Some more highlights from the April 2011 archive.
Posted on by Neil
Watched it, loved it. No apology.
Richard Allen made a perceptive comment on Facebook.
For those who love myth, the royal wedding is myth in the making. Amazing to see a tradition like this so perfectly re-enacted in the 21st century…and yes, let’s say it, good luck to them!
It also has to do with sheer talent in mounting pageantry properly. The Brits really know how to; the Yanks don’t.
Pedants among you please note:
- The Bible translation used for the reading was the New Revised Standard Version. Looks as if the King James is over, despite the fact a 400th anniversary edition is apparently selling extremely well at the moment.
- The service was essentially Book of Common Prayer, but modified not only in the “obey” department. Here’s a taste of the current revision of the original.
At the day and time appointed for solemnization of Matrimony, the persons to be married shall come into the Body of the Church with their friends and neighbours: and there standing together, the Man on the right hand, and the Woman on the left, the Priest shall say,
DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace…
You may also have noticed something called the Australian State Coach – Charles and Camilla travelled back to the Palace in it. It was created by W.J. “Jim” Frecklington here in Oz, who is the only person living to have built a State Coach for the British Royal Family.
Royal Wedding post by British Muslim blogger Indigo Jo.
OK, well I’m up London — right now, in the Apple Store in Covent Garden — where I had intended to take some pictures of the scenes surrounding the royal wedding. I wouldn’t have done so otherwise, but my friend Claire Wade, who runs a company organising virtual holidays and other events for the house-bound, asked me to take some pictures and, if possible, send them to their Facebook event page. Sadly, I arrived near Parliament Square about 11:15am and the way was blocked at the junction with the Victoria Embankment. There was a space in between the police cordon and the square itself, and I couldn’t actually see what was going on in the square. Every way into the area was blocked, with a few people being allowed through the cordon (mostly away from the proceedings). Basically, only the dedicated few who got there early could even see what was happening, so you might otherwise have stayed at home and watched it on TV…
…I’ve never been particularly fond of the monarchy, but I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool republican either; all of the most prominent republics have various myths that they like to repeat again and again, usually about “liberty” that turns out only to apply to some citizens and not others. But the expensive pageantry going on at a time when the most vulnerable people in society are having their much-needed services cut to the bone is pretty incongruous. Ironically, a lot of disabled people were watching the proceedings avidly and I’m not going to give political lectures to them, but if we are going to hold a big party at a time when the public are facing hardship, then it’s better that we can all go to the party rather than having to watch at a distance
Full marks to Leunig in today’s Sydney Morning Herald.
Posted on by Neil
Instead I have turned the TV off and watched some DVDs instead, and propose to continue to do so.
However, I did watch The Queen in Australia (1954) again. Such a wonderful time capsule of the Australia of 1954 when I turned 11. I will watch the wedding itself, if only because I do like Westminster Abbey pomp and circumstance – and I do like Prince William.
I wouldn’t have bothered with the smart-arse version of the wedding on ABC-2 anyway, or with any of the commercial channels, but it seems we now have something to beat our breasts over:
Just two days before Prince William and Kate Middleton are due to tie the knot, ABC TV has been forced to cancel The Chaser’s one-off live coverage of the event due to what it says are restrictions imposed by the royal family. The Chaser’s Royal Wedding Commentary was due to air on ABC2 from 7:00pm AEST on Friday, offering viewers a satirical take on the royal wedding. But now the live special – promised to be “uninformed and unconstitutional” – has been reluctantly pulled due to restrictions imposed over the Easter break.
ABC TV was initially advised by the BBC, and subsequently by Associated Press Television News (APTN), there were no coverage restrictions that would prevent The Chaser’s wedding commentary.
But new conditions of use issued by APTN over the Easter break state footage cannot be used “in any drama, comedy, satirical or similar entertainment program or content”.
ABC TV director Kim Dalton says he is disappointed…
The Chaser’s Julian Morrow says the team accepts the ABC has been put in an “impossible position by people acting on behalf of the royal family”. “For a monarchy to be issuing decrees about how the media should cover them seems quite out of keeping with modern democratic times… but I suppose that’s exactly what the monarchy is,” he said. “It’s traditional for the condemned to appeal to the monarch for a stay of execution, so that’s what we’re going to do. Unfortunately it’s also traditional for people who appeal for clemency to be executed.”
Morrow says the move goes against free speech.
“It seems a bit crazy for the royal family to be trying to dictate the way they get represented in the media,” he said. “It seems a bit out of step with a modern democracy, but I suppose royalty is out of step with a modern democracy, so there you go.”…
I really am considerably less outraged, though no doubt the freedom to exhibit bad taste and terminal smugness is worth sticking up for… On either side I suppose.
Honestly in my old age I am finding it harder to discern just what essential freedom has ever been denied me by the fact we have a shared head of state who lives somewhere else. I even include the sacking of Whitlam in that – after all, we did get to vote. And Malcolm Fraser is these days on the left of Julia Gillard!
- Being Australian 20: poem and song, images, dreams, nostalgia, England
- Being Australian 22: inclusive multiculturalism Aussie style 13 – my tribe: the Protestant Ascendancy and Empire Loyalism
- Prince William to have coffee at the Juice & Java…
- Letter to America (not) by John Cleese…
- Queen’s Birthday Weekend
Compare Jim Belshaw’s Monarchy, republics & the royal wedding.
And if ever you have an hour to spare, this is the documentary I referred to above.