So once again Our Great Leader (peace be upon him) the Archmuppet of Canterbury, is in the news for all the wrong reasons.
Meghan, the meal-ticket Duchess, has graciously bestowed upon we plebs the juicy titbit that she and Harry were actually married three days before their £32 million nuptials in Windsor in 2018. For our US readers, that’s around $45.5 million green ones sucked from the British taxpayer. Yes, really. And that was just for the bits of the wedding we had to pay for.
‘You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that‘, the Duchess of Suffering told Ms Winfrey in the infamous ‘interview’ this week. And to emphasise the point, she ‘revealed’ (oh, the excitement!) that they have since had their own vows framed and hung on the wall. Be still, my beating heart!
It was only a matter of minutes before various clergy took to Twitter to ask questions about this bizarre event. And quite right too.
First off, what on earth was the Archmuppet doing, enabling Ginge and Whinge to think they were actually getting married in their own back garden? Did he not make clear to them that this was some sort of sweet little vow-exchange that had no legal or spiritual identity? And what was the point of it anyway? They had clearly asked him to do them a private wedding – to which the answer should have been a straight ‘no’.
Why have I as a UK taxpayer had to stump up my part of £32 million for a wedding they didn’t actually want? What was all that about with the massive security bill, the air fresheners, the bridesmaids’ tights, the carriage ride, Tiara-gate and all the rest of it? Could they not have realized earlier that they wanted a small, intimate wedding?
Secondly, the fall-out from the Archmuppet’s ill-advised back yard blessing, or whatever it was. Since when has it been legal in the UK to carry out any ceremony that is thought by the participants to be a wedding, in a back garden that is not licensed for weddings? And without witnesses?
UK law has banned secret weddings for centuries, to avoid bigamy, forced weddings, incestuous weddings and so on. All of which we can presume went on in abundance prior to changes in the law. Oh yes, Ye Olde Englande was full of it, no doubt. But then we did have the first Head of the Church of England who simply chucked out those wives who didn’t pop out the required male heir (apart from the one who died) and chopped the heads off the others, so why are we surprised that dodgy weddings went on behind closed doors?
This is why it became imperative to approve specific locations for the celebration of weddings and to formalise the need for witnesses to prove a wedding had occurred. Oh yes, and the need for banns to be read for three weeks so as to allow time for anyone who knew of anything dodgy about the proposed wedding to speak up. Hence the law changes in later years.
Yet in the face of all this, of which any half-educated Brit is aware, the Archmuppet appears to have waved his magic wand over Ginge and Whinge and led them to believe they were married in their own back garden. On the quiet. Without witnesses. I am sure the Palace’s wedding organisers were delighted to hear that this rendered useless all their hard work – let alone the expense – in getting the big day sorted officially. So what was all that about three days later at St George’s Chapel? Hot air? A chance for Bishop Curry to do his thing?
And none of this answers another useful question either – how come the girl-about-town, divorced Duchess of Suffering was accorded a full-fat, all expenses Church wedding with whistles and bells, when only a few years before, the Prince of Wales was denied the same when he married a divorcee? Could it possibly be that the rules were waived because of some er, characteristic of one of the participants? Just a thought. What has Our Great Leader to say about that?
Apparently Lambeth Palace, having been approached for a comment on all this, simply found a spokesman to say that ‘he would not comment on personal or pastoral matters’.
Well sorry, Archmuppet, but ‘no comment’ just doesn’t cut the mustard here. This was not a personal or pastoral matter. It was and is a legal and theological matter, seen through the context of two individuals.
According to Ginge and Whinge, they rang up the Archmuppet, explained their desire for a private wedding and he dutifully nipped around in the Archbishop-mobile and did it for them in the back garden at Kensington Palace. In an unlicensed location, without witnesses. They even used their own vows rather than the required ones. Yet at least one of these two geniuses still thinks this was a real wedding.
If it wasn’t so serious, we could all laugh our socks off over it. One of the early post-article comments in The Times said ‘No dear, that was the rehearsal’. How we all laughed. Surely even Meghan couldn’t be that dumb?
But oh, silly me….of course, it’s all part of the ‘poor-us narrative’, isn’t it? Yes, we could be forgiven for thinking that the recent ‘interview’ was in fact a carefully scripted performance that enabled Ginge and Whinge to stick it to the Head of the Church of England and her two successors Charles and William. In other words, an act of revenge that could be seen by their new audience in the US to establish their victimhood, prior to their future efforts to milk it in LaLa Land.
The big question is this: why was the Archmuppet colluding in it? We are talking here about the most senior cleric in the Church of England. A man who has engaged in what was perceived to be a private wedding that wasn’t. A man who has failed to respond to entirely legitimate questions about his actions by claiming it was a personal and pastoral matter. Really? Really?
Put simply, either the Duchess of Suffering and her Royal Appendage (for how long, we are all asking here in the UK) are lying about it, or they really thought they had a wedding in their back garden. Which is it? What does that say for the actions of the Archmuppet? If the two victims were convinced they were married in the back yard, what did they and he think they were doing days later in St George’s Chapel?
This is what happens when ‘leaders’ start changing the centuries-old rules and regs in order to seem more ‘relevant’ and appealing. Heck, if a man can marry another man, or even a man who thinks he is a woman (which they can already do), why can’t we all just get married twice in the same week? What is the difference between a real wedding and fake one? Based on this scenario, who knows? We all thought we were watching the real thing on TV on the big day, unaware that the participants were under the impression that they were having a re-run.
Are we likely to see a straight answer to any of this from Lambeth Palace? Don’t hold your breath, folks.