The final words of the Sunday Telegraph’s coverage of the gay Anglican “wedding” caught my eye. “A champagne reception was held in the Great Hall of St Bartholomew’s Hospital . . .” it said, and afterwards the couple “left in an open landau and headed for the Ivy restaurant with close friends and family”. The order of service that was helpfully printed above made clear that these events happened on 31 May, and I was reading it on 15 June.
Let us get this straight. It is possible to conduct “the Church of England’s first homosexual wedding” – an event so important it is apparently set to cause “an irreversible schism” in the worldwide Anglican community – in London on a Saturday in May, and the national press does not notice for a fortnight.
Footballers and Wags, take note. The ingredients of a discreet wedding, it seems, are these: hold it in one of the country’s best-known churches (featured in both Four Weddings and a Funeral and Shakespeare in Love), with rose-petal confetti, a robed choir, morning suits, bridesmaids and a VIP congregation, and then, after a reception in the historic public building next door, process to dinner at the Ivy in an open-topped carriage drawn by horses.
That’s low key all right.
What’s “bottling” in context of British politics. All google is turning up is soft drinks and political use of the term. No definitions.
Kendall,
I pointed this out on a couple of other blogs asking for an explanation of how in this day age of the internet that we only found out two weeks after the fact. No one replied to my question. How did those of you who have your ears to the rails get scooped by this? Call it conspiracy, or what you will, but something is rotten in Denmark. What else has happened in the intervening two weeks that we also don’t know about? You can bet that if the story had been about some evangelical presbyter who refused to marry these two, there would have been a tremendous uproar almost immediately. I want to know who suppressed this story and why.
“Call it conspiracy…. You can bet that if the story had been about some evangelical presbyter who refused to marry these two, there would have been a tremendous uproar….”
Oh please, there is no way a conspiracy could have stopped this story from getting out — as Br. Michael implies, it was not low key, and a conspiracy of silence is a very hard thing to manage. Look how much publicity it has got subsequently! If any one of the newspapers that have published stories on this in the last few days had heard of it a week earlier, what possible reason would they have had not to scoop everybody else? After all, they’re hyping it like crazy now — so what would have stopped them then?
Stop playing the victim (“if it had been an evangelical….”) and feeling sorry for yourself. People on the right are just as good at publicizing useful things as people on the left. It just took some time for anybody to notice — because newspapers are short staffed nowadays and they count on people sending out press releases, which none of the participants seems to have felt they had an incentive to do — but then it exploded.
Peace,
Mark.
Was Sir Elton & Madonna amoung the guests, or did they get didst on an invite?
Actually, Kendall had posted several stories relating to this, as soon as they appeared in the news and on other blogs.
#2 Words Matter
In context: “Nine months ago, after the election that wasn’t, Kelvin MacKenzie was one of those who accused Gordon Brown of “bottling”. ”
bottling it or bottling out is colloquial English idiom for getting to a point of decision or action and then not going ahead or withdrawing. If having told your friends that you were going to dive from the highest board at the pool, you got to the edge and then could not go through with it you could be said to have bottled out or bottled it.
Gordon Brown prepared the country for an early General Election, but following concerns that he might loose he changed his mind. He “bottled it” or “bottled out”
I have absolutely no idea where the term comes from.
Tsk, tsk such speculation. I know very well what happened to their plans for a discreet wedding. Their mothers got involved.
My dear#3RMBruton, I find why in the GURADIAN. And it is very simple. Many “GAY WEDDINGS” are bleesed in CofE congregations through the year, but the good liberal Brittish people don’t mind, this one happened at a church at Fleet Street, in the City. Fleet Street when a expression, means “the British Press”, because almost all big British newspapers and news agencies are located there, so my dear friend what don’t lack there are NEWSMAKERS and PAPARAZZI. I don’t think that a church at Fleet Street is a good place for a LOW KEY WEDDING.
The Gay Nuptial Mass doesn’t require secret invites like the Gay Mass held in London a few months back? Anglican rubrics just get harder and harder to follow; it is doubtless part of the curriculum in the college newly minted bishops attend that was mentioned earlier…
Oh for heaven’s sake, this was “the Church of England’s first homosexual wedding” the way Gene Robinson is the Anglican Communion’s first gay bishop!
The interesting question is who decided to make this one the subject of press attention and why.
Pageantmaster – thanks. Oddly enough, the term makes sense to me; it’s reminds me of “bottleneck”, which basically refers to the narrow neck of the bottle stopping the flow of things.
I am not sure where these ‘gay weddings’ and ‘gay blessings’ take place in the CofE. I have never heard of any and no-one I know has.
While it is quite possible that some priests have conducted secret blessings these are illegal and if caught these priests will risk discipline as Dr Dudley may be about to find out. Susan Russell is quite wrong to suggest that this is somehow accepted as a norm or a blind eye is turned to it.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
“Who decided to make this one the subject of press attention and why?” Do the letters LBGT look familiar? Seems to me that someone was looking for more publicity so that they could rub it in our noses!
The correct answer to #11: This “wedding” became the object of acute scrutiny because its intent was clearly a challenge and a threat, and the press – and practically everyone else – saw it as a gesture of grave importance. This wasn’t Robinson and his boyfriend which was a whimper, not a bang. This “wedding” was strategically placed to dare the establishment to act, and it implied that the establishment would fail to produce a response equivalent to the stimulus. It was, in short, a piece of exhibitionism, flagrant and tasteless; and it was also an important power play, the homophile agenda flexing its muscles. Larry
I believe the elves should be filtering messages here… “Mrs. Robinson” (#13 — [i]really[/i], Pageantmaster, I expect a higher tone from you)… “Robinson and his boyfriend” (#15 — I’ll not be elved myself by commenting…).
The terms are, like it or not, “Bishop Robinson” (“Mr. Robinson” if you are British) and “Robinson and his partner” (or spouse…).
Sigh. Much ado about little.
[i] Sorry, not checking often enough. I’m on it now. [/i]
#16. You are right there. It is much ado about little. I am quite willing to have the elves give me a smack when I deserve it. I am not willing for you to become an elfgirl and do your own punishing esp. in matter of such small consequence. LM
[i] The elves are not always on duty, so we appreciate a head’s up from commenters- ALL commenters. When we find that the complaint is valid, we take action.[/i]
-Elf Lady
[i] Deleted by elf. Off Topic.
FWIW: There are two monitors for this blog- we are known as Elf Girl and Elf Lady. [/i]
[i] Deleted by elf. Off topic. [/i]
– Elf Lady