Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: Church Service, Carriage Procession - May 19, 2018

[jacqui24]

I just find that statement really sad, she had to fill the empty seats on her side with his friends.

She hardly needed help filling up on her side. She had friends that were pushed into the nave. I couldn't believe it when I saw that Rick Hoffman was in the Nave. They are very close. She likely considered that some of these friends have known Harry for a long time or have acted as mentor to him. to Harry and give up a few seats on her side as the BRF filled the other side. Seats are hard to come by in the quire when it's less than 80 before the choir given the size of the BRF.

 

[Countessmeout]

Yes, you're right of course. I didn't really look at the seating chart. It looked like she didn't have many guests of her own, then, except for the girlfriends so her side must have been "beefed up" a bit. Although, obviously, many of Harry's frinds must have become her friends, too now.

Were Hugh and Rose van Cutsem there?

Not sure. Only Van Cutsems I know for sure were Florence and her parents. And Elizabeth, who is the matriarch of the family. She was seated next to Jack. If Hugh, William or Edward and their wives were there, they were in the naïve.

 

[Purrs]

Loves:

The kids were adorable. The Litt twins - especially the one who got so overcome with excitement at the trumpet fanfare - were ADORBS. I loved them holding Meghan's veil - they were SO PROUD and so excited to do their jobs. I loved that.

I agree with almost everything you said. One small correction, the twins holding the veil were Brian and John Mulroney (the Litts Rylan and Remi are girls and were bridesmaids corrected to edit: they aren't twins as I first typed, they are a year apart.). Those boys are the grandsons of our former Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney (Ben, wife of Jessica is his son), their sister Ivy was also a bridesmaid.

 

[FashionMaven]

For me personally, the most disappointing aspect of today was the at times truly abysmal and shoddy camera work. They missed so many important elements in favour of random and prolonged focus on guests(and not even on the main RBF) who unfortunately lacked the necessary poise to consider the event they were at. The curtsy and bow, the kiss in the carriage, etc, etc.

Yes I'm still upset about the camera work. I was livid that they basically missed the curtsy and that second kiss. Whoever was doing the camera work shouldn't be allowed to do it again. Ever.

 

[Sunnystar]

I agree with almost everything you said. One small correction, the twins holding the veil were Brian and John Mulroney (the Litts twins, Rylan and Remi are girls and were bridesmaids). Those boys are the grandsons of our former Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney (Ben, wife of Jessica is his son), their sister Ivy was also a bridesmaid.

The Litt girls aren't twins. One is 6 and the other is 7, so they're close enough in age that they are likely easily mistaken for twins (I know - my brothers are 14 months apart and people used to think they were twins when they were kids, even though they really didn't look like twins to anyone who knew them, lol).

 

[Countessmeout]

I agree with almost everything you said. One small correction, the twins holding the veil were Brian and John Mulroney (the Litts twins, Rylan and Remi are girls and were bridesmaids). Those boys are the grandsons of our former Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney (Ben, wife of Jessica is his son), their sister Ivy was also a bridesmaid.

Small correction to yours as well..... there was only one set of twins. Remi and Rylan are not twins. They are a year apart (maybe 2). Remi is 6, Rylan I have heard 7 or 8 (assume maybe turning 8?).

Ivy is actually Isabel. But her initials are IV (Veronica is her middle) so she got the nickname Ivy early on. ? Ivy's middle name is for her maternal grandmother. Brian and John are named for the PM and his later brother.

 

[simmchen]

They met when Meghan moved to London or so reports say, so since late October of last year.

There were a number of Harry's friends on Meghan's side. I guess they are now hers as well but still. Charlie and Thomas Van Strabaneeze. Edward Lane Fox and a few others. So Elton certainly could have sat over there. He seems to have more/longer connection then Oprah and the Clooneys. The Suits cast was also in the naïve and have known her for seven years. But I guess probably couldn't put the whole cast in the choir, so instead of picking one or two, put them all together in the naïve.

Royal wedding who's who of those sitting in the best seats at Harry and Meghan's marriage | Daily Mail Online



She hardly knows Oprah, or the Clooneys. And there are a number of Harry's friends and employees on her side if you look at the seating chart.

Harry and William have had a continued relationship with Elton since before their mother died. It was not coincidence he was chosen to perform at their afternoon reception.

Rumor has it Oprah was the "friend" that set them up on the blind date.

 

[Ish]

I believe Zalia is a twin as well, but her sister (India) was not in the wedding party.

 

[Grandma828]

Doria and Oprah go to the same church.

 

[Countessmeout]

I believe Zalia is a twin as well, but her sister (India) was not in the wedding party.

Yes, she is a twin indeed. Sorry meant only twins both involved. ?

Rumor has it Oprah was the "friend" that set them up on the blind date.

I have never heard anyone suggest that before. I don't even know she is linked to one of the two closest enough to play matchmaker. They were set up by a common friend. Oprah certainly doesn't fit that.

Top contenders are:

Misha Nonoo who is good friends with Meghan (sat in the choir seats). She was married to Alexander Gilkes, who is an old friend of Harry's from Eton. And Eugenie's boss when she worked in NY.

Or the woman portrayed in the movie, Violet von Westenholz. Violet's father, a former Olympic skier is a good friend of Prince Charles. Violet worked with Ralph Lauren and styled Meghan at some point.

 

[MARG]

At some point after the engagement, they managed to nail down the 'culprit', Violet von Westenholz. I can't remember whether it was confirmed by her in the papers or tv.

 

[Countessmeout]

At some point after the engagement, they managed to nail down the 'culprit', Violet von Westenholz. I can't remember whether it was confirmed by her in the papers or tv.

Eonline reported in January that they had an 'inside source close to the couple' who confirmed it was Violet. Inside sources I always take with a major grain of salt. Nothing was ever confirmed by the couple or her.

Violet was at the wedding. She was the woman in blue seen walking with Kitty Spencer.

 

[Dani257]

They did right after the God Save The Queen. But it was an aerial shot, so it was really difficult to see. I went back and looked at it, and she curtsied and Harry bowed.

Honestly, that camera angle burns me up. It just gives too much ammunition for some to criticize her when she did exactly what she was supposed to do.

 

[EarloftheSea]

I’ve been a long-time lurker and learned a lot from other posters at this site. (Helped me step my royalty nerd game! ) And this conversation about the sermon spurred me to make an account finally.
Bishop Curry spoke for 14 minutes while the Bishop of London spoke for 7 ½ minutes at Will and Kate’s wedding, a difference of 6 ½ minutes. So, I’ll admit it might have been a little long in the context of this ceremony. But I don’t think it was the length that was the issue. Some people kept asking: “Why mention slavery? Why did he mention Facebook and Instagram? What was all that talk about fire?” I think the different style may have thrown people off so much that they lost focus on the message. I’d hate to come off snobby (especially for my first post! lol), but I think some people might have missed the forest for the trees because of it.

First, he starts by rereading the last part of Song of Solomon, the same scripture Lady Fellowes read earlier. Then he gives a talk about love in general as relates to Harry and Meghan and the people that love them. That part I think people were ok with. But then he talks about the redemptive power of love in the context of Christ’s death/sacrifice, which I think would be expected in a Christian sermon in a Christian church service and about how redemptive love could help build a better, more peaceful and just world. He only mentioned the old spiritual Balm In Gilead to make a point about that. At the end of that, he, again, quotes the scripture from Song of Solomon: That love is like a raging fire that cannot be quenched or drowned. Then he goes into the fire bit. And funny enough the part about fire was only the last 2 ½ minutes of the sermon, lol. That bit actually summed up his entire theme about the power of love. He started that part by quoting a theologian that said that discovering and harnessing fire was one of the most significant events in human history, pretty much responsible in some way for every other great advancement ever made, like the Bronze Age or the combustion engine. The thing about texting and Facebook and Instagram was about how we can have all these social media platforms and ways of communicating with each other and still be disconnected as a society – i.e., without love. It’s a standard preacher throwaway line. And the crowd must have gotten the joke, as they laughed at the right part of it. He ended by saying that if we can harness the power of love, it would be like harnessing fire again, meaning to change the world radically. I related back to the parts of his sermon where he talked about love being the way to help to address poverty, hunger, and helping treat each other better, like a big human family. That’s where the reference to MLK Jr. came into play.

I’ve listened to the sermon a few times now and must say I like it more and more every time I do! For me, it wasn’t just a generic sermon about love-in-general, but about how love has the power to change the world for the better, if, we are able and willing to use that power. For two people like Harry and Meghan, who seem to want to do good in the world, it seemed a perfect fit.

 

[Denville]

I wasn't a huge fan of the service - it was a bit long, and I wasn't entirely sure what he was getting at at a few points. I will agree

For Harry though... his body language was showing signs of discomfort and nerves from the moment he arrived. I wouldn't think that he was cross with Reverend Curry in any way, or thinking that his wedding ceremony had been ruined - I think he was just showing a lot of nerves in general.

I thought H looked frankly terrified at the beginning, then he and Meg started to giggle and smirk all the time.. at which point I gave up watching.. it was embarrassing...

 

[W.Y.CII]

Honestly, that camera angle burns me up. It just gives too much ammunition for some to criticize her when she did exactly what she was supposed to do.

Some just need a reason to criticize. If they want to be blind to the truth nobody can stop them.

 

[Countessmeout]

I wouldn't use the word terrified. I don't think he was scared. But he did share the discomfort of many of the Brits in the crowd.

I admit I changed the channel for a bit. I didn't find myself able to watch all.

 

[Denville]

I wouldn't use the word terrified. I don't think he was scared. But he did share the discomfort of many of the Brits in the crowd.

I admit I changed the channel for a bit. I didn't find myself able to watch all.

What discomfort? I've heard people here discussing the wedding last night and they were critical of various things such as the sermon, which I missed, the vows etc. But I thought what was worst was H and M giggling. its a public solemn wedding and they seemed to be unable to control themselves. And there were other things, such as the lack of a proper bridesmaid.. meghan apparently having no friends or family who could escort her....

 

[Osipi]

I think I've figured out where all the snafu with the bow and curtsy to the Queen came in.

Looking at previous royal weddings, when the ceremony ended, the bride and groom were in front of the altar and as they headed straight down the aisle, they stopped in front of the Queen and bowed and curtsied. I think this is what most people expected.

With Harry and Meghan, the ceremony ended as they emerged from the registry and they were standing there facing the Queen as "God Save The Queen" was played and this is when they bowed and curtsied then went into the recessional out of the Chapel from there.

Everyone was looking for them to pause as they passed the Queen which didn't need to happen because they had already done the respects standing in front of the registry.

 

[Tarlita]

My friends and I enjoyed watching Meghan become HRH The Duchess of Sussex And Countess of Dunbarton And Baroness of Kilkeel. Not sure of the spelling of that last one. Anyway we enjoyed watching and celebrating for the happy couple.
So pleased for them that they had glorious weather. And Doria looked lovely too. I was very happy for her. Just as well she didn't tear up or I would have teared up too.

 

[Countessmeout]

What discomfort? I've heard people here discussing the wedding last night and they were critical of various things such as the sermon, which I missed, the vows etc. But I thought what was worst was H and M giggling. its a public solemn wedding and they seemed to be unable to control themselves. And there were other things, such as the lack of a proper bridesmaid.. meghan apparently having no friends or family who could escort her....

She didn't have 'lack of a proper friend', it was explained that she couldn't choose between her friends. She certainly isn't the only royal bride not to have an adult bridesmaid. Diana didn't. Sarah didn't. Sophie didn't. To imply she has no friends All the women surrounding her mother in the choir seats, and men, like Jessica, Lindsay, Benita, Markus, Janina, Heather and Misha to name a few, show she certainly had a great deal of support.

Since when is a wedding meant to be solemn? Its not a funeral, its a happy occasion. The couple are meant to be happy and smiling. Yes, giggling is odd during a sermon, but it says more about the sermon of the priest in question. I found he looked uncomfortable through it, some of the laughter may even be from the discomfort, not used to such a sermon.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Wildly inappropriate?

It was a different presentation than some are used to, but his message was important and thoughtful. If anything was inappropriate, it was the behavior of a guest or two.

To each his/her own. I found it over the top...like he was trying too hard or auditioning for laughs. I got up and went for a snack and came back and he was still "performing".

I am not a Protestant but I have attended many "down home" sermons in churches by preachers like Curry and have enjoyed them. If the preachers at these services had suddenly veered off into a monotone on say...Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Augustine's homilies on the nature of divine grace, I would have become bored, confused and irritated.

That's what happened this morning. Curry was not preaching before an American down home audience. He was in a thousand years old ancient historic edifice, in the presence of the Queen of England at the wedding of her grandson. Eloquence, reverence , spirituality and a feel for the history of his surroundings were what was called for, not unfunny jokes, references to Instagram and Oprah swaying in her seat (thankfully I missed that).

As I said, he started off beautifully but completely dropped the ball after about five minutes.

 

[Denville]

She didn't have 'lack of a proper friend', it was explained that she couldn't choose between her friends. She certainly isn't the only royal bride not to have an adult bridesmaid. Diana didn't. Sarah didn't. Sophie didn't. To imply she has no friends All the women surrounding her mother in the choir seats, and men, like Jessica, Lindsay, Benita, Markus, Janina, Heather and Misha to name a few, show she certainly had a great deal of support.

Since when is a wedding meant to be solemn? Its not a funeral, its a happy occasion. The couple are meant to be happy and smiling. Yes, giggling is odd during a sermon, but it says more about the sermon of the priest in question. I found he looked uncomfortable through it, some of the laughter may even be from the discomfort, not used to such a sermon.

I didn't hear the sermon.. but yes a wedding IS meant to be solemn and a royal wedding, a public occasion is meant to be serious, ceremonious and dignified. H and Meg were giggling almost every time I chanced back ot the service.. and I gather that many of the guests were giggling during the sermon which was disrespectful, even if the sermon was not really appropriate....

 

[PtahHotep]

To everyone still harping on Rev. curry's sermon-----------there is this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/997852932442853376

A TODAY Video
Fun factoid: we all assumed The Kingdom Choir was a Harry/Meghan pick, but no! Turns out Prince Charles is a gospel fan—his idea and invite came from Clarence House. As Shepard Smith said, the wedding proved Windsor is woke

Tina Brown is a pretty good source, I would think.

The BRF may not have picked Curry, but that does not mean they are not attuned to modern times. Who would have thought Charles is into Gospel. Mind-blowing.

Personally, I just think they could not take the style of what Curry said and the fervor with which he said. They're "dignified" people not used to be confronted in an indirect way with the fact that their ancestors built the slave trade?

Also it's obvious they have never encountered American-style "holy Ghost"-inspired Church Services. I wanted to go to Church and sing after hearing that sermon.

William was smiling (not Kate, unfortunately.) So was Meghan. Harry did not seem to have a problem with it. It was only some members that APPARENTLY took offense, so ultimately----what's the big deal? And it was M & H's wedding, not any others-----they chose it-------and the Queen signed off on it----so, again, what's the problem?

I didn't hear the sermon.. but yes a wedding IS meant to be solemn and a royal wedding, a public occasion is meant to be serious, ceremonious and dignified. H and Meg were giggling almost every time I chanced back ot the service.. and I gather that many of the guests were giggling during the sermon which was disrespectful, even if the sermon was not really appropriate....

Take it up with h & M and the Queen---they did not seem to mind.

And ALL weddings are supposed to be solemn?

First time I heard that.

 

[Denville]

Take it up with h & M and the Queen---they did not seem to mind.

And ALL weddings are supposed to be solemn?

First time I heard that.

Yes a wedding is a lifelong commitment and the foundation of a family.. so it is meant ot be solemn. As for "take it up with Harry and Meghan? they were doing the giglging….
I am not srue abuot the queen... I don't think she looked too pleased.. but I didn't watch all the wedding.. so I can't say I watched her a lot. the only thing I noticed was that Kate looked bored and irritated...

 

[King of the Jungle]

I watched Bishop Curry and I thought that he repeated things a bit - so too long.
Otherwise, he was fine and his style was expected.
I think the royal family enjoyed his performance. They've sat through many sermons so the scripture and meanings were well known. Non Christians/church goers might have been bored. Following up with the Gospel Choir was heavenly. It was breathtaking to hear them and also the other choir singin gthe Aaronic Blessing.
The music was to die for at this wedding.

That said, the wording and all other readings were in beautiful language so Bishop Curry was no better than what the Church of England had to offer, really. He added variety and an American component which was nice for Meghan.
Hey, aren't we all talking about him?!
The Queen looked tired but I'd be surprised if she were offended by Bishop Curry.

 

[maria-olivia]

Very last Wedding in the British Royal Family's Main Branch.
A lovely Wedding , a lot of Emotion , love , wonderful dress and Veil . Bravo
The best moments were when Meghan enterred alone the Church and the Soprane singing (?) and he Mother crying.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

To everyone still harping on Rev. curry's sermon-----------there is this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/997852932442853376

Tina Brown is a pretty good source, I would think.

The BRF may not have picked Curry, but that does not mean they are not attuned to modern times. Who would have thought Charles is into Gospel. Mind-blowing.

Personally, I just think they could not take the style of what Curry said and the fervor with which he said. They're "dignified" people not used to be confronted in an indirect way with the fact that their ancestors built the slave trade?

Also it's obvious they have never encountered American-style "holy Ghost"-inspired Church Services. I wanted to go to Church and sing after hearing that sermon.

William was smiling (not Kate, unfortunately.) So was Meghan. Harry did not seem to have a problem with it. It was only some members that APPARENTLY took offense, so ultimately----what's the big deal? And it was M & H's wedding, not any others-----they chose it-------and the Queen signed off on it----so, again, what's the problem?

Let's say you attended a wedding at one of these " holy ghost churches". Let's say bride was Catholic and invited her family priest to give a blessing.

Suddenly during his blessing the priest begins to harangue both the bridal couple and the congregation on the evils of legalized abortion and the genocide he believes has resulted since the Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade in 1973.

He then cautions the bridal couple against the use of contraceptives during their marriage, reminding them of the Christian admonition to "be fruitful and multiply". He throws in Mother Theresa's quote about abortion being the greatest evil in the world today.

His address goes on for nearly 20 minutes and includes feeble attempts at humor that fall completely flat.

As a non Catholic friend or family member and guest at this wedding would you feel confused? Offended?

Or would you take the position that dissenters simply "couldn't handle the truth"?

The point is not whether or not Bishop Curry's comments about the slave trade and British culpability were true or not just as my example about the Catholic priest giving a guest speech at a non Catholic wedding.

 

[AnneLo]

Close friends and family were in the Quire. The Middletons are general friends, not really that close to Harry or Meghan, close enough to get an invite. The Beckhams he knows through the odd charity event.

The only thing that surprises me, would have expected to swap Elton and David with George and Amal. Unless I am missing some connection, Elton seems to have more of a relationship with Harry.

Serena isn't just a 'charity connection'. She is a good friend of Meghan's. As Meghan had no family but her mother on her side, she had more room for personal friends.

Elton John is not close to Harry.
Back in March he said he “would like to be invited” and later confirmed that he wasn’t (now we know the invitation was possibly delayed). He never took it for granted and for me that means he and Harry are not really close.
I suppose Elton was invited uniquely because of his relationship with Diana and maybe because they wanted him to sing in the reception lol

As for Amal and Oprah in the Quire, I just don’t get it. I honestly never thought they were close enough with Meghan, and I still don’t think it’s the case. I mean, even the Suits crew would make more sense, as they’ve been working together for the last seven years. The guy who played Mike (forgot his name) was saying that Meghan was “like a sister” and I thought he looked a bit confused and surprised when taking his seat in the Nave.

 

[Muhler]

I didn't see the wedding, only a few video summaries.

One thing that struck me was Meghan's mother. I felt sorry for her sitting alone and being the only representative for Meghan's family. With no one to lean on in this for her most novel situation. No one close to share this with. - But then I thought: Well, perhaps I shouldn't feel sorry for her after all...

Meghan's family was on DK TV described as interesting, eccentric and unusual. Her mother being described as and I quote: "The only family member who has distinguished herself by not saying a word."

The US Bishop got quite a lot of mentioning and I think he can be labelled not a cultural fail, not even a cultural mismatch, but certainly a cultural clash - that is to be expected in what was very much a culturally mixed wedding.

It was certainly a sermon that stuck out in the more cool northern Europe, in front of a congregation that after all was consisting of mainly British Anglo-Saxons (in that category I will include quite a few, if not most, Britons present who happens to be black) and dare I say whites, from a culture where waving your arms around and talking loudly is generally considered over the top behavior. Not to mention interacting vocally with the priest during his sermon. Which is generally a huge no-no.
To me it looked like the bishop was used to and indeed expected a response from the congregation, which he simply would not get. Certainly not from the British audience and only to a limited extend from the American audience who were after all the guests. Not to mention that many of the Americans don't even subscribe to the style of sermon presented by the bishop.
So to my very detached eye, the bishop misread his audience.

Another thing that I noticed was that Harry, while waiting for his bride, looked like someone in serious need of a stiff drink!