Gaudy peacocks at Prince Phillip’s memorial service

eazybee

An extremely unpleasant and uncouth opening post.

yes, I second your post......

Ilovecheese

There is a member of the Royal Family who should hang his head in shame, and he walked in with the Queen.

He was there to honour his father and support his mother and that is all.

As far as I know sackcloth and ashes were not required.

This memorial service is a celebration of the life of a well-loved husband, father and grandfather. It is a kind ofpartyat which the clergy are at liberty to wear celebration clothes.

Good point.

Honeysuckleberries

I completely agree with you. It's one of the reasons that my relationship with God does not incorporate "organised" religion. It's a far cry from what Jesus preached, and I find it abominable while so many worldwide, including the UK, live in abject poverty.

The Anglican Church, or Church of England as it's also known is worth £6,823,089,000.00

The Catholic Church is worth £22,849,680,000.00

Something tells me God would not approve.

Last Sunday was Laudate Sunday and bright vestments were worn , to celebrate a life I would imagine the same theme is acceptable

I thought that the opening post was pretty nasty when I first read (scanned) it.
I didn’t notice the reference to genitalia.
Yuk.
Personally I love the pomp and sheer beauty of occasions such as this.
Modern life is sadly devoid of such tradition

Religion is man made.
It’s by humans for humans

. I didn’t understand the purpose of the OP and thought it would have been better left unsaid.
Well put Elegran.
This memorial service is a celebration of the life of a well-loved husband, father and grandfather. It is a kind of party at which the clergy are at liberty to wear celebration clothes.

annodomini

I thought there was a rule tradition that during Lent the clergy wore sober robes and the gaudy vestments were brought out on Easter Day. As a former member of the Church of Scotland and now a Humanist, I suppose I have no right to comment and no doubt someone will tell me so!

There are various traditions of different colours for different services at various times of the year. Originally they were part of marking the important dates for the majority of the congregation who couldn't read. The sombre hues of Lent were followed by the bright celebration garments for the risen Christ on Easter Day.

The Catholic and Anglican churches are only two among a whole lot of more ascetic non-conformist denominations. An accident of history made the C of E the denomination of choice for the monarchy, but there is no obligation on anyone to join it. Take your pick - or join none.

Even if we think the robes are ostentatious I don’t understand why OP is surprised as such garments have been worn for centuries. Why just suddenly notice them?

I also think the language used was very “off” .

Petera

tidyskatemum

I was rather more taken with the fact that the entire royal family, including all but the smallest children, were there together with all the crowned heads of Europe. The notable exception should be hanging his head in shame.

Who's not there?

Oh here we go. Your starter for ten,

I think the robes matched the grand surroundings.

Lucca

Even if we think the robes are ostentatious I don’t understand why OP is surprised as such garments have been worn for centuries. Why just suddenly notice them?

I also think the language used was very “off” .

Yes, I think the OP must never have watched any other broadcast services in cathedrals or big churches (Royal weddings, Baptisms or funerals, Easter or Christmas services), or she would have been less surprised.

I noticed that bottle/forest green was popular with a lot of the ladies. Very nice to see the children. I wonder what they thought of it all.
Unlike everyone else it seems, I was glad to see Prince Andrew escorting his mother in and taking a discreet seat. Anyone else missing? Nobody of interest.

Prince Harry was not there. Nor, for that matter was Prince Louis, I suspect for different reasons.

I loved the music, and seeing Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Also assorted blonde children I couldn’t name. I thought the Queen did very well. She stood up and sang the hymns.

The PM looked a slob, as usual..

If Harry and Meghan had attended, don’t you think they would have been the focus of the tabloid media attention. They are being picked on because they didn’t come. If they had come, they would have been accused of diverting attention from the Queen. They can’t win. Andrew though - surely Ann could have accompanied her mother?

There were six g grandchildren there,

So sad that the OP was crude

Prince Andrew had every right to be there.

Ladyleftfieldlover
I haven't seen any sign of anyone being picked on as you state! you are wrong.

merlotgran

Prince Andrew had every right to be there.

My cousin had actually been imprisoned not just accused of something. They were at my Grandmother’s funeral-and why not?
My Grandmother, whilst not condoning the behaviour which led to the sentence, had not banned them from the family whilst she was alive.

Surely he had a funeral ,like any one else had to have ,a bit streamlined ..but it was a funeral .There was really no need for this show today ,Just our lords and masters showing their importance.

Yes. It was right and proper that Prince Andrew was there.

Lucca

Petera

tidyskatemum

I was rather more taken with the fact that the entire royal family, including all but the smallest children, were there together with all the crowned heads of Europe. The notable exception should be hanging his head in shame.

Who's not there?

Oh here we go. Your starter for ten,

I suppose I could have googled, but I just assumed it was Prince Andrew. Turns out I was wrong

I’m sure HM is still quite capable of deciding who accompanied her in without any suggestions Ladyleftfieldlover