Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings

[Denville]

If for some reason Mr Markle is present in the church but can't walk down the aisle they could do like was done at the wedding of Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume of Luxemburg and Stephanie de Lannoy. Her father, the old Count de Lannoy, was in a wheelchair and in general ill health so Stephanie was escorted down the aisle by one of her brothers and when they reached the front benches her father took her hand and put it in the hand of Guillaume who was waiting there. It was a very touching and sweet moment.

I dotn think that Meghan has any brothers that she's close to.....

 

[JR76]

I dotn think that Meghan has any brothers that she's close to.....

She has other family members, her mother, friends...

 

[Pranter]

Her father or mom are most likely to accompany her. I don't think it likely she'll walk down that aisle alone. But really....folks are way to worked up over this.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

IMO people seem to delight in discussing every detail of her life and her future wedding etc....

 

[Mbruno]

In Sweden the symbolism is that the couple enters the church and proceed down the aisle to get married at their own free will. Most ministers in the Church of Sweden are against the bride being given away as that is seen as a symbol of the bride having no choice of her own. When it was made public that Crown Princess Victoria wanted to be given away by her father The King there was a clash between the wishes of the bride and the Archbishop performing the marriage who was totally against it. In the end a compromise had to be found and The King escorted his daughter halfway down the aisle where Daniel met them and took over after which the couple walked up to the altar together.

Different context, different symbols.

As I said, different countries, different cultures. I understand both your and Denville's POVs, but I also agree that, in Britain, Meghan should follow British tradition.

 

[Missjersey]

IMO people seem to delight in discussing every detail of her life and her future wedding etc....

You’ve got that right....

 

[JR76]

As I said, different countries, different cultures.

That's sort off what I finished my post with

 

[Gawin]

In Sweden the symbolism is that the couple enters the church and proceed down the aisle to get married at their own free will. Most ministers in the Church of Sweden are against the bride being given away as that is seen as a symbol of the bride having no choice of her own. When it was made public that Crown Princess Victoria wanted to be given away by her father The King there was a clash between the wishes of the bride and the Archbishop performing the marriage who was totally against it. In the end a compromise had to be found and The King escorted his daughter halfway down the aisle where Daniel met them and took over after which the couple walked up to the altar together.

Different context, different symbols.

Hmm...but it seems Crown Princess Victoria wanted to be escorted by her father of her "own free will" and in that case I think the Archbishop should have respected her wish. But that's just my personal opinion.

I agree with Denville - Harry and Meghan are likely to stick with British traditions. Either her father or her mother or both.

 

[Denville]

You’re got that right....

I can't understand it. A bit of interest, a bit of speculation yes..... but...

As I said, different countries, different cultures. I understand both your and Denville's POVs, but I also agree that, in Britain, Meghan should follow British tradition.

I can understand the other cultural tradition but I suppose I prefer the idea of 2 people who were single, joining together..and so entering the church or place were they marry separately...

 

[Mbruno]

Hmm...but it seems Crown Princess Victoria wanted to be escorted by her father of her "own free will" and in that case I think the Archbishop should have respected her wish. But that's just my personal opinion.

I agree with Denville - Harry and Meghan are likely to stick with British traditions. Either her father or her mother or both.

The point is that, in the US, and I assume also in the UK, "giving away" is not seen as the bride being a property of her father who is being traded in a contract of marriage. It is more along the lines of what Denville explained, i.e to signify a rite of passage where one leaves one's family to join another. As part of the ceremony, the priest (or minister) is also supposed to ask the bride and groom if they are getting married on their own free will as , for most churches (most certainly in the traditional canon law), getting married under duress is a possible reason to invalidate/ nullify the marriage.

I can understand the other cultural tradition but I suppose I prefer the idea of 2 people who were single, joining together..and so entering the church or place were they marry separately...

That is another valid PoV. In the Netherlands, I think it actually makes sense for the bride and groom to enter the church together (as in Maxima and W-A's wedding for example), because the civil marriage has already taken place before and they are technically no longer single when they enter the church.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The bride and groom walking the aisle together is common in some countries, but I don't think it is very usual in the American or British culture. Correct me if I am wrong, but the CoE liturgy for marriages still includes someone who "gives away" the bride and, as far as I recall from previous British royal weddings, the groom is usually facing the altar and is not even supposed to look at the bride as she walks down the aisle. Both Diana and Kate wore veils to cover their faces too. Everything is still terribly old-fashioned, far more so actually than in Roman Catholic weddings, which, surprisingly, have been greatly "modernized" in recent years as far the liturgy goes.

I am not saying it is impossible, but, if Harry and Meghan enter the chapel together, it will be a big departure from tradition. Queen Victoria, who was fatherless when she got married, was escorted by one of her uncles, I think (in the ITV series, it was the Duke of Sussex, but I don't know if that is historically accurate).

The British royal weddings use an alternative, old-fashioned liturgy wherein the "giving away" of the bride is required.

A Form of Solemnization of Matrimony (Alternative Services: Series One) | The Church of England

Then shall the priest say

Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?

Then shall they give their troth to each other in this manner.

The priest, receiving the woman at her father’s or friend’s hands, shall cause the man with his right hand to take the woman by her right hand, and to say after him as follows

In the usual Church of England wedding service, the giving-away ceremony is optional.

Marriage | The Church of England

6 ‘Giving Away’

This traditional ceremony is optional. Immediately before the couple exchange vows (here here), the minister may ask:

Who brings this woman to be married to this man?

The bride’s father (or mother, or another member of her family or a friend representing the family) gives the bride’s right hand to the minister who puts it in the bridegroom’s right hand. Alternatively, after the bride and bridegroom have made their Declarations, the minister may ask the parents of bride and bridegroom in these or similar words:

N and N have declared their intention towards each other.

As their parents,

will you now entrust your son and daughter to one another as they come to be married?

Both sets of parents respond:

We will.

 

[Denville]

The point is that, in the US, and I assume also in the UK, "giving away" is not seen as the bride being a property of her father who is being traded in a contract of marriage. It is more along the lines of what Denville explained, i.e to signify a rite of passage where one leaves one's family to join another. As part of the ceremony, the priest (or minister) is also supposed to ask the bride and groom if they are getting married on their own free will as , for most churches (most certainly in the traditional canon law), getting married under duress is a possible reason to invalidate/ nullify the marriage.



T church.

Yes of course the bride and groom must give consent of their own free will..

 

[Winnie]

It will be interesting to watch but no matter how their service is arranged I am sure that it will be exactly the way both bride and groom want it and are very happy on that day. Doesn't matter who walks her down the aisle or if she skips down herself, she will do it her way. It is her day and the groom will love her for it. Old traditions are no long really valid, if so there would be no white bridal gowns worn to reflect the virginity of the bride. Lets be honest. That was a huge thing back 40 years ago and divorced or pregnant woman did not wear white. So as far as I am concerned a wedding is the wishes of the couple getting married. I remember the horror from people on this forum at the "different" service when Sofia and Carl Philip married in Sweden. They did their modern happy service and non-hymn songs their way and smiled the entire time. They still look extremely happy in their small family to this day.

 

[wyevale]

There is [imo] NO more lovely 'form of words' for a marriage than that the traditional [series 1] Anglican ceremony [once the word 'obey' is dropped from the Brides 'oath']..

 

[Pranter]

I like honor ...I think obey is fine to be omitted. It's a bit to archaic even for me.


LaRae

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Will the bells of St. George's Chapel ring both before the wedding when the bride arrives and after as the bride and the groom leave the church?

 

[Lady Nimue]

Her father or mom are most likely to accompany her. I don't think it likely she'll walk down that aisle alone. But really....folks are way to worked up over this. LaRae

Are they? Where is that? Can you say?

 

[Mirabel]

William and Kate also had plenty of celebrity guests (the Beckhams, Elton John, etc.) plus foreign royals and top British and Commonwealth public figures who, to me personally, are far more interesting than celebrities. In particular, I like to see gatherings of many royals from different countries, which is why I enjoyed weddings like Frederik's, Victoria's or Felipe's so much.

I'm not sure which television coverage you watched (for William and Kate), but I remember being surprised that many of the foreign royals who attended were not even identified.

My friend who was watching with me also remarked on this; we decided the commentators didn't even know who most of the foreign royals were!

 

[Gawin]

The American commentators have no idea who many of the people are. I remember watching William and Catherine's wedding when one commentator solemnly identified one of the children in the wedding party as the daughter of William's good friend "Van Cutsem" completely unaware that "Van" was part of his surname and not his given name.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm not sure which television coverage you watched (for William and Kate), but I remember being surprised that many of the foreign royals who attended were not even identified.

My friend who was watching with me also remarked on this; we decided the commentators didn't even know who most of the foreign royals were!

I could identify them ! That is what matters to me.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I could identify them !

Me too!
I am always amazed when none of the commentators seem to know who various family members or members of other royal families are. You'd think someone would do some research before covering an event.

 

[Countessmeout]

William and Kate also had plenty of celebrity guests (the Beckhams, Elton John, etc.) plus foreign royals and top British and Commonwealth public figures who, to me personally, are far more interesting than celebrities. In particular, I like to see gatherings of many royals from different countries, which is why I enjoyed weddings like Frederik's, Victoria's or Felipe's so much.

Besides, William and Kate had the Abbey setting and the RF procession from the Abbey back to BP, which we won't see in Harry and Meghan's wedding. The service itself might be similar in those parts that are actually mandatory in the liturgy, but I don't think the music will be as "grand" as in William and Kate's wedding, especially for the walking down the aisle or for the newly weds leaving the church.

I'm pretty sure it will be a nice wedding, but "toned down" compared to William's, which was in turn already a step down from Charles and Diana's. Interest in the US will be huge mostly because Meghan is American and Americans in general are very self-centered (sorry to say that !).

To you yes. But to the millions of Americans that American networks will hope will watch? Who do you think the majority will be interested in seeing? The PM of a commonwealth realm, or a priest of one of the churches? Or the cast of Suits? Pretty sure 4/5 people would say the latter.

The reality is that people tune in for the interesting parts. To see the dress, the tiara, and the famous guests. None of this will be any different then Will and Kate's.

Will and Kate had plenty of celebrities but many were 'british celebrities' that Americans might have little interest in. And foreign royals, that unless you are a royal follower, many wouldn't recognize. Harry and Meghan is different.

Sorry but no one is going to not watch the wedding because the organ music will be less dramatic then William's.

 

[Osipi]

If I am remembering right, when the coverage of Will & Kate's wedding was happening, I remember being disappointed as the cameras seem to go elsewhere rather than show the arrivals at the church for the most part. People were arriving at the Abbey and walking to their seats and the cameras were focused on the outside of the Goring Hotel waiting for Kate to emerge and get in the car.

I actually like watching all the people arrive and its been since joining here that, as they arrive as they did at Victoria's wedding and the arrivals were focused on, I realized I knew more of who was who. Its interesting to me.

 

[Missjersey]

I could identify them ! That is what matters to me.

Yup, that’s half the fun for me!

 

[ACO]

Yes a lot of William and Kate's early coverage focused more on inside the church than the arrivals. I felt the same way and was annoyed as they kept panning the church. Hopefully they don't do too much of that this time around. Show the arrivals.

And it is no shock the US networks weren't really that well informed about the guests unless they were recognizable celebrities like the Beckhams. That is just not who they are interested in nor their main focus. I assume the likes of ET, E!, and Access Hollywood will be drooling over the celebrities while BBC points out when Lord Rocking Roll III arrives.

 

[Osipi]

One think we're going to have to remember too is that anything coming directly out of the chapel itself will be from one provider (such as BBC, ITV etc). They then share their feed with whatever other providers are carrying the royal wedding. This drastically cuts down on an overabundance of cameras and crew within the chapel itself.

One thing nice about streaming a live feed is that we get a choice of who we choose to watch and their commentators. My only hope is that I can get a British streaming live and the commentators are closed captioned.

 

[MARG]

There is [imo] NO more lovely 'form of words' for a marriage than that the traditional [series 1] Anglican ceremony [once the word 'obey' is dropped from the Brides 'oath']..

I would have to agree. Since H&M specifically requested the AOC to perform the actual vows, I think we will get the basic, updated 1662 Prayer Book Service which is filled with the most deeply beautiful words (sans obey). I have never heard personal vows that come anywhere even close.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

While watching William and Catherine's arrival, I noticed the broadcasters focused on certain arrivals: David and Victoria Beckham, Elton John, and Charles Spencer, Princess Diana's brother. At least the broadcasters knew who Earl Spencer was!
For Prince Henry's wedding, it would be nice if more time was spent about the guests.

 

[Royal Suitor]

I'm creating some games for my wedding watch party including a celebrity guest bingo board. Do you think there will be enough foreign royals and heads of state in attendance to do a separate board? It's not really my area of expertise. But with a little help to crowdsource the list, I'm happy to build that board and post both here.

 

[Countessmeout]

While watching William and Catherine's arrival, I noticed the broadcasters focused on certain arrivals: David and Victoria Beckham, Elton John, and Charles Spencer, Princess Diana's brother. At least the broadcasters knew who Earl Spencer was!
For Prince Henry's wedding, it would be nice if more time was spent about the guests.

They will likely focus on the exact same thing. This isn't the nightly news. The wedding coverage appeals to certain people. They are going to aim the camera at those who appeal to the largest viewers, to keep people from turning the channel. Reality is celebrities, and the royal family who is recognizable, are going to get the main focus. Of course Earl spencer was recognizable, and a focus, due to the whole Diana funeral thing.