The Other Royal Wedding

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1309799174' post='2263039']
it looks like a cornucopia.
[/quote]

That's what I thought at first, too, but then, in the picture, the "cornucopia" almost looks like it has a head--like a sea creature. There were other decorations on the cake that made the cake look as if it had an "under the sea" theme--not out of line for the wedding cake of the Prince of a country on the sea. But, then, if it's a sea creature, why feature its "back end" so prominently?

I have only seen the one picture of the cake. Maybe from other angles, the top of the cake makes perfect sense.

P.S. The cake is so big that I still think part of it is cardboard.

Edited July 4, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[CatherineM]

Kate and William's looked real, the other, not so much.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1309801054' post='2263052']
The Belgian royal family is where it's at.
[/quote]

The Belgian Royal family seems wonderful. I like them.

I also like the Royal Famly of Luxembourg, who seem to be very devout Catholics, but have had to face "issues" sometimes.

When their third son was 19 (if I remember the age correctly--in any case, he was young), he was in the army and fell in love with a woman with whom he was serving, and she got pregnant.

The way it was handled was that when the baby was about a year or so old (give or take a few months one way or the other), the couple had a full, Catholic wedding. (I'm not sure if there was a civil wedding before the child was born--my sources are unclear, and I'm running out of time to edit.)

However, the marriage was "Morganic." That is, the wife did not become a Princess and the child, is not a Prince (as his cousins are/will be). As I understand it, however, the wife HAS taken the Luxembourg Royal Family's last name. (I apologize for forgetting the names of the various individuals--this was several years ago.)

The father of the child still has the title "Prince," but he has had to give up his place in line for the throne. (Since he was the third son, there was virtually no chance he would have ever become Grand Duke anyway.) He and his wife seem to be quite happy together. His wife is there with the rest of the family at Luxembourg Royal events and appearances, and the couple has had (at least) one more child since.

What I liked best was how the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg handled the whole thing. The baby was there openly at the Catholic church wedding, and after the wedding, the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg herself held the baby while pictures were taken of the parents. I think the child was her first grandchild (I could be wrong), but it was an open, public statement that, despite the circumstances of the marriage and birth, the Queen adores her grandchild just as much as any grandmother adores her grandchildren. Despite the fact her grandchild is not a "Prince," the Queen loves him. And, I thought the Queen's open and loving "statement" (I don't think she actually said anything--but actions speak loudly) of support for the couple, no matter what mistakes they had made in the past, was wonderful.

I feel sure that, since the couple was eventually married in a Roman Catholic ceremony, they had confessed their sin(s) and shown contrition for their actions, and they have "paid the penance," in part, at least, because their child will not be a Prince. As with Jesus and the woman at the well, Jesus said "Go and sin no more." Jesus looked at the heart and intentions of the woman at the well, and that was more important than what the law would decree for the sin(s) she had commited. I think it is the same for this couple.

I agree--the Belgians are very cool! And, so is the Catholic Royal Family of Luxembourg

Edited July 4, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309802642' post='2263058']
Kate and William's looked real, the other, not so much.
[/quote]

My favorite wedding cake at William and Kate's wedding was the smaller, chocolate wedding cake that Prince William especially asked for. McVitie's (the bakers, who have made past wedding cakes) made and decorated the chocolate cake for William, and I love the way it looked!



[img]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn264/DGeorge758/ChocWeddingcake1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn264/DGeorge758/ChocWeddingcake2.jpg[/img]


The next two pictures are of the "regular" formal wedding cake. I think it was pretty, but I have seen pictures of wedding cakes that I thought were prettier than this one. Also, this cake was a fruitcake--an English tradition for wedding cakes. Although I like fruitcake (and I think I am one of the few Americans who does), it is not my favorite flavor of cake.

This first picture shows the size of the cake.

[img]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn264/DGeorge758/Weddingcake1.jpg[/img]

This second picture shows it at a slightly dfferent angle.

Edited July 4, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[CatherineM]

I love the groom's cake. My mom used to specialize in those. I remember the one when my cousin married a farmer, and she put small John Deere tractors on it. Chocolate though, how can you go wrong with that?

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[img]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn264/DGeorge758/Weddingcake1.jpg[/img]

This second picture was supposed to be a little bigger to show more detail of the cake. Oh well. (And, I have NO idea what happened to this pic in my original post.)




[img]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn264/DGeorge758/WeddingCake4.jpg[/img]

Edited July 4, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[jkaands]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1309802642' post='2263058']
Kate and William's looked real, the other, not so much.
[/quote]

Kate and William's [i]marriage[/i] looks real, the other not so much.

[MithLuin]

I must say that the bride did not look particularly happy in the pictures on the page with the wedding cake, but then....it's a long few days for such a big production, and being in the spotlight that much must be tiring.

Asking the prince to take a paternity test in the days before his wedding was [i]clearly[/i] the move of an unhappy woman! Whether it's his kid or not, she obviously wanted to mar his current relationship. That suggests that the couple has some baggage to work through.

Personally, I hope to never be in the public spotlight. It doesn't look like much fun!

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I had a question about Albert and Charlene's wedding that perhaps someone can answer. First off, I wondered why they didn't get married in the Cathedral (like Albert's parents). But, in any case, the courtyard of the palace made a beautiful venue for the wedding. It also seemed as if it had a set-up that was convenient for all participants--priests, choir, orchestra, and guests. (Unlike Westminster Abbey for William and Kate's wedding, which is gorgeous, with lots of history, but that has a choir screen just before the nave that cuts off the view of guests sitting in the nave. Apparently guests sitting in the nave did have large screens on which they could view the wedding.) But, the guests at Albert and Charlene's wedding could see well. Perhaps the courtyard allowed more guests than the cathedral--I don't know.

But, here's my question. I thought that Catholic weddings could only be performed in certain religious venues if they were performed outside a church or cathedral.

For example, when I got married in the Catholic church (which granted, was a awhile ago, but post-Vatican II) we were told that if we wanted to get married from our parish, it needed to be a religious place, and the only outdoor venue in our parish was a grotto to the Virgin Mary, which had an altar. (We ended up marrying in the church itself, because although the grotto was pretty, it wouldn't have held very many guests.)

Have the rules changed? Or is this a decision made separately by diocese or Archdiocese? At the time we were marred, I understood that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles was one of the most conservative in the U.S. (This was before the time of Mahoney--but again, after Vatican II.)

The courtyard of the palace in Monaco is certainly a "secular venue." However, is marriage in a secular venue now allowed and thus, more common nowadays? Or do you think that Albert and Charlene were able to get special permission to get married in the courtyward of the palace because of who they are?

Thanks!

Edited July 4, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[MithLuin]

I think the generic rule is that you have to be within a certain distance from a tabernacle, to be honest. So, an 'outdoor' venue is okay, but it has to be next to a church (or as you pointed out, a chapel/grotto might work). Not really sure, as I've never looked into it myself.

Certainly, if they were spending $50 mil on this event, it's quite possible that they would have been granted special exceptions, regardless of what the rules are.

From the USCCB (which obviously doesn't apply in Monaco!)

[quote][i]Why does a Catholic wedding have to take place in a church?[/i]

For Catholics, marriage is not just a social or family event, but a church event. For this reason, the Church prefers that marriages between Catholics, or between Catholics and other Christians, be celebrated in the parish church of one of the spouses. [b]Only the local bishop can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.[/b]

[i]If a Catholic wishes to marry in a place outside the Catholic church, how can he or she be sure that the marriage is recognized by the Catholic Church as valid?[/i]

The local bishop can permit a wedding in another church, or in another suitable place, for a sufficient reason. For example, a Catholic seeks to marry a Baptist whose father is the pastor of the local Baptist church. The father wants to officiate at the wedding. In these circumstances, the bishop could permit the couple to marry in the Baptist church. The permission in these instances is called a "[b]dispensation from canonical form[/b]."

source: http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml [/quote]

This suggests that even if the rule is typically 'in a church', the bishop can make an exception to that rule and grant the couple a dispensation. Not sure if a 'secular' location meets the criteria of 'other suitable place' though. Also, I imagine in most cases, the bishop will [i]not[/i] grant a dispensation simply because someone wants to have a garden wedding!

[MithLuin]

I was curious what parts of canon law dealt with this, and here is what I came up with:

[quote]Canon 1079.1 When danger of death threatens, the local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects, wherever they are residing, and all who are actually present in his territory, both from the form to be observed in the celebration of marriage, and from each and every impediment of ecclesiastical law, whether public or occult, with the exception of the impediment arising from the sacred order of priesthood.[/quote]

So, in other words, you can have a deathbed wedding if you really want to. That would likely [i]not[/i] be in a church, for obvious reasons. And if your bishop cannot be reached in a timely fashion, your parish priest has the ability to grant this dispensation.

[quote]Canon 1078.1 The local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects wherever they are residing, and all who are actually present in his territory, from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, except for those whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See. [/quote]

The exceptions include: consanguinity, holy orders, a public vow of chastity (ie, membership in a religious order), and the crime(s) of murdering someone's spouse so that two people will be free to marry. So, the location of the marriage is not a case that gets bumped up to the Holy See!

[quote]Canon 1115 Marriages are to be celebrated in the parish in which either of the contracting parties has a domicile or a quasi-domicile or a month's residence or, if there is question of vagi, in the parish in which they are actually residing. [b]With the permission of the proper Ordinary or the proper parish priest, marriages may be celebrated elsewhere.[/b][/quote]

So, you are supposed to be married in your parish church, and only the bishop can give permission for you to go elsewhere. Unless you simply want to be married in another parish/church building, in which case your parish priest can give the okay for that:

[quote]Canon 1118.1 A marriage between catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptised non-catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church. By permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, it may be celebrated in another church or oratory.

Canon 1118.2 The local Ordinary can allow a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

Canon 1118.3 A marriage between a catholic party and an unbaptised party may be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.[/quote]

There seems to be no restriction on 'another suitable place,' leaving it up to the bishop. It is possible that the size of the crowd was given as a reason not to use the cathedral, and the bishop accepted that as an extraordinary circumstance.

And the record keeping:

[quote]Canon 1121.3 In regard to a marriage contracted with a dispensation from the canonical form, the local Ordinary who granted the dispensation is to see to it that the dispensation and the celebration are recorded in the marriage register both of the curia, and of the proper parish of the catholic party whose parish priest carried out the inquiries concerning the freedom to marry. The catholic spouse is obliged as soon as possible to notify that same Ordinary and parish priest of the fact that the marriage was celebrated, indicating also the place of celebration and the public form which was observed.[/quote]



Oh, and as for illegitimate children:

[quote]Canon 1138.2 Children are presumed legitimate who are born at least 180 days after the date the marriage was celebrated, or within 300 days from the date of the dissolution of conjugal life.

Canon 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, whether valid or putative, or by a rescript of the Holy See.

Canon 1140 As far as canonical effects are concerned, legitimated children are equivalent to legitimate children in all respects, unless it is otherwise expressly provided by the law.
[/quote]

In the case outlined above, where the prince married the mother of his child, it seems the church would view the baby as legitimated.

Edited July 5, 2011 by MithLuin

[ThePenciledOne]

The Princess of Luxumborg goes to my school.

No big deal.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1309825926' post='2263138']
The Princess of Luxumborg goes to my school.

No big deal.


[/quote]

She's pretty. Go for it! The two of you would have beautiful children!

[img]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn264/DGeorge758/PAofLux.jpg[/img]

Edited July 5, 2011 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' timestamp='1309826031' post='2263139']
She's pretty. Go for it!
[/quote]

She is. We sorta share a name too, it's funny. But that ship has since passed, cause then I'd be like every other boy on campus : P


Edit: saw your edit....IgnatiusofLoyola you are ridiculous.

Edited July 5, 2011 by ThePenciledOne

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1309815585' post='2263115']

Asking the prince to take a paternity test in the days before his wedding was [i]clearly[/i] the move of an unhappy woman! Whether it's his kid or not, she obviously wanted to mar his current relationship. That suggests that the couple has some baggage to work through.
[/quote]
I could be the lawyer in me coming out, but I suspect she was hoping that he'd settle quickly and quietly in order to not make for bad pr right before the wedding.