Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,876
Reply with quote  #31 
I've had the displeasure of visiting Sheffield a few times. Though surrounded by lovely countryside it is an ugly, squalid dump of a city. Looks like its new Lord Mayor will be ideally suited to it. Moving on, it's the big day tomorrow at last. I can't wait, not least because we'll maybe have some relief for a while from the circus in general and the buzzing horde of relatives circling like flies in particular. None of which is the fault of either Prince Harry or Ms. Markle, he attracts publicity just by existing and having come into his orbit she now does the same. But hopefully tomorrow will be all about ceremony and spectacle and a couple joining together, not the egos and all-important bank balances of those who happen to be related to the bride.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
I've had the displeasure of visiting Sheffield a few times. Though surrounded by lovely countryside it is an ugly, squalid dump of a city. Looks like its new Lord Mayor will be ideally suited to it.


Perhaps with Somalia as his model of a functioning system of government, and as constitutional monarchy is too "archaic" for him, perhaps the Lord Mayor would like to move back to his motherland and enjoy the benefits of his non-"archaic" fine tuned super modern system of government. [mad]

In the mean time, Meghan Markel has asked the Prince of Wales to walk her down the aisle on her wedding day.  Reports indicate that the Prince is very touched by the request.  This makes me like her very much since I'm a huge Charles fan.

https://www.inquisitr.com/4904689/prince-charles-is-touched-that-meghan-markle-asked-him-to-walk-her-down-the-aisle-at-royal-wedding/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+google%2FyDYq+%28The+Inquisitr+-+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results

It was also announced that the Duke of Edinburgh has deemed himself to be sufficiently recovered from his recent surgery to attend his grandson's wedding alongside the Queen.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royalwedding2018/prince-philip-will-attend-royal-wedding-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle/ar-AAxsBAc?li=BBoPRmx

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,858
Reply with quote  #33 
I like this quote: "For that matter, if anyone doubts that Americans are susceptible to the lure of constitutional monarchy, they need only contemplate the status and trappings of the modern presidency.[smile]

https://www.weeklystandard.com/philip-terzian/americans-should-care-about-the-royal-wedding-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,876
Reply with quote  #34 
Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. Nice enough I suppose. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, so Wales might feel that it missed its turn.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,876
Reply with quote  #35 
Weather spectacular, setting unsurpassable, crowds enormous, bride radiant and especially stunning, dress everything it should be and more. The music was perhaps more eclectic than usual for such an occasion, but everything worked well and fitted in. Royalcello I am sure will have been delighted at the showcasing of his instrument, played captivatingly by a nineteen-year-old British man, evidently a star of the future, if he isn't one now. I was certainly enthralled. No complaints at all about anything, really, one couldn't ask for it all to have gone better. The homily was, um, different. Undeniably memorable, though. All that remains is to wish Their Royal Highnesses many happy years together, hopefully with children around them in time to come.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,807
Reply with quote  #36 
Yes, agreed on all counts!
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,497
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
"The music was perhaps more eclectic than usual for such an occasion"...  "The homily was, um, different. Undeniably memorable, though."


Very true. 

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,876
Reply with quote  #38 
The address seems to have generally been very well-received, attracting enormous attention and lavish praise. Me, I could have wished for more intellectual rigour and less length. But it certainly culdn't be faulted for fervency or for its basic sentiments. I was very pleased to discover this morning that the most reverend gentleman is an enthusiastic proponent of equal marriage rights. What's more, he really gets it from what seems to me a truly Christian perspective. Said by him in response to the Anglican Communion's 2016 sanctions on the Episcopal Church for permitting celebration of same-sex marriages:

Quote:
Our commitment to be an inclusive church is not based on a social theory or capitulation to the ways of the culture, but on our belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all. While I understand that many disagree with us, our decision regarding marriage is based on the belief that the words of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians are true for the church today: All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ. For so many who are committed to following Jesus in the way of love and being a church that lives that love, this decision will bring real pain. For fellow disciples of Jesus in our church who are gay or lesbian, this will bring more pain. For many who have felt and been rejected by the church because of who they are, for many who have felt and been rejected by families and communities, our church opening itself in love was a sign of hope. And this will add pain on top of pain
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,858
Reply with quote  #39 
The problem is, the SJWs and identity freaks are never going to be satisfied with anything and Prince Harry's marriage will not change their opinions.

In Britain and the Commonwealth, the younger royals have to shore up the popularity of the monarchy, but they also will preside over societies which are increasingly divided and you might say dangerously so, akin to 1930s Spain. Perhaps our monarchy is the one thing that can prevent it from being so?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,103
Reply with quote  #40 
Brilliant ceremony. Very little more to ask for. 

World-seduced prelates like Bishop Curry may be one reason why I'm more or less an ex-Anglican, but I saw little wrong very wrong with his speech (he was perhaps a little exuberant), despite a little grousing from some quarters.

Navigating between contemporary mores and tradition is a challenge the monarchy faces now more than ever, but I'm optimistic about the future. It remains to be seen how William and Harry's generation will do this after the steadying influence of Her Majesty and HRH is no longer present, but there are encouraging signs.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,858
Reply with quote  #41 
But the question is, how much do the Royal Family and British civilisation have to give away just to satisfy everyone? I guess it leaves a poor taste in the mouth when we have Black Lives Matter, Rhodes Must Fall, Mugabe, Malema and the rest screeching hatred for the West, especially for Anglo-Saxon people and culture. And we have the murders of farmers in South Africa which too few in the West seem to care about. The Royals themselves may not parrot the "white guilt" line and all, but in general the feeling is that Britain and the Commonwealth (and the US, which is relevant here) seem to want to be doing too much to "make amends" for alleged wrongs.

My point is that nothing, absolutely nothing, Britain and the Royal Family will do is going to change their minds. It's even more the case with royal families on the continent. When you consider what Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips and Ed West all said, it's that the political and cultural Establishment is too oblivious to what's going on and too willing to appease, such has been our post-WWII consensus on things which is starting to fray. Theodore said as much on his blog - niceness isn't going to be enough in these times.

By contrast, it seems that non-European royalty, especially Middle Eastern ones, have a greater awareness of who their enemies are and know that appeasement isn't an option. Sure, they mostly present a positive and pleasant image to the public, but they know that niceness simply isn't enough. Perhaps because they're aware of 1979 and 1958 before that, being too close to home. Keep in mind that at least two of the current Arab royal heirs are in the same generation as the Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex, and what I can see possess a remarkable grasp of what is necessary to preserve their system. They know have to, knowing the costs, in contrast to the security and shelter European royals have enjoyed for decades.

Now please don't get me wrong here. Don't take this as being sour, pessimistic and defeatist because I am not any of those things. I am saying that some concerns are legitimate and must be taken on board in uncharted waters.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,876
Reply with quote  #42 
Hmmm, I wouldn't say world-seduced. On the speech, the over-enthusiasm was itself engaging, but went on too long and one got tired. Or at least I did. It actually reads better than its delivery made it seem, in my opinion. There's good stuff in there which was easy to miss while wondering what a Pentecostalist was doing in episcopal robes. There are just two sections I strongly disagree with intellectually, the 'law and the prophets' part and the fire section.

Not so much an intellectual disagreement as a personal preference, Teilhard de Chardin's attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable do not imoress me and never have. Nor did they impress the Catholic hierarchy of the time, though opinions since have become much warmer. The general response of scientists to his work has always been 'claptrap', 'piffle', and other such polite evaluations, and I lean more to that and would not have been citing him. These difference aside, good speech. And it certainly didn't ruin what absolutely was a brilliant ceremony.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,103
Reply with quote  #43 
Bishop Curry could spend a little more time trying to understand how the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the divines of the Church used terms like love - he should live and breathe these authorities, if he is to make a genuine Christian argument for innovation, rather just absorbing contemporary ideas and using the most general notions drawn from Scripture to dismiss the longheld teaching of the Church (sometimes even explicitly supported by Scripture).

I have never had much time for Teilhard de Chardin myself, either, though, from what I know of him, his doctrine was theological and philosophical, not scientific.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #44 
The wedding was magnificent.  In my opinion the  Duchess of Sussex was one of the most breathtaking royal brides of recent times.  The simplicity of her dress and her dramatic veil really complimented the magnificent Queen Mary Filigree tiara (as a jewelers son, I hate it when an outfit takes attention away from a truly sumptuous piece of fine jewelry).  She was beautiful, and the Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex looked dashing in their Blues & Royals uniforms.  I thought it was very touching how very much in love they appeared with their glowing looks to each other.  No one these days does royal pagentry like the British.

I liked Bishop Curry's address, but thought he was a bit over animated for a royal wedding.  I don't like being distracted by wild arm movements during speeches.

There were a few moments that seemed to be a bit off, like H.R.H. Princess Mabereng Seeiso (wife of Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, one of just a few foreign royals to attend) who appeared to fall asleep during Bishop Curry's address.  Perhaps it was a secret protest on the part of a Roman Catholic Princess against a Protestant sermon.  Mike Tindal seemed at one point to be nuzzling his pregnant wife Zara Philips who seemed to be shooing him off her, not quite what you'd expect at a royal wedding, but a bit of what you'd expect from Mike Tindal.  Seeing that they were seated immediately behind the Queen, you'd think he'd try to be a bit more decorous, but I didn't think it was too bad.  There was considerable grumbling from certain quarters that the Duke and Duchess did not bow/curtsey to the Queen before they left the chapel.  It was later explained that the live feed had cut it out, but that they had indeed done homage.  I would have loved to see it, so shame on who ever was responsible for that.  There was the predictable snobbery about the guest list being dominated by "athletes and actresses" but I didn't mind that so much either.  It would have been nice to see more royals than just Prince and Princess Seeiso, and Princess Xenia of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, at this wedding.  Many comentators had no idea who they were, focused as they were on the cast of Suits, George and Amal Clooney and the Beckhams.  Princess Xenia of Hohenlohe-Langenburg walked into the chapel largely unrecognized by the media who all recognized her companion, singer Joss Stone, who is a friend of Prince Harry.  Joss Stone caused considerable outrage among many for visibly chewing gum during the services.

The one moment that I found most impressive was at the end, when everyone sang God Save the Queen, and the camera focused on Her Majesty, the lone person not singing.  It always impresses me deeply to see the anthem sung in her presence.  The new Duchess sang with apparent enthusiasm.  Good for her.

I was especially impressed to hear that the bride used a good portion of her unprecedented speech at the evening reception to pay tribute to the Prince of Wales for his kindness to her and to her mother and being so welcoming.  Because I am such a fan of Prince Charles, it makes me like her even more.  now if we could just block out those hideous paternal relatives from our memories.... 


__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 380
Reply with quote  #45 
Thanks for the previous comments. It was enjoyable watching the Royal Wedding on Saturday morning, an appropriate mix of tradition with modernity. I enjoyed seeing the Windsor Castle grounds and premises, as well as St. George's Chapel, which are rarely shown on American television. I also enjoyed seeing the Household Cavalry, with their plume-bedecked uniforms, and armor. And it was nice seeing the Windsor Grays, as well as the darker horses. 

I was a bit surprised that the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed Prince Harry as "Harry", rather than "Henry", when he recited the marriage vows. Nevertheless, it was appropriate, as that's how the Prince is known to the public. And being a younger son, some informality was suitable.

Bishop Curry was indeed overly-exuberant for an Episcopalian, although I wouldn't quite call him a Pentecostalist. But he did seem to favor some Pentecostal imagery, perhaps because he comes from Dixie. Fortunately, he confined himself to arm-waving, and refrained from rolling, fainting, or speaking in tongues. Meghan herself comes from an eclectic religious background, and she officially became an Anglican a short time ago.

Harry's being created Duke of Sussex and Earl of Dumbarton  is the second creation for both these titles. The first Duke of Sussex was a younger son of King George III, whose 2 marriages weren't recognised, and whose natural son couldn't inherit his ducal title, which expired upon the first Duke's death. The county of Sussex, the territorial basis of the new ducal title, is located in south England, part of the Home Counties area. During Anglo-Saxon times, it was part of the kingdom of the South Saxons.

The first Earl of Dumbarton was a member of the Douglas family, of Scottish nobility. He supported King James II during the Glorious Revolution, and went into exile with that king in France. The first Earl was succeeded by his only son. The second Earl was also a Jacobite in his youth, though he later returned to Britain, made his peace with the royal government, served in the military, and was appointed by King George I as a representative to the Russian Imperial Court. The second Earl never married or had children, so his title expired upon his death. The territorial basis of Harry's new comital title is the county of Dumbarton in central Scotland, originally part of the old historic Scottish kingdom of Dalriada.

The Northern Irish title Baron of Kilkeel is a brand-new creation, never having existed before. It is territorially based upon the town of Kilkeel, in County Down, in the province of Ulster.

Hopefully Harry and Meghan will be the progenitors of a lineage that will carry these titles long into the future.  






__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.