Harry and Meghan: Royal Wedding Miscellanea

[jacqui24]

As for Bishop Curry’s sermon. It’s each to their own. What I do know is that not only was it well received in a lot of quarters (personally I didn’t really care, but I can understand how that went about), but CoE has also relaxed their preaching style and allowed this way of preaching in their churches subsequently.

 

[jacqui24]

That's funny as I've lived in the UK for many years and never seen it spelled that way before..

I don’t know what else to tell you, but that was all over the place during the wedding coverage.

 

[Denville]

Oh my goodness @Denville, that was the best part seeing M&H's reactions and their utter joy at finally being married. Meghan was absolutely full of grace, and she showed no nerves while walking down the aisle toward her beloved.

Another one of the best parts was when Meghan met Prince Charles at the entrance to the Quire. It was such a graceful, poignant and a lovely moment. You can see my previous post for the parts of the wedding I truly enjoyed.

allotted time.

Ultimately, nothing was going to faze M&H nor detract from their joy and happiness on their special day, particularly not after they'd overcome the hurdles of Meghan's father not showing up, and the annoying flack from the rest of the Markles.

The absolutely stunning 'James Bond' picturesque clip of M&H exiting Wi

Im glad you enjoyed it. Frankly I couldn't watch after the inappropriate giggling... I felt ti was totally off putting and unnecessary...
I gave up on Kate' and William's wedding after about half an hour but that was through boredom.. as I had got up too early and my interest in them has never been great.. and it all evaporated.

 

[Fros]

I think Harry and Meghan had the exact wedding they wanted. It don't think they were ever trying to go for grand traditional royal wedding. The only unintended misstep might have been the preacher going on for a bit longer than scheduled but I am sure they saw the humour in it and joked about that with everyone later on in the day.

The decision of the preacher made sense to me perfectly the moment I saw Doria listening to the preacher because you can tell she really enjoyed the Sermon. I am sure that mattered more to Harry and Meghan than him running a few minutes over the allotted time. I also find reaction to the preacher to be rooted in cultural differences. People who are used to that style of preaching were able to tune into his message and found it to be very beautiful and one of the best highlights of the wedding. Those who weren't could not get past the dramatics and found themselves waiting for it to end.

Curry said the couple knew exactly what they wanted and in fact had the reading ready for him when they met him.

Charles recommended the King's Choir but the choir talked about how Harry and Meghan worked closely with the choir so they sounded exactly how they wanted it to. They said they worked with them closely and worked through many different rendition (I think 10) of Stand by Me and provided tons of feedback to keep tweaking until they finally felt it was the version that was right for their wedding.

I am not sure how much say Harry and Meghan had in the camera angles for the broadcast but even the way it was filmed other than a shot or two when going down the aisle and walking back out. The camera stuck to very close intimate angles. You very rarely saw all of the church in all its splendor in comparison to Sophie and Edward's wedding where a lot of shots were focused on showing the magnitude of the building.

It felt like Harry and Meghan tried to make the wedding as intimate and simple and non-fussy as possible.

I think if anyone was expecting the wedding to be a grand show they would have been disappointing which I think many were.

To me it was a perfect wedding because it very much felt like I was watching a small simple intimate wedding which is what I think they both wanted.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I wouldn’t venture to say Meghan and Harry at least didn’t go online and look at his preaching style prior to asking him to give the address at their wedding. They are very hands on by all accounts. And while Archbishop Welby suggested it, I’m sure he ultimately respects the couple’s decision. You usually do want people to do their own research to make sure they know what they are buying, so to speak. And it seems that the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Curry know each other quite well through their work and they have built quite a rapport, I doubt it’s a surprise to him how Bishop Curry preaches.

And the Kingdom Choir songs weren’t picked by Charles although they were recommended. And the music by the cellist was a discussion between him and the couple. And they picked the soprano after hearing her during one of their visits (Cardiff I believe). I’m sure Charles helped, but ultimately it was the couple that made the final decision.

M&H absolutely could not be 'hands-on' about every single detail. It's impossible to be hands-on for every single detail involved in planning a royal wedding. Let's remember that M&H would most certainly have invited the Trudeaus and the Obamas, as these couples are their friends. But due to the politics of the moment, the 'Royal Household' per KP, made the decision that 'no political figures' needed to be invited. It was officially announced that Archbishop Welby had suggested Bishop Curry. And I'm quite certain that Harry & Meghan accepted his judgment. What reason would either of them have to decide against his suggestion?

Welby did not know Curry beforehand. He'd only heard about him through others. Obviously, as men of God, they both instantly clicked and clearly had a cordial relationship. I do get a sense of Welby being slightly perturbed with Curry during their initial after-wedding defense of the sermon to the press. In clips of moments that occurred prior to the wedding, they semed to get along quite jovially. And there's no reason to suspect they were at odds with each other upon Curry's departure back to America. But I doubt M&H are going to become chums with Curry.

Unless we ask Welby how he came to decide on Curry, we can only speculate. My speculation is the fact that Welby knew M&H's desire was to bring something of her heritage to the celebration, thus the decision for American ink on British paper for the invitations. That was brilliant, but I doubt that M&H thought of it specifically. It was more likely suggested to them, again because of their directive of wanting to bring Meghan's heritage into the celebrations.

I think Welby over-reached a bit in his probable reasoning for choosing Curry, especially since Meghan was not raised Episcopalian. Because Curry is from Chicago, and Meghan attended college in Chicago, there was some initial erroneous assumption that Meghan somehow had a connection to Curry. She didn't. But clearly there was no reason for M&H to nix Welby's well-intentioned choice. Meghan and Harry obviously had more than enough on their plates. Things were passed by them, but some things were out of their hands regarding royal traditions. And apparently, the Church of England has a royal tradition of males giving the wedding address. Welby, the Queen, and M&H simply should have thought twice about entrusting the address to someone who was not only unfamiliar with M&H, but also unfamiliar with the Church of England and British royal customs and traditions.

Since Meghan was hands-on involved with planning her wedding attire, the flowers, the cake, the invitations, etc., along with being busy traveling to public events around Great Britain, I'm gonna bet they did not have their hands involved in every single detail of this royal wedding! They surely accepted advice on a number of details and logistics from royal courtiers and their private staff, as well as from the Queen and Prince Charles. I don't think anyone can argue to the contrary. Obviously, without full confirmation about every single aspect of who was responsible, which we will never get, everyone is entitled to perceive whatever they wish regarding the wedding planning and outcome.

They absolutely relied on Prince Charles' expertise and wisdom regarding music selections. And it was Prince Charles who suggested the Kingdom Choir too, which kaboshes the notion that Prince Charles isn't familiar with black gospel choirs, or the experience of a moving sermon in a black church. The main issue with Bishop Curry is that the spirit was not moving him, he was trying to move it. ?

I did not say that Prince Charles selected the renditions sung by the Kingdom Choir, only that he suggested the Kingdom Choir. It was M&H who chose the selections sung by the Kingdom Choir. I believe that Prince Harry knew about the young black violinist's sublime gift and informed Meghan. It was then Meghan who personally called him (Sheku Kanneh-Mason) to ask that he perform at their wedding.

 

[Zaira]

The sermon is hardly a 'small' detail. Welby suggested Curry to the couple, among other people. He said the two then made a decision themselves which IMO means they probably looked at the various sermons and such of the listed suggested ministers.

And Welby didn't know Curry? Is that true? Curry was central to the last big and contentious Anglican WW meeting where the ECUSA refused to stand down on its stance same sex marriage. I would find it hard to believe Welby wasn't there for that...

The sermon went down well in many quarters and the couple IMO seemed to enjoy it. It wasn't to some people's taste, but I am not going to go into the fight around that anymore because it brings out some ugly attitudes and posting here and got the Service thread closed a couple of times.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I did not say the sermon was 'a small detail.' Apparently, that's your misinterpretation of my observations @Zaira. Everyone can certainly hold fast to their particular views of M&H's wedding, just as there is a tendency to do regarding the phenomenon of Meghan and Harry in general. ? Unless and until I hear it directly and officially that M&H viewed video of Curry beforehand, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that they even felt it was necessary. They accepted Archbishop Welby's judgement on this. It's obviously traditional for the Archbishop to decide which ministers will perform which functions during a royal wedding. I believe the Archbishop himself (obviously a different individual) gave the address at Diana/Charles' wedding in 1981.

Of course Welby was familiar with Curry, but I seriously doubt they were fast friends. When it was reported that Welby said Curry was a dynamic speaker, it was phrased that he'd heard Curry was a dynamic speaker.

I think Harry and Meghan had the exact wedding they wanted. It don't think they were ever trying to go for grand traditional royal wedding. The only unintended misstep might have been the preacher going on for a bit longer than scheduled but I am sure they saw the humour in it and joked about that with everyone later on in the day.

The decision of the preacher made sense to me perfectly the moment I saw Doria listening to the preacher because you can tell she really enjoyed the Sermon. I am sure that mattered more to Harry and Meghan than him running a few minutes over the allotted time. I also find reaction to the preacher to be rooted in cultural differences. People who are used to that style of preaching were able to tune into his message and found it to be very beautiful and one of the best highlights of the wedding. Those who weren't could not get past the dramatics and found themselves waiting for it to end.

Curry said the couple knew exactly what they wanted and in fact had the reading ready for him when they met him.

Charles recommended the King's Choir but the choir talked about how Harry and Meghan worked closely with the choir so they sounded exactly how they wanted it to. They said they worked with them closely and worked through many different rendition (I think 10) of Stand by Me and provided tons of feedback to keep tweaking until they finally felt it was the version that was right for their wedding.

I am not sure how much say Harry and Meghan had in the camera angles for the broadcast but even the way it was filmed other than a shot or two when going down the aisle and walking back out. The camera stuck to very close intimate angles. You very rarely saw all of the church in all its splendor in comparison to Sophie and Edward's wedding where a lot of shots were focused on showing the magnitude of the building.

...

That you feel Curry was 'joked about later in the day,' is your opinion with no way for you to know unless you happened to be a fly on the wall. ? It's Kingdom Choir, btw. That's cool about M&H working with them to perfect the rendition. It was a great job, slightly overshadowed by Curry's carrying on, IMO. For some people full of emotional investment regarding this royal wedding, everything was A-okay perfection. I'm just able to take a step back and be objective, even about my own emotional reactions. I try to qualify my comments based on official reports and common sense. A lot of what you are saying, and what all of us feel variously is based on emotions. My initial reactions to Bishop Curry, I recognize, were based on emotions. I was looking for something uplifiting that more specifically celebrated Meghan & Harry personally. I did not get that. But I knew as it was happening that all would be forgiven. No one would overly complain. There was a lot of overprotectiveness shown toward Bishop Curry by the American commentators and media. That was because it was considered not kosher to criticize a black American minister in any way, shape or form.

I happpen to be a WOC, and I was raised in an African American culture and in Baptist and Methodist churches in the midwest. So please, not all black ministers should be lumped together as one entity. They each have different personalities, different strengths and weaknesses, just as do ministers and priests of every denomination. Also, surprise surprise, not all black people in the world should be lumped together either as one entity having the same exact experiences and cultural references across the board.

Of course M&H selected Song of Solomon, and that's the scripture Curry based his address on. But he's the one who wrote the address he gave, and then he inserted additional scripture and ML King quotes, and ad-libbed and over-performed, which was not exactly what M&H were expecting. The King quotes were fine, but ML King or even President Obama could have done a better job in the delivery.

In addition, I detect a great deal of over-protectiveness or ownership toward Meghan being shown in some quarters by a variety of royal observers, which I find fascinating. Many people (similar to you) seem to have the overblown notion that everything went exactly according to Meghan's desires. I seriously doubt that. M&H had control over a great many details, but they did not get direct oversight on every single detail. On the things that mattered most, I'm quite sure they were blissfully happy. Bishop Curry's unexpected delivery was surprising, but ultimately not a cause for any serious hand-wringing. Most likely, the late after-wedding reception hosted by Prince Charles was the most enjoyable and memorable part of celebrating their union, not the least because it was private without any gawking intrusion by the public or the media.

As far as the camera angles, M&H surely had no input there. They would have had to leave that up to the network and the camera technicians. The most Harry was involved in was limiting journalists to a few handpicked to be inside the church. And the camera crew were unfortunately constricted by the way the church is constructed inside. I think there were a number of cameras situated at different spots, so I'm hopeful that the edited version on DVD is a good one. I've seen several Youtube versions that look slightly different due to different editing of the BBC footage. At one point, when Meghan arrived at the church entrance, a camera took a longshot from behind Harry and William to a view of Doria's reaction. But then Prince Harry moved and suddenly obscured Doria, spoiling a good view of her reaction. All we saw was the back of Harry's head, which I'm quite sure he was not interested in being prominently shown.

The camera moved during the livestream quite often to ceiling views showing the magnificence of the chapel, but it was annoyingly overdone at times. Quite clearly, there are different versions of the wedding circulating around that show different views, due to after-the-fact editing. I've seen a version where there were more intimate shots of M&H and less of the constant cutting to particular celebrities' faces that we saw happen too many times during the livestream.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

As for Bishop Curry’s sermon. It’s each to their own. What I do know is that not only was it well received in a lot of quarters (personally I didn’t really care, but I can understand how that went about), but CoE has also relaxed their preaching style and allowed this way of preaching in their churches subsequently.

I saw an article which I linked earlier in this thread, which pointed out some intercultural exchange that the CoE has in mind having to do with incorporating the style of some of the black ministers/churches in England. That certainly does not mean that every CoE minister is going to adhere to some kind of 'relaxation' directive and suddenly begin preaching like Bishop Curry.

I'm aware of how Bishop Curry's sermon was received, which I have already discussed at length. Overwhelmingly, the American media feels he hit a home run, which is interesting, but not surprising. There's a great deal of overprotectiveness and emotional investment involved in these OTT 'he stole the show' over-praising comments.

It reminds me of some commentators grandiosely suggesting that Meghan is going to fix all the ills of the royal family and change the way they do business. And that by simply marrying into the royal family, she's changing what's possible for all black woman. That's a huge overreach. It's also a misreading based on socio-cultural myths and falsehoods. There are plenty of other black female role models who've achieved amazing things, so there's no reason to equate marrying a British royal prince to some astounding, unheard of feat. Meghan is not the first WOC to marry into European royalty. Nor will she likely be the last. The emotional reasons behind people making such pronouncements simply because Meghan and Harry fell in love with each other, are rather complicated and confused.

While I'm happy for Meghan and Harry, and while I'm extremely impressed by Meghan and indeed inspired by her accomplishments, I'm not interested in marrying into any royal family. It's a fun fantasy obviously, but I'll stick to admiring from afar, and reading about British royal history and British culture. Meghan is sufficient unto herself. I'm inspired by her personality and by what she accomplished before she met Prince Harry. I think it's a beautiful love story regardless of ethnic background. And I am hopeful that M&H can both accomplish the lofty and idealistic goals they have set for themselves. Each of them in their own unique ways have already done a lot for people in need.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It might suit some occasions, but I don't think it suited a royal wedding. In fact the whole occasion seemed messy to me, which is unusual for a BR wedding. They may be dull but they are usuall perfectly organised iwht no visible hitches, unless you count Di and Charles getting their words wrong...

But then the embarrassing way that M and Harry giggled during the first part of the service was IMO cringe making.. The way they grabbed each others hands was odd, the whole thing was not the sort of formal and elegant occasion one expects... (not to mention the rather odd spectacle of Meghan wlaking up the aisle part way by herself and then Charles taking her along. Surely if her father could not make it she had some male relative or good friend who could have stood in?

Seems to just be attempts to look for reasons to complain. There were numerous beautiful things about the wedding; one being Meghan walking up the aisle and it was lovely that Charles was there to assist her half way. The only problem with the walk down the aisle was the lack of grouping amongst the kids. Where it should have been boy girl boy girl it was instead girl boy boy etc. And as for Harry and Meghan holding hands it was a beautiful gesture of love; if that bugged you you must have hated when Victoria stroked Daniel's face at their wedding.

It's unfortunate we are still talking about Curry, but I've said it before I've grown up with that preaching style and I'm used to it.

 

[Denville]

wel I didn't see the Victoria wedding as iM not that interested in foreign royals. But yes I would have disliked it. Meg and Harry were clutching at each others hands as if they were drowning.. and I think that what you expect from a royal wedding is a certain glamour combined with a well organised spectacle and a certain dignity.
Mostly lacking in the Meg and H wedding.

 

[Somebody]

As for Bishop Curry’s sermon. It’s each to their own. What I do know is that not only was it well received in a lot of quarters (personally I didn’t really care, but I can understand how that went about), but CoE has also relaxed their preaching style and allowed this way of preaching in their churches subsequently.

It is hard to believe that the allowed preaching style of the CoE changed because of this wedding. I am wuite sure it wasn't forbidden previously and I don't know of any synod held after the wedding in which this topic was discussed.

 

[Denville]

It is hard to believe that the allowed preaching style of the CoE changed because of this wedding. I am wuite sure it wasn't forbidden previously and I don't know of any synod held after the wedding in which this topic was discussed.

It would not be forbidden but ti is a case of what would suit British tastes and culture. If the Bishop was working in a church where that kind of style was liked and the congregations responded to it, it would be OK.. but it certainly did not seem to go down that well with some of the C of E people I met, who saw it on TV.. and it seemed to generate a lot of embarrassed amusement among the wedding guests..

 

[Somebody]

I saw an article which I linked earlier in this thread, which pointed out some intercultural exchange that the CoE has in mind having to do with incorporating the style of some of the black ministers/churches in England. That certainly does not mean that every CoE minister is going to adhere to some kind of 'relaxation' directive and suddenly begin preaching like Bishop Curry.

And it's not as if having a black minister is something new to the CoE. The CoE has 2 archbisshops: the archbisshop of Canterbury and the archbisshop of York. The latter is from Uganda and played African drums during his installment as archbisshop.

 

[Somebody]

It would not be forbidden but ti is a case of what would suit British tastes and culture. If the Bishop was working in a church where that kind of style was liked and the congregations responded to it, it would be OK.. but it certainly did not seem to go down that well with some of the C of E people I met, who saw it on TV.. and it seemed to generate a lot of embarrassed amusement among the wedding guests..

The claim I was responding to was that the CoE has relaxed its preaching style and allowed this way of preaching subsequently. I see no evidence of that at all.

Furthermore, the Anglican church is rather broad with different streams, so while this moght be uncommon for the royal family, I am quite sure there are multiple CoE churches where a lively service including a lively sermon would be normal practice.

 

[Somebody]

I read several comments that the sermon should have been focused more on Harry and Meghan, however, if that had been the couple's wish they should have selected someone who knows them at least a little and not some semi-random hotshot.

 

[Denville]

The claim I was responding to was that the CoE has relaxed its preaching style and allowed this way of preaching subsequently. I see no evidence of that at all.

Furthermore, the Anglican church is rather broad with different streams, so while this moght be uncommon for the royal family, I am quite sure there are multiple CoE churches where a lively service including a lively sermon would be normal practice.

Yes I know abuit the Anglican church. and as I've said, this particular congregation clearly found this particular style of preaching embarrassingly amusing. I dont know why Meg and H chose him, they must have known something of his style, and realised that it would provioke nervous giggling..

 

[loonytick]

wel I didn't see the Victoria wedding as iM not that interested in foreign royals. But yes I would have disliked it. Meg and Harry were clutching at each others hands as if they were drowning.. and I think that what you expect from a royal wedding is a certain glamour combined with a well organised spectacle and a certain dignity.
Mostly lacking in the Meg and H wedding.

Clutching each other’s hands as if they were drowning??!!! They held hands quite chastely, as most couples who like each other do when they get married.

This isn’t the 19th century.

 

[Denville]

I read several comments that the sermon should have been focused more on Harry and Meghan, however, if that had been the couple's wish they should have selected someone who knows them at least a little and not some semi-random hotshot.

well I wonder how much they knew about him. I dont imagine they thoguth too much about it, but it certainly caused a giood deal of talk....

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I am used to the Reverend Curry's style of preaching but I felt it was overlong and distracting. I've read this thread over a period of time, so perhaps I have forgotten something, but no one has said that the sermon was especially inspiring or thought provoking. (At one point, I wondered if he was going to list every major innovation in the history of mankind.) He didn't have a point of view I never thought of before and I never thought "I need to be a better person." Most of the commentary has been on the length and what the royal family thought of it. In my opinion, that makes it a poor to middling sermon.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Clutching each other’s hands as if they were drowning??!!! They held hands quite chastely, as most couples who like each other do when they get married.

This isn’t the 19th century.

The idea that a couple getting married shouldn't hold hands is absurd to me. Not only was it a couple in love who are facing the future together but Harry is going farther and farther down the line of succession so his wedding and behavior is not as upright as his dad and brother. I also feel that both Harry and Meghan had more dignity that Sarah Ferguson who was winking at her wedding.
As for the giggling I only saw them laugh twice and that was with the congregation who could hear the cheering during the vows.

 

[Somebody]

well I wonder how much they knew about him. I dont imagine they thoguth too much about it, but it certainly caused a giood deal of talk....

Well, if they didn't think much about it, that's on them.

From the start I didn't like the idea of inviting someone that has no relation at all to the couple but apparently they were fine with it, so if they weren't as pleased afterwards (which we don't know) that shows a lack of interest/preparation on their end.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The young, gifted violinist whom Meghan and Harry did 'handpick' was divine.

Cellist Different instrument altogether.

 

[Denville]

Well, if they didn't think much about it, that's on them.

From the start I didn't like the idea of inviting someone that has no relation at all to the couple but apparently they were fine with it, so if they weren't as pleased afterwards (which we don't know) that shows a lack of interest/preparation on their end.

I doubt if they were all that bothered..

 

[O-H Anglophile]

well obviously we are not gogn to agree. But Im curious as to what is a Quire.. I've never seen this word before....?

From Merriam Webster--Definition of quire-archaic spelling of choir

The Quire at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor – Royal Central


ETA-As someone else said, it was used in most of the articles written about the wedding.

 

[ladongas]

I’ve been to many churches, and attended many weddings. For the most part the sermons were quite trite and monotonous. The C of E’s membership and attendance has been in decline for years. Perhaps something different is required?

 

[Denville]

I’ve been to many churches, and attended many weddings. For the most part the sermons were quite trite and monotonous. The C of E’s membership and attendance has been in decline for years. Perhaps something different is required?

if that's what the parishioners want... there are C of E churches where that sort of preaching Is appreciated. But IMO "something differnet" like the Bishop's preaching would only drive away people...

 

[Osipi]

One thing I think we can all agree on and it pretty much can't be refuted is that Archbishop Curry's preaching didn't affect any of the congregation to think it was a good time for a power nap. Regardless of what thoughts ran through people's heads, they all paid attention.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Cellist Different instrument altogether.

You're correct, but whoever it was they were amazing. I had tears in my eyes; the cellist and the woman singing as Meghan walked down the aisle were the best parts.

 

[Denville]

One thing I think we can all agree on and it pretty much can't be refuted is that Archbishop Curry's preaching didn't affect any of the congregation to think it was a good time for a power nap. Regardless of what thoughts ran through people's heads, they all paid attention.

I doubt if they were actually listening or taking much heed of the thoughts of the sermon, just irritated by the noisiness or the length of it.

 

[Denville]

From Merriam Webster--Definition of quire-archaic spelling of choir

The Quire at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor – Royal Central


ETA-As someone else said, it was used in most of the articles written about the wedding.

since I didn't read any artices bout the wedding, I suppose it escaped me.