Slow news month for the Royal Family
I’m afraid the slow news month for the Royal Family continues into another.
Prince Harry learns to fly
Prince William and Prince Harry are away learning to fly helicopters and their girlfriends have gone to ground. Chelsy Davy has broken off her relationship with Harry, while Kate Middleton seems to have popped into a black hole … again.
We hear that Harry has failed the first written test on his flying course and is receiving special tuition from his officers.
Lord “Freddie” Windsor has become engaged to Sophie Winkleman and will marry in September. Sophie played the irascible Princess Eleanor in The Palace, an irreverent, and almost unwatchable, ITV drama about a fictional British Royal Family, which appeared too close for comfort to the present one.
The Queen will soon have two Sophies to contend with: Sophie Wessex and Sophie Windsor.
A source said, “The first thing on the agenda is to get the parents to meet as they have not had the chance so far. Princess Michael is currently in South Africa but they’ll arrange a meeting as soon as she returns. Everybody is thrilled.”
Sophie’s father is Barry Winkleman, a publisher, and her mother, Cynthia Black, is a children’s author.
Prince Philip took a fall while carriage driving recently, suffering a badly strained back and knocks to his eyes and nose. Typically, he bounced back quickly and has resumed his busy engagement round.
Let us hope the Depression has not stifled all the activities of the Royals and those around them.
Hardly looks like two people could fit in that plane
By Julie on February 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Excellent summary, John. It is curious that there has been so few news items about the Royal Family recently. I am delighted that Prince Philip is well again and I hope there will be no more mishaps while carriage driving. Every day I search the internet for new photos of the Queen and the recent ones have shown her beautifully garbed in old rose pink, or garnet, or cherry red, or cream and black. Just seeing the Queen out and about makes me feel happy!
Here we have beautiful blue skies, sunshine, temps in the 60-70s and we are planting quite a lot of things in our garden. The daffodils, crocus, grape hyacinth and paperwhites are up and blooming and my lily-of-the-valley we planted last Fall are pushing sprouts up through the earth. We still have extreme drought here and would love to have more rainfall, however.
By Gigi on February 19th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
thanks john for the update – looks like they are “hunkering” (sp) down like the rest of us…
cheers
gigi – this might be good time for one of your infamous teas
By coni on February 19th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
John,
In the previous post someone mentions that Ms. Winkleman is jewish. What kind of wedding ceremony will they have? Is this the first jewish to be married into the Royal Family? Does she need to convert?
By MaRILYN on February 19th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Gigi, you are well ahead of us here in the West Country, although we have a lot of late spring plants peeping through. It’s been a hard winter by our standards, so everything is late this year. We’re hoping for a blazing summer to compensate.
Yes, the Royal scene is sensibly giving way to all the economic news and data. Hard times to come, but we’ll all get through it somehow.
By John on February 19th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Marilyn, I don’t know if she is Jewish. Winkleman could well be a Jewish name of German extraction.
There are no problems with a Jewish marriage, I think. Only Catholics are currently debarred. Freddie is way down the list of succession anyway, so I suppose he could marry an orang utan if he wanted. Only kiddin’
By John on February 19th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Seems odd to announce an engagement before the families have met. Might it be that Freddie is not so close to his own parents?
By Dan on February 19th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Re: Ms. Winkleman
http://tinyurl.com/c9q43m
The Act of Settlement applies only to Roman Catholics, or those who recognize the Pope as the head of the church. There are denominations in the US that call themselves Catholic, but are not under papal jurisdiction.
By Bear on February 19th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Bear, I am both an American and a Catholic and I know of no Catholics in America who are not under the jurisdiction of the Holy Father. To what denominations do you refer? Dan, I also thought it was singular that Lord Frederick Windsor and Ms. Winkleman waited to be engaged before arranging a meeting of their parents. Perhaps this is the custom in Royal circles, but I doubt it. John, what do you say to this?
By Gigi on February 20th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Gigi,
I believe there are churches from Asia (China? Philippines ?), and American churches who reject Vatican II. Both use noun “Catholic” but their relations with the Vatican are tenuous (at best).
I can think of one reason not to introduce parents before engagement — to present them with a “done” deal which they cannot argue against.
This happens in circles that are not so royal
By Sojourner on February 20th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Has anyone else checked out the royal family’s redesigned website?
By Aunt Pierre on February 20th, 2009 at 1:39 am
This is a Wikipedia entry for the Old Catholic Church. See the “See Also”s at the bottom. (As with all Wikipedia entries, use caution, but I think this church does exist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic
By Bear on February 20th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Gigi, there are a few “Catholic” congregations in the US who have ordained women priests. The Pope will not recognize them, but they do consider themselves Catholic.
By Evelyn on February 20th, 2009 at 1:45 am
The word ‘catholic’ means “universal’ so of course churches of other rites may use the word. I am aware of the sects you indicated, Sojourner, but I thought Bear was speaking of the Roman Catholic Church.
Aunt Pierre, I spent some time perusing the redesigned website for the Royal family last evening. What is your opinion regarding design and content?
By Gigi on February 20th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Thanks to the linked article on Sophie Winkleman, Bear. If it’s correct, Freddie’s fiance may be ethnically Jewish, but it sounds like she isn’t religious. (Father “not practicing,” studied Jewish teens for an acting role, etc) It will be interesting to see what shape their wedding takes.
John mentioned the wedding will be in September. I would guess they checked the royal calendar… so no other royal weddings in that month.
By Evelyn on February 20th, 2009 at 1:57 am
I am utterly mystified about Zara Phillips and Mike Tindal! What on earth happened to their plans to marry, I wonder. It is all very odd.
By Gigi on February 20th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Great Depression 2.0 seems to have put a dampener on lots of things. As for Mike Tindall, I noticed he was back in the England rugby team against Wales a week or so ago. His training must be intense and time-consuming.
By John on February 20th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Gigi, Episcopalians (Anglicans) consider themselves Catholics. Your church is called the Roman Catholic Church (“Roman” being the operative word), but it is generally shortened to just “Catholic.”
Some people in my Episcopal Church call yours the “Roman Church,” not willing to cede the “C” word to the Papists.
By Dan on February 20th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
By Gigi on February 20th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Maybe ZP and MT are both too busy. I read somewhere that ZP was setting her sights on the next Olympics. If so, it doesn’t sound like any marriage/children before then.
By Bear on February 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
perhaps Zara and Mike are happy with the arrangement and are in no hurry to marry…
By coni on February 20th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Doing a little research (as usual, AFTER I shot off my mouth
) I find that my earlier comments require clarification. the Pope’s church does indeed call itself, and consider itself, THE Catholic Church. It is the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and some protestant faiths, most prominently the Anglican/Episcopal, that insist on calling it the Roman Catholic Church, in order that they may continue to consider themselves to be Catholic Churches in their own right (the term is largely an English language convention). While it was originally an exclusionary term, it is commonly accepted by Roman Catholics themselves. Indeed, in the United States, many Catholic churches have signs in front that identify them as “Saint So-and-So’s Roman Catholic Church”.
It’s another example of a term of derision taken up by the people it was meant to deride.
Sorry if this seems awfully pedantic. There’s not much Royal news to otherwise occupy my brain today!
By Dan on February 20th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Thanks Bear for the link. It will be interesting to see SW guest list since it seems to be a very extended family!!
By MaRILYN on February 20th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Dan – there are indeed other types of “Catholic” churches that follow the ecclesiastical structure of the Roman Catholic Church. These are generally churches tied to specific traditions or ethnicities. For example, in the USA, you can find Korean-Catholic and Chaldean Catholic churches as well as more traditional parishes that still use most aspects of the Latin-based mass (the latter are in adherence w/Rome because they accept the changes of the Vatican Council of the 1960′s).
The Roman Catholic Church does not consider most “Protestant” churches to be “Catholic” because of significant differences in dogma. It does recognize other churches as “Catholic” (big “C”), even though those churches do not recognize the papacy. These churches belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is a communion of 15 different churches. Each is semi-autonomous and led by a Primate or 1st Hierarch and is defined by a geographical region, language and culture.
The reason why Roman Catholics consider Eastern rite religions to be “Catholic” is because of the alignment of their beliefs about the Trinity and Eucharist. The Anglican Church differs on the latter, which is why its members are not considered “Catholic” by Roman Catholics. The Anglican Church is recognized, though, as being very closely related to Catholicism since its break from Rome was mostly caused by political reasons, not doctrinal differences (king Henry VIII would not have formed the Church of England if the Pope had been more amenable to granting him a divorce).
By Lisa on February 21st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Dan – also of note: prior to the current crisis occurring in the Anglican Communion over whether to ordain women and homosexuals, there had been occasional speculation by some observers that if the British monarchy were ever dissolved (or at least, if the monarch were no longer the ceremonial head of the Church of England), then perhaps it might someday be possible for a reconciliation with Roman Catholicism. Given that the English monarch has the role of “defender of the faith” it is understandable why Charles’ divorce/remarried was frightening to persons staunchly opposed to any potential reconciliation with Rome.
Lastly, the term “papists” is typically offensive (even akin to using the N-word) as this term has been used as a bigoted slur for a very long time.
By Lisa on February 21st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Sorry, Lisa. I was not aware of the offensive nature of the word, despite having been raised in the Catholic Church (the one based in Rome
). I did not mean to offend.
By Dan on February 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
According to my cradle-Catholic, former altar boy, parochial school educated husband, whose cousin is a Monsignor who was at the Vatican for years, the term ‘papist’ is only considered a negative term when used by a non-Catholic in a negative context. The term ‘papist’ merely means one who is subject to the power and authority of the Papacy, i.e., the Holy Father at the Vatican. I assure all of you that, as a devout Catholic, I take no offense at being called a papist by anyone.
By Gigi on February 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Gigi is right. Calling someone accurately what they are is not in any way offensive.
Nowadays there are many people eager to be offended because the law allows them to be, and even compensates them for it.
We can either choose to walk on eggshells — the Baby Boomer way — or we can resume our more sensible, cheerfully robust way of life.
By John on February 22nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
In Ireland, and particularly Northern Ireland, “papist” is used as a term of derogation by those who are . . . not.
By Bear on February 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
John, Gigi & Dan,
I realized that Dan did not mean to be offensive. I should have made that clear in my posting. I mentioned the nature of the term because I realized that Dan did not realize the history associated with the word.
The term papist is indeed almost always a derogatory slur toward Roman Catholics. Its historical context is tied most frequently to the the British monarchy and the rules of succession, but was brought to America by the Puritans. It became somewhat archaic during the 20th century until 1960 when John Kennedy was a presidential candidate. The slur was used to stir fear that he would put the views of the Pope before the American people and the US constitution. As someone who studied Catholic theology in the 1980′s and has several priests and nuns in my family, I can assure you that it is indeed still a slur in the United States, albeit, one which is receding into the history.
From the online encyclopedia nationmaster dot com:
Papist is a term, usually disparaging, referring to a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It was coined during the English Reformation to indicate a Christian’s loyalties were to the Pope, rather than to the native Protestant Church of England. Over time, however, it came to mean one who supported Papal authority over all Christians and thus became a popular term, especially among Anglicans and Presbyterians. The word ultimately derives from Latin papa, meaning “Pope”. Protestantism is a general grouping of denominations within Christianity. … The term Anglican describes those people and churches following the religious traditions of the Church of England, especially following the Reformation. … The current Pope is Benedict XVI (born Joseph Alois Ratzinger), who was elected at the age of 78 on 19 April 2005. …
The word was in common use until the mid-nineteenth century; it occurs frequently in Macaulay’s History of England from the Accession of James II, and in other historical or controversial works from that period. It survives in the British legal system one of the surviving relics of the Penal Laws, Catholic ineligibility to the throne under the current law of the United Kingdom. Under the Act of Settlement enacted in 1701 and still in force, no one who professes “the popish religion” or marries “a papist” may succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom. Fears that Roman Catholic secular leaders would be Anti-Protestant arose during the suppression of the Catholic Church in England during the reign of Henry VIII and the subsequent persecution of Protestants during the reign of the Roman Catholic Mary I of England.
By Lisa on February 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Lisa, I understand very well the history behind the term, but my point is that the term ‘papist’–whatever it’s derivation–is only an offensive term if the person to whom it is addressed chooses to take offense. I do not so choose. Insofar as I am concerned, ‘papist’ is neither threatening nor offensive. My own dear Grandmother used to say “There can be no tempest in a teapot if one takes the heat out of the situation.” Very true!
By Gigi on February 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Ultimately, any term is only offensive if you choose it to be so.
By John on February 22nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
My sainted grandmother used to say “Ignorance is Bliss”.
By Bear on February 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Gigi, I am not someone who goes around pushing political correctness in every aspect of life. However, the idea that a term is only offensive if the person chooses to take offense entirely ignores both the intention of the person using the word and its context. While the person on the receiving end might choose to ignore an insult, that does not change the fact that it is still an insult when used as such. Nor does it change the fact that the term has a very inflammatory history of being a vessel of religious hate and intolerance.
My original comment to Dan was to make him aware of word’s negative connotations. He clearly did not intend to cause offense and neither did I. When news surfaced a few weeks ago about Prince Harry using the term “Paki” I had no idea of the history and degree of negative sentiments associated with the word. I might have easily dismissed the term as the equivalent of someone calling me a Canuck or using the term “Frenchy” – terms that are much more innocuous because they do not carry with them a heavy historical weight. Thus, from Prince Harry, I learned to never mistake the term Paki as a simple abbreviation or term of endearment.
My point is that the act of pointing out to someone that a term carries deeper meaning than that which the user perhaps is aware is hardly an offense. Indeed, one could that it is the polite thing to do so that the person using the term has full knowledge of the word before they choose whether to use it again.
By Lisa on February 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
On to other matters, that was quite an interesting (if a bit vapid) piece in the Daily Mail comparing Kate Middleton’s lot to Koo Stark’s. Congrats to the eagle-eyed staffer in the photo archives who found so many pictures that make them seem to have been separated at birth.
By Dan on February 23rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Dan, there’s an interesting documentary on TV tonight about the two Princes, including a look at their love lives.
It’s by Alex Thomson, a good reporter, so may yield a little light. I’m putting up a piece on it soon and will report on the programme itself tomorrow.
By John on February 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm