Harry and Meghan: Wedding Suggestions and Musings

[Zaira]

Yes, we all know the same folks advocating for someone more "connected" to Meghan would be saying stuff no matter what.

As I mentioned, I really think this was more of a move by Welby than anything. I think Harry and Meghan listened to some sermons at his encouragement, liked them and here we are. Maybe this will be the beginning of a long time relationship?

The reason why I bring up the more "diplomatic" aspect to this is because of the issues with the 2016 meeting where the ECUSA was technically demoted to "observer status" over same-sex marriage.

Here is Curry's message from that meeting: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/pos...op-and-primate-michael-curry-actions-anglican

I am just happy to see someone as amazing as Bishop Curry involved. I encourage folks to watch his sermons. A remarkable pastor. I am trying to track down the sermon I heard him give.

 

[Ista]

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'm not sure why this is relevant? Both the C of E and the Episcopal Church are part of the Anglican Communion. Both use a Book of Common Prayer with very similar liturgies. The Presiding Bishop, while not strictly comparable to the Archbishop of Canterbury, certainly represents the totality of the Episcopal Church, and, it seems to me, is an obvious choice if you want to include a member of clergy from the bride's homeland. I'm really confused as to what is controversial about this.

 

[Rudolph]

Two different churches. Just because they’re in communion doesn’t really mean anything.

The Queen isn’t the Supreme Governor of the American episcopal church.

 

[jacqui24]

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.

While this might be unconventional in some regards, it is very clear where the line is drawn. While the cake is not traditional for BRF, it still uses a London based business. While the musical choices aren't conventional, they are British. Inviting a bishop or minister that's not a branch of the Anglican faith to give an address in an Anglican church would've crossed several lines. Given that Tom Sr. now lives in Mexico (where large part of the population is Catholic), we don't know if he's still attending an Episcopalian church regularly. And I would think many minister from smaller churches would have issues conducting an address given the expected viewership scale with the world media waiting to analyze everything.

 

[Osipi]

One thing we can rest easily with is that regardless of the American or British or Church of England or Angelican labels, we do know that all will come together in celebration witnessing a marriage involving the same Creator.

Isn't that what its really all about anyways? ?

 

[Ista]

Two different churches. Just because they’re in communion doesn’t really mean anything.

The Queen isn’t the Supreme Governor of the American episcopal church.

I know that. I am a lifelong Episcopalian. I'm just not understanding why some people think having the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church give the homily at the wedding is so shocking. He's fully conversant with the liturgy, the style of worship is almost identical, the churches are part of the same tradition--and tradition is one of the three pillars of the church. What on earth is the big deal?

 

[M. Payton]

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.

Why does this wedding or any royal wedding have to be the *same* as all other royal weddings? Can't the bride and groom make up their own minds as to what they want for *their wedding*? Who is getting married here, Harry and Meghan or someone fathom person who the public would approve of.

 

[Purrs]

I know that. I am a lifelong Episcopalian. I'm just not understanding why some people think having the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church give the homily at the wedding is so shocking. He's fully conversant with the liturgy, the style of worship is almost identical, the churches are part of the same tradition--and tradition is one of the three pillars of the church. What on earth is the big deal?

I agree with the above poster.

I'm a Canadian Anglican and the churches in the Anglican communion do communicate with each other even though they are administered separately. Every 10 years, they have big conference for all the churches in the Anglican communion in Lambeth England. They are all considered part of the same tradition, beliefs and liturgy (prayer services). BTW, Canadian Anglicans even have prayers for the Queen in their liturgy even though our head is called the Primate - when I was a kid many years ago , it was called The Church of England in Canada.

I think inviting the head of the American Episcopal Church to be part of the service is a lovely gesture for Meghan's American heritage. After all, the archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the English church) will still be the primary celebrant (officiant who conducts the ceremony). (BTW the archbishop of Canterbury is considered to be the spiritual head of Anglicans although the national churches are administered separately.)

I don't understand why this would be an issue at all. Although Meghan is marrying into the British royal family, it is up to her and Prince Harry if they want to add a few nods to Meghan's American heritage (like this Presiding Bishop and the gospel choir) - this does NOT mean that don't value or respect Prince Harry's role and English heritage.

 

[Mbruno]

I know that. I am a lifelong Episcopalian. I'm just not understanding why some people think having the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church give the homily at the wedding is so shocking. He's fully conversant with the liturgy, the style of worship is almost identical, the churches are part of the same tradition--and tradition is one of the three pillars of the church. What on earth is the big deal?

I agree. It would have been more polemic if Meghan had chosen a minister from another Christian tradition, but having an American Episcopalian bishop as part of a CoE service should be completely uncontroversial.,especially when he was invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself. The Queen not being the Head of Episcopal Church is not relevant to this discussion in my opinion .

 

[jacqui24]

Let me give an analogy, and hopefully people can get how ridiculous this is. When the invitations were issued in PoW's name, it was decided they would pay homage to Meghan's background as well as Harry's. They used American ink on British paper. Now by some of the standard some have griped about this address by Bishop Curry, should we also be upset about the fact that Meghan didn't have a personal connection to the ink? Should she have found some ink from home? It's just some random American ink. It's not made by her family. How about the paper? Harry's family didn't have any connection to the paper. See how odd it all sound?

 

[Ish]

Several posts have been deleted for fighting.

Let's move on from the argument of whether or not American influences on the wedding are appropriate or not.

 

[Somebody]

I know that. I am a lifelong Episcopalian. I'm just not understanding why some people think having the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church give the homily at the wedding is so shocking. He's fully conversant with the liturgy, the style of worship is almost identical, the churches are part of the same tradition--and tradition is one of the three pillars of the church. What on earth is the big deal?

It's not shocking nor a big deal just one of the details of the wedding that we can discuss... They could also have asked the primate of the Anglican Canadian Church; also a church that Meghan wasn't a member of but can be construed as reflecting her background while it isn't.

I still think it would be more appropriate to confirm the couple's commitment to Meghan's new church but the archbishop must have thought it more important to include the American province of the Anglican community, so there we are...

 

[Somebody]

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.

That's an interesting perspective. So, maybe it isn't as much about Meghan being an American but mostly a great opportunity for some reconciliation in the Anglican community...

 

[Somebody]

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.

I'm sure they will have checked him out and must have liked him well enough to go with the archbishop's suggestion.

However, there is quite a difference between asking someone to have the second most important role in your wedding ceremony and inviting people to attend your wedding.

 

[Somebody]

Let me give an analogy, and hopefully people can get how ridiculous this is. When the invitations were issued in PoW's name, it was decided they would pay homage to Meghan's background as well as Harry's. They used American ink on British paper. Now by some of the standard some have griped about this address by Bishop Curry, should we also be upset about the fact that Meghan didn't have a personal connection to the ink? Should she have found some ink from home? It's just some random American ink. It's not made by her family. How about the paper? Harry's family didn't have any connection to the paper. See how odd it all sound?

I don't think your analogy holds. It is very common for people to have a relationship with people (including clergy) and less so with paper and ink.

 

[Missy-]

It's not shocking nor a big deal just one of the details of the wedding that we can discuss... They could also have asked the primate of the Anglican Canadian Church; also a church that Meghan wasn't a member of but can be construed as reflecting her background while it isn't.

I still think it would be more appropriate to confirm the couple's commitment to Meghan's new church but the archbishop must have thought it more important to include the American province of the Anglican community, so there we are...

I agree with this, but I understand that some people don't see a problem with it. I personally feel it would have been best to stick to a purely Anglican service to show commitment to her new religion, jmo.

 

[jacqui24]

I don't think your analogy holds. It is very common for people to have a relationship with people (including clergy) and less so with paper and ink.

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about their wedding specifically. They made a point to use American ink on English paper and announced that's what was used. So the intention is there.

 

[Somebody]

I agree with this, but I understand that some people don't see a problem with it. I personally feel it would have been best to stick to a purely Anglican service to show commitment to her new religion, jmo.

Me too, I see where others are coming from but would have preferred a different choice. Nonetheless, I look forward to hearing his sermon next Saturday and hope he will have a great message not only for the couple but for the world. A big responsibility!

 

[jacqui24]

I agree with this, but I understand that some people don't see a problem with it. I personally feel it would have been best to stick to a purely Anglican service to show commitment to her new religion, jmo.

And I can absolutely understand that, but that wasn't the complaint that was being discussed. It was the fact that the couple had no personal relationship to Bishop Curry that people took issue with.

 

[Somebody]

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about their wedding specifically. They made a point to use American ink on English paper and announced that's what was used. So the intention is there.

Yes, but you compared ink and paper to picking the person who is doing the sermon. When asking people I would hope not only the symbolism of one American and one Brit is being taken into account, especially when bride and groom are both members of the English church and hopefully have some personal relationships within their church (and I understand that it being a royal wedding might lead to a preference for clergy higher up in the church).

When choosing ink and paper personal relationships would be really hard to take into account.

 

[Ista]

Having Bishop Curry give the sermon does not in any way signal a lack of commitment to the Church of England. The entire service will be straight out of the Book of Common Prayer, and it doesn't get any more C of E than that. All it signals is that Archbishop Welby, Harry and Meghan thought that inviting Bishop Curry would be a) appropriate b) symbolic and c) a great idea. I think it takes some effort to make it more complicated than that.

 

[jacqui24]

Yes, but you compared ink and paper to picking the person who is doing the sermon. When asking people I would hope not only the symbolism of one American and one Brit is being taken into account, especially when bride and groom are both members of the English church and hopefully have some personal relationships within their church (and I understand that it being a royal wedding might lead to a preference for clergy higher up in the church).

When choosing ink and paper personal relationships would be really hard to take into account.

I think we are talking about two different things here. I can understand people feeling maybe it should just be Church of England. My post that you quoted was addressing a different issue, which the mods have asked us to move on from.

 

[Mbruno]

I agree with this, but I understand that some people don't see a problem with it. I personally feel it would have been best to stick to a purely Anglican service to show commitment to her new religion, jmo.

It will be an Anglican service. Bishop Curry is also an Anglican and his delivering the homily will not change the liturgy of the wedding.

Let us not stir up controversy just for the sake of it when there should be none really.

 

[Ish]

Alright. Time to move on.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Five florists dream up Meghan's wedding bouquet.
http://www.marthastewartweddings.com/632855/meghan-markle-wedding-bouquet-ideas

 

[Missy-]

Five florists dream up Meghan's wedding bouquet.
http://www.marthastewartweddings.com/632855/meghan-markle-wedding-bouquet-ideas

No peonies? I'm betting there will be white peonies in the actual bouquet.

 

[jacqui24]

No peonies? I'm betting there will be white peonies in the actual bouquet.

They didn't do their homework. Given Meghan's love for peonies and what it symbolize, I'm willing to bet my puppy that it'll be in her wedding bouquet (and I love my puppy, I'm never giving him away).

 

[Rudolph]

Emily Andrews says Lady Amelia isn’t invited to the wedding. It’s going to be interesting to see which members of Harry’s extended family make the cut.

Lady Amelia Windsor has not been invited to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding

 

[Countessmeout]

No peonies? I'm betting there will be white peonies in the actual bouquet.

These florists are just like the dress designers. They aren't actually designing something with the bride in mind. They are trying to sell their own business, showing off their bouquets. The royal wedding just gives them advertising. I doubt they care what kind of flowers Meghan likes.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Emily Andrews says Lady Amelia isn’t invited to the wedding. It’s going to be interesting to see which members of Harry’s extended family make the cut.

Lady Amelia Windsor has not been invited to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding

No offense to you Rudolph, but this sounds like total bogwash. "He didn't want anyone upstaging the bride", that sounds so fake and unreliable. But what can you expect, wasn't the Sun the same source who said Eugenie got engaged in 2016?