The Royal Wedding

The future king of England, Prince William, is getting married to the future queen, presently the commoner Catherine Middleton.  This will happen really early in the morning, American time, on Friday in Westminster Abbey.

Now Republicans believe in a republic and Democrats believe in democracy.  But do any of you still feel the primal tug of monarchy?  If you are interested in this wedding, please tell us why.

The Royal Wedding.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Actually, HRH Prince Charles is the heir apparent to the throne of the UK and Commonwealth realms, Dr Veith, and is therefore “the future King”. Prince William is next in line after Charles, but if Charles has inherited the longevity of his matrilineal ancestors, it could be another generation before William is king. Sorry to be pedantic, but wars have been fought over such matters! :0)
    In any case, there is no sign of Her Majesty abdicating or shuffling off this mortal coil any time soon.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Actually, HRH Prince Charles is the heir apparent to the throne of the UK and Commonwealth realms, Dr Veith, and is therefore “the future King”. Prince William is next in line after Charles, but if Charles has inherited the longevity of his matrilineal ancestors, it could be another generation before William is king. Sorry to be pedantic, but wars have been fought over such matters! :0)
    In any case, there is no sign of Her Majesty abdicating or shuffling off this mortal coil any time soon.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Perhaps Her Majesty’s longevity is attributable to the fact that literally millions of British and Commonwealth school-children, such as myself, used to begin every day by singing “God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen”?

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Perhaps Her Majesty’s longevity is attributable to the fact that literally millions of British and Commonwealth school-children, such as myself, used to begin every day by singing “God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen”?

  • Carl Vehse

    But do any of you still feel the primal tug of monarchy?

    You mean to be under one… or to be one? ;-)

  • Carl Vehse

    But do any of you still feel the primal tug of monarchy?

    You mean to be under one… or to be one? ;-)

  • Cincinnatus

    I am occasionally a fan of monarchy, and the British royal family does not constitute a worthy monarchy. Last I checked, it was the duty of a monarch to rule, and British monarchs–too busy with scandals, weddings, and manners–haven’t done anything of the sort for many decades.

  • Cincinnatus

    I am occasionally a fan of monarchy, and the British royal family does not constitute a worthy monarchy. Last I checked, it was the duty of a monarch to rule, and British monarchs–too busy with scandals, weddings, and manners–haven’t done anything of the sort for many decades.

  • Ryan

    I and my little daughter I’ll be watching. Absolute Monarchy is of course the divinely mandated form of government, Jesus is king after all. (and since our brother is King, we are royalty too!) All other monarchies are reflections howeveroorely of that, just as a father is a reflection of the heavenly Father.

    My daughter is excited to see someone became a re real princess, and this is coupled through the fairy tail like method of a marriage to a prince.

    Me, I’m intensely liturgically curious to see what a Royal Wedding is like.

  • Ryan

    I and my little daughter I’ll be watching. Absolute Monarchy is of course the divinely mandated form of government, Jesus is king after all. (and since our brother is King, we are royalty too!) All other monarchies are reflections howeveroorely of that, just as a father is a reflection of the heavenly Father.

    My daughter is excited to see someone became a re real princess, and this is coupled through the fairy tail like method of a marriage to a prince.

    Me, I’m intensely liturgically curious to see what a Royal Wedding is like.

  • Darren

    I am mildly interested. I too grew up singing “God Save the Queen,” and I’m still a Canadian citizen (dual with the U.S.).

    I remember watching Charles’ and Diana’s wedding on a brand-new colour TV.

  • Darren

    I am mildly interested. I too grew up singing “God Save the Queen,” and I’m still a Canadian citizen (dual with the U.S.).

    I remember watching Charles’ and Diana’s wedding on a brand-new colour TV.

  • Ryan

    Typing on my new iPad is an interesting experience, sorry about the typos.

  • Ryan

    Typing on my new iPad is an interesting experience, sorry about the typos.

  • Louis

    Two reasons:

    He is likely to be my king in the future.
    Early indications are that he and Kate could make a decent job of it.

    Cincinnatus: Stop reading the tabloids.

  • Louis

    Two reasons:

    He is likely to be my king in the future.
    Early indications are that he and Kate could make a decent job of it.

    Cincinnatus: Stop reading the tabloids.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’ve joked about being a monarchist, and must consider the idea of a Constitutional monarchy to be a good way of doing it–mirroring God’s law in provisions for it–but the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha disabuses me of any idea that it would be a good thing.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’ve joked about being a monarchist, and must consider the idea of a Constitutional monarchy to be a good way of doing it–mirroring God’s law in provisions for it–but the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha disabuses me of any idea that it would be a good thing.

  • Porcell

    The British people have sensibly evolved a monarch who reigns with a certain tradition and grace along with a parliamentary democracy that rules. In America the president reigns to some small degree but mostly rules along with the Congress.

    The present Queen, Elizabeth, has reigned with dignity for fifty-nine years. One has the sense that her grandson, William, has the ability to someday achieve the grace of his grandmother and other creditable English monarchs. Kate Middleton, also, so far, has shown herself to be a worthy person, capable of the eminent position she will hold.

    It’s no accident that many American people are fascinated with the monarchy. It’s too bad that the Revolutionary War had to happen. Louis is lucky to live in a democratic country that has found a way to maintain its traditional reigning monarchy. I look forward to watching the wedding early Friday morning.

  • Porcell

    The British people have sensibly evolved a monarch who reigns with a certain tradition and grace along with a parliamentary democracy that rules. In America the president reigns to some small degree but mostly rules along with the Congress.

    The present Queen, Elizabeth, has reigned with dignity for fifty-nine years. One has the sense that her grandson, William, has the ability to someday achieve the grace of his grandmother and other creditable English monarchs. Kate Middleton, also, so far, has shown herself to be a worthy person, capable of the eminent position she will hold.

    It’s no accident that many American people are fascinated with the monarchy. It’s too bad that the Revolutionary War had to happen. Louis is lucky to live in a democratic country that has found a way to maintain its traditional reigning monarchy. I look forward to watching the wedding early Friday morning.

  • Louis

    Porcell, that is the second, no third time in a week we have agreed about something.

    ..checks pulse…

    Yes, I’m still alive.

    Here’s to you, Peter!

  • Louis

    Porcell, that is the second, no third time in a week we have agreed about something.

    ..checks pulse…

    Yes, I’m still alive.

    Here’s to you, Peter!

  • DonS

    The wedding will be at 3 AM west coast time, so I will not be watching :-)

    The monarchy is of mild interest to me, however, and William and Kate are an interesting couple. I wonder, if Queen Elizabeth lives a while longer, if the monarchy could somehow pass Charles over (it would have to be with his consent, I suppose), given that he is already around 60 years old, is relatively unpopular, and carries a lot of Camilla baggage. It would be good for the throne for it to pass directly to William, I would think.

  • DonS

    The wedding will be at 3 AM west coast time, so I will not be watching :-)

    The monarchy is of mild interest to me, however, and William and Kate are an interesting couple. I wonder, if Queen Elizabeth lives a while longer, if the monarchy could somehow pass Charles over (it would have to be with his consent, I suppose), given that he is already around 60 years old, is relatively unpopular, and carries a lot of Camilla baggage. It would be good for the throne for it to pass directly to William, I would think.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “The future king of England”. Hmm. It is a tad presumptuous at this point, isn’t it? We cannot know whether his father will out live him. Or, indeed, if Queen Elizabeth may outlive them all — or all of us (her power is in the hats).

    And, really, “of England”? I mean, yes, but I dare say he stands to be king of the whole United Kingdom — England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland! To say nothing of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and let’s not forget Tuvalu.

    Anyhow, if William Arthur Philip Louis [no surname!] really wanted me to see him get married, he’d have held the ceremony at a more amenable time than 3am. For the World Cup, I might get up at that hour? But to see the second in the line of succession get marrried? Afraid not. I do recall seeing the once-and-current First-in-Line get married back in the day. I think that will suffice.

    And though I’m not interested in the wedding itself, I was mildly fascinated by the Wikipedia article on the line of succession to the British throne. First, because I’d forgotten that, as Wikipedia notes, “anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic is permanently excluded from the line of succession.” Second, because the list itself is massive — comprising 2517 people! — and may well include me, as I haven’t yet searched. I did notice, for Lutheran interest, that 474th in line to the throne is one HH Prince Philipp of Hesse (b 1970). Oh, so they won’t allow Catholics, but bigamists are just fine? ;)

    Ach, just checked, and there’s not a single Todd to be found in the entire list! There are, however, over a dozen Olgas.

    Also, really, “Now Republicans believe in a republic and Democrats believe in democracy”? Come now. Does anyone really think that’s what those names imply?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “The future king of England”. Hmm. It is a tad presumptuous at this point, isn’t it? We cannot know whether his father will out live him. Or, indeed, if Queen Elizabeth may outlive them all — or all of us (her power is in the hats).

    And, really, “of England”? I mean, yes, but I dare say he stands to be king of the whole United Kingdom — England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland! To say nothing of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and let’s not forget Tuvalu.

    Anyhow, if William Arthur Philip Louis [no surname!] really wanted me to see him get married, he’d have held the ceremony at a more amenable time than 3am. For the World Cup, I might get up at that hour? But to see the second in the line of succession get marrried? Afraid not. I do recall seeing the once-and-current First-in-Line get married back in the day. I think that will suffice.

    And though I’m not interested in the wedding itself, I was mildly fascinated by the Wikipedia article on the line of succession to the British throne. First, because I’d forgotten that, as Wikipedia notes, “anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic is permanently excluded from the line of succession.” Second, because the list itself is massive — comprising 2517 people! — and may well include me, as I haven’t yet searched. I did notice, for Lutheran interest, that 474th in line to the throne is one HH Prince Philipp of Hesse (b 1970). Oh, so they won’t allow Catholics, but bigamists are just fine? ;)

    Ach, just checked, and there’s not a single Todd to be found in the entire list! There are, however, over a dozen Olgas.

    Also, really, “Now Republicans believe in a republic and Democrats believe in democracy”? Come now. Does anyone really think that’s what those names imply?

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis: I don’t have to read the tabloids to know that the English monarchy is very little more than a symbolic institution these days–barely deserving of the name, and probably not deserving the millions of pounds sterling it costs the British people every year, either.

    Seriously, what is the last decisive, monarchical thing the Queen (or any royal family member) has done that was of more than merely constitutional duty (reading a speech written by the PM doesn’t count)? It probably happened before most of us were born.

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis: I don’t have to read the tabloids to know that the English monarchy is very little more than a symbolic institution these days–barely deserving of the name, and probably not deserving the millions of pounds sterling it costs the British people every year, either.

    Seriously, what is the last decisive, monarchical thing the Queen (or any royal family member) has done that was of more than merely constitutional duty (reading a speech written by the PM doesn’t count)? It probably happened before most of us were born.

  • Cincinnatus

    that was of more than merely symbolic* value, not “constitutional duty”

    Don’t know what I was thinking.

  • Cincinnatus

    that was of more than merely symbolic* value, not “constitutional duty”

    Don’t know what I was thinking.

  • Porcell

    Cincinnatus, for the British people the monarchy is far from merely of symbolic value. Most of them revere the institution in that the monarch truly reigns, while the parliament democracy rules.

    The British people have found a way to effectively synthesize monarchy and democracy. They understand, unlike a few deluded academics around the world, that it is pure romanticism to return to a ruling monarchy.

  • Porcell

    Cincinnatus, for the British people the monarchy is far from merely of symbolic value. Most of them revere the institution in that the monarch truly reigns, while the parliament democracy rules.

    The British people have found a way to effectively synthesize monarchy and democracy. They understand, unlike a few deluded academics around the world, that it is pure romanticism to return to a ruling monarchy.

  • Louis

    Her representative, the Governor-General, under her (The Queen’s) authority (and hers alone), prorogued the Canadian Parliament in December 2008 to stop a potential disasterous political move by the opposition in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, thus ensuring Canada coming out of the recession far stronger than most. For instance.

    But even a purely symbolic monarchy is of immense value. It is not as if symbols mean nothing. They unite. But I guess unity is not high on the agenda of a “heartland isolationist”:)

    Kidding aside, the monarchy quite likely makes more money for Britain than costing it money. But that’s is difficult to quantify, I’ll concede.

    But my other point is always that there seems to be a natural inclination for humans to look for a Monarch. I’d rather take the House of Windsor (get that right, next time) than Trump, Hilton or even Kennedy.

  • Louis

    Her representative, the Governor-General, under her (The Queen’s) authority (and hers alone), prorogued the Canadian Parliament in December 2008 to stop a potential disasterous political move by the opposition in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, thus ensuring Canada coming out of the recession far stronger than most. For instance.

    But even a purely symbolic monarchy is of immense value. It is not as if symbols mean nothing. They unite. But I guess unity is not high on the agenda of a “heartland isolationist”:)

    Kidding aside, the monarchy quite likely makes more money for Britain than costing it money. But that’s is difficult to quantify, I’ll concede.

    But my other point is always that there seems to be a natural inclination for humans to look for a Monarch. I’d rather take the House of Windsor (get that right, next time) than Trump, Hilton or even Kennedy.

  • Cincinnatus

    Porcell: “Most” British people revere the monarchy? Where are the polls on that? Or am I to assume that you’ve spoken to most British people about this? Actually, the last poll I looked at indicates that “most” British people thing the monarchy will be extinct in the next 50-100 years, and a goodly number think it might even end upon the death of the Queen (I seriously doubt the latter proposition). I’m not issuing a value judgment here, but them’s the facts.

    Louis: I deny prima facie the “natural inclination for humans to look for a monarch.” I’ll certainly grant you a natural human inclination for order and, at times, leadership, but I deny that this figure–or figures!–need be of a monarchical character. There is no evidence for this claim, though it may be true that the weak and disenfranchised are always looking for a “strong man.”

    That the GG of Canada did something (unspecified) to “save” your country from a recession is not a good argument for the British monarchy. It might be a fabulous argument for separating the institutions of a nonpartisan state from the institutions of a partisan government–which is something we don’t have here in the United States–it is absolutely irrelevant to the legitimacy or utility of Queen Elizabeth II. (not even to mention the absurd argument that England should have a monarch because maybe she makes them money…in tourist dollars, I presume? In that case, maybe we should establish one to help the American economy.)

    Finally, I think you are correct that the symbolic qualities of monarchy and other institutions are quite valuable, but it’s not to my mind a sufficient justification for an immense edifice of monarchy. England didn’t establish monarchy because the person of the monarch mystically symbolized the unity of the people–this was an idea concocted rather late in monarchy’s history by Thomas Hobbes, on the one hand, and divine right theorists on the other–or because he serves as a nifty figurehead. (It’s also dubious to claim that the monarch actually symbolizes unity: ask some Scottish nationalists whether Elizabeth is their Queen.) Monarchy is a constitution of government, an office of leadership. Put simply, I find it nearly incredible that one could argue that the current British monarch “leads” in anything other than a purely nominal capacity. It’s even a bit beyond the pale to claim that England any longer has its once-famous “mixed government” of king, lords, and parliament. It’s just parliament–a liberal democracy–with a family of inbred, rich people who serve very little tangible purpose.

    This isn’t necessarily an argument for abolishing the monarchy. I would vote against such a proposal, for what it’s worth, and I think monarchy to be a perfectly legitimate mode of governance. But the point is that the British monarchy no longer matters, which is why the only people who care about this wedding are housewives, tabloids, and people who simply enjoy pomp and circumstance. This wedding has almost zero implications for politics, governance, or the future of England and the Commonwealth.

  • Cincinnatus

    Porcell: “Most” British people revere the monarchy? Where are the polls on that? Or am I to assume that you’ve spoken to most British people about this? Actually, the last poll I looked at indicates that “most” British people thing the monarchy will be extinct in the next 50-100 years, and a goodly number think it might even end upon the death of the Queen (I seriously doubt the latter proposition). I’m not issuing a value judgment here, but them’s the facts.

    Louis: I deny prima facie the “natural inclination for humans to look for a monarch.” I’ll certainly grant you a natural human inclination for order and, at times, leadership, but I deny that this figure–or figures!–need be of a monarchical character. There is no evidence for this claim, though it may be true that the weak and disenfranchised are always looking for a “strong man.”

    That the GG of Canada did something (unspecified) to “save” your country from a recession is not a good argument for the British monarchy. It might be a fabulous argument for separating the institutions of a nonpartisan state from the institutions of a partisan government–which is something we don’t have here in the United States–it is absolutely irrelevant to the legitimacy or utility of Queen Elizabeth II. (not even to mention the absurd argument that England should have a monarch because maybe she makes them money…in tourist dollars, I presume? In that case, maybe we should establish one to help the American economy.)

    Finally, I think you are correct that the symbolic qualities of monarchy and other institutions are quite valuable, but it’s not to my mind a sufficient justification for an immense edifice of monarchy. England didn’t establish monarchy because the person of the monarch mystically symbolized the unity of the people–this was an idea concocted rather late in monarchy’s history by Thomas Hobbes, on the one hand, and divine right theorists on the other–or because he serves as a nifty figurehead. (It’s also dubious to claim that the monarch actually symbolizes unity: ask some Scottish nationalists whether Elizabeth is their Queen.) Monarchy is a constitution of government, an office of leadership. Put simply, I find it nearly incredible that one could argue that the current British monarch “leads” in anything other than a purely nominal capacity. It’s even a bit beyond the pale to claim that England any longer has its once-famous “mixed government” of king, lords, and parliament. It’s just parliament–a liberal democracy–with a family of inbred, rich people who serve very little tangible purpose.

    This isn’t necessarily an argument for abolishing the monarchy. I would vote against such a proposal, for what it’s worth, and I think monarchy to be a perfectly legitimate mode of governance. But the point is that the British monarchy no longer matters, which is why the only people who care about this wedding are housewives, tabloids, and people who simply enjoy pomp and circumstance. This wedding has almost zero implications for politics, governance, or the future of England and the Commonwealth.

  • http://blog.captainthin.net/ Captain Thin

    Come, come. Not just the King of England, but of all the Commonwealth (including, for example, Canada). Louis @ 8 said it best when he said he cares (and I care) because Prince William and Catherine Middleton are likely to become my king and queen sometime in the future.

  • http://blog.captainthin.net/ Captain Thin

    Come, come. Not just the King of England, but of all the Commonwealth (including, for example, Canada). Louis @ 8 said it best when he said he cares (and I care) because Prince William and Catherine Middleton are likely to become my king and queen sometime in the future.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    In addition to Louis’ point about the recent proroguing of the Canadian parliament, the dismissal of the Australian prime minister by the Governor-General in 1975 also happened after I was born, though likely before Cincinnatus was.

    Also, in 1999, Australians embraced the monarchy … well, 54% of them did. That’s kind of like “most”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    In addition to Louis’ point about the recent proroguing of the Canadian parliament, the dismissal of the Australian prime minister by the Governor-General in 1975 also happened after I was born, though likely before Cincinnatus was.

    Also, in 1999, Australians embraced the monarchy … well, 54% of them did. That’s kind of like “most”.

  • Louis

    Cincinnatus – I specified very clearly what the GG did. That she had the powers to do so is due in its entirety to the institution and powers of the Monarchy.

    I responded with the remark about the money the Crown makes for the country only because you brought up the old canard of them costing a huge amount of money…. Like with like.

    As a matter of fact, the Queen is very much the queen of Scotland too. In 2008 the SNP, through their leader, Alex Salmond “…decreed that the party policy would be for the Nats to maintain support for the 1603 Union of the Crowns, but to reject the political union that followed 104 years later.

    After independence, he has said, Elizabeth Windsor would be Queen of Scots and Scotland’s head of state and that Scotland would retain a social, but not political, union with the other bits of what currently make up the UK.”

    Nothing like a quick google search…

  • Louis

    Cincinnatus – I specified very clearly what the GG did. That she had the powers to do so is due in its entirety to the institution and powers of the Monarchy.

    I responded with the remark about the money the Crown makes for the country only because you brought up the old canard of them costing a huge amount of money…. Like with like.

    As a matter of fact, the Queen is very much the queen of Scotland too. In 2008 the SNP, through their leader, Alex Salmond “…decreed that the party policy would be for the Nats to maintain support for the 1603 Union of the Crowns, but to reject the political union that followed 104 years later.

    After independence, he has said, Elizabeth Windsor would be Queen of Scots and Scotland’s head of state and that Scotland would retain a social, but not political, union with the other bits of what currently make up the UK.”

    Nothing like a quick google search…

  • Cincinnatus

    Fair point, Louis, regarding the SNP. That’s not the feeling I got from average Scottish folks when I visited Scotland a couple of years ago–but then again, I didn’t talk to “most” British people as Porcell apparently has.

    But, come on, tODD and Louis. The GG is not the monarch. Both GG’s were acting with the legal imprimatur of the Queen and nominally by her authority, of course, but they were not, in fact, the Queen, and I doubt they consulted her first. As I said earlier, what you’ve provided is a possibly nifty argument for (constitutional) monarchy in general, but certainly not for the particular institution of the British monarchy–as in, the royal family and the Queen in particular who presides over the British state in particular. Tell me, what has she done recently? Again, I think the answer is effectually nothing. Not only has Elizabeth II surrendered many of the few powers that remained to the monarchy by the time World War II rolled around, but she doesn’t and probably never ever will use any of the theoretically vast reserve powers she retains. They’re pointless. She will never, for instance, dissolve parliament or propose a national plan of government by her own initiative or volition, and if she did, I’m quite certain popular revolt of some kind would ensue. In short, Britain, effectively speaking, is no longer a monarchy. Beyond the symbolic value you justifiably mention, I maintain still that the British monarchy is an (unfortunately!) outmoded institution, much like the neutered and ridiculous House of Lords, and that this wedding is of little more than antiquarian and amusing interest. Like sports cars and diamond necklaces, they look pretty, but serve no purpose–and one wonders whether Britain can any longer afford purely aesthetic embellishments.

    To borrow an idea from Max Weber, the British monarchy is definitively disenchanted. The emperor has no clothes: to borrow from Burke this time, the monarchy no longer possesses any capacity to “awe” the people and the government because there is nothing behind the finery.

  • Cincinnatus

    Fair point, Louis, regarding the SNP. That’s not the feeling I got from average Scottish folks when I visited Scotland a couple of years ago–but then again, I didn’t talk to “most” British people as Porcell apparently has.

    But, come on, tODD and Louis. The GG is not the monarch. Both GG’s were acting with the legal imprimatur of the Queen and nominally by her authority, of course, but they were not, in fact, the Queen, and I doubt they consulted her first. As I said earlier, what you’ve provided is a possibly nifty argument for (constitutional) monarchy in general, but certainly not for the particular institution of the British monarchy–as in, the royal family and the Queen in particular who presides over the British state in particular. Tell me, what has she done recently? Again, I think the answer is effectually nothing. Not only has Elizabeth II surrendered many of the few powers that remained to the monarchy by the time World War II rolled around, but she doesn’t and probably never ever will use any of the theoretically vast reserve powers she retains. They’re pointless. She will never, for instance, dissolve parliament or propose a national plan of government by her own initiative or volition, and if she did, I’m quite certain popular revolt of some kind would ensue. In short, Britain, effectively speaking, is no longer a monarchy. Beyond the symbolic value you justifiably mention, I maintain still that the British monarchy is an (unfortunately!) outmoded institution, much like the neutered and ridiculous House of Lords, and that this wedding is of little more than antiquarian and amusing interest. Like sports cars and diamond necklaces, they look pretty, but serve no purpose–and one wonders whether Britain can any longer afford purely aesthetic embellishments.

    To borrow an idea from Max Weber, the British monarchy is definitively disenchanted. The emperor has no clothes: to borrow from Burke this time, the monarchy no longer possesses any capacity to “awe” the people and the government because there is nothing behind the finery.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@22), my example, requiring me to reach all the way back to almost before I was born — and, yes, in which it was merely the Queen’s representative acting on her behalf — was offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

    I don’t really disagree with your points — but then, I’m an American like you. I do have a royalist Australian brother-in-law, though, and I find his views a bit bemusing (in several senses of that word), like those of our Canadian friends here.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@22), my example, requiring me to reach all the way back to almost before I was born — and, yes, in which it was merely the Queen’s representative acting on her behalf — was offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

    I don’t really disagree with your points — but then, I’m an American like you. I do have a royalist Australian brother-in-law, though, and I find his views a bit bemusing (in several senses of that word), like those of our Canadian friends here.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m glad to know that your example was tongue-in-cheek, tODD, as the differentiation of persons (if not offices?) seemed blindingly obvious to me.

    Maybe my prejudices here derive from my inescapably American heritage, but, like I said, I’m sympathetic to the idea of monarchy–though it would be totally unacceptable and unworkable in the United States. My point is that there is such a thing as a robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy–and the British monarchy ain’t it. Though Louis criticized me for referencing tabloids, the British royals literally are the stuff of tabloids–and to my eye, not much more.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m glad to know that your example was tongue-in-cheek, tODD, as the differentiation of persons (if not offices?) seemed blindingly obvious to me.

    Maybe my prejudices here derive from my inescapably American heritage, but, like I said, I’m sympathetic to the idea of monarchy–though it would be totally unacceptable and unworkable in the United States. My point is that there is such a thing as a robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy–and the British monarchy ain’t it. Though Louis criticized me for referencing tabloids, the British royals literally are the stuff of tabloids–and to my eye, not much more.

  • Louis

    Well, Cincinnatus, we just have to agree to disagree, noting of course that actually I’m right and you are just a rebel / son of a rebel :) .

    But all these discussions aside, the other thing is the possibility of some kind of protest/attack – a noted Canadian anarchist is currently in the UK, for instance. I do hope this kind of thing can be avoided/stopped – and I do not mean lawful protest. But activists of whatever stripe have generally no sense of propriety or decency or lawfulness. But it seems that the security measures are very tight.

  • Louis

    Well, Cincinnatus, we just have to agree to disagree, noting of course that actually I’m right and you are just a rebel / son of a rebel :) .

    But all these discussions aside, the other thing is the possibility of some kind of protest/attack – a noted Canadian anarchist is currently in the UK, for instance. I do hope this kind of thing can be avoided/stopped – and I do not mean lawful protest. But activists of whatever stripe have generally no sense of propriety or decency or lawfulness. But it seems that the security measures are very tight.

  • Porcell

    Cincinnatus: Porcell: “Most” British people revere the monarchy? Where are the polls on that?

    BBCNews Poll 28 December 2007:

    Almost 80% of people questioned in a telephone poll for the BBC have said Britain should retain its monarchy.

  • Porcell

    Cincinnatus: Porcell: “Most” British people revere the monarchy? Where are the polls on that?

    BBCNews Poll 28 December 2007:

    Almost 80% of people questioned in a telephone poll for the BBC have said Britain should retain its monarchy.

  • Cincinnatus

    Porcell: Thanks! Is that the same study in which respondents also speculated on the future viability of monarchy? (i.e., the one where they predict that it will be gone in x number of years) I’ll have to find the link for that one.

    Louis: I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree, and I’ll even embrace my status as a rebel. But I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing about. Your position seems to be that “the monarchy is good”–and I agree with that statement within general limits–but you haven’t demonstrated in the least the value of the British monarchy beyond its merely symbolic and nominally unifying functions. Again, I agree that it offers those functions, but, again, those aren’t sufficient justifications for a monarch. Monarchy is about leadership and governance, which provide substance for the otherwise empty symbolic signifiers of royalty. I contend–thus unchallenged–that the British monarch no longer offers compelling leadership or governance, that it is a disenchanted shell of its former self with no substantial justificatory purpose or role in modern British politics. Note that I do not think this is a positive development. But it is the case, is it not? Prove me wrong. Tell me what the English monarch does that is of more than merely aesthetic value.

  • Cincinnatus

    Porcell: Thanks! Is that the same study in which respondents also speculated on the future viability of monarchy? (i.e., the one where they predict that it will be gone in x number of years) I’ll have to find the link for that one.

    Louis: I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree, and I’ll even embrace my status as a rebel. But I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing about. Your position seems to be that “the monarchy is good”–and I agree with that statement within general limits–but you haven’t demonstrated in the least the value of the British monarchy beyond its merely symbolic and nominally unifying functions. Again, I agree that it offers those functions, but, again, those aren’t sufficient justifications for a monarch. Monarchy is about leadership and governance, which provide substance for the otherwise empty symbolic signifiers of royalty. I contend–thus unchallenged–that the British monarch no longer offers compelling leadership or governance, that it is a disenchanted shell of its former self with no substantial justificatory purpose or role in modern British politics. Note that I do not think this is a positive development. But it is the case, is it not? Prove me wrong. Tell me what the English monarch does that is of more than merely aesthetic value.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and the fact that 80% of UK citizens support the continued existence of the monarchy is, to me, only evidence of a profound cognitive dissonance on their part: for the past 60 years, they’ve been more than eager to elect radically egalitarian democrats who have systematically abolished most meaningful institutions of the hallowed British constitution–the House of Lords, the peerage, the old geographic county divisions, etc.–and replaced them with a bloated welfare bureaucracy and bland politicians little distinct from their American counterparts. And yet they want to keep the shadow of what they once were in the form of a very colorful and show but entirely expendable and powerless monarchy.

    In other words, they don’t strike me so much as deeply conservative (as the stereotypical old Englishman was reported to be) but radically democratic and modern, with a tinge of ridiculous (by their own standards, not mine) nostalgia.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and the fact that 80% of UK citizens support the continued existence of the monarchy is, to me, only evidence of a profound cognitive dissonance on their part: for the past 60 years, they’ve been more than eager to elect radically egalitarian democrats who have systematically abolished most meaningful institutions of the hallowed British constitution–the House of Lords, the peerage, the old geographic county divisions, etc.–and replaced them with a bloated welfare bureaucracy and bland politicians little distinct from their American counterparts. And yet they want to keep the shadow of what they once were in the form of a very colorful and show but entirely expendable and powerless monarchy.

    In other words, they don’t strike me so much as deeply conservative (as the stereotypical old Englishman was reported to be) but radically democratic and modern, with a tinge of ridiculous (by their own standards, not mine) nostalgia.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@24) said, “My point is that there is such a thing as a robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy–and the British monarchy ain’t it.” Okay, but can you name an extant robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy? All the European ones seem pretty much as weak as the British one.

    My favorite is the Norwegian crown. They were ceded to Sweden, but they didn’t like the way the Swedish king was running things, so they voted to secede, but also voted to keep the monarchy. But they needed a new king, so they conveniently found one in a Danish prince who (1) had a son and (2) was married into the British royalty, in hopes that Britain would support Norway. I mean, shopping around for royal candidates. Oof!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@24) said, “My point is that there is such a thing as a robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy–and the British monarchy ain’t it.” Okay, but can you name an extant robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy? All the European ones seem pretty much as weak as the British one.

    My favorite is the Norwegian crown. They were ceded to Sweden, but they didn’t like the way the Swedish king was running things, so they voted to secede, but also voted to keep the monarchy. But they needed a new king, so they conveniently found one in a Danish prince who (1) had a son and (2) was married into the British royalty, in hopes that Britain would support Norway. I mean, shopping around for royal candidates. Oof!

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD: “Can you name an extant robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy?”

    Nope. Not a one. I think the King of Jordan, Abdullah II, is fairly powerful. But appealing and flourishing? Not particularly. Perhaps the institution of monarchy is passe (no, I don’t have time to html the diacritical mark; yes, that would take longer than typing this parenthetical remark) across the globe. This is, as Tocqueville noted, after all, the epoch of democracy. We are all democrats not…for better or worse.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD: “Can you name an extant robust, flourishing, appealing monarchy?”

    Nope. Not a one. I think the King of Jordan, Abdullah II, is fairly powerful. But appealing and flourishing? Not particularly. Perhaps the institution of monarchy is passe (no, I don’t have time to html the diacritical mark; yes, that would take longer than typing this parenthetical remark) across the globe. This is, as Tocqueville noted, after all, the epoch of democracy. We are all democrats not…for better or worse.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Cincinnatus, the British monarchy does wonderful work, but not in the sense of wielding political power (so much). A powerful symbol of state – yes. A political force – no.

    The British monarchy is intensly involved in charity, cultural preservation and that kind of thing. Furthermore, the PM has to report to the monarchy, and the Monarch discuss issues of State with the PM. but all those things are kept confidential. Even if ER II did wield political influence, me and you would most likely never know. But the Crown gives council etc. Thus if you were to look for overt expressions of political power, you would find none. But in the UK there is a desire to handle many matters of State with, how should I put it, finesse (as Jeeves would say). Thus the real influence of the Crown might be significant or otherwise, but we wouldn’t know.

    Back to the GG: The influence of the GG can be considerable, and derives from the Queen, yet it is impossible to say if and how much influence Her Majesty has over the final decisions.

    Regarding the age in which we live: Quite. And more’s the pity.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Cincinnatus, the British monarchy does wonderful work, but not in the sense of wielding political power (so much). A powerful symbol of state – yes. A political force – no.

    The British monarchy is intensly involved in charity, cultural preservation and that kind of thing. Furthermore, the PM has to report to the monarchy, and the Monarch discuss issues of State with the PM. but all those things are kept confidential. Even if ER II did wield political influence, me and you would most likely never know. But the Crown gives council etc. Thus if you were to look for overt expressions of political power, you would find none. But in the UK there is a desire to handle many matters of State with, how should I put it, finesse (as Jeeves would say). Thus the real influence of the Crown might be significant or otherwise, but we wouldn’t know.

    Back to the GG: The influence of the GG can be considerable, and derives from the Queen, yet it is impossible to say if and how much influence Her Majesty has over the final decisions.

    Regarding the age in which we live: Quite. And more’s the pity.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@31), almost none of what you cite is exclusive to the role of monarch, though — with the exception of “a powerful symbol of state”. Otherwise charity, cultural preservation, advice to people with actual political power? We’ve got people who serve those functions, too. In large part, that role is served by popular Evangelical leaders (Billy Graham leaps to mind; perhaps we should make him our head of state?).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@31), almost none of what you cite is exclusive to the role of monarch, though — with the exception of “a powerful symbol of state”. Otherwise charity, cultural preservation, advice to people with actual political power? We’ve got people who serve those functions, too. In large part, that role is served by popular Evangelical leaders (Billy Graham leaps to mind; perhaps we should make him our head of state?).

  • Grace

    The Dailymail

    Bums like this ARE invited to the royal wedding as fury erupts over snub to Brown and Blair while former Tory PMs get invites

    By James Chapman and Rebecca English

    28th April 2011

    Excerpt from article____________

    “One source said it had ‘simply not crossed Prince William’s mind’ to invite Mr Blair or Mr Brown, insisting: ‘We have had to draw the line somewhere.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380915/Royal-Wedding-guest-list-Gordon-Brown-Tony-Blair-snubbed.html

  • Grace

    The Dailymail

    Bums like this ARE invited to the royal wedding as fury erupts over snub to Brown and Blair while former Tory PMs get invites

    By James Chapman and Rebecca English

    28th April 2011

    Excerpt from article____________

    “One source said it had ‘simply not crossed Prince William’s mind’ to invite Mr Blair or Mr Brown, insisting: ‘We have had to draw the line somewhere.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380915/Royal-Wedding-guest-list-Gordon-Brown-Tony-Blair-snubbed.html

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Sure, Todd. But who would want a Baptist on their coins? :) :)

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Sure, Todd. But who would want a Baptist on their coins? :) :)

  • Grace

    Why was Tony Blair and his wife not invited to Williams’ wedding?

    Royals ‘feared attack on Prince Charles during Diana’s funeral”

    January 17, 2011

    Prince William was asked to walk behind Princess Diana’s coffin because of fears Prince Charles might be attacked if he was alone, Alastair Campbell claimed in extracts from his diaries published today.

    The former Downing Street director of communications wrote that a Palace official was sent to Balmoral to ask William to join his father behind the coffin at the 1997 funeral.

    But he said that William – aged 15 at the time – was “consumed by a total hatred of the media” because of the way his mother had been pursued, and suspected that the plan was designed to appeal to the press.

    The extracts from Power and The People, published in The Guardian today, also reveal that Tony Blair advised the Queen shortly after Diana’s death to show her “vulnerable” side in order to win public sympathy.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23914599-royals-feared-attack-on-prince-charles-during-dianas-funeral.do

  • Grace

    Why was Tony Blair and his wife not invited to Williams’ wedding?

    Royals ‘feared attack on Prince Charles during Diana’s funeral”

    January 17, 2011

    Prince William was asked to walk behind Princess Diana’s coffin because of fears Prince Charles might be attacked if he was alone, Alastair Campbell claimed in extracts from his diaries published today.

    The former Downing Street director of communications wrote that a Palace official was sent to Balmoral to ask William to join his father behind the coffin at the 1997 funeral.

    But he said that William – aged 15 at the time – was “consumed by a total hatred of the media” because of the way his mother had been pursued, and suspected that the plan was designed to appeal to the press.

    The extracts from Power and The People, published in The Guardian today, also reveal that Tony Blair advised the Queen shortly after Diana’s death to show her “vulnerable” side in order to win public sympathy.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23914599-royals-feared-attack-on-prince-charles-during-dianas-funeral.do

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis asked (@34), “who would want a Baptist on their coins?”

    But Louis, you guys have loons on your coins, as well! OH SNAP!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis asked (@34), “who would want a Baptist on their coins?”

    But Louis, you guys have loons on your coins, as well! OH SNAP!

  • Pingback: Royal Wedding=Royal Pain for Taxpayers (and my brain) « Scrub Masters – Our 14 Cents (backed by Gold)

  • Pingback: Royal Wedding=Royal Pain for Taxpayers (and my brain) « Scrub Masters – Our 14 Cents (backed by Gold)

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis, that’s a preposterous argument. Having demonstrated to you–or at least challenged you with the assertion–that the British monarch exercises no (overt) power and serves no practical function, you respond with the following ridiculous claim: “Yes, but she exercises all kinds of secret influence!” Yes, by your telling, the Queen might very well be secretly operating all the levers of British–and even Commonwealth–government at all times, and she might have and use vast authority over British politics and concerns of state, but she just does it such “finesse” and secrecy that we’ll never know the true extent of her powers–which are, by the way, quite possibly boundless. I’m quite convinced now–unfalsifiable claims are always unassailable in my mind.

    Or the situation is completely “otherwise,” as you take care to note. In fact, I think the matter is otherwise. You say that she “discusses” matters of state with the PM, etc.? Well then she’s practically in charge, because these discussions definitely aren’t mere formalities and constitutional relics! The PM must “report” to the Queen? Yikes! I had no idea that she directly oversees the actions of her government with thoughtful deliberation and direct intervention when necessary–probably because she doesn’t. Such “reporting” definitely isn’t a mere formality, either. Let me venture to say that “theoretical” or “formal” power isn’t really power at all.

    But fear not, you say, because even if she actually has no power, secret or otherwise–and I maintain that effectively she doesn’t–she does all kinds of charity work. Yeah, and so does Angelina Jolie. What’s your point?

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis, that’s a preposterous argument. Having demonstrated to you–or at least challenged you with the assertion–that the British monarch exercises no (overt) power and serves no practical function, you respond with the following ridiculous claim: “Yes, but she exercises all kinds of secret influence!” Yes, by your telling, the Queen might very well be secretly operating all the levers of British–and even Commonwealth–government at all times, and she might have and use vast authority over British politics and concerns of state, but she just does it such “finesse” and secrecy that we’ll never know the true extent of her powers–which are, by the way, quite possibly boundless. I’m quite convinced now–unfalsifiable claims are always unassailable in my mind.

    Or the situation is completely “otherwise,” as you take care to note. In fact, I think the matter is otherwise. You say that she “discusses” matters of state with the PM, etc.? Well then she’s practically in charge, because these discussions definitely aren’t mere formalities and constitutional relics! The PM must “report” to the Queen? Yikes! I had no idea that she directly oversees the actions of her government with thoughtful deliberation and direct intervention when necessary–probably because she doesn’t. Such “reporting” definitely isn’t a mere formality, either. Let me venture to say that “theoretical” or “formal” power isn’t really power at all.

    But fear not, you say, because even if she actually has no power, secret or otherwise–and I maintain that effectively she doesn’t–she does all kinds of charity work. Yeah, and so does Angelina Jolie. What’s your point?

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and let’s not forget: she “forms” “her” government, which happens to be composed of exactly the same folks the electorate voted for according to procedures established by Parliament. She also announces the agenda of her government, which happens to mirror verbatim the policies and programs preferred by the political party that won said election–unless you’re telling me that the Queen just changed her mine entirely between the governments of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

    I’ll be convinced of the power and consequent worth of the Queen/monarch when she single-handedly dissolves parliament due to the atrocious state of British public finances–which are a severe threat to her nation’s well-being, and are the fault of a parliament that “reports” to her–and appoints someone herself to fix it. Alternatively, I would accept the Queen (or one of her heirs) taking up arms and marching at the head of the military him/herself during an expedition of her/his own choosing rather than Parliament’s.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and let’s not forget: she “forms” “her” government, which happens to be composed of exactly the same folks the electorate voted for according to procedures established by Parliament. She also announces the agenda of her government, which happens to mirror verbatim the policies and programs preferred by the political party that won said election–unless you’re telling me that the Queen just changed her mine entirely between the governments of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

    I’ll be convinced of the power and consequent worth of the Queen/monarch when she single-handedly dissolves parliament due to the atrocious state of British public finances–which are a severe threat to her nation’s well-being, and are the fault of a parliament that “reports” to her–and appoints someone herself to fix it. Alternatively, I would accept the Queen (or one of her heirs) taking up arms and marching at the head of the military him/herself during an expedition of her/his own choosing rather than Parliament’s.

  • Louis

    Seriously, Cincinnatus, I’m a bit surprised at the verocity of your argument. Did the Queen refuse you a knighthood or something?

    Of course none of those things are going to happen. She is a figurehead, with cultural etc influence, with whom the government takes council. Why does that upset you so much? And what happened to your sarcasm detector….? :)

    Todd – oh, that’s a good one.

  • Louis

    Seriously, Cincinnatus, I’m a bit surprised at the verocity of your argument. Did the Queen refuse you a knighthood or something?

    Of course none of those things are going to happen. She is a figurehead, with cultural etc influence, with whom the government takes council. Why does that upset you so much? And what happened to your sarcasm detector….? :)

    Todd – oh, that’s a good one.

  • Grace

    It seems they have their guest list mixed up, with some being dis-invited.

    Bahrain ‘torture service’ official to attend royal wedding

    Ambassador to UK was previously in charge of Bahraini agency that is accused of electric shocks and beatings

    Vikram Dodd
    guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 April 2011 17.49 BST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/28/bahraini-linked-to-torture-royal-wedding

  • Grace

    It seems they have their guest list mixed up, with some being dis-invited.

    Bahrain ‘torture service’ official to attend royal wedding

    Ambassador to UK was previously in charge of Bahraini agency that is accused of electric shocks and beatings

    Vikram Dodd
    guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 April 2011 17.49 BST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/28/bahraini-linked-to-torture-royal-wedding

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, I’m not upset–though, given some of the rubes she dolls out knighthoods and orders to, I think I’m quite deserving enough for a mention. But I am amused by your strange and idiosyncratic argument in defense of this particular monarchy.

    And come on: you weren’t being sarcastic. ;-)

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, I’m not upset–though, given some of the rubes she dolls out knighthoods and orders to, I think I’m quite deserving enough for a mention. But I am amused by your strange and idiosyncratic argument in defense of this particular monarchy.

    And come on: you weren’t being sarcastic. ;-)

  • Cincinnatus

    *ahem* “doles out”

  • Cincinnatus

    *ahem* “doles out”

  • Louis

    Just a wee bit….

    Strange and Idiosyncratic? I’m honoured sir, I wouldn’t be an Anglophile if I did not love things strange and idiosyncratic.

  • Louis

    Just a wee bit….

    Strange and Idiosyncratic? I’m honoured sir, I wouldn’t be an Anglophile if I did not love things strange and idiosyncratic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@43) said, “I wouldn’t be an Anglophile if I did not love things strange and idiosyncratic.”

    Yeah, I don’t know. Which country was the ones with the cojones to stick to the ridiculous measuring system Britain concocted, huh? And which nation of PC weenies chickened out and decided that everything should relate in the sensible ratio of 10? How many grams in a kilogram? Yawn. You wanna do mental math in the morning while making coffee (one tablespoon of beans per 4 fl. oz., and you want to make 3 cups = oh, did I just blow your Commonwealth mind?), you move to the United States of America, baby!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@43) said, “I wouldn’t be an Anglophile if I did not love things strange and idiosyncratic.”

    Yeah, I don’t know. Which country was the ones with the cojones to stick to the ridiculous measuring system Britain concocted, huh? And which nation of PC weenies chickened out and decided that everything should relate in the sensible ratio of 10? How many grams in a kilogram? Yawn. You wanna do mental math in the morning while making coffee (one tablespoon of beans per 4 fl. oz., and you want to make 3 cups = oh, did I just blow your Commonwealth mind?), you move to the United States of America, baby!

  • Louis

    Todd, I said idiosyncratic, not stubborn & suspicious “of all ‘em forrouners and’em crazy communist unchristian ideas….” :)

  • Louis

    Todd, I said idiosyncratic, not stubborn & suspicious “of all ‘em forrouners and’em crazy communist unchristian ideas….” :)

  • Louis

    All yankee green-eyedness aside… :) , what do you think about their music choices:

    “Middleton will walk up the aisle at Westminster Abbey to the sounds of I Was Glad, the anthem setting of Psalm 122 composed by Sir Charles Hubert Hastings Parry for the coronation of King Edward VII in 1902. The anthem was also sung at the wedding of William’s parents, Prince Charles and the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

    The hymns include Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer, Love Divine, All Loves Excelling and Jerusalem.

    Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer, was the final hymn at Diana’s funeral in Westminster Abbey in 1997.”

    Ever since I saw Chariots of Fire as a child, I’ve been a sucker for Parry’s Jerusalem.

  • Louis

    All yankee green-eyedness aside… :) , what do you think about their music choices:

    “Middleton will walk up the aisle at Westminster Abbey to the sounds of I Was Glad, the anthem setting of Psalm 122 composed by Sir Charles Hubert Hastings Parry for the coronation of King Edward VII in 1902. The anthem was also sung at the wedding of William’s parents, Prince Charles and the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

    The hymns include Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer, Love Divine, All Loves Excelling and Jerusalem.

    Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer, was the final hymn at Diana’s funeral in Westminster Abbey in 1997.”

    Ever since I saw Chariots of Fire as a child, I’ve been a sucker for Parry’s Jerusalem.

  • Porcell

    Louis: Seriously, Cincinnatus, I’m a bit surprised at the ferocity of your argument. Did the Queen refuse you a knighthood or something?

    Nah, The queen sensibly wouldn’t confer a knighthood on some obscure heartland American academic who has developed an aversion to both democracy and modern parliamentary monarchy while pining for some governmental alternative that at best is rather obscure.

    Todd and Cincinnatus don’t have a clue about the British people’s reverence for the monarchy, nor do they understand that many of us Americans tomorrow shall enjoy watching this wedding of a royal who fell in love with a commoner whose parents are rather successful entrepreneurs and a models for the British people.

  • Porcell

    Louis: Seriously, Cincinnatus, I’m a bit surprised at the ferocity of your argument. Did the Queen refuse you a knighthood or something?

    Nah, The queen sensibly wouldn’t confer a knighthood on some obscure heartland American academic who has developed an aversion to both democracy and modern parliamentary monarchy while pining for some governmental alternative that at best is rather obscure.

    Todd and Cincinnatus don’t have a clue about the British people’s reverence for the monarchy, nor do they understand that many of us Americans tomorrow shall enjoy watching this wedding of a royal who fell in love with a commoner whose parents are rather successful entrepreneurs and a models for the British people.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@47), your sense of humor remains, as ever, impeccable.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@47), your sense of humor remains, as ever, impeccable.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, hey, Porcell, thanks for that deeply thoughtful argument in favor of the British monarchy. I’ll certainly consider it carefully, and may even alter my assessment due to your compelling, substantive propositions.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, hey, Porcell, thanks for that deeply thoughtful argument in favor of the British monarchy. I’ll certainly consider it carefully, and may even alter my assessment due to your compelling, substantive propositions.

  • Porcell

    Watched the wedding early this morning. High Anglican service superb. British as usual did the pageantry flawlessly and elegantly. Vaulted Westminster Abbey shined. Gleaming coaches, horse drawn carriages, tuxedoed men, finely dressed and hatted ladies.

    London streets orderly thronged with tens of thousands of Brits, showing enthusiasm and reverence for this royal wedding, proudly waving the British flag.

    William demonstrated both humanity and deeply engrained class.
    The stunning Kate Middleton, a “commoner,” now the Duchess of Cambridge, graced the occasion. Her wedding dress was classically simple and elegant with a twenty-foot train.

    My English blood including some American Tory influence ran high with this marvelous occasion.

  • Porcell

    Watched the wedding early this morning. High Anglican service superb. British as usual did the pageantry flawlessly and elegantly. Vaulted Westminster Abbey shined. Gleaming coaches, horse drawn carriages, tuxedoed men, finely dressed and hatted ladies.

    London streets orderly thronged with tens of thousands of Brits, showing enthusiasm and reverence for this royal wedding, proudly waving the British flag.

    William demonstrated both humanity and deeply engrained class.
    The stunning Kate Middleton, a “commoner,” now the Duchess of Cambridge, graced the occasion. Her wedding dress was classically simple and elegant with a twenty-foot train.

    My English blood including some American Tory influence ran high with this marvelous occasion.

  • Louis

    Porcell, actually the official estimate (according to a comment I heard on the CBC) was 1 million people in the streets.

    And I agree, the whole event was superb and flawless, with impeccable taste. Loved it.

  • Louis

    Porcell, actually the official estimate (according to a comment I heard on the CBC) was 1 million people in the streets.

    And I agree, the whole event was superb and flawless, with impeccable taste. Loved it.

  • Grace

    Don’t miss the ten second video –

    The SUN UK

    Priest has a funny turn in the Abbey

    A PRIEST overjoyed with the Royal occasion took his chance to do a CARTWHEEL down the famous Westminster Abbey aisle this afternoon.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royalwedding/3555483/Priest-has-a-funny-turn-in-the-Abbey.html

  • Grace

    Don’t miss the ten second video –

    The SUN UK

    Priest has a funny turn in the Abbey

    A PRIEST overjoyed with the Royal occasion took his chance to do a CARTWHEEL down the famous Westminster Abbey aisle this afternoon.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royalwedding/3555483/Priest-has-a-funny-turn-in-the-Abbey.html


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X