Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

That whole drama has always struck me as odd since it's not the first Remembrance Day event he's been to where he had a beard and worn his uniform. He did for the previous years' exact event, and yet nothing then.

But he wasn't an honorary Captain General back then. His status has changed then IMHO and he should set an example by abiding to existing regulations for active duty personnel.

Having said that, several continental royals are known to have made appearances with a beard while in uniform. I can think of Carl Philip, Haakon, King Felipe VI of Spain, Philippe of Belgium, and, I'm not sure, perhaps Frederik of Denmark too (?). I don't know, however, what the rules are in those other countries. Maybe their military is OK with bearded men in uniform.

[alvinking]

I don't get the controversy about the beard. I mean Prince Michael of Kent wears one, even in uniform, idem for King George V, he wore one, King Edward VII, too, Prince Albert had a moustache with sideburns.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

But he wasn't an honorary Captain General back then. His status has changed then IMHO and he should set an example by abiding to existing regulations for active duty personnel.

Having said that, several continental royals are known to have made appearances with a beard while in uniform. I can think of Carl Philip, Haakon, King Felipe VI of Spain, Philippe of Belgium, and, I'm not sure, perhaps Frederik of Denmark too (?). I don't know, however, what the rules are in those other countries. Maybe their military is OK with bearded men in uniform.

That came before he was appointed Captain General of the Marines. It was during Remembrance (November) and his honorary appointment came in December. He was in his Royals and Blues uniform. Which is why I said it was odd since it was the same event, same uniform, and same beard as the year before.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by alvinking

I don't get the controversy about the beard. I mean Prince Michael of Kent wears one, even in uniform, idem for King George V, he wore one, King Edward VII, too, Prince Albert had a moustache with sideburns.

If it was naval uniform, it would be OK anyway as the Royal Navy, according to Countessmeout, has always allowed beards.

I don't know what the regulations were for the other services at the time of King George V or King Edward VII, but, in any case, society has changed a lot since then and people now expect equal treatment. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to demand that soldiers shave their beards (which, otherwise, many of them would personally like to keep), when their Captain General does not. It is simply unfair.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by alvinking

I don't get the controversy about the beard. I mean Prince Michael of Kent wears one, even in uniform, idem for King George V, he wore one, King Edward VII, too, Prince Albert had a moustache with sideburns.

If it was naval uniform, it would be OK anyway as the Royal Navy, according to Countessmeout, has always allowed beards.

I don't know what the regulations were for the other services at the time of King George V or King Edward VII, but, in any case, society has changed a lot since then and people now expect equal treatment. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to demand that soldiers shave their beards (which, otherwise, many of them would personally like to keep), when their Captain General does not. It is simply unfair.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

It was assumed that Bishop Curry was only picked because he is AA and never took into account that he is on par with the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact it was Justin Welby who suggested he be the speaker because of his reputation as a great speaker.

Any choice which is related to her AA heritage has been degraded and picked apart.

Thanks for that background information. Was it explained in thr press release that the archbishop made the suggestion? It's great that he truly supports Meghan's background being taken into account (while I still would think it more important to focus on her recent commitment to the church she joined but I see where they are coming from).

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Thanks for that background information. Was it explained in thr press release that the archbishop made the suggestion? It's great that he truly supports Meghan's background being taken into account (while I still would think it more important to focus on her recent commitment to the church she joined but I see where they are coming from).

As was explained, the Episcopal Church is the Anglican church in the United States. Although national Anglican churches are independent and fully autonomous/self-governed, they are in full communion with each other, so it is the "same church" from a certain point of view. A minister from one church (like the American bishop) can take part in services in another national church and vice-versa.

If, at some point in the (very) distant future, the Roman Catholic Church reunites with the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican churches, many people see national Catholic churches evolving to a similar model, i.e. becoming autocephalous, but recognizing the Bishop of Rome as some kind of "primus inter pares". That is not likely in tthe near future though.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Any more then William wearing the Irish guards, meant he didn't honor the RAF or the household calvary. And unlike Harry, William was active duty RAF (not retired like Harry) when he married. He was until 2013.

Yes, but wasn't it the case that the RAF dress uniform isn't very nice, and the Queen didn't like it? I read that William wished to wear it but the Queen appointed him to the post of Irish guards and insisted he wear that instead.

Both of Harry's possible choices have very nice dress uniforms, so I think it's simply a matter of which one he prefers.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

If it was naval uniform, it would be OK anyway as the Royal Navy, according to Countessmeout, has always allowed beards.

I don't know what the regulations were for the other services at the time of King George V or King Edward VII, but, in any case, society has changed a lot since then and people now expect equal treatment. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to demand that soldiers shave their beards (which, otherwise, many of them would personally like to keep), when their Captain General does not. It is simply unfair.

If Harry were the actual General or Commander in charge of the military service branch, then I would agree with your point. That person lives military service everyday just as the men do. Harry is honorary and dresses in the uniform a couple times a year, very different scenario.

[MARG]

Very succinctly put!

[kathia_sophia]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

This is the captain of the royal marines (well Philip in it)
https://twitter.com/majgenrmagowan/s...04587445043200

Harry in his blues and royals
https://sabrinariawijaya.files.wordp...-300.jpg?w=480

Thank you. Both uniforms are great, though I like the Caption of the Royal Marines a bit better (I love men in dark uniforms!), but both are fine

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

I’m still not convinced he’ll wear his Marines uniform. Harry hasn’t served in either the Navy or Marines.

People cite William wearing his highest rank but imo that had more to due with the Irish state visit. Plus it was what the Queen wanted.

Charles didn’t wear his highest ranking uniform.

Harry seems loyal to the household cavalry. I wager a Blues and Royals uniform.

I believe he will wear the uniform of the 'Captain General' of the Royal Marines. This rank is equal to that of an Army Field Marshall and he took that over from his much loved Grandfather! It is in the gift of HM but only with the assent af the Royal Marines.

I think his active service and dedication swung it. It's pretty cool actually and I wouldn't mind finding out how that rank stacks up against the rest of the family.

However, he inherited it from the Duke of Edinburgh and it is his only current military appointment.

[Rudolph]

The uniform is a Field Marshall’s but Captain General of the marines is the equivalent of an honorary colonel. Just like other royals have.

[JuliannaVictoria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As was explained, the Episcopal Church is the Anglican church in the United States. Although national Anglican churches are independent and fully autonomous/self-governed, they are in full communion with each other, so it is the "same church" from a certain point of view. A minister from one church (like the American bishop) can take part in services in another national church and vice-versa.

If, at some point in the (very) distant future, the Roman Catholic Church reunites with the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican churches, many people see national Catholic churches evolving to a similar model, i.e. becoming autocephalous, but recognizing the Bishop of Rome as some kind of "primus inter pares". That is not likely in tthe near future though.

Yeah, in the way distant future, as in 'won't ever happen.' That shipped sailed long before Henry VIII.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

Yes, but wasn't it the case that the RAF dress uniform isn't very nice, and the Queen didn't like it? I read that William wished to wear it but the Queen appointed him to the post of Irish guards and insisted he wear that instead.

Both of Harry's possible choices have very nice dress uniforms, so I think it's simply a matter of which one he prefers.

We have no idea if the queen doesn't like the look of the RAF or not.

What we do know is she appointed William to be colonel of the Irish guards. And that she thought it appropriate he wear his uniform for his newest appointment. With that argument, she would be pressing Harry to wear his marines uniform as it is his newest appointment.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As was explained, the Episcopal Church is the Anglican church in the United States. Although national Anglican churches are independent and fully autonomous/self-governed, they are in full communion with each other, so it is the "same church" from a certain point of view. A minister from one church (like the American bishop) can take part in services in another national church and vice-versa.

Having attended an Anglican church in which we had Episcopal priests celebrating at times, I am very well aware that the Episcopal church is the American independent branch of the Anglican family, I even acknowledged his position as the primate and in that way comparable to the archbishop of Canterbury (with the only difference that the latter is considered the primus inter pates. Nonetheless, the fact that they have their own jurisdiction means that it is not the same church. Yes, from a church law perspective it is fine to invite someone from another church province but why do so if neither groom nor bride was a member of that church province nor has a personal relationship with that particular clergy member?!

However, if all involved liked the symbol of having the American primate to do the sermon, they should certainly go ahead. Just not represent it as being Meghan's background as it isn't. It would be a different story if they had asked the local vicar of the church that her father regularly attends or something along those lines but I am not aware of him doing so (which might or might not be the case).

[Zaira]

IMO, it seems that Canterbury was eager to do some "wedding diplomacy" and to help heal some of the lingering issues between ECUSA and the worldwide communion by suggesting Curry. It is a nice nod to Meghan being American, to the history of Curry's appointment and his own forward thinking leadership and style, and to a hope for continued close bonds within the communion.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Having attended an Anglican church in which we had Episcopal priests celebrating at times, I am very well aware that the Episcopal church is the American independent branch of the Anglican family, I even acknowledged his position as the primate and in that way comparable to the archbishop of Canterbury (with the only difference that the latter is considered the primus inter pates. Nonetheless, the fact that they have their own jurisdiction means that it is not the same church. Yes, from a church law perspective it is fine to invite someone from another church province but why do so if neither groom nor bride was a member of that church province nor has a personal relationship with that particular clergy member?!

However, if all involved liked the symbol of having the American primate to do the sermon, they should certainly go ahead. Just not represent it as being Meghan's background as it isn't. It would be a different story if they had asked the local vicar of the church that her father regularly attends or something along those lines but I am not aware of him doing so (which might or might not be the case).

I think if they've listened to some of his sermons online and agreed with the messages he preaches, then I don't think it's necessarily impersonal for them to ask he come and do this. His messages and beliefs do reflect the values they both hold. And really, this isn't any different than them inviting members of charity with causes they support or them inviting victims of terror attack. This is all a reflection of what they believe and values as a couple and individuals.

[Rudolph]

Meghan and Harry are free to pick anyone to give the address.

If this is a nod to ‘America’ it makes more sense to choose someone from Doria’s church or someone they at least have a connection with rather than an American Bishop they don’t even know [...]

[Rudolph]

This is already an ‘unconventional’ wedding by royal standards. Why not have Doria’s church involved?

If Meghan’s dad is episcopalian, maybe they could have tracked down his minister.