Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Prince William and Kate Middleton engaged to be married

His Grace is delighted to send his best wishes and sincere congratulations to the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England on the announcement of his engagement to Miss Kate Middleton.

He only hopes on the accession to the Throne of King William V and Queen Catherine that there will be a Church of England to be Supreme Governor of.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a photographer, I wonder if His Grace ever wonders about the legitimacy of 'borrowing' images from here there and everywhere?

I'm just miserable because I would love to be wedding photography to the fantastic couple next summer!

16 November 2010 at 11:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


16 November 2010 at 12:10  
Anonymous Tony B said...

"I cannot contain my indifference"

16 November 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger Gnostic said...

We have a monarch to succeed? I thought Brenda threw in that particular towel when she signed away our sovereignty.

16 November 2010 at 12:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England...

Who apparently (by his example) endorses 'try before you buy' close quaters live-in relationships - Why bother getting married at all pray tell - what will the CoE expect from the children of the great unwashed when they seek to chastise them for 'living in sin'-

What a Lark hey readers!.

16 November 2010 at 12:40  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Why bother getting married at all pray tell

Why not?

16 November 2010 at 12:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He is only following orders from the Department of Tourism. Big royal weddings are good for knocking back the trade deficit.

16 November 2010 at 12:53  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

The Church of England could be disestablished and the Mosque of Britain established. Now there's a thought, Your Grace!

16 November 2010 at 12:57  
Anonymous Hank said...

Well, I'm delighted for them!

16 November 2010 at 13:00  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Wonderful news.

16 November 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous Prince William and Kate Middleton said...

I am happy for them. Congratulations!

16 November 2010 at 15:02  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Please be good enough to tell us, Cranny, which particular bit of the New Testament talks about monarchs being the supreme governor of any of Christ's churches.

16 November 2010 at 16:12  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Anabaptist,

Why, none.

Nor do they talk of nuclear missiles or blogging: would you abolish those also?

And what of the Baptist Union? Where is that in the New Testament?

And where are the anabaptists in the New Testament?

Is there not only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins?

16 November 2010 at 16:23  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

We shall no doubt have negative comments from all the usual suspects but I suggest we keep it simple and simply enjoy contemplating someone else's portion of happiness. It will do us no harm.

16 November 2010 at 16:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, best wishes to then, but pay for it from your own monies like we do.

16 November 2010 at 16:42  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Thank you Cranny for noticing my question and taking the time to reply. It is quite difficult to believe that you are taken in by your own specious responses. However, I feel I owe you the benefit of an answer (though I shall resist the temptation to fisk).

I don't particularly think the Baptist Union should exist, and neither I nor my church belong to it. Even so, it lays no claim to being a 'church' as do some denominational bodies, which I leave you to identify.

'Anabaptist', as you will know, is an inaccurate term of abuse coined by the enemies of those who simply wished to form believers' churches on the pattern of the New Testament. They did not call themselves by that name. They were just New Testament Christians. So when you ask where they are to be found in the NT, my reply should be fairly obvious: from the first disciples onwards.

Nuclear missiles, blogging, the EU, Microsoft and red herrings (amongst other things) are of course not found in the NT. As you are aware, they have no relevance to my enquiry, which concerns the governance of something professing to be Christ's church, for which all that is necessary is found in the New Testament.

Is there one baptism? Indeed, as there is one Lord and one faith. Sadly, the 'baptism' largely practised in the C of E is not it. That practice, which consists of the sprinkling or wiping of a few drops of water on an uncomprehending infant, is neither baptism (which originally means dipping or immersion), nor does it signify the actual repentance or faith of the infant.

16 November 2010 at 17:00  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Anabaptist,

'Anabaptist' is what you choose to call yourself: you are under no compulsion to adopt the nomenclature of your erstwhile enemies.

It seems to His Grace that the NT is remarkably non-prescriptive when it comes to church governance. He hardly needs to point out to you that it is for this precise reason that we have so many denominations, some of which claim to be *the* church. And they are by no means all trinitarian.

Your broadside against the Monarch as Supreme Governor is really rather unimportant as a matter of ecclesiology, unless you are suggesting that those who support such a model of governance or who are in communion with the Church of England are not Christians.

Perhaps you consider it all to be an irrelevant obsession with a 16th-century warped narrative...

16 November 2010 at 17:22  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Rather surprised at this long awaited news and will perhaps bring a lttle light to those who always enjoy a good wedding and are perhaps a little tired of drab conflicted post socialist government Brittain. I dont know how you can a slightly less formal service at St Pauls but congratulations are in order to any couple entering into marriage . I doubt the athiest cohab killjoys will enjoy it but at least we can still choose to have marriage in this country , and even make it a state ocassion .

16 November 2010 at 17:25  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

What is the world coming too; apparently she is Middle Class as well as Middleton. Her parents run a mail order business, they are tradespeople! The College of Arms will doubtless have a job creating a Coat of Arms for her, crossed envelopes perhaps?
Seriously though I am absolutely.......


16 November 2010 at 17:39  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Dear Cranny, I am not calling myself 'Anabaptist' for the reason you imply. I use the term to identify my general theological and ecclesiological stance. As you will have inferred, that is because I regard the term as describing the nearest thing we have to NT Christianity.

I disagree with your assertion that the NT is non-prescriptive. I think it sets out clear and consistent patterns of church governance, some aspects of which are explicit and others easily inferred.

The proliferation of sects and denominations is largely a result of the hijacking of Christianity up to and following Constantine, and the reactions of various bodies and individuals trying to free themselves from the chains of monolithic entanglement thus imposed. The water had been muddied and it was not always easy to see why or how. In many cases the Constantinian model was left partly in place because people knew no better.

It is unworthy of you to suggest that that I am questioning the genuinness of the Christian faith of those with whom I disagree. My issue is with the designation of a man or woman as the church's 'supreme governor' on the doubly false ground that they are the monarch and that they have inherited that status by right of birth.

And I fired no 'broadside', but made a modest enquiry.

I don't consider this to be 'an irrelevant obsession with a warped 16th-century narrative', but something, as I have suggested, that goes back much further, and projects into much more recent history.

If it is a trifle, why do you hold it to be so important? And if it is not a trifle, should I not question it?

16 November 2010 at 17:51  
Anonymous Tanfield said...

Your Grace,
May I respectfully hope (but without much confidence that it will be so) that the press and other forms of media will henceforth show rather more restraint and respect for the happy couple's privacy than they did for Charles and Diana. I exoect that this will, sadly, not be the case but if it were they would have more chance to succeed. I well remember the media excesses in
Charles and Diana's time - sadly, despite the existence now of privacy laws via the Human Rights Act the offending media is largely in the same ownership as before and I am not confident that they will show suitable restraint. Of course in the unlikely event that either one of the happy couple were to indulge the media as Diana did (and I am not aware of any propensity on the part of either of them to do so) then "if you live by the media you die by the media" as Diana did indirectly.
Otherwise congratulations and every happiness to them both - but I hope that the taxpayer will not have to foot a massive bill for the occasion

16 November 2010 at 17:53  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Martin Sewell @ 16.28

Exactly so!

16 November 2010 at 17:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The taxpayer WILL foot a massive bill for this wedding and so they should. I'm sure the couple would be just as happy with a smaller version but the British public want a circus, the media wants a circus, the tourists want a circus and the economy wants a circus. These two are caught in the snare as exhibit one and two. I hope they get as much enjoyment out of it as possible.

16 November 2010 at 18:13  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Anabaptist,

Of course you may question trifles: that is the purpose of His Grace's blog.

But he simply wishes to point out to you, with very great respect, that that which is 'clear and consistent' to you is not so to another. The history of this nation is fused, for better or worse, with a constitution which is Christian in its inspiration, and the Monarch is symbolic of the religio-political union it has engendered. It is benign, or has become increasingly so over the centuries with Catholic Emancipation and Test and Corporation Acts which have forged a settlement based on liberty. Having the Bible at the heart of earthly government is no bad thing: indeed, for His Grace, it is the lesser evil. That is all. He would rather sustain it than adopt Islam or Secularism or any other pervasive worldview.

16 November 2010 at 18:22  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Cranny, you wrote:
'Of course you may question trifles: that is the purpose of His Grace's blog.'

But what I wrote was:
'If it is not a trifle, should I not question it?'

We are getting nowhere. Let's abandon this.

16 November 2010 at 19:12  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Congratulations to them.
I also wish them every happiness - the best of all they wish for themselves - despite everything this world tries, and will try, to do to them.

God be with them.

16 November 2010 at 19:22  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Anabaptist, assuming the British monarchy is not dissolved persuant to a directive from the president of the EU, at some point there will be another Coronation.

Exactly who will be annointed cannot be be forseen. But the event will inevitably be an opportunity for intense introspection about the Monarchy and its role in British life. Bear in mind too that no fewer than sixteen Commonwealth countries have the British Monarch as Head of State and are therefore party to the Act of Settlement but not necessarily to the convention of the Established Church.

It follows that the Dis-Establishment of the C of E would not necessarily threaten the position of the British Monarchy in a wider sense. However this communicant believes that if the Dis-Establishment matter were put to the British electorate by way of a Referendum, and it should be, the electorate would support the status quo. A referendum on Melanchthon's proposal would be a waste of paper, and the judgement of that individual must be considered unsound.

Very best wishes to the Happy Couple.

16 November 2010 at 20:01  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

May the Lord bless them and keep them safe. Amen.

16 November 2010 at 21:39  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why did the Queen choose names such as Charles and Edward for her sons bearing in mind Charles Stuart both had a disastrous reign and Edward reminds us of her uncle who abdicated and was a Nazi sympathiser.

To then have a William when most bearing that name - William IV had no real significance - seems to be a continuation of strange antecedence.

16 November 2010 at 21:43  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

He only hopes on the accession to the Throne of King William V and Queen Catherine that there will be a Church of England to be Supreme Governor of.

Good for you your Grace. A victory of hope over expectation is at least some kind of victory, which is better then none.

To my understanding:

The Church of England seised to exist as a truly independent religious and political entity shortly after it was conceived. To my reasoning as far back as the coronation of James 1st, but certainly by the end of the reformation.

It suited certain powerful groups to continue with the illusion of a wholly protestant England and later British Empire, however the reality of our common situation is far from that which our history books have been so keen to propagate.

The Royal Family are Roman Catholics in all but name and the finest of details. I look forward to reading any evidence that suggests that this is not indeed the case.

Worse, the gap between The RCC and the royal family, which has long since been tiny, is more so now then at anytime since the reign of Henry 8th.

A One World government dictates the need for a one world religion. Which ultimately cannot be The CofE for obvious reasons, Neither can it be environmentalism, socialism, judaism, Islamism, Atheism, or any other of our main stream 'isms.

Whatever its name turns out to be, it will most surly be controlled by the head of the largest, most rich and powerful church of them all. Simply because it is so, if for no other reason. The cream rises to the top, as does the largest s..t.

I give as my evidence, The Evangelical Movement, need I say more?

16 November 2010 at 22:00  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

To then have a William when most bearing that name - William IV had no real significance - seems to be a continuation of strange antecedence.

Good points

We still have not recovered, for want of a better word, from the Norman Invasion. It therefore could and very often should be stated that William 1st was by far and away the most 'influential' monarch these Islands have even been cursed to unwillingly receive.

Strange antecedence indeed. William of Orange also being one of the strangest, if not the worst.

However it would be hard not to see all of the Royal Families of not only England but the whole of Europe as being incredibly strange, to say the least. They have all been Internationalist not so much nationalist in nature and habit. Which greatly explains why Europe has a 2000 year old history of almost uninterrupted and highly bloodthirsty warfare.

It could be argued that if it were not for these characters better found in a chamber of horrors, we would still be swinging in the trees or living in mud huts.

The truth is that we could not possibly know for sure what our common lot would have been by now without this bunch of congenital psychopaths running the so called civilized world for such a very long time. However they can not as yet stop us speculating on the issue.

16 November 2010 at 22:30  
Anonymous Elmo said...

It is lovely.

16 November 2010 at 23:43  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Ireland clearly is in difficult position although I could hardly contain myself when Mr Barroso said that the UK was lacking "european spirit" .What spirit is that then ? Is it the one that one that when it gets a no vote to the EU constitution it decides to re word it and call it the Lisbon treaty .
Some European spirit that is , now that the gravy train tears are arriving and our EU leaders are having to take acting classes in order for them to look credible having run the euro ponzi scheme and run roughshod over those that pointed out the obvious descrepencies on making a high value currency run in low productivity small nations , making up capital shortfalls with EU "investment" projects to tart up and distort said economies whilst filling cronies pockets and shifting it onto tax payers .
Independent cartoon is topical although so its getting like musical chairs to beethoven , which country will be left sat on the most debt even with a bailout ?

17 November 2010 at 03:40  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! A royal wedding! How delightful. As soon as the news broke I organised a committee to lobby for the nuptuals to take place here at Barchester, with my Lord presiding over the ceremony. Mrs Quiverful is knitting a new altar cloth as we speak, and the chaps from Hiram's Hospital are scouring the cleristory and bell tower looking for bombs, security being of the essence. I myself are helping the young couple by drawing up a guest list on their behalf, only respectable people...Signora Neroni will be SO disappointed, but hey ho!

17 November 2010 at 08:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

How to avoid the backlash of a Royal wedding taking place at a time of austerity.

The royals are a Soap so let the wedding be held at that queen of Soaps, Eastenders. They already have a Queen Vic that would provide a perfect venue for the cost-conscious royals to have their wedding breakfast. All that lovely cockney wit and actors with even less hair than the prince. To add extra authenticity Mr and Mrs Middleton could set up a toy stall in the square. The nation could rejoice in the knowledge that we might even make a profit on it when the magazine rights are sold to Hello.

17 November 2010 at 09:07  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

And anyone should care less about any of this because...


17 November 2010 at 17:05  
Blogger Kate Powell said...

God Bless Them.

18 November 2010 at 06:44  
Blogger ZAROVE said...

May they live well and be happy, I congratulate them.

I also have to wonder how those who say they are indifferent or mock his happy occasion can look themselves in the mirror. Has our Culture declined so much?

18 November 2010 at 08:35  
Blogger Kate Powell said...

You have hit upon it, ZAROVE. I suspect they can't look themselves in the mirror and want to blame the happy for the problems of the not-making-the-slightest-effort-to-be-happy. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said that most people are about as happy as they decide to be.

18 November 2010 at 12:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older