Notes On A Royal Wedding 2

[poliphilo]

Anagram alert: The Duchess of Cambridge arrives in a car with the registration: KLL 1

The Queen is in lime green. The Duke- only days out of the operating theatre- has the use of his legs.

Here comes the frock. Very chaste. The veil is supported by two little boys called Moloney or Maloney. One of them has a front tooth missing.

The most gorgeously dressed person in the procession is the Dean of Windsor. No-one mentions this. But that's one hell of a cope.

The look that Harry gives Meghan as she comes into view is the look of a man in love. No mistaking it. Yes, at the heart of all this carry-on is something real.

Oh and then there's Bishop Mike. He has his notes on an i-pad. And he preaches about Love. This is real too. He cites Solomon and Dr King and Teilhard de Chardin (Prince Charles will know who Chardin was), calls Jesus a revolutionary and talks about World Peace (but means it). The Queen shuffles and looks cross or is that just what I would expect her to do and I'm projecting? An opportunity has been taken to speak truth to the rich and powerful. I like Bishop Mike.

I've never been round Windsor Castle. What a lovely building St George's Chapel is.

The Gospel choir sings "Stand By Me". That goes nicely with Bishop Mike's sermon.

Ailz says its the clasping of hands- not the vows or the rings- that clinches a marriage. If that's all you did you'd still have a legal contract- or so her vicar told her.

Charles is being very kind to Meghan's mother- making sure she feels included.

And now I've got chips to cook.

When I dodge back into the TV room its all carriages and uniforms and brilliant sunshine....

Turned out nice again.

Comments

[oakmouse]

Ailz's vicar is dead right. There is an old convention, going back centuries in both Britain and the Continent, that a couple who join their right hands and declare themselves married, with full consent and intent on the part of them both, are legally married regardless of any other ceremony. I read about it just a few days ago in an analysis of the Arnolfini Wedding Portrait by Jan van Eyck. (It came up because their hands are wrongly joined.)

Bishop Curry's sermon was a stem-winder!

[poliphilo]

I love the Arnolfini wedding portrait!

I don't suppose the Royals have ever heard a sermon like it. In an earlier generation Bishop Mike would have been breakfasting in the Tower this morning.

[oakmouse]

I love it too --- it's been one of my favorite paintings since I first ssaw it in an art history class some 40 years ago. When I visited London for a day back in 2003, I spent tne entire day at the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery. That's one of the paintings I visited.

In an earlier era, Bishop Curry probably wouldn't have been allowed to preach at all!

[cmcmck]

There's a lot about that portrait which is weird including the fact that it's Arnolfini's dead first wife who seems to be depicted.

That said, that Brussels Grifon is the very essence of doggyness! :o)

[poliphilo]

It draws you in.

I want to walk over to the window and look out.

[oakmouse]

Isn't that funny --- I always have too (wanted to look out the window). I also want to turn around and see the artist at work!

[poliphilo]

I peer into the mirror, hoping for a better view of the people reflected in it- one of whom has to be the artist.

[oakmouse]

I did that in the museum. Unfortunately my eyesight isn't good enough for me to have seen as much as I'd have liked of the mirror details.

[poliphilo]

Even with 20/20 vision you can't really see the mirror people. They're just tiny blobs of colour.

[oakmouse]

That's good to know, but also sad.

[oakmouse]

Indeed he is --- and the painting is extremely odd, but so very lovely...