Saturday, 30 April 2011

Pomp and circumstance...

OK I have to admit having watched the thing, I do see why the royals vetoed the Chasers.

The Royal Wedding was an absolutely splendid show that truly illustrated the importance of ritual - and why ditching it was such a disastrous mistake for the Church.  The last thing one would want is to go to all that effort and have its effects subverted out here in the colonies...

Not for Prince William the uniform of the Air Force flight lieutenant that he works at as his current day job; instead he dressed as a Colonel of the Irish Guard (an honorary position his grandmother granted him a month or two back): this is the heir presumptive to the throne, not just another officer. 

Not for this wedding the modern, rather catholic-banal wording of the Anglican ritual, but rather something rather more Sarum Rite in tone (Joshua has a rundown on where it all comes from).

It was all truly splendid.

And now we must pray that there was substance beneath all the glitter, and that the happy couple truly have learnt the lessons from the disasters of Charles and Di's marriage, and take their marriage vows seriously (unlike most of the rest of the royal family).  I'd have to say that their co-habitation prior to the marriage doesn't seem a positive sign however - how very far we have departed from the traditional, and morally appropriate, treatment of such a relationship on the part of a royal or anyone else!

Oh yes, and despite the power of the ritual I'd still prefer a local monarch (or better still a republic with an elected Prez).  Sorry, just don't have that Brit connection.  Bring on King/President for life Lord Nicholas Windsor!

And tomorrow the next bit of contested ritual, with that beatification...


A Canberra Observer said...

My thoughts were similar.

The texts of the ceremony were beautiful AND orthodox - they portayed a very traditional schema of marriage and society, of the primacy of Christ. Even the sermon of the Bishop of London seemed to me very good.

Perhaps, despite all else, this ceremony televised to so many millions will play its part in the evangelisation of all nations.

And yes, but that we (the Catholic Church) had such beautiful texts in our OF vernacular liturgical books.

One might also have wondered if this was in another time/space dimension - not the grisly libertarian state of modern Britain.

But the monarchy still does represent even if only in remnant vestige some witness to the proper order of the state.

God save our Queen. The alternatives that are on offer at this moment in history are too terrible to contemplate.

Schütz said...

Oh yes, and despite the power of the ritual I'd still prefer a local monarch (or better still a republic with an elected Prez). Sorry, just don't have that Brit connection. Bring on King/President for life Lord Nicholas Windsor!

Well, Kate, does that mean that you would support my model for an elective constitutional monarchy for Australia? (for those not familiar with my proposal, see the side bar of my blog at

Kate said...

David - I'm afraid not! My first preferance would actually be for something along the lines of the Irish model, because I would really like to see those reserve powers codified and properly constrained!

But if we did have to accept a more minimalist approach, I don't see why we would needa resident monarch and a GG - one or the other only would surely be enough!

By the way, out of historical curiosity, does anyone know if Pius V's bull excommunicating Elizabeth I for heresy and absolving her subjects of their duty to obey her (see: ever officially revoked or explicitly overriden in respect of her successors?

Kate said...

RJ comments:

"Given that James I was, for a short while, in the Vatican's good books - at least before the Gunpowder Plot - and that the Vatican also considered a Catholic restoration in Britain under Charles I to be on the cards (greatly overestimating the political clout of Henrietta Maria in the process), I can only assume that the 1570 bull applied to its stated target alone."