ringing for 45 minutes - I believe. It may have been Stedman Caters (approximately 1,200 changes as in a quarter peal, but I will have to check my information. Caters means rung on nine bells with the tenor 'covering' i.e. ringing last in each change.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course being a Brit I have no idea at all what a procession at a college commencement is. Or even a college commencement, really. We don't do that stuff here.

For "commencement," read "graduation."
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Weird. It sounds like the begining of a thing not the end. We have graduation ceremonies of course, and wear robes at them. They are fun. But neither of the ones I've been to involved any martial music or processions.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Weird. It sounds like the begining of a thing not the end.

It is. It's the first day of the rest of your life....

(Really, that's the idea.)

[ 11. May 2011, 18:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Weird. It sounds like the begining of a thing not the end.

It is. It's the first day of the rest of your life....

(Really, that's the idea.)

And specifically the first day of your life as something other than a student. You begin to work.

Unless, of course, you head to grad school of some kind. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Weird. It sounds like the begining of a thing not the end. We have graduation ceremonies of course, and wear robes at them. They are fun. But neither of the ones I've been to involved any martial music or processions.

The procession is to lend a formal air to things, to let everyone in robes be seen in their finery (the faculty in their various schools' attire and the students in their matching caps and gowns), and to have traditional, confident-sounding music played.

Then there's the long procession in the middle of the event during which students receive the degrees and their names are announced individually.

The verb "to walk" is sometimes used to refer to one's participation in one's own commencement ceremony: "Only a week until I walk!" or "Are you going to walk or skip the whole thing?" "Walk" in this instance means "proceed to where the dean is standing, receive my diploma/degree from him/her, and proceed back to my seat among my fellow students."

And you're symbolically walking from your student life into your new life in the world of work, further study elsewhere, or indecision: whatever you're going to do next. The ceremony marks the commencement of that.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course being a Brit I have no idea at all what a procession at a college commencement is. Or even a college commencement, really. We don't do that stuff here.

Methinks ken doth protest too much.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Ah, I see - by commencement I thought you meant matriculation. Some universities and colleges have formal matriculation ceremonies - others just ask you to turn up and sign something in between your first visit to the bar and your next visit to the bar.
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
I'm no fan of it - but I do wonder if Rutter was aiming at something that church choirs who do not consist of multiple folk with perfect pitch on each part could manage at the next parish wedding. You know St Warblers in the Glade choir of committed but stretched three elderly parish folk and their dog. They will at least be able to attempt one of the pieces sung at the Royal Wedding when brides and grooms expect to be able to have something from that lovely service of Will and Kate's.....
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course being a Brit I have no idea at all what a procession at a college commencement is. Or even a college commencement, really. We don't do that stuff here.

Methinks ken doth protest too much.
Well that's the point: all of those are labelled graduation ceremony. And not all UK universities have processions. At Oxford the only procession is at Encaenia, the annual awarding of honorary degrees, which undergraduates don't attend anyway.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Weird. It sounds like the begining of a thing not the end. We have graduation ceremonies of course, and wear robes at them. They are fun. But neither of the ones I've been to involved any martial music or processions.

I think that we processed in for my M.A. graduation but not for B.A., although I was too hung over at the latter to form any accurate impression of what was going on...
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
For my last two degrees, a fanfare was played whilst the Chancellor, Orator and Faculty processed on to the dias, whilst the graduands sat ready-robed at the side waiting to be called up.

For the others, we processed through town but entered without any further ado, after standing in a queue for a while.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Okay, I'm going to be the one to ask. "It is convenient ["fitting" in 1962] that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage," sez the BCP. Does the royal family keep to this? We know they can't do it with us plebs milling about (at least not after they're crowned) but can they get +Richard to pop by with a portable Communion set (special effects by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland)? Inquiring minds want to know (or ought that to be enquiring - my trans-Atlantic circuits are overloading!)

If you're going by proper Kirk style, the Cambridges should receive a pastoral visitation by their assigned Ruling Elder who will determine whether they are fit to receive the Lord's Supper or not. The Elder will then hand them their Communion Card, or not. The Domestic Chaplain of the Ecclesiastical Household in Scotland is the minister at Crathie Kirk so the duty of pastorally visiting the Cambridges would fall to the Elder on their Session who covers Balmoral.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
So,if the Ruling Elder decides that they are not fit to receive the Lord's supper,how does that square with the idea of the Lord's table being open to all who claim to love the Lord ?
 
Posted by sacerdos (# 8790) on :
 
I've never understood how the British "Royals" can be Anglicans when in England and become Presbyterians as soon as they cross into Scotland. It may not worry the present Queen much, but in the last century or so there have been members of the family who have been openly more sympathetic to Anglo-Catholicism. Did eg the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret receive communion in the Presbyterian church when in Scotland? In my AC days I could not in conscience have done so, regardless of what anyone told me the requirements of State were. Does anyone know if provision has ever been made for "Catholic" members of the royal family to attend a Scottish Episcopal Eucharist before the famous "Morning Service" (and photo opportunity) at the local Kirk?
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I don't know if there is any requirement of state here.Nor do I think that there is any formal (but temporary)renunciation of Anglicanism. It is simply the custom ,since the time of Queen Victoria ,that the monarch and her family attend the local (Presbyterian) church.

Again I do not think that there is any celebration of the Lord's supper while the Queen is in residence,so I think that it is highly unlikely that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (aka Earl and Countess of Strathearn) would receive Communion during any residence at Balmoral. However,whether they do or don't in none of our business.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Victoria of course was decidely low church in her attitude and aesthetics.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
I understand that our present Queen prefers non-Eucharistic services like Matins. I do not know how frequent a communicant she is.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
And she only communes in private, I believe. Frankly this all seems to be so much royal neuroticism.
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
It well known that the late Queen Mother, who was a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church always received communion in this branch of Anglicanism.
I think that Princess Margaret followed her mother.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And she only communes in private, I believe. Frankly this all seems to be so much royal neuroticism.

My guess is that may be a security provision.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
And she only communes in private, I believe. Frankly this all seems to be so much royal neuroticism.

My guess is that may be a security provision.
No, I think it is her personal choice. I am old enough to remember her coronation in 1953 and if my memory serves me correctly, the service was in the context of a Communion service.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Indeed, but it was after that her daughter was nearly kidnapped and her husband's great-uncle was murdered. Then there was the Michael Fagan incident, and the occasion someone shot at her during the trooping of the colour. I would think that changes ones perspective.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
So,if the Ruling Elder decides that they are not fit to receive the Lord's supper,how does that square with the idea of the Lord's table being open to all who claim to love the Lord ?

This is not the position held by the Church of Scotland or Presbyterianism in general historically. Traditional practice is much more in keeping with Roman Catholic ideas about confession before receiving.

Open communion is a modern thing in Presbyterianism.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
In case anyone missed this.
 
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on :
 
Apparently Fr Richard Giles really didn't care for it.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
That's how you know it was good!
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
Just exactly what were they doing out of sight in the Shrine of St. Edward the Confessor? Taking communion? Hoary oaths to the Confessor?

(Forgive me if this has been asked or answered before, I've skimmed the thread and didn't find the answer . . . )
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
If only it were so mysterious...

They were signing the wedding registers.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
That's how you know it was good!

[Snigger] Former Dean Giles and I don't see eye to eye on many things, but I have to give him props for being a good preacher and a decent man.

However,

Dean Giles could have taken the time to point out the great efforts that were taken to make Westminster Abbey look less like a crypt and more like a garden, with impressive results.

He could have complimented the use of choir seating in the nave that the royal family rarely fails to employ.

He could have acknowledged that the bold (and uncustomary for the royal family) move to begin the liturgy with a hymn was perhaps a selfless attempt to show that what was taking place was, above all, not a worship of the royal family, but of the Lord.

He could have conceded that, due to security, the young royals were severely limited on venue, and that, like it or not, Westminster Abbey is a family church.

He could have assumed the best--that the young couple themselves chose the old words (from Common Worship, not Prayer Book, I think..?)--rather than jumping to conclusions about parental influence.

He could have understood the politics behind the hymn choice, and appreciated the sentimental feeling that accompanies those hymns that were sung at Diana's funeral, too.

He could have resisted wishing that the service would be an advertisement for contemporary worship of his preference.

...But he didn't.

As an aside, I have attended a number of weddings in contemporary, praise-band-all-the-time non-denom happy clappy churches, and every single wedding fell in the realm of "traditional." Nary a tambourine in sight. Seats arranged to face forward. One service even had communion.

If Dean Giles has a daughter, I wonder if she had to march up the aisle to "Hey, Mr. Tambourine Man" to show how withit she is!
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Apparently Fr Richard Giles really didn't care for it.

Reading this

quote:
All the more disappointing therefore was the fact that the wedding rite seemed so far adrift from people of their age group
made me reflect that every CofE wedding I've attended in the last 15 years was BCP language.

I realise this may have more to say about my circle of friends than "people of their age group" in general, but the people I know who wanted to be married in church wanted the full-octane version (one even had the brute beasts).
 
Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :
 
But it wasn't BCP - it was series 1..... (ie: 1928 authorised).

And having taken a few hundred bog standard C of E weddings in the past 15 years, only one couple chose to have traditional words for the vows alone (an option in Common Worship)and all to a bride and groom decided against BCP or Series 1. These in a variety of settings from council estate to the leafy lanes of southern English Villages.

And no - I didn't push them that way...... [Smile]
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Reading this

quote:
All the more disappointing therefore was the fact that the wedding rite seemed so far adrift from people of their age group
made me reflect that every CofE wedding I've attended in the last 15 years was BCP language.

Let alone another example of someone who, going by his picture, is in advanced middle age thinking he knows far better what "people in their age group" want and appreciate.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Apparently Fr Richard Giles really didn't care for it.

Reading this

quote:
All the more disappointing therefore was the fact that the wedding rite seemed so far adrift from people of their age group
made me reflect that every CofE wedding I've attended in the last 15 years was BCP language.

I realise this may have more to say about my circle of friends than "people of their age group" in general, but the people I know who wanted to be married in church wanted the full-octane version (one even had the brute beasts).

Which is indeed what my wife and I chose when we got married nine years ago. She even promised to "obey" me, which becomes more and more amusing with each passing year...

[ 17. May 2011, 11:45: Message edited by: Manipled Mutineer ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
In case anyone missed this.

Photoshopped. Cinderella's a blonde, the prince is a brunette, and the stepsisters wore green and red.

...what? I like the movie Cinderella. Shutup.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Reading this

quote:
All the more disappointing therefore was the fact that the wedding rite seemed so far adrift from people of their age group
made me reflect that every CofE wedding I've attended in the last 15 years was BCP language.

Let alone another example of someone who, going by his picture, is in advanced middle age thinking he knows far better what "people in their age group" want and appreciate.
We never fail to frustrate our elders with our intransigence in displaying the aversion to the Prayer Book they insist we ought to have.

[ 17. May 2011, 19:24: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
In case anyone missed this.

Photoshopped. Cinderella's a blonde, the prince is a brunette, and the stepsisters wore green and red.

I know, but it's still hilarious.
 
Posted by sacerdos (# 8790) on :
 
As an Anglican choirboy in the 50's I lost count of the number of BCP weddings I had to sing for - two bob a time, and half a crown if they wanted (Presbyterian)"Crimond"! - but I found it rather moving to hear again at the royal hitching a rite so similar to 1662. Something inside me still says if you can't have Latin you should have Cranmer - nothing else is worthy.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
Which is indeed what my wife and I chose when we got married nine years ago. She even promised to "obey" me, which becomes more and more amusing with each passing year...

Who was it that came up with this gem:
"I promised to obey, but I never said how often"?
 
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sacerdos:
I've never understood how the British "Royals" can be Anglicans when in England and become Presbyterians as soon as they cross into Scotland.

The Queen is an Anglican even when she is in Scotland. She takes an oath to defend the constitutional arrangements in Scotland whereby the Church of Scotland is 'self-governing' (i.e. free of state interference) rather than 'established'. She is represented at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and occasionally attends the local church at Balmoral.

it strikes me this could be a model for a future Church of England if the monarch were to be no longer Anglican but still Supreme Governor and Fid. Def..
 
Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
It well known that the late Queen Mother, who was a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church . . .

I am wondering what the 'authority' for this is. She was born in England and baptized in a Church of England church.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
Which is indeed what my wife and I chose when we got married nine years ago. She even promised to "obey" me, which becomes more and more amusing with each passing year...

Who was it that came up with this gem:
"I promised to obey, but I never said how often"?

I must be fair and say that she is absolutely punctilious about obeying each and every instruction I never give her.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sacred London:
quote:
Originally posted by sacerdos:
I've never understood how the British "Royals" can be Anglicans when in England and become Presbyterians as soon as they cross into Scotland.

The Queen is an Anglican even when she is in Scotland. She takes an oath to defend the constitutional arrangements in Scotland whereby the Church of Scotland is 'self-governing' (i.e. free of state interference) rather than 'established'. She is represented at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and occasionally attends the local church at Balmoral.

it strikes me this could be a model for a future Church of England if the monarch were to be no longer Anglican but still Supreme Governor and Fid. Def..

For what it's worth, the Royal Website states it this way:

quote:
In the United Kingdom, The Queen's title includes the words 'Defender of the Faith'.

This means Her Majesty has a specific role in both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

As established Churches, they are recognised by law as the official Churches of England and Scotland, respectively. In both England and Scotland, the established Churches are subject to the regulation of law. . . .

The site goes on to note this about her role in the Church of Scotland:
quote:
In Scotland, there is a division of powers by which Church and State are each supreme in their own sphere. The Church is self-governing in all that concerns its own activities. . . .

The monarch takes an oath to preserve the Church of Scotland at the meeting of the Privy Council immediately following his or her accession.

The Crown is represented at the Assembly, sometimes by the monarch in person, but more often by a Lord High Commissioner appointed each year by The Queen.

Provided that it acts within the law of the land, the Assembly has the power to pass resolutions which can have effect without Royal Assent.


 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I think that this thread is coming to the end of its purpose... There might be mileage in a Purg thread for discussion Royal beliefs (or possibly in Heaven, depending on how serious it was). But unless there is anything more to be debated re: the wedding itself, we'll close this thread one tonight.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0