As the son of a Canadian father and with many relatives remaining in Nova Scotia, Canada, our family has always respected the Queen and the Royal Family and the monarchy of Great Britain. I will offer Mass for His Royal Highness.
Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh
32 comments:
When the present Queen came to the throne I was nine months old. I am now in my seventieth year. The Duke of Edinburgh has been around for my entire life. I would not expect monarchy to have much resonance in the USA, but it does supply a strong element of continuity.
When I joined the army I took the oath of allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors. It was not allegiance to an elected politician, nor to an abstraction like the Constitution (Tony Blair meddled with this at will and the present Prime Minister has overridden it with his COVID policy, so it's not worth a hill of beans).
I only met the Duke once, but his plain speaking was a refreshing antidote to the prevailing PC 'culture'. Ten years ago an Australian newspaper published 90 of his so-called 'gaffes'. The best one was when he visited a training centre for assistance dogs and observed 'I'm told that they now have eating dogs for the anorexic.' Priceless.
The Duke sounds the sort who would have loved to send a new training pilot to fetch a roll of flight line and a gallon of prop wash.
John, you are a bit (maybe 8yrs) older than I, and Elizabeth II Queen for my lifespan, too, where here in the USA in my childhood were played documentaries for children covering her marriage, ascent to the throne, coronation and marriage and funeral footage, and these were nationally televised shows.
The USA has closely followed the royals for my entire life. Coverage today is far more tawdry and sensational, but still there. Was not sure you knew just how much they are known in the USA. I am no royal watcher, but watching is impossible to dodge if watching news at all.
I am sad at the Duke's passing and will be sadder yet when Elizabeth goes to her reward, as they truly mark the end of an era.
This has bought home to me I will probably live long enough to see Prince Charles become Charles III (though Charles could choose to be titled King George, or even King Arthur etc)....
An interesting, to me, digression :
Elizabeth II is styled : Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
“Defender of the Faith” has been one of the subsidiary titles of the English and later British monarchs since it was granted on October 11, 1521 by Pope Leo X to King Henry VIII. The title was conferred in recognition of Henry’s book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (Defense of the Seven Sacraments), which defended the sacramental nature of marriage and the supremacy of the Pope.....during the early stages of the Protestant Reformation this book opposed the ideas of Martin Luther...
....Following Henry’s decision to break with Rome in 1530 and establish himself as head of the Church of England, the title was revoked by Pope Paul III (since Henry’s act was regarded as an attack on “the Faith”) and Henry was excommunicated. However, in 1544, the Parliament of England conferred the title “Defender of the Faith” on King Henry VIII and his successors, now the defenders of the Anglican faith....
Prince Charles has made it clear he wants to be titled and regarded not as Defender of the Faith but rather Defender of Faith (or basically, defender of various faiths......from Islam to Hinduism to the modern religions of Environmentalism to the Cult of Woke, I suppose...)
A brilliant wit. He made Don Rickles look like an amateur.
The closest I ever got to royalty was being called to change my flight path to avoid ‘Purple Airspace’. It was the Prince, back when he could still pilot his own aircraft, heading toward Scotland for some event. I thought that was pretty cool.
A pity his last months were overshadowed by the antics of his second son and his younger grandson.
Talking of 'Ginge and Cringe', Harry will no doubt be expected to attend the funeral next week, if his wife lets him.
John Nolan,
I had the distinct pleasure of taking a photo of the Prince when I was in London in 1994 outside of Buckingham Palace. I always admired the Prince and Queen Elizabeth. My son-in-law who is a British citizen’s grandfather was in charge of protocol for the royals visits into London for over 30 years, covering the reign of George VI and Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the Prince. His other grandfather was a distinguished citizen of Cape Town who danced with Queen Elizabeth when she was still a princess. I am a descendent of poor Irish bogtrotters, so it took some getting used to!
Interesting comment above about royal styles and titles. Charles is a regnal name and Charles II was a popular king, so I think he'll stick with it. On coinage he would be styled 'Fidei Defensor' so he could have it both ways. However, as the commentator pointed out, it is Parliament who decides how the monarch is styled. When the present queen succeeded to the throne in 1952 the descendants would normally take the father's name, in this case Mountbatten. The politicians opted to continue with Windsor, much to the chagrin of Prince Philip. Eventually they compromised and Prince Charles will be the first monarch of the House of Mountbatten-Windsor.
It was Parliament which made Queen Victoria Empress of India (Royal Titles Act 1876) A way of strengthening the bond between the monarch and her Indian subjects? Or a piece of Disraelian flattery? Actually, neither. Victoria's eldest child Vicky was married to Frederick, Crown Prince of Prussia. After the German Empire was proclaimed in 1871 Frederick was now Emperor in waiting and when he succeeded his wife would be Empress. Victoria did not want to be outranked by her own daughter.
Well, John, I completely understand Queen Victoria going that route. Personally, I grew tired of snobbish self-etyled intellectuals looking down their collective noses at me, and so, in all humility, took upon myself the title of Master Of Reality.
John, I’m sure he’ll be allowed to go, as long as he leave the jewels with her.
Regarding the picture of the coronation posted above---who is who in that picture with the queen? On the left is Harold Bradfield (1898-1960), who then was the bishop of Bath and Wells, and on the right, a future Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Michael Ramsey (1904-1988), who at the time was the bishop of Durham (a few years later, the Archbishop of York and then Canterbury). And speaking of AOC (not Alexandria Octavio Cortez but the Archbishop of Canterbury), in the center of the picture was Dr. Geoffrey Fisher (1887-1972), who served in that position from 1945 to 1961 and in fact presided over the marriage of Philip and Elizabeth in 1947.
Traditionally, the bishops of Bath and Wells and Durham have been at the monarch's side throughout the coronation ceremony. Bishop Bradfield was noted as a tireless worker in the Church, which may have contributed to his untimely death at 61. Dr. Ramsey looked old before his time (you would not think he was 48 at the time of the coronation), and he was associated with the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, for instance advocating weekly celebration of the Eucharist, not just monthly or every other Sunday as was the tradition for years in some areas of the Anglican Communion. Dr. Fisher, his predecessor as AOC, was more associated with the low-church wing of the Church of England, but even in England, the low=church bishops often still wear their miter and cope, though maybe not so much the chasuble.
John Nolan can probably tell you a lot more about the coronation ceremony than I can, but a few facts---it lasted nearly 3 hours (yes, 3 hours!) and the date was picked supposedly with an eye on the weather, that there would be a lesser chance of rain that day. Not sure that part came through! And somehow Westminster Abbey was modified to hold 8,000 in attendance.
And Prince Phillip reportedly supported televising the ceremony, a move which was not universally supported in England. Television certainly was a novelty in England at the time, and even parts of the Us were just getting TV service, but the novelty did not stop folks from gathering in England at "coronation parties" to watch the event.
"The symbolism of the priest saying the absolution while the penitent recited the Act of Contrition simultaneously was based on the Prodigal Son.
The explanation may be of dubious origin and the result of some imaginary well-meaning pious notion but I see no harm in it.
Back when the Eucharistic fast was three hours there may have been those who related it to Jesus three hours on the Cross. If so, was that such a bad thing?
Dear Master of Reality,
Can I be your follower? Can you assist me? I believe the 2 decades following Vatican II , approximately 1965 to 1985, will eventually go down as a short but truly golden era in the history of the Catholic Church. Reading the comments over time of certain Catholic reactionaries like John or past comments by the Catholic fascist Gene eventually resulted in me seeking therapy. My head used to SPIN and my mind and soul suffered after reading the words of those who hate what is best in the modern Church and can trick people into thinking they might be making some good and interesting points AND while giving the appearance of integrity, learning and, at times, what is worse : ie - wit and a sense of humour !
Regards,
Billy Clutterbuck.
Billy (K)lutterbuck,
In your case, therapy has not worked.
"The symbolism of the priest saying the absolution while the penitent recited the Act of Contrition simultaneously was based on the Prodigal Son. The explanation may be of dubious origin and the result of some imaginary well-meaning pious notion but I see no harm in it."
The harm is that the origin story is not true. We don't base our actions or beliefs today on pious legends, no matter how appealing they may be. And there is a great danger in inventing, long after the fact and apart from reality, cute stories or explanations for our religious beliefs and practices.
That sort of thinking gave us the notion of Confirmation being a sacrament of "adulthood" that was said to be analogous with Bar/Bat Mitzvah in Jewish practice. It's not at all, but that false notion is still around. Confirmation is a sacrament of initiation and should, like Baptism and Eucharist, be celebrated at the time of initiation into the Church. The Orthodox and many Eastern Catholics do it right.
There was a false belief that the four humours determined our health. Black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood caused most everything that happened to us physiologically. Were we to base our beliefs and actions on that physiologically pious understanding, people would die.
Mixing apples and oranges. There is noting superstitious or harmful with symbolism added to certain liturgical practices. For example the washing of the hands of the priest had a very practical purpose which then as time progressed in an organic way a spiritual meaning was added as is seen in the prayers accompanying it.
I am not sure why the praying of the Act of the Contrition by the penitent and the words of absolution by the priest were offered together originally, but the Prodigal son application is quite powerful and is in fact a good theology of how God goes out to the returning sinner saying I forgive you even while the penitent is saying I am sorry. That's extremely good theology.
Some elements of the Coronation ceremony are of ancient origin, but there have been many changes over the centuries, and since the Reformation it has had to conform with the new Protestant religion. Queen Elizabeth I was the last monarch to be crowned using Catholic rites (15 January 1559) but because of her avowed Protestantism it was difficult to find a bishop willing to perform the ceremony. Eventually Bishop Oglethorpe of Carlisle was more or less coerced into doing it.
The Queen attended the Coronation Mass but pointedly withdrew before the Consecration. Later that year the religious settlement established what we now know as the Church of England. The only bishop to agree to it was Kitchen of Llandaff; the rest resigned or were deprived of their sees.
Charles's coronation will be slimmed down, if indeed he has one; European royalty don't go in for it now, and that includes the papacy. The 'installation' of John Paul I was tedious in the extreme. Paul VI had assumed that his successor would be crowned as he himself was.
Returning to the Duke of Edinburgh, he didn't want a state funeral, unlike his uncle Dickie who planned his own meticulously. Yet he was a man of deep Christian faith. The evening before his funeral next Saturday there will be at the Oratory Solemn Vespers of the Dead followed by Absolutions at the catafalque. No post-Vatican II nonsense for someone who was baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Mike, you of all people should be aware that Confirmation as a sacrament of 'adulthood' is a concept resurrected after Vatican II. I was confirmed on the first episcopal visition following my first Communion, aged seven, in 1958.
During Stations of the Cross, do you miss out number six, based on the pious legend of St Veronica?
Symbolism "added to" might not be harmful, unless it obscures the reality. Symbolism that is entirely bogus, however, does obscure reality. Hence...
Your assumption about the Prodigal Son story is that the parable records precisely what happened. That's not good biblical theology.
I agree that we should celebrate the generosity of God's mercy, but not by inventing pious stories to explain how the sacraments are or were celebrated. The story of the Prodigal Son stands on its own and doesn't need the cute "application" someone has give it.
No, John, I don't skip Veronica's veil. The legend is not created to provide some sort of rationale or historical reasoning for some practice in our liturgy.
Now's the time for the Blog Owner to holler about Apples and Oranges.
No hollering hypocrisy and gotcha.
Well, it has been 68 years since the last coronation, so the Brits have had plenty of time to prepare for the next one. I suspect the next one will include Catholic clergy, much as royal weddings have for decades---you don't see any Catholic clergy in the 1953 procession into the Abbey. And there will be female Anglican clergy, probably including bishops, too.
Queen Elizabeth turns 95 on April 21, but the Queen Mother lived to nearly 102, so we still may have several years til the next coronation,
Elizabeth's father, George the 6th, only lived to 56. It is said the war took a toll on his health (which I find baffling, given that Winston Churchill faced a lot of stress but still lived to 90), but more likely it was his heavy smoking that led to his early demise. Reportedly Phillip gave up smoking years ago, and thankfully or he would not have made it to nearly 100...
Kavanaugh is a pretty odd troll. He fails to recognize all of the add-ons and nonsense contained in the Novus Ordo. Instead of "noble simplicity" we got "options galore" which have caused great harm to the stability of the rite, plus we have arrogant, egotistical priests who think their translations are better than the authorized texts, particularly rich from someone lacking competency in Latin.
I suspect the funeral for Prince Philip will not include an Anglican Eucharist? If so, maybe that is because of perception that Queen Elizabeth is more in the "Low Church" tradition, only infrequently taking communion (if I am correct, Anglicans are expected to take communion at least 3 times a year, Easter, Pentecost and Christmas). Seems like whenever she is seen at worship in one of her estates, the clergy are simply dressed, cassock, surplice and stole, not the way a Catholic priest of course would vest to celebrate Mass.
I know this is off topic, but doesn't a woman take her husband's last name upon marriage--at least traditionally?
Phillip's last name was Mountbatten. Elizabeth's was Windsor (bastardized from Saxe-Coburg). So why is the name of the royal family and their children Windsor instead of Mountbatten? Is there a British law that prince consorts surrender their last name? Can someone out there explain this?
English monarchs had no "surname" until 1917.
https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name
So there is little "tradition" that would direct what a queen would do when she married.
"For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.
The surname Mountbatten-Windsor first appeared on an official document on 14 November 1973, in the marriage register at Westminster Abbey for the marriage of Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips."
What of the Plantaganets, Bolingbrokes, Yorks and Lancasters? We would not count shose as last names?
So Henry VII, VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth did not have "Tudor" as their last name?
And those who followed were not Stuarts?
And those who followed were not Hanovers?
And from Victoria until George--those were not Saxe-Coburg-Gothas?
Or do the dynastic names have a different significance?
I am very curious.
On her first marriage Anne was styled 'HRH the Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips.' She is now 'HRH the Princess Royal'.
A royal house is not quite the same as a surname. Victoria was the last British monarch of the House of Hanover, although because of the Salic Law she was never Queen of Hanover. She married Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and on her death this became the royal house of the UK. Mountbatten is the Anglicized version of Battenberg.
When Prince Harry served in the army he was known as Captain Wales.
Anglican funeral rites do not include a Communion Service. The Queen is a sincere Protestant (something quite rare in the Church of England). She would not allow Charles and Diana to attend Mass in the Pope's private chapel, although she herself has attended Vespers in Westminster Cathedral.
In 1920 King George V and Queen Mary attended the Solemn Requiem Mass for the Empress Eugenie in Farnborough Abbey, although they incurred criticism for so doing.
Glad to see all this discussion of Prince Philip and the Royal Family. Thank you, John, for highlighting and explaining the (in its time somewhat embarrassing) German connection on both sides (although not discomfiting at all to someone born half English and half German, which probably explains why I am always at war with myself -:)).
I was born two weeks and one day before Elizabeth’s Coronation as Queen Elizabeth II and have a special Coronation spoon to prove it!
Thanks Nolan. This is quite intriguing.
Imagine! living past the 17th century and not having a last name!
Iceland has such a small population (around 300,000) that surnames are not required, just a first name and a patronymic (occasionally a matronymic). So if Gunnar Svensson (whose father would have been Sven) has a son named Magnus he will be known as Magnus Gunnarsson; a daughter named Helga will be Helga Gunnarsdottir.
Post a Comment