Harry and Meghan: Royal Wedding Miscellanea

[MARG]

Truthfully I don't however, I have this theory that both her train and Meghan's were net and light to carry thus children could hold it up off the ground but not as high as if it were being held by adults. The illusion and the ability to see the workmanship is greatly increased.

But as I said, merely a theory, but Princess Elizabeth's bridesmaids were all adults.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Yes, the longer net illuminated the floral embroidery which was clever.
It was an idea that was used by bride Maxima, I recently noticed, also.

The more I see Meghans dress, the more I like it's, classic but modern, shape.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I disagree. I had to listen to it a second time but it all connected.

Yep, a lot of people have differing opinions all over the place regarding Bishop Curry's overlong comments at the wedding. His fifteen minutes of fame at St. George's Chapel will certainly be memorable, but not exactly for all the best reasons. Believe me, I know how hard it is to edit oneself. ? I also know something about how difficult it is to prepare a good speech. I'm not a priest or a minister, so I do respect Bishop Curry's knowledge and his good intentions, but he needed to tweak a few things, IMO. I was very disappointed, as I had been looking forward to his comments. His failure did lead me to go back and check the addresses given at W&C's wedding and at D&C's wedding. Although those deliveries are not as memorable, the content and structure of both those addresses is stellar and to the point -- also it's very instructive looking back.

Bishop Curry meandered and he absolutely failed to specifically connect M&H's relationship directly to all the elements he was rambling about. Only through listening several times is it possible to connect some of the dots. And even then the connection to M&H personally is tangential and generic. What was the purpose of bringing up slavery as an example of the power of love? It's okay to do that but it was not done in a way that had direct relevance to that moment just because of Meghan's embrace of her maternal heritage. That's like the DF blaring a headline about Meghan's mother's side of the family being descended from slaves. If it's the elephant in the room and you feel the need to mention it, then please connect it personally to how that fact impacts Meghan and Harry. Stop relying on cliches, over-dramatic symbolism, rhetoric, simplistic romanticized tropes about African-American history, emotional beliefs and cultural myths. Just because Curry quoted Martin Luther King does not make him a dynamic speaker.

As I said, the first four minutes of Curry's utterances were very good and I thought he was going to build to something powerful and poignant. The part about the first time we experience falling in love was very good. That's the point when Harry and Meghan began to smile in relief. But their relief was short-lived. Curry became too repetitive, then he began ad-libbing, shouting and looking around trying to get a witness. The spirit was not actually moving in him, he was trying to move it, and some people were rightly worried he might end up knocking over one of the candles in front of him.

Bishop Curry could have done a better job if he'd shortened his remarks, directed his remarks more personally to M&H, tied the scripture together better, left out the stone age, travel, and Twitter references, toned down the prancing and dancing a little bit and stopped repeating: "If you don't believe me" Plus, he only needed to re-recite part of the Song of Solomon passage once, but he did it twice (and it had already been read by Diana's sister)! The fact that anyone has to listen to what Curry said at least three times before being able to tie some of the elements together shows that it was not effectively constructed.

I've re-listened a few times, and it's very obvious that where he went off track is about four minutes in when he said,"The power of love is not just about a young couple getting married..." Whoa, slow down Bishop Curry! This is about a young couple getting married, and their names are Meghan and Prince Harry! It's true that love is also about sacrifice and selflessness, and the love of our Lord Saviour Jesus Christ who died for our sins. But Curry IMO should have tied his thoughts together within the context of a marriage between two young people instead of over-focusing on the worldwide audience, and showing off what he knows about scripture.

 

[Zaira]

Since the fashion thread is closed for MR and so is the Family Background thread, I thought I would post this tidbit here

From Vogue About Doria's splendid outfit

'Back in January, Laura Kim and Fernando Garcia received a call from Meghan Markle about a wedding day look for her mother Doria Ragland. “She knew she wanted a pistachio or melon look for her mom,” Garcia remembered. The house of Oscar de la Renta has surely dressed many mothers-of-the-bride over the decades, Hillary Clinton included, but royal weddings are another thing entirely. It was a huge coup for the duo, and if it hasn’t immediately resulted in a boost in sales, as Meghan’s own choices do, it has at least raised the designers’ profiles. “I got a lot of new followers,” Kim said.'

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Don't know where else to put this; regarding the child bridesmaids and groomsmen, usually they are in some kind of pattern but at this wedding it seemed like they weren't in any formation and were just lumped together. I wonder why this was the case.

 

[jacqui24]

Don't know where else to put this; regarding the child bridesmaids and groomsmen, usually they are in some kind of pattern but at this wedding it seemed like they weren't in any formation and were just lumped together. I wonder why this was the case.

Because they are 10 kids between the age of 2-7. And the two oldest are charged with the veil instead of helping out with the younger kids. Jasper did the best he could. It was reported that the rehearsals were a bit chaotic and I think they just decided to let the kids be kids. But I thought they were all troopers to do what they did and help Meghan get to the alter.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

^In this video it shows where some of the bridesmaids walked in a horizontal row. I had not seen this at a wedding.

 

[jacqui24]

Bishop Curry meandered and he absolutely failed to specifically connect M&H's relationship directly to all the elements he was rambling about. Only through listening several times is it possible to connect some of the dots. And even then the connection to M&H personally is tangential and generic. What was the purpose of bringing up slavery as an example of the power of love? It's okay to do that but it was not done in a way that had direct relevance to that moment just because of Meghan's embrace of her maternal heritage. That's like the DF blaring a headline about Meghan's mother's side of the family being descended from slaves. If it's the elephant in the room and you feel the need to mention it, then please connect it personally to how that fact impacts Meghan and Harry. Stop relying on cliches, over-dramatic symbolism, rhetoric, simplistic romanticized tropes about African-American history, emotional beliefs and cultural myths. Just because Curry quoted Martin Luther King does not make him a dynamic speaker.

As I said, the first four minutes of Curry's utterances were very good and I thought he was going to build to something powerful and poignant. The part about the first time we experience falling in love was very good. That's the point when Harry and Meghan began to smile in relief. But their relief was short-lived. Curry became too repetitive, then he began ad-libbing, shouting and looking around trying to get a witness. The spirit was not actually moving in him, he was trying to move it, and some people were rightly worried he might end up knocking over one of the candles in front of him.

Bishop Curry could have done a better job if he'd shortened his remarks, directed his remarks more personally to M&H, tied the scripture together better, left out the stone age, travel, and Twitter references, toned down the prancing and dancing a little bit and stopped repeating: "If you don't believe me" Plus, he only needed to re-recite part of the Song of Solomon passage once, but he did it twice (and it had already been read by Diana's sister)! The fact that anyone has to listen to what Curry said at least three times before being able to tie some of the elements together shows that it was not effectively constructed.

I've re-listened a few times, and it's very obvious that where he went off track is about four minutes in when he said,"The power of love is not just about a young couple getting married..." Whoa, slow down Bishop Curry! This is about a young couple getting married, and their names are Meghan and Prince Harry! It's true that love is also about sacrifice and selflessness, and the love of our Lord Saviour Jesus Christ who died for our sins. But Curry IMO should have tied his thoughts together within the context of a marriage between two young people instead of over-focusing on the worldwide audience, and showing off what he knows about scripture.

Actually, I don't think Harry and Meghan would have a problem with that. They chose a specific scripture for him to preach. And the story there is about realizing a love that's greater than just that of two people. So I think he hit the nail in the head about the power of love and what it can do. Meghan has talked about how important and how they bonded over the desire to do good in the world. I do think that is going to be an integral part of their life together. I do think he could've shortened it, but I doubt the bride and groom cared too much.

BTW, can I just say I wanted to buy the Kingdom Choir's version of Stand by Me and found the wedding soundtrack on iTunes and it was simply terrible sound quality. I would've thought they might have bothered to contact some of those that performed at the ceremony to actually record the track. Who would want to by this?

 

[jacqui24]

^In this video it shows where some of the bridesmaids walked in a horizontal row. I had not seen this at a wedding.

I have not seen 10 kids for a bridal party until now. I don't think that was planned, and at that point, as long as they didn't fall or step on her veil, I doubt anyone cared. It is pretty cute for one of the Litt girls to reach over to her sister. Just shows you kids have more important things they care about than walk in a perfect line.

 

[Osipi]

For two people that found each other and learned how to be totally complete because of each other yet remaining true to there own selves, its kind of fitting that the children were allowed to just "be" the children that they are and not programmed as robots to be "perfect".

Then again, being whimsical, I could imagine the children being told that when they're walking into "God's House", He'll be watching you and want you to be your very best. You'll know this when you hear the angels' trumpets!" Of course as Meghan entered the chapel, there was that wonderful fanfare of trumpets.

 

[jacqui24]

For two people that found each other and learned how to be totally complete because of each other yet remaining true to there own selves, its kind of fitting that the children were allowed to just "be" the children that they are and not programmed as robots to be "perfect".

I think in general, these two tend to be more informal and relaxed and their wedding reflected that. I was surprised that they even changed the wedding vows to only include what they are known by and only had the full name at the beginning of the service.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Actually, I don't think Harry and Meghan would have a problem with that. They chose a specific scripture for him to preach. And the story there is about realizing a love that's greater than just that of two people. So I think he hit the nail in the head about the power of love and what it can do. Meghan has talked about how important and how they bonded over the desire to do good in the world. I do think that is going to be an integral part of their life together. I do think he could've shortened it, but I doubt the bride and groom cared too much...

Sure Meghan and Harry had no need to be overly concerned because there's really nothing to be done about something that's occurring in real time that isn't exactly what you expected, that you can do nothing about. Stuff happens at weddings that's unpredictable and you have to go with the flow. Overall, sure M&H weren't concerned about Curry ad-libbing and going over because they were both happy and in 7th heaven. Personally, I was disappointed because I was looking forward to Curry speaking more directly to M&H and saying something more specifically uplifting about their union with less generic pontificating.

There are so many directions Curry could have gone in based on M&H's selected passage from the Song of Solomon. Curry simply needed to realize he should stick within the allotted time. He tried to cram in too many different themes and directions without ever tying Meghan/Harry's union and relationship to what he was saying with direct specificity. The congregation and the viewers had to connect the dots, which required re-listening a few times in order to separate the wheat from the chaff! Listening in real time, those who weren't bothered by Curry's over-performing, allowed themselves to be swayed by the pontificating for a variety of reasons. Of course, we know M&H's relationship involves the 'power of love,' but Curry, though he began well, never brought all the elements of his speech together in a satisfying way that was more personal to Meghan & Harry, IMHO.

The first four minutes of Curry's speech was fine. The rest of his 'sermon' that was supposed to be a wedding address contains some great samplings from scripture, but as I said previously, there was too much repetitive phrasing, rambling, disconnected rhetoric, over-performing and general showing off of his knowledge of scripture for a world-wide audience. That's the sense I get from Curry's performance, but granted there are a variety of opinions.

Regarding M&H's reactions to Curry, I am going by M&H's variety of expressions during Bishop Curry's speech. At one point, Meghan was glancing toward the family section, and Bishop Curry raised his voice overdramatically saying something (likely the part about either fire, overseas travel, or the stone age). Meghan jerked her head back toward Curry and her eyes widened. But in general, Meghan and Harry held their cool with somewhat fixed smiles and tension-relieving laughter. They looked at each other often (seemingly in disbelief at some points), and they obviously relied upon each other for support.

As Curry pranced on into uncharted territory, M&H were likely wondering with the rest of the congregation and many in the viewing audience around the world, where exactly Curry was heading, and when he was going to wrap things up. He finally ended his rambling comments in a relatively reasonable way in terms of scripture (but still a bit disconnected from Meghan and Harry specifically). He never mentioned them by name.

 

[Denville]

Royal weddings are meant to be planned so that they are exactly on time, for the benefited of everyone attending.. but that wedding looked quite mesy. THe car taking Meghan to the church IIRC had to speed up and dash, so the onlookers who had waited for ages, could hardly have seen her riding by.. and It seems like the Curry address wa also messy, over long and confusing and unintentionaly funny...

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Personally, I think both Zara Tindall's and QEII's reactions to Curry, caught on camera, are priceless. Zara was sitting back uncomfortably and at one point her jaw dropped and her eyes went back-and-forth as if in shock. She surely had to be wondering when Curry was going to shut up since she was heavily pregnant and probably eager for the service to come to an end. At one point, the Queen looked at Curry sharply, visibly shook herself and looked down at her lap. The Queen was probably given some idea of Curry's planned remarks. But likely no one was aware he was going to ad-lib, over-perform and drag on for nearly 15 minutes when he had been allotted about 7 minutes (as was the case for the ministers at Diana/Charles and William/Kate's weddings).

In the long run, it doesn't matter, and it was certainly a colorful and memorable performance by Curry, but not for the right reasons, IMO. There were many people watching who erroneously thought Meghan had 'hand-picked' Curry. Neither she nor Harry knew anything about Curry, and had never met him until the day before the wedding. Therein lies the problem. M&H relied on Archbishop Welby's judgment. And in this instance, Welby was oversentimental and faulty in selecting someone who did not know either Harry or Meghan to any intimate degree.

I think that the Queen's personal chaplain (a black woman from Britain) would have been a better candidate to give the wedding address. She gave an excellent prayer reading after Curry's sermon. As did a Coptic minister. Unfortunately, both the Queen's chaplain and the Coptic minister were unfairly overshadowed and barely mentioned by the media. For me, it would have made a more significant statement for a black woman minister to give the address rather than a black male American Episcopal minister from Chicago (simply because Episcopalian is the American version of the Anglican church, and Meghan's Dad's family was Episcopalian). Meghan herself was not raised in the Episcopal church, so Archbishop Welby's good-intentioned reasoning backfired to a degree in my opinion. And Bishop Curry's over-dramatic performance departs from the kind of preaching normally seen in Episcopal congregations. But once again, it's all water under the bridge. And M&H apparently took the good parts they could from Curry's speech and discarded the rest.

I was unhappy that Curry's performance somewhat overshadowed the Kingdom Choir, rather than leading into their singing in a more powerful and enhancing way. Again, I realize there are a variety of differing opinions. The young, gifted violinist whom Meghan and Harry did 'handpick' was divine.

 

[Denville]

I didn't see the actual sermon but from what I've heard it did detract from the wedding.. Many people I heard of who were watching found it silly, and I gather some of the congretation were giggling wih embarrraseement.

 

[jacqui24]

Sure Meghan and Harry had no need to be overly concerned because there's really nothing to be done about something that's occurring in real time that isn't exactly what you expected, that you can do nothing about. Stuff happens at weddings that's unpredictable and you have to go with the flow. Overall, sure M&H weren't concerned about Curry ad-libbing and going over because they were both happy and in 7th heaven. Personally, I was disappointed because I was looking forward to Curry speaking more directly to M&H and saying something more specifically uplifting about their union with less generic pontificating.

There are so many directions Curry could have gone in based on M&H's selected passage from the Song of Solomon. Curry simply needed to realize he should stick within the allotted time. He tried to cram in too many different themes and directions without ever tying Meghan/Harry's union and relationship to what he was saying with direct specificity. The congregation and the viewers had to connect the dots, which required re-listening a few times in order to separate the wheat from the chaff! Listening in real time, those who weren't bothered by Curry's over-performing, allowed themselves to be swayed by the pontificating for a variety of reasons. Of course, we know M&H's relationship involves the 'power of love,' but Curry, though he began well, never brought all the elements of his speech together in a satisfying way that was more personal to Meghan & Harry, IMHO.

The first four minutes of Curry's speech was fine. The rest of his 'sermon' that was supposed to be a wedding address contains some great samplings from scripture, but as I said previously, there was too much repetitive phrasing, rambling, disconnected rhetoric, over-performing and general showing off of his knowledge of scripture for a world-wide audience. That's the sense I get from Curry's performance, but granted there are a variety of opinions.

Regarding M&H's reactions to Curry, I am going by M&H's variety of expressions during Bishop Curry's speech. At one point, Meghan was glancing toward the family section, and Bishop Curry raised his voice overdramatically saying something (likely the part about either fire, overseas travel, or the stone age). Meghan jerked her head back toward Curry and her eyes widened. But in general, Meghan and Harry held their cool with somewhat fixed smiles and tension-relieving laughter. They looked at each other often (seemingly in disbelief at some points), and they obviously relied upon each other for support.

As Curry pranced on into uncharted territory, M&H were likely wondering with the rest of the congregation and many in the viewing audience around the world, where exactly Curry was heading, and when he was going to wrap things up. He finally ended his rambling comments in a relatively reasonable way in terms of scripture (but still a bit disconnected from Meghan and Harry specifically). He never mentioned them by name.

I'm not arguing about the time issue. I personally like my sermons way shorter. However, given that they chose a scripture talking about a greater love, he's not off to talk about a greater love than that of two people. And each to their own on what Meghan and Harry are thinking. Although I don't know how they can be not concerned about him going over and ad libbing and happy to the 7th heaven and being concerned and have tension-relieved laughter at the same time.

BTW, I know they didn't know Bishop Curry well, there are videos of the Bishop's sermons online, and this is his preaching style. So I highly doubt Meghan and Harry were THAT surprised with the style of the sermon. If they thought it'd offend or cause embarrassment, they wouldn't have invited him.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Royal weddings are meant to be planned so that they are exactly on time, for the benefited of everyone attending.. but that wedding looked quite mesy. THe car taking Meghan to the church IIRC had to speed up and dash, so the onlookers who had waited for ages, could hardly have seen her riding by.. and It seems like the Curry address wa also messy, over long and confusing and unintentionaly funny...

Sure, there were some minor glitches, but that's to be expected at every wedding. Planning is crucial, but unexpected stuff usually happens. That's life. While watching Curry's sermon, I simply decided to get over my disappointment and try to enjoy the rest of the service, which was quite beautiful. I knew the royals were never going to voice any kind of complaint about anything they may not have been completely happy with. I'm sure they count their blessings and feel they have nothing to complain about.

The most annoying things were Curry's disjointed rhetoric and over-performing, and the dyslexic camera work by the BBC. How many times did they need to cut away from M&H to the same celebrities! And the overhead shots became ridiculous and inept, especially the awful decision to cut to an overhead shot in the ceiling at the point when Meghan curtsied to the Queen!!! Hopefully some of this ineptitude has been corrected via editing. The wedding is already available on DVD. ?

I disagree with you that there was anything 'messy' about the vehicle carrying Meghan and her Mom having to speed up a bit. That's a normal consequence of trying to be down to the minute with arrival time. Everyone did a fairly good job on the arrivals. It pretty much went off like clockwork, aside from Bishop Curry going over, which extended the actual real time of the wedding past it's scheduled length.

Also, I wouldn't describe Curry's sermonizing as messy. It was surprisingly memorable, but for the wrong reasons. The first four minutes was fine, and there was some interesting scripture in his comments, but I had to listen several times to connect some of the dots. As I've already said repeatedly, Curry simply needed to stay within the allotted time and speak more specifically to Meghan and Harry. He definitely could have done a better job of tying his themes together with the couple themselves, and with less prancing and dancing. He was trying to get a witness and an 'Amen' in the wrong venue, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

 

[Denville]

Well they were wrong, then. he did cause embarrassment. It seems to me like this wedding unlike most royal weddings was not nearly as well organised

 

[Osipi]

I just happened to catch a program last night on Lifetime called Harry and Meghan: The Royal Wedding and I caught the part where they had an interview with both Archbishop Wembly and Archbishop Curry and they talked about the sermon. Joking back and forth about the time and it was just refreshing to watch. They obviously had no problems with it. I'm among the crowd that really enjoy listening to that sermon and like his method of preaching but that's just me.

 

[jacqui24]

The most annoying things were Curry's disjointed rhetoric and over-performing, and the dyslexic camera work by the BBC. How many times did they need to cut away from M&H to the same celebrities! And the overhead shots became ridiculous and inept, especially the awful decision to cut to an overhead shot in the ceiling at the point when Meghan curtsied to the Queen!!! Hopefully some of this ineptitude has been corrected via editing. The wedding is already available on DVD. ?

I agree with you on that. If I wanted to see Elton John, I'd go to Vegas. If I wanted to see Beckham, I'd go online. And that overhead shot. Whoever did that should be taken to the tower!

In case that wasn't clear to anyone, the last sentence was a joke.

 

[Denville]

I just happened to catch a program last night on Lifetime called Harry and Meghan: The Royal Wedding and I caught the part where they had an interview with both Archbishop Wembly and Archbishop Curry and they talked about the sermon. Joking back and forth about the time and it was just refreshing to watch. They obviously had no problems with it. I'm among the crowd that really enjoy listening to that sermon and like his method of preaching but that's just me.

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?

 

[jacqui24]

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?

She had plenty of male friends that sat in the Quire, but I suppose she wanted to ask Prince Charles, and he seemed pleased. This isn't a traditional wedding as one might expect, but certainly not embarrassing by any means. In fact, I've seen a number of coverage calling it the most romantic royal wedding. And no, Meghan and Harry didn't behave in any inappropriate way. They smiled a lot and was clearly so in love and happy to be married. There was one time where there was laughter, but so was most of the congregation, and even AoC found it amusing.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

... I don't know how they can be not concerned about him going over and ad libbing and happy to the 7th heaven and being concerned and have tension-relieved laughter at the same time.

BTW, I know they didn't know Bishop Curry well, there are videos of the Bishop's sermons online, and this is his preaching style. So I highly doubt Meghan and Harry were THAT surprised with the style of the sermon. If they thought it'd offend or cause embarrassment, they wouldn't have invited him.

Tee hee... Their reactions didn't happen all at the same time. The Curry speech took about 15 minutes, so there were a mix of reactions from M&H over the course of that time. If you see a good replay (as different replays showed M&H close-ups more than others), you can see the various reactions that came over their faces.

M&H didn't allow their surprise at some of Curry's performing to throw them too much because indeed, they were clearly overjoyed to be marrying. And everything else on the day went off quite wonderfully. Everyone probably especially enjoyed the after-receptions! As far as Curry's style being able to be seen in sermons posted on Youtube, I'm gonna bet M&H took Archbishop Welby's word for Curry being a 'dynamic' speaker. Surely neither of them had time to seek out examples of Curry's preaching! Even I didn't find the time to look Curry up after reading that he was supposed to be a 'dynamic' speaker. I took Archbishop Welby's word for it too.

After the fact, I did check out a bit of Curry's past preaching. Oh my lord, does he enjoy pontificating and looking around to get a witness. I don't even think Archbishop Welby particularly checked out Bishop Curry's past preaching. He must have relied on things he heard about Curry from other sources. If Welby had viewed any of Curry's past sermons, I'm surprised no alarm bells rung. If they did, it was likely after the announcement had been made, and thus too late to make a change.

Regarding the best parts of the wedding, for me, Harry's nervousness before seeing Meghan was palpable and disarming. The looks on both of their faces as Meghan walked down the aisle and when she reached the altar made the wedding for me (particularly when Prince Harry carefully and devotedly lifted Meghan's veil, which the BBC camera almost missed)! I was also moved by Prince Charles' gentlemanly elegance and charm, Doria's proud motherly emotions writ large on her face, the young violinist's bravura performance, Lady Jane Fellowes' emotional reading from the Song of Solomon (which conjured memories of Diana PofW), the Stand By Me rendition, and the lovely chorus sounds when M&H exited the church.

St. George's Chapel was beautifully decorated. And the look on one of the Mulroney twins' faces standing behind Meghan at the church entrance when the horns' revelry sounded, was priceless. Also the soprano and the music (largely chosen by Prince Charles) was absolutely moving, beautiful, and soul-stirring.

 

[Denville]

She had plenty of male friends that sat in the Quire, but I suppose she wanted to ask Prince Charles, and he seemed pleased. This isn't a traditional wedding as one might expect, but certainly not embarrassing by any means. In fact, I've seen a number of coverage calling it the most romantic royal wedding. And no, Meghan and Harry didn't behave in any inappropriate way. They smiled a lot and was clearly so in love and happy to be married. There was one time where there was laughter, but so was most of the congregation, and even AoC found it amusing.

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

 

[jacqui24]

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.

 

[jacqui24]

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

It’s the area where family and close friends were sitting. They can see the couple. Everyone in Nave is watching it on a screen I believe.

 

[Denville]

It’s the area where family and close friends were sitting. They can see the couple. Everyone in Nave is watching it on a screen I believe.

I see it is an alternative spelling for Choir.. I've never seen It before

 

[MaiaMia_53]

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.

It's fun dissecting everything and talking about the minor things that did not go exactly as planned, but that's the wonderful thing about weddings. I don't see any need whatsoever to characterize this beautiful wedding in an overly negative fashion, as seemingly some people feel the need to do. I think I have been fair in my critical comments about Bishop Curry. Once again, it doesn't mean he wasn't well-intentioned. Even the Queen's p.r. official has subsequently attributed the caught on-camera amused looks by some of the royal family as being a result of 'cultural' differences. I find that laughable, but the acquiescent statement from the palace I think is due to the fact they feel no reason to make an inordinate fuss about something that was not tragic or truly negative. The ad-libbing, over-long tone-deaf performance was simply unexpected, but it ultimately caused no harm.

I have seen Bishop Curry talking since the wedding. He seems slightly defensive in regard to some of the criticisms and questions about his performance, but overall he's a well-meaning man of God who harbors the best intentions. I think he was a bit over-enthusiastic and somewhat nervous which may have lent itself to some of his over-dramatic posturing and ad-libbing. I have to laugh when he spoke about Prince Harry looking at him encouragingly. Harry was simply being kind. It's actually Bishop Curry who needed to be giving Meghan and Harry the encouragement!

I do agree @Osipi that Welby and Curry seemed to share a good relationship, particularly before the wedding. Immediately afterward, I saw a clip where they were a bit tensely trying to defend questions by the BBC about Curry's remarks and performance. I think it all blew over, particularly because the U.S. press and audience largely gave a resounding thumbs-up to Curry. While I disagree that Curry hit a home-run, I am chill about the fact that he was well-intentioned and there was a good message in his remarks. He just needed to tie it all together better and stay within the 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 Windsor Castle and hopping into the blue electric-powered sportscar for the drive to Frogmore House, is another divine and memorable moment. Seeing Diana PofW's sparkling aquamarine ring on Meghan's finger was a to-die-for, transcendant and envy-inducing experience.

 

[jacqui24]

I see it is an alternative spelling for Choir.. I've never seen It before

I believe the Brits go by Quire. That’s how it was all spelled during the wedding reporting. Even in US publications. Since it’s their church, I go by their spelling of it.

 

[Denville]

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