In their infamous whiny interview with Oprah Winfrey the Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed they were married in their back garden by the Archbishop of Canterbury three days prior to the big ceremony in St. George's Chapel in Windsor. Archbishop Welby is refusing to comment because he claims it is a private matter. I find that a very unconvincing argument. When the Sussexes' interview was aired, and allegedly watched by millions, they made it a very public matter. Indeed, under both Church of England law and English secular law marriage is a matter of public record. Many of the claims made by the whinging Sussexes have been fact checked and found to be untrue. The wedding they claimed to have had in their garden would have been unlawful for a whole raft of reasons. Do you agree that the Archbishop should clarify the situation or keep quiet? I can see his clarification being helpful to many of the Church of England's clergy. I wonder how many will now approach their local priest and ask for a private ceremony with the vows they composed. I would like to share with you this amusing story. I read something quiet funny on a blog recently. A vicar had gone through the wedding ceremony with a couple a few days prior to the actual event at a practice. He had taken the couple through the vows. At the actual wedding just before the vows the groom pulled out a slip of paper on which he said were the vows they had composed and wanted to use. The vicar told them he was returning to the vestry. The couple had to decide whether they wished to continue the ceremony with the approved legal vows. If they did not come back to him with a positive response within five minutes he was off back to the vicarage and informed them he would be keeping the fee, too.
Americans are so accustomed to 'have it your way' (some call this the Burger King mentality because it was an advertising slogan for that company for many years) that it's hard to get them to wrap their heads around a traditional church wedding and its accompanying rite. Then there are people who are okay with the rite but want the wedding held anywhere but the church: country club, back yard, beach, private yacht, Hawaii etc. I agree with you. If Justin Cantuar did something private he should come clean and admit it. For what it's worth, part of our liturgical training is instruction on the parameters of a proper wedding. This takes the form of the BCP matrimony rite with Holy Communion. There are not to be piles of extra candles (unity candles and whatever else). There are not to be custom vows of one's own concoction. And the clergy are discouraged from doing freebies, unless the couple is truly financially unable to recompense him. Also, no radio music (sappy pop or country songs). If the couple wants to have a make it your own thing wedding, they are encouraged to contract the Justice of the Peace or add their personal touches at the reception or some later event after the proper church wedding.
I agree with the Vicar. I wish I would have had an Anglican wedding but it was important to my wife to have someone from her old church do it. The priest came as a guest. He was ok with that. Now I am 100% sure she would want the Anglican wedding. She can hardly go back to her old church without mention how she misses the Anglican service.
Can't say as I care what the Archbishop says or doesn't say about it, or what the Sussexes whine about. It's just a Royal Soap Opera, and I don't watch the soaps.
The difficulty I have with it, is that it would suggest that 32 million pounds was spent on a PR Exercise. Now to Tudors were certainly good at PR. However this would require us to believe that +Welby, and no doubt the Dean of Windsor were knowing grand participants in a fraud committed on a waiting world. If +Welby's has made it to the Wedding Certificate on the day, then he has already said all that he needs to say. He is right not to get dragged into a he said - she said kind of discussion. It would be undignified, inelegant and largely unhelpful.
I agree! I couldn't care less what the Sussexes whine about. I do wish, though, they would end their hypocrisy and stop complaining about the media intrusion in their lives whilst they constantly prostitute themselves out to the media. My concern was not really about them but about the fact that if a lot of people think the Archbishop of Canterbury did a sort of boutique back garden wedding with only him and the couple marrying who wrote their own vows many Church of England priests are going to find themselves pressurised by other couples who want this kind of wedding. That is why I think it is very important the Archbishop of Canterbury clarifies this matter.
Disclaimer; I am neither a canon nor civil lawyer. If my understanding is correct the wedding would have been unlawful for the following reasons: It was held outdoors, i.e. in a garden, and English law says weddings cannot be conducted outdoors (with the exception they give to Judaism); There were no witnesses present and both C of E canon law and English civil law require the presence of two witnesses; The marriage was held in private, and, again, both legal systems require weddings to be celebrated publicly to allow objections to be raised; If the couple wrote their own vows, as they allege, those vows may not have been lawful. The ones in the C of E rite are.