I figure someone here might know this: Can someone decipher the insignia and uniform worn by PW during his wedding? why is his coat red (like his grandfather) while his brother's is blue. Does the blue sash denote royalty etc. Just curious
Not that I watched it, but Harry was wearing the uniform of the Blues & Royals, which is his regiment.
William wore the uniform of the Irish Guards, which raised a few eyebrows, since he is in the RAF, but he is Colonel of the Irish Guards and wanted to honour their service in Afghanistan, apparently. The blue sash is the Order of the Garter, and he had his RAF wings sewn onto that. The medal is the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal (you'll notice Harry also wearing it), and I think the big one below it is the Garter medal.
I guess partly they wanted a visual contrast between William and Harry.
Chapter and verse on who was wearing what uniform
http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/royal-wedding-ceremony-uniform-clothes/
LOL! Maybe it's just because I'm an SCA knight's wife, but I noticed their spurs right off. "Ooh, spurs! Shiny!" :D
What you folks missed is the real esoteric bit fully worthy of the Dernyii, the way they danced around the edges of the Cosmati pavement. I still don't know who those elderly nuns were next to the married couple.
The Cosmati pavement? The area in front of them during the wedding service was built in the 1260s as a Cosmos, a Christian mandala, invoking the eschatological apocalypse in the figures of the day. It was based on the Rose Window at Lausanne, commissioned by Boniface Clutinckx, a local Saint of Brussels, who I believe completed the job of securing the Ark for the Cistercians after the Templars laid their paws on it in the 1160s. Not fiction, fact supported by ample documentation and a thesis in about five years' time.
The pavement had been badly repaired in the seventeenth century and had started to crumble. I first became aware of its power investigating why there was a gap in the 1953 Coronation coverage: apparently it was the Queen's investiture as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, something deemed too sensitive for the common people. It involved some form of Labyrinth passage, I did not at that time know of the pavement which had been kept studiously covered for many years, but now the pattern is published one can see what it entailed. Having kept one of my many half-an-eyes on it since the restoration started in the 1990s, it became clear it was being prepared for a wedding of the Heir Ostensible (the Heir Apparent now being of an age where most men retire) as the pace picked up from 2005 onwards - it is noticeable that nobody, but nobody, crossed it from front to rear or side to side. I can't wait to see it in the stones! In practical terms, this is why Kate had the Abbey virtually forced upon her, St Pauls' never had a real look in. My next task is to discover how it was re-keyed and who did it.
....and off I went to Google "Cosmati pavement".... :D
OMG, what a gorgeous--and highly intriguing--floor pattern, not to mention its history! Just the description of it at the Westminster Abbey website is enough to get my mental gears spinning. (Description here, for those of you who can't be bothered to hunt and peck around the internet just now: http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/art/cosmati-pavement (http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/art/cosmati-pavement) ) Hm, I'm wondering if something similar might be found in various churches and/or cathedrals around Rhemuth.... (Off to do more research and see if I can possibly fit something of the sort into my Schola story or if it might have to wait for another one.....)
Thanks for the link, Evie. Very fascinating.
(https://www.rhemuthcastle.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsfmosaic.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fnew-cosmati-floor-complete1.jpg%3Fw%3D600&hash=028b067478b1668c5d101932229fe5fda14a12ee)
East would be indicated by that red circle at the top of the quincunx, or at least I am assuming so given that's the one closest to the altar, and as far as I know Westminster Abbey follows the standard orientation of the altar being on the east end of the building.
(https://www.rhemuthcastle.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsfmosaic.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F04%2Froyal_wedding_photo_t607.jpg%3Fw%3D607&hash=96dc80847bbd09e52dc146afedf9e826f25f949d)
The key reading is Richard Grant's work listed on the Abbey site - the connection to Clutinckx is my own research, but thoroughly corroborated academically. He goes into some depth about the symbology of the pavement, and the Lausanne connection suggests there's meat on them thar' bones.
There is also some indication in the wider use of pavements that Canterbury might also have been involved. At the moment in the real world I'm running a developing thread on the mediaeval use of labyrinths, it's wider spread than one suspects, and not at all the New Agony some are trying to hijack it into. Part of it is to be found in Yale's Craig Wright, The Maze and the Warrior, and it links to rondelli, the codified form of music initially developed by the monks in their maze dances. Yup, folks, holy hopping was of the order of the night on certain feast-days. You can just see an early CC doing a line-dance! An angle on it is that Boniface' mentor Konrad von Urach now seems to have been the protector of Hildegard of Bingen in her early days.
As far as the Ninja Nun's concerned, it turns out they're chaplains to the Abbey staff, of the Community of Sisters of the Church - looking at their website they are, however, more than habitually Michaeline, their poetry and music go unusually far in the respect shown to that ArchAngel.
St. George's in Rhemuth has the circle with the Seals of the Saints set in the floor near the transept by the High Altar. I've always envisioned that as being big and intricate in its' workmanship.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Michealines or the Gabrilites had such mystical workings in THEIR churches, as well.
That pavement IS gorgeous. I could spend a LOT of time studying it...
Melissa
The core to the real-world - and I'll keep coming back to this, as I doubt if anybody really expected something thoroughly concrete to be discovered and I want to be clear about avoiding cross-contamination from WKK - seems to start in about 1100, with the arrival in the Paris School of the Cathedral of Notre Dame of a young Breton, Pierre "le Pallet", whose perceptivity soon earned him the nickname of "Sting int' tail", Abelard. He soon outgrew his mentor William of Champeaux, defeating him in 1108 in a formal philosophical debate about the scope of knowledge. Because the Church had to exclude the knowledge of sin in its various forms of heresy and malice from its teachings, it could not teach a top-down form of universal taxonomy, but had to restrain itself to a bottom-up study of orthodoxy, straight teaching of only those subjects which fell within the gamut of the doctrinal areas of ecclesiastical worship.
The result was a split in the School. Most of the pupils eventually followed Abelard, the remainder stayed with de Champeaux who was in turn forced to decamp to the left-bank Abbey of the Victorine Order when Abelard was eventually persuaded to return. There, they became more monastically purist in their observance of a particular constraint, that their mysticism had to keep a foot on the ground of reality, and in particular I found a common logic in certain studies which crystallised the doctrines of the relationship of man and God. The first work published was by Hugh of St Victor, a study of the Old Testament Covenant of Noah typified in the rainbow, in French the Ark in the Sky. The second was by Richard of St Victor, a study of the second covenant, that of Moses in Judaic Law, typified in the Ark of the Covenant. The third took nearly two hundred years more to appear, and this time not directly from Paris, but from a Priory just south of Brussels, known as Groenendael, Greendale, or in Latin Vallis Verdis, where an elderly cleric, Jan van Ruusbroec, who had dedicated the priory some fifty years previously, published a study, the Spiritual Tabernacle, of the Christian Covenant, figured on the Ark of the Covenant, but pre-figuring constantly the Ark's final role in Revelation, that of the Judgement Seat. This would then inspire a Dutch Canon, Gerard Groot, to reform the Canons Regular in the adoption of the Augustinian Rule and the establishment of a formal seat at Windesheim. Amongst the founders was John, the brother of Thomas à Kempis, Thomas from the Kempen, the area east of Antwerp. The Order rapidly grew, greatly encouraged by the former Chancellor of the University of Paris, Pierre d'Ailly, and his pupil and doctrinal heir, Nicholas of Kues. Its great luminaries were Erasmus, Luther, and Thomas à Kempis, and it may be seen as the great theological light of the Reformation, replacing the existing Orders which fell into the every form of financial irregularity which drove the Protestants into rebellion.
Ruusbroec's work in particular raises a serious question, that he expounds on details of the Ark and Tabernacle which are nowhere else recorded. However, I have found records which suggest he was working from hard reality, the thing itself, and closely associated with it is the higher metaphysical study of alchemy and cosmology. Kues was Kepler's chief inspiration, and d'Ailly Columbus', and the pair of them were the chief transmission of the Arabic knowledge of Astronomy after Alfonso the Wise of Castile brought it to Western attention. Much of what is attributed to the Kepler-Newton school was in fact already known to them, indeed I'm openly challenging the idea that science as a whole was an Enlightenment creation by showing how the ideas of Leibnitz and Newton were entirely conditioned by earlier knowledge.
A stylistic aberrance which WKK tends to fall into is the adoption of rationalism in early study. Comforting though it is to think that it was always thus, in truth the academic norm prior to 1500, and surviving until about 1650, was that of the quadrivium, the creation of a case capped in theology, driven by music, arithmetic, cosmology and geometry, and using the primitive tools of grammar, rhetoric and logic. The Enlightenment, by comparison, appears to be almost the opposite of its claim, in that it only uses logic and a certain degree of rhetoric, and has let the rest go hang - it is lazy thinking of a form which is causing great concern in Europe, at least, about the lack of education of the young generation. This too might be an interesting sub-tone to works in the WKK, as it is quite certain that Puteanus' work in Brussels, inspired by this, working with Vincenzo Galileo in the completion of musical theory, was the chief inspiration of Vincenzo's son and also of Newton in his completion of the proof of the elliptical orbits of planets, a suspicion first raised by d'Ailly in the early 1400s.
Quote from: Rahere on September 15, 2011, 04:30:31 AMI can't wait to see it in the stones! In practical terms, this is why Kate had the Abbey virtually forced upon her, St Pauls' never had a real look in. My next task is to discover how it was re-keyed and who did it.
Prince Charles, Princess Anne, and Prince Andrew were all married at St. Paul's because St. Paul's has better sight-lines for TV; notice how all those marriages ended? One is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy (or perhaps Enemy) action; there is clear evidence of a curse. ;)
where was EII married? I dont think hers was much more than a convienience, Philip hasnt been around for a long time.
At least C&D produced what seems like two very classy princes, altho time will tell.
Queen Elizabeth - or rather, just plain Princess Elizabeth as she was then - was married at Westminster Abbey on November 20, 1947. When they became engaged, Philip gave up his Greek citizenship and title and took on the surname Mountbatten.
QuoteI dont think hers was much more than a convienience, Philip hasnt been around for a long time.
I don't know what you mean by this - it doesn't make sense. Do you mean to suggest it was an arranged marraige or marriage of convenience? If so, that is not the case: it was a love match, and Elizabeth was perfectly happy being a naval officer's wife and enjoying that whole atmosphere and society. Just as Kate is doing with William.
And if by 'not being around' you mean that Philip hasn't often been seen in public lately, then yes, that's undoubtedly true. But the man DID turn ninety in June, so I guess that might explain why he now has a reduced workload of official royal duties! :D
maybe I am being unfair, but I was under the impression he hasnt been around for a long time. He supposedly refused to let Charles marry the woman of his love, in other words C&D was at least partly arranged (by default) and I thought Philip's was more of the same.
Maybe they need a miniseries on EII.
QuoteHe supposedly refused to let Charles marry the woman of his love
Well, considering that the woman Charles was in love with happened to be married to someone else at the time, IIRC, that's hardly surprising. :) Also, even if Camilla had been willing to divorce her then-husband earlier in order to marry Charles, there might have been some popular objection at the time to the future head of the Church of England marrying a divorcee. That was definitely an issue back in the day when Edward VIII abdicated in order to be able to marry Wallis Simpson, though it was probably becoming slightly less so by the 1980s. Also, even as late as the 1980s, a royal bride with a "past" was highly frowned upon. Sarah Ferguson raised a few eyebrows for having had a live-in boyfriend prior to her relationship with and marriage to Prince Andrew, and that was a few years after Charles married Diana. Times and societal expectations have greatly changed between the era of Charles' courtship years and his son's.
I thought that when Charles wanter to marry Camilla originally she wasnt married, but after Philip said NO, they went theri ways and she married her second choice. After about 10 years and two kids Charles and Diana diverged and charles went back to Camilla who was by then divorced.
Quote from: tenworld on December 05, 2011, 03:54:34 PM
... I was under the impression he hasnt been around for a long time. He supposedly refused to let Charles marry the woman of his love, in other words C&D was at least partly arranged (by default) and I thought Philip's was more of the same.
I assure you the Duke is still very much "around" and in fact he accompanied the Queen on her recent visit here to Australia (November), where they both travelled long distances and had a busy round of duties. Just because he's not making daily headlines doesn't mean he isn't doing things!!
All the information on Queen Elizabeth that I have ever read indicates that her marriage was very much a love match. As for the Duke's
supposed role in Charles not being able to marry Camilla at first, I'm afraid you will have to do your own trawling through all the gossip and general nastiness that has been written about it over the years. :)
Quote from: tenworld on December 01, 2011, 03:58:58 PM
at least C&D produced what seems like two very classy princes, altho time will tell.
Wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party is not my idea of 'classy.'
It was Prince Harry who was photographed wearing a Nazi uniform.
Harry was a young man at a private birthday party and had any other guest, from a wealthy family or not, turned up in the same costume, it would have been a complete non-event. Yes, it was probably in poor taste - but who at his age hasn't done something in bad taste, or a lot worse? But because it was Harry, the ever-present paparazzi and other people only too willing to make a big thing of it, ensured the pic went round the world. Poor princes, like their mother now living their lives under the glare of flashbulbs and phone cameras, and knowing that the tiniest, slightest mistake or wrong move is going to be front page news.
Quote from: derynifanatic64 on December 06, 2011, 09:53:46 PM
It was Prince Harry who was photographed wearing a Nazi uniform.
Your point being?
Quote from: Alkari on December 06, 2011, 11:33:04 PM
Poor princes, like their mother now living their lives under the glare of flashbulbs and phone cameras, and knowing that the tiniest, slightest mistake or wrong move is going to be front page news.
To whom much has been given, from him much will be expected. That's part of being royalty. If they don't like it they can renounce their titles and go live as private citizens.
Yes, he's royalty, but at the time he was also only 20 years old. At that age (mid-teens to young 20s), people--even Royals--are apt to do a lot of stupid, not very well thought out things that hopefully they wouldn't dream of doing in later life once they have reached their full maturity and brain development, which happens on average somewhere around the age of 25. It's a scientific fact that the reason that adolescents are so impulsive, emotional, etc., is that in addition to the sudden influx of hormones at that stage of life, the brain has not reached full maturity and will continue to lag behind the body's maturation a few years longer. Even Royal children are not somehow exempt from this simple fact of life. Now, if Harry had been in his late 20s or older at the time, that would be a different matter, but for a 20 year old, "kids will occasionally be blithering idiots" applies no matter how highborn one is, or well-educated, well-mannered, etc. I was far more of a "goody two shoes" sort of girl at that age than most, but even so, there are still things I said back then and actions I look back on now and wonder if adolescence is actually a temporary form of brain damage. No, I'll take that back, I don't wonder. Having two teens of my own now dispels all remaining doubt! :D
And when you were actually suffering that temporary insanity, you didn't have to cope with 24/7 scrutiny by the ordinary media, the feral paparazzi, and anyone else in the general population who happened to have a camera of some sort handy. Or, in the case of those who didn't have a camera, people would be prepared to spill the beans in the form of juicy gossip for a nice little payment from some or other media outlet.
QuoteTo whom much has been given, from him much will be expected. That's part of being royalty. If they don't like it they can renounce their titles and go live as private citizens.
Much indeed is indeed expected, Elkhound - but I somehow don't believe that "much" happens to mean 100% perfection and never making a mistake.
And you don't have to go very far back into the history of British royalty to find royals whose behaviour was much worse and far less classy than Harry's,
and at an age when they should have been 'mature'. Dare I perhaps mention Edward VIII?
Quote from: Alkari on December 07, 2011, 04:01:17 PM
And when you were actually suffering that temporary insanity, you didn't And you don't have to go very far back into the history of British royalty to find royals whose behaviour was much worse and far less classy than Harry's, and at an age when they should have been 'mature'. Dare I perhaps mention Edward VIII?
And that is why some two hundered years ago my ancestors pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to get rid of all that nonsense. (I could be in Sons of the American Revolution if I wanted to; my grandmother and mother shredded their D.A.R. certificates over the Marian Anderson incident.)
Be careful Elhound - if we are talking of "class", then in my lifetime I can think of a few elected US presidents who have shown themselves to lack any form of class, ethics, integrity and all the rest of it :) They kinda put poor Harry's youthful little misdeameanour in the shade!
So you worry about your Presidents, and leave the Brits and the Commonwealth to worry about the Royals. :)
Constitutional monarchies do have the definite advantage of having the person who represents the nation be completely separate from the person who just happens to be at the head of the current government. It makes it a lot easier for other nations to show their respect for a monarch's nation and people during a monarch's State visits even when they might have pronounced differences when it comes to policy.
Of course Elkhound, we Aussies should really be very greatful to your forebears. :D
After all, if it wasn't for the American Revolution, the Brits wouldn't have needed to find another place to send their convicts, and the First Fleet would not have set sail. Australia would then have been settled by the French - we'd probably have great food but undoubtedly more chaotic government! (Mind you, we'd probably have got French convicts instead, of course, and perhaps eventually the French Foreign Legion.) And based on other French colonial precedents, our path to nationhood may not have been nearly as smooth :D
ETA: And I am positive that the American Revolution was sparked by something a little more significant than a youthful misdemeanor of a younger prince attending a private party! Hmmm - if prince was attending costume party in eighteenth century, wonder who he could have dresssed up as, in order to give offence?!
<message deleted by a moderator>
This discussion has turned offensive. I don't like to do this sort of thing, but I'm locking this topic to further discussion, since it has turned so acrimonious.
~~DesertRose
Quote from: Alkari on December 07, 2011, 08:35:19 PM
Of course Elkhound, we Aussies should really be very greatful to your forebears. :D
After all, if it wasn't for the American Revolution, the Brits wouldn't have needed to find another place to send their convicts, and the First Fleet would not have set sail. Australia would then have been settled by the French - we'd probably have great food but undoubtedly more chaotic government!
pate de roo gras?
Quote from: tenworld on December 08, 2011, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: Alkari on December 07, 2011, 08:35:19 PM
Of course Elkhound, we Aussies should really be very greatful to your forebears. :D
After all, if it wasn't for the American Revolution, the Brits wouldn't have needed to find another place to send their convicts, and the First Fleet would not have set sail. Australia would then have been settled by the French - we'd probably have great food but undoubtedly more chaotic government!
pate de roo gras?
I dunno, tenworld, I would imagine roos would take a great deal of time (not to mention costly feed) to fatten up just to use their livers. That would be an awful waste unless one decides to use the rest of the meat as well. Though I've heard kangaroo meat is rather tasty....
Roo Cordon Bleu, perhaps? It has a certain
je ne sais quoi to it. :D
QuoteHey, if you want to kowtow to these inbred parasites, go right ahead.
The idea that the right to leadership should be based on bloodlines rather than either merit or the will of the people is to me--as a descentant of Revolutionary War patriots--repugnant, but to each his own.
Elkhound I'm very sorry, but I find that post to be extremely insulting to the
democratic constitutional monarchies around the world. Not just those in the Comonwealth, like the UK itself, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, but also countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Norway (plus others).
None of us "kow tow" to our royal families as you so rudely and disparagingly put it, and there is more than one form of perfectly workable democracy other than the US system.
If you wish to be a "Son of the Revolution" that's just fine, but please at least outwardly show some respect for other systems and other people.
The End.
QuoteI dunno, tenworld, I would imagine roos would take a great deal of time (not to mention costly feed) to fatten up just to use their livers. That would be an awful waste unless one decides to use the rest of the meat as well. Though I've heard kangaroo meat is rather tasty....
Roo Cordon Bleu, perhaps? It has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.
Kangaroo meat is very tasty and is extremely good for you (especially if you are trying to lose weight!) - it is very lean (only 1-2% fat), and has a high iron content. Being totally free range and organic, it doesn't have any antibiotics or other nasties that you may get in heavily farmed meat. In fact, many people think we should be eating more roo meat rather than beef or lamb, as roos are overall better for our environment: they don't emit any methan gas, for example, and don't have hooves that can erode often fragile semi-desert areas. You have to be careful cooking the meat because of its low fat content, as it doesn't have 'marbling' and so can dry out easily.
So leave the idea of foie gras, and have roo steaks, sausages and Kangaroo Tail Soup instead! :)
I am locking this thread, but if you want to take the roo discussion elsewhere, since people are generally behaving decently in that particular line of discussion, please feel free.
~~DesertRose