Reverend Michael Curry brought Jesus Fire to those stuffy British folks

Embed from Getty Images

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced that Reverend Michael Curry would be doing one part of the wedding sermon, I didn’t really know what to expect. Given that BBC America’s entire wedding coverage was so focused on how odd/different/notable it is to see a black woman (or mixed race woman) join the “white space” of a British royal family, I thought that Rev. Curry would probably be asked to play it very safe. But he did not. He brought the gospel of the black church to that stuffy white space. Here’s his sermon:

The British reporters had never seen or heard anything like that and they were stunned, to say the least. The Americans were like “PRAISE IT, Y’ALL!” Even if we’re not black, Americans are raised to believe in the power of an African-American preacher talking about Jesus Fire and Gilead. There Is a Balm in Gilead is actually a traditional African-American spiritual. The point of this wasn’t that Meghan is “becoming white” by marrying into this family. Also: the reactions from the royal family were especially funny/interesting. Zara looked shocked!!

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

248 Responses to “Reverend Michael Curry brought Jesus Fire to those stuffy British folks”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Honest B says:

    He was amazingly passionate and a great change from the more reserved British approach…just needed to wrap it up a bit earlier.

    • Amy says:

      Agreed, it was a great sermon and certainly livened things up a bit – but he really could have halved the length of it and it still would have been a touch too long.

    • Honey says:

      I agree. I kind of started asking myself does he have a point. Other than love I mean. I wanted more humor. But I did love it all the same: love each other, the earth, he brought in MLK, the endurance of American slaves. It was good just long.

      I had to laugh though when I saw the iPad. A lot of lil ole ladies now are bringing their tablets to church and when asked to hold up their bibles they raise their tablets and iPads in the air.

      • Millennial says:

        He had a point. I think if you aren’t used to America style preaching, it’s easy to lose the thread of what the preacher is saying. It does take concentration. But his larger point was about the redemptive power of love – how love is a powerful thing, and when harnessed correctly it can cure a lot of the ills of the word. It was really beautiful. I wish people could get past how “different” it was for them and recognize how beautiful it was — and that fact that it was “different” only made it
        more beautiful.

      • equalitygadfly says:

        I’m with you Millennial!

        I’m surprised at how annoyed I am by the criticism! I’m an atheist, but peoples’ reactions are truly bothering me! That was nothing! I suppose I am so annoyed by the reaction because it feels like…well, I’ll leave it here.

        But yes, as Ari Melber would say, people need to fall back.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Millenial: this comment is one that I’ve read many times today, by British people, and it just isn’t true. It’s not an “American style”’ sermon by any means. It was a southern baptist gospel type which is fine but the generalizations are getting tiresome. That man definitely did not represent what most Americans experience at church.

    • Scal says:

      12 minutes. That’s a short sermon compared to what I’ve heard from other ministers

      • Bea says:

        That was very short; 12 minutes is usually just a warm up. He would’ve went longer if he got an amen.

      • Dixiebells says:

        I know I’m a bit surprised at people commenting on the length. It seemed about normal to me and the whole wedding was about an hour no? Seems about normal. I think people thinking it was long were uncomfortable with the exuberance so it seemed more drawn out maybe? I thought the whole wedding was fine and quite nice tbh.

      • jwoolman says:

        When people aren’t used to a certain style of talking (or music), a short time can seem like forever to them. 12 minutes! Certainly a British counterpart could fill 12 minutes easily. 12 minutes was a weekday sermon length in Catholic early morning masses when I was a kid, only on Sunday would they lengthen to more like half an hour. But the British high-church style would have been familiar and so 12 minutes would have seemed shorter. They would have known where it was going and when it would end.

        Reminds me of an interfaith service years ago when a Quaker asked for just a few minutes of silence. A friend who was a Protestant minister told me that he had never had such a long silence in church and it felt oddly uncomfortable. It couldn’t have been more than 2 or 3 minutes. Maybe even just two minutes. But so many churches have someone talking or singing all the time, it seemed horribly long. (Quakers of course can sit in silence for half an hour or more without batting an eyelash …. )

      • IMUCU says:

        My grandma is visiting me and she is SDA, so I took her to a local SDA church I googled yesterday. It was an all African-American church and the sermon/service, at 2 hours, was the longest I’ve ever been to of ANY church. It was my first (and her) all African-American church experience. She seemed to enjoy it and I really enjoyed it. Even though it was a little long for my taste, I NEVER got sleepy and only yawned once, which is a record for me. There was a lot of music, praising God, and joy; everyone was super welcoming. Would definitely consider going back when I need more Bible tutelage in a sermon (right now I attend a UU church, and it pulls from a lot of different sources). Also their choir, who had half the members missing apparently, was fantastic; felt in awe, and my choir is going to Carnegie Hall next year to perform!

      • insertpunhere says:

        It’s long for an Episcopalian sermon at a wedding. My sister works at an Episcopalian church, and it was a topic of great discussion the day after the wedding; a typical homily is 6-8 minutes. He doubled that. It’s not a big deal, but just for context, that’s what the priests are telling us (a little long, but still lovely, per my sister’s bosses).

    • Trillian says:

      I sat through a speech honoring my boss on his 80th birthday that went on for over 30 minutes. So this was nothing. Great sermon, great message. And I am an atheist.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      YES. It was rich and real but it went on WAY too long and sort of usurped the priest who was officiating. I thought he could and should have cut it in half.

    • Alix says:

      @Honest B: ITA. Could’ve edited the sermon a bit. But his energy, his humor, and the stunned expressions of the Brits? MAGNIFICENT!!

      I half expected/wanted him to ask if he could get a hallelujah, but my dream was dashed.

    • Rhys says:

      Ah, who cares about the length – the man told those stuffy brits THE truth! When he mentioned skavery, I was like – thank you for talking about it! A good man.

  2. Lela says:

    Calling the church of England stuffy isn’t right I think, it’s just different and more formal (married into the church and had our wedding at one). I think seeing this kind of sermon for the first time is just a big change, when you are used to a very formal, traditional type of church experience, it felt different for me watching it as well.

    • Prairiegirl says:

      I completely agree. It’s a style thing, not a content thing.

    • anna says:

      yeah. talk about knowing your audience. the whole thing was cringe-worthy.

      • jwoolman says:

        There were Americans in the audience and the bride was American. So it made sense to mix traditions.

        They knew what they were getting when they asked him to deliver the sermon. His British counterpart was neither surprised nor offended. He actually was taking the theme the British fellow started in a brief comment at the beginning.

        I can’t imagine that a sermon at a big wedding ceremony is expected to be less than 12 minutes, which is all it was. Anglicans in the UK really have five minute sermons? My mind is boggled.

      • anon says:

        Quoting LaineyGossip: “To the pearl-clutchy asshats who are calling Bishop Curry’s sermon inappropriate or too long, go f-ck yourselves. I’m sorry I don’t have anything more eloquent to say. The man spoke on the healing power of love and they’re going to sh-t on that? I have nothing but curse words for those people. Plus, keeping a black pastor to 14 minutes is a FEAT. There was never any doubt in my mind that Meghan and Harry (who has come a long way since this) knew exactly how long Bishop Curry’s sermon would be and they were fine with it. They hand-picked everything in that ceremony. They deliberately chose to follow Bishop Curry’s powerful words with “Stand By Me,” sung by an all-black choir and enter the world, hand-in-hand as husband and wife, to the same choir singing “This Little Light of Mine.” Both of those songs have powerful connections to the civil rights movement.”

    • Enough Already says:

      Just so you know, the sermon was traditional and gors back several hundred years. There is more than one traditional.

      Lol at trolls on this lovely morning.

    • Sisi says:

      Yes it is rather odd how some commenters here say that American church traditions need to be respected while simultaneously calling the British traditions stuffy, pompous and boring.

      That’s not fair at all.

      • Lela says:

        Yes, I was just trying to word it without attacking the author and other comentors on here. I don’t think it’s nice to praise one sermon style and refer to another as being for “stuffy white people.” Each relgious style is different and there’s nothing wrong one way or another.

      • Aurelia says:

        I didn’t appreciate this tele evangalist style guy. I half expected him to pass around a hat any moment. I had no idea what he was talking about. He lost me after the 3rd sentance. Although I did hear the word love 700 times. But maybe I’m just english. I thought he was a joke.

    • anna says:

      I would say that calling someone’s liturgy ‘stuffy’ is rude and dismissive.

    • Madeleine says:

      I would have felt better about Rev. Curry’s expressive style, if he was Megan’s preacher. It seemed to me, he was brought in as a black americana iconic stereo type to symbolize Megan’s black American ancestry. It wasn’t for that reason authentic, it was staged and uncomfortable.

      • insertpunhere says:

        They had him in because he’s Episcopalian, the US counterpart to the Anglican church. And he’s not just Episcopalian, he’s THE EPISCOPALIAN. As in the most powerful Episcopalian priest in the US. It absolutely makes sense that they had him in, from that standpoint alone (although I believe he’s also the first AA Episcopalian bishop of the US, so there’s that as well).

  3. oOsips.teaOo says:

    They weren’t ready!

    • Honey says:

      No, they weren’t. Good thing they didn’t pull a Baptist preacher into the ceremony’s. Lol.

    • ab says:

      they certainly weren’t. I grew up in the AME church and that was probably the shortest sermon I’ve ever heard. lol. bishop curry was just warming up!

      also, the gospel choir singing their “amen”s and into “this little light of mine” while they were on the steps made me teary. that was really beautiful.

    • Mrs. Wellen Melon says:

      Revolutionary in its way. Subversive in its way. Glorious.

      In diversity there is beauty and strength.

      Praise Jesus!

    • Reef says:

      I’m an atheist but I’m also Black and Southern. Listening to that sermon, I had Pavlovian responses of “Amen” “Halleju” and “Won’t he do it”.
      I really thought I wasn’t gonna watch this wedding. I thought both these folks were goofy for doing it – her especially. But damn it these two really love each other or at the very least HE loves HER because this wedding was very BLACK.
      The choir sang “Amen” and “This Little Light of Mine” as they left the church. There was a Negro spiritual at the Royal Wedding ya’ll. Someone ululated during it.
      Have all the ginger babies, Ms. Meghan. I stan now.

      • leelee11 says:

        @Reef – Love your words. You said it all.

        “Amen” and “This Little Light of Mine” at the end brought me to tears. (I’m also from the South)

      • LizLemonGotMarried (aka The Hufflepuff Liz Lemon) says:

        I’m Southern and my heart SOARED at the pieces of this wedding that represented Meghan’s world.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I am white and southern raised originally Holiness then got lenient and went Baptist! I didn’t find anything about this sermon shocking. I’ve heard it all before and, most likely, will again. That said, I do think that due to the worldwide audience and being a guest speaker at the COE with a very different way of addressing faith, cutting a few minutes off would have made the message just as powerful, if not more so, without alienating or confusing some people. It was a lovely and timely message as most biblical lessons are.

      • Carey says:

        Just a few weeks ago people were freaking out over Beyonce bringing unapologetic blackness to Coachella and I swear this wedding was Meghan saying Hold My Beer. For her to waltz into that family, that INSTITUTION and bend it so she could make a statement, a subversive political statement in these times, about her identity and what she stands for, my God. I’m verklempt. Not just Rev. Curry but her mom in locs and wearing a nose ring and also looking exquisite and chic in her suit and hat, the gospel choir, the black cellist, all of it. And Harry so obviously sick in love with her. I’m dying over here.

      • Reef says:

        @Tulip Garden *clears throat* As a new Meghan..excuse me.. Duchess of Sussex stan now. Meghan said “F- all that. Ya’ll are at MY wedding. Pastor finish your Word”
        From the reactions in this thread from the Euros, you can’t tell me there weren’t conversations beforehand about the length of his sermon. I’m liking Meghan’s energy.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        You seem annoyed with my statement. I don’t understand why. It’s just a point of view and observation. I quite enjoyed the sermon, the message was lovely. Jesus doesn’t care, I don’t think, about what color we are. Also, this type of sermon has often been a part of my experience which is why I could relate to it. Culturally, I can see where others don’t share that viewpoint.

    • minx says:

      Loved him and loved the subsequent pearl clutching.

  4. klutzy_girl says:

    The look on Zara’s face is still killing me.

  5. littlemissnaughty says:

    Folks looked unprepared, I loved it.

  6. Clare says:

    lol watching the English squirm while the Rev did his thing, was so fun.

    • Aoife says:

      Lol back at you for “the English”

    • VT says:

      In my view, they didn’t squirm. They mocked, they condescended and they ridiculed. They didnt like it, they dont like Meghan’s culture and I believe they don’t like Meghan marrying in. Remember that Ann made comments about Kate, who is English, wealthy and had never been married before – now imagine what they say about Meghan.
      I wish she had taken her sweet pup and ran. Mocked on the world stage. That’s her future. This week gave us a glimpse into this.
      I went to see the DM, and they have a story that Meghan said “Oh, F**k” in the carriage. Made me see red.

      • flan says:

        I think a few people were showing boredom with the sermon (I think William and Eugenie did), others were listening attentively, some were smiling at his jokes and others were not sure how to sit/what to do. That last thing you could see when the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke too. People were shifting in their seats or not looking while he spoke. Queen E for instance, looked less engaged when the Archbishop spoke.

        To say that she was mocked collectively because of that is too much of a stretch.

        The people I spoke to liked it, by the way, and most of them are not even religious.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        I very much agree with your take.

    • Grumpy says:

      It wasn’t squirming. There is a reason the pilgrim fathers left the UK, they were in to that stuff, those that stayed behind weren’t. Bit like how the puritanism of Oliver Cromwell didnt last longer than him, people don’t like it.

      The UK is pretty secular, some people who call themselves religious may only go to church for weddings, funerals and perhaps Xmas eve. Religion is not a big thing here, religion holds no sway over politics for instance, that why gay marriage and abortions and whatever else was legal here before other places. It is just how it is.

      I’m sure a group of Americans having to sit through the commentary of a cricket match would be equally bored and bemused.

  7. Prettykrazee says:

    i watched the BBC feed. Those commentators didn’t know what to make of it! Meredith Viera told them he was a typical American Minster and that’s their sermon style. They were like well this is Britain! They were quite out of sorts about it. I found it very amusing.

    • farah says:

      I don’t think people realize this wedding is about Harry AND Meghan. I thought it was a lovely way to celebrate her culture espercially when it led into a full gospel choir. A lot of people critized Meghan for not being “black” enough, and Meghan had a full display of her black idenity. It was everything.

    • oOsips.teaOo says:

      I loved how the broadcaster kept calling it “forceful”. It most certainly wasn’t. They haven’t heard forceful yet!!

      • Prettykrazee says:

        They clearly have never been to an American church service before. Because that wasn’t forceful, it was very subdued. I have heard more ‘forceful’ at weddings. I mean he could have brought the fire and brimstone. But he didn’t. He kept it light and amusing.

      • Abby says:

        Lol I laughed OUT LOUD when the commentator said it was forceful. This ain’t nothing! Hahahaha

      • Mel M says:

        Yes!!! I made that comment on the earlier thread while I was watching the wedding! Forceful? Lol, the man loves Jesus and teaching about His love and there shouldn’t be any rules on how you deliver that message. You do you Rev. Curry! I was loving every minute of the 12 minutes and that is nothing. This is a wedding not just your typical Sunday service. It means a lot more then that and the two people that were the most important chose him and I think he was a great choice. It made it much more unique and enjoyable to me then Will and Kate’s. I know that was a typical royal wedding but I could barely keep my eyes open.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        @Mel M,

        William and Kate have a shared common religious background I the Church of England. Out made perfect sense for their ceremony to be exactly what v it was including the parts some may find boring. Afterall, unlike Harry and Meghan, they were not conjoining two different religious uobringings.

      • Carey says:

        I was amused tho at how the candles on the lectern kept shaking. They didn’t know they’d need something sturdier for him, lol.

      • Mel M says:

        @Tulip- that’s fine and they did them. I’m just saying that as an American this one was more enjoyable and fun to watch probably because it was familiar to me. I didn’t find W&K enjoyable but that’s my opinion just like a lot of people here didn’t find this one enjoyable. To each their own but I do think that the comments about it being phony and over the top and funny are just as rude as people saying the British way is stuffy. Like someone else said on here, you can be polite for 12 minutes, just because it’s not your style or something you’ve seen before doesn’t mean it’s not the right way to do it. This is how you learn about other cultures and can hopefully understand them better.

      • Alyse says:

        He described the message as forceful not the way he spoke. Huw Edwards (the broadcaster) said he thought the Rev was forceful and challenging Maghan and Harry on who they would become/ what they would do with their lives. He was complimentary of the sermon.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      The CBC is still having the passive-aggressive vapors about it.

  8. GATy says:

    I’m not English, I’m Spanish and the pastor was exaggerated there’s a middle point between being bored or overexcite. I don’t know how many times he said love, love, love, love, love, love, love,…. sorry but it was to much.

  9. Eric says:

    I like me some sermonizing from Rev Curry, but JFC that cellist.
    19 you say?

    I’m done

  10. Sophie says:

    I liked the content. But the delivery was so theatrical and over the top. A little less yelling would have helped. Typically American we would say in Europe. ;)

  11. Amelie says:

    Come on, we Americans all knew as soon as they announced a Black American Episcopalian bishop that he would go the fiery and passionate route. I wasn’t surprised in the least. Meghan knew what she was doing when she asked him to do the sermon (because it had to be per Meghan’s request, why else would an American reverend come to a British royal wedding?). And he had a great message and it was all about love. I’m so glad he invoked Martin Luther King and slavery, considering the history of oppression and colonization of the British empire. The British don’t know how to show emotion (or won’t show emotion) at these kinds of events and I’m so glad this guy brought the American emotion to it. Meghan definitely loved it and Harry seemed to enjoy it too. The only people who were confused were all the Brits!

    I started to laugh when they flashed to Camilla and she looked so confused about what was happening. Charles also seemed super bemused and trying not to laugh. I get it’s a shock to them since they aren’t used to it and have never experienced something like that. I’m guessing Meghan didn’t warn them. It made the ceremony memorable and will be talked about for years to come.

    As much as William and Kate’s wedding was nice, I can’t remember anything about it. It was very traditional, very stuffy, and apart from it being a royal wedding, nothing stood out about the ceremony.

  12. Derrière says:

    I understand passionate sermons, but I paused the live feed, cleaned the kitchen, fed my puppy, unpaused, and still heard the man in the middle of his sermon…It was too long. But otherwise a beautiful wedding.

    Also, when you know you are going to be televised, be a professional and keep a straight face. Seeing Kate and William smirking during the sermon was really uncalled for and shows how amateur they really are.

    • Elaine says:

      It was disappointing and rude. They are *supposed* to be Royalty. The ultimate in dignity and class (isn’t that why we pay them to represent us?!)

      Sniggering in a church while a man of God speaks at your Brother’s wedding *smdh* Klassy with a capital ‘K’ :-(

    • VT says:

      If you dont realize that the whole royal family and many of Harry’s friends smirking and side-eyeing openly wasnt a message that they dont care one bit if Meghan is hurt by this, you don’t understand human nature. They KNOW they will be photographed. They wanted to show everyone how they felt about this wedding. This was a pretty aggressive response on the part of the royals, the “family that Meghan never had.” Ugh. They just don’t care.

  13. A says:

    Did not love it. He should’ve toned it down a bit and wrapped it up earlier. Harry and Meghan seemed amused though so there’s that.

  14. minxx says:

    I loved watching their reactions! So funny. Zara Phillips looked completely confused.

  15. Laurenevail says:

    Jesus Fire! This message was perfect and honestly quite shortened by normal North American standards. When I go to an episcopal church I expect 45 minute preaches. Loved it.

  16. Enn says:

    He certainly brought a word. I loved it!

  17. Anon55 says:

    The preacher gave me second-hand embarrassment. I grew up in a church that employed that style of preaching and even as a child, I found it ridiculous and fake. Of course I don’t know what is in this preacher’s heart, but to me, the tone was completely jarring and out of sync with the mood of the event. Kind of disrespectful. Oh well, not my wedding.

  18. InVain says:

    That’s what I’m used to. It’s what we left England for peeps!

  19. ArtHistorian says:

    I loved it! And I loved to see all those stuffy 1%ers squirm.

    • stinky says:

      i loved it too, but i think bringing up slavery at a wedding is uncalled for in any capacity. .. in fact, i think THAT’S what was rude. great message – powerful themes. wrong venue. shoulda saved that for Sunday service.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Well, Meghan and Harry chose him and they looked ok with the sermon. I didn’t find it rude or inappropriate.

        However, I find the majority of the BRF repulsive and I loved that they were served a message of the power of redemptive love with a admonition to have compassion to their fellow humans.

        Meghan’s mother is black and, sadly, slavery is a part of her heritage and I considering that the part of the BRF’s wealth was based on colonial exploitation, I don’t sweat about some obscenely rich people who mainly suck on the public teat had a mirror held up to them.

      • jwoolman says:

        The point was that even in slavery, people talked about the power of love. The point was the quotes about balm in Gilead, very biblical. He wasn’t railing against slavery, but since most Americans with African heritage have experience with slavery in their family line – it wasn’t even inappropriate to give it a mention. Is it only ok to talk about the Jews held in captivity in Egypt? Do we need a few thousand years distance before a preacher dares mention such a condition even in passing?

        I just can’t imagine how people expect a Christian church wedding to not have a sermon that takes at least 12 minutes. That’s a cartoon episode length today. It’s a worship service or else they would just get married in front of a magistrate.

        If you don’t want to hear about God and Jesus and biblical examples etc., don’t go to a Christian church. Those of you who have short sermons on Sunday or major occasions such as a wedding or holy days – that’s because your pastor has just given up on you… or isn’t a very good speaker and runs out of steam early.

        However do folks manage when they have to stand in line at a grocery store for 12 minutes? Really.

      • Honest B says:

        Jwoolman I don’t know anyone who would stand in a grocery line for 12 minutes.

      • PrincessK says:

        Harry and Meghan did not choose him it was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s idea.

  20. Josie says:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury personally recommended Bishop Curry for this role in the ceremony. He’s the head of the Episcopalian church in America. So some people, at least, have to have known what he would deliver. And I loved every minute of his sermon, which didn’t seem too long to me at all.

    I am choosing to interpret the facial reactions of the Brits in the crowd (many of them, not just the senior royals) to surprise, awe, and delight.

  21. 42istheanswer says:

    Ah yes! The good ol’ “stuffy Brits/cool Americans” clichés… Because British people don’t know what passion, love and fire are, of course: it’s not like Lord Byron, Turner or D.H. Lawrence were British. Unless you’re shouting about Jesus, you don’t know what zest for life is.

    It makes comments read like the synopsis for King Ralph.

    • Alyse says:

      Yes, I think people are presuming how people feel. I did think some people looked amused/bemused but does that make them stuffy?

      • 42istheanswer says:

        Why yes of course! Unless your eyes roll into the back of your head and you start speaking in tongues like a kid from Jesus Camp, you have no sense of fun and don’t know what love is…

        The American style of preaching is what it is, many Americans like it, respond to it and good for them! To most of us Europeans, it generally sounds and looks either laughably theatrical or downright alarming cf. again Jesus Camp. It’s neither better nor worse, neither cool nor stuffy, it’s just what it is.

      • Big Bertha says:

        Yes, thank you. Cultural differences make us react differently. I think the sermon was animated and lovely…for about 5 minutes. After that, he should’ve wrapped that baby up. My Irish husband thought the preacher was making it it all about him and not the bride and groom.

      • SandyStrange says:

        Taking all of your knowledge of American Christian religious practices from one documentary meant to show one of the most extreme sects of Evangelical Christianity is pretty close minded, tbh. By the way, the preacher here is Evangelical, which is one of the more liberal Christian churches in the States, so my thinking would be his style more comes from the the traditions of African-American, which was heavily influened by slavery/racism. So the comparison to “Jesus Camp” is frankly ignorant and insulting.

        Now my happy atheist ass will bow out of this religious conversation…

    • jwoolman says:

      It’s kind of hard to believe the British have no passion when they obviously keep reproducing….

      Every culture is different about how and when they express their passion. That particular subset of British culture in the church may tend to be less demonstrative in public, that’s all. Many Americans seem stuffy in comparison with other cultures.

      It’s also very easy to misread people in another culture or subculture, I would doubt my own ability to decide how the British participants really were feeling about it all.

      It’s like the required social distance for comfort – it’s just cultural and doesn’t mean that shorter or longer is better. It’s just different. Humans devise such conventions as a way to avoid killing each other…. We see the same thing in other animals. If you live with two or more cats, you soon learn there are social rules that are enforced when broken even though cats are not considered as pack-type animals like humans and dogs.

    • Vera says:

      The stereotyping and calling people names for their different traditions and culture certainly defies the diversity claims.

  22. Big Bertha says:

    Cringe. Harry looked positively mortified.

  23. equalitygadfly says:

    That was tame! I’m not one for religion, but did feel some sort of way about the giggles…not cool.

    I mean, that was nothing!

    • M4lificent says:

      That’s what I thought. I only woke up for the very end of the ceremony, so I heard the BBC announcers reactions (and Meredith’s amused response) before I actually heard the sermon. From the way that they were talking, I was expecting pulpit-pounding fire and brimstone.

      I’m American, but I’m Lutheran, so we’ve definitely got that restrained northern European influence on our services and sermons. And this minister’s delivery wouldn’t have even raised an eyebrow at my church.

      I thought it was lovely — if a bit long for the occasion. But Bishop Curry was heartfelt, humorous, and thoughtful. He gets an “alleluia” from me.

  24. LT says:

    I loved it! Bishop Curry is the head of the American Episcopal church, which is an offshoot of the Church of England (aka the Anglican Church), so he was a perfect choice to blend the traditions of the two countries and cultures. Funny though, the Episcopal Church refers to itself as “the frozen chosen,” so while the Bishop brought more fire than the Brits were used to, many other US denominations would have been ever more so.

    Also – in the Episcopal Church, a wedding ceremony is a worship service. If you are going to get married in the church, expect to hear some Jesus :-) .

  25. Jayna says:

    I was raised in the church in the south. So I’m used to this style preaching and worship and propensity to go on too long. He went on too long. Less is more.

    When my mom died, my dad went up to their Baptist minister and gave him orders not to go on too long, as he was known to do with his preaching. He didn’t. So it was fine. Cut to a little over a year later and my dad died. We forgot to give the same Baptist minister the same orders. Man, did it go on too long. It became uncomfortable and redundant. And that’s how it felt with this minister today after a certain point.

  26. Jussie says:

    Most British people, religious or not, find the majority of the various American style religious sermons way, way, way too extra, to the point of hilarity. Most of us don’t like our religion that…religious, basically. That’s what you were seeing in the audience. Not confusion.

  27. TeamAwesome says:

    But it’s hilarious because the Episcopal Church is considered the stuffiest of all here in America. Bishop Curry is an outlier. None of our priests get that fired up at my Episcopal Church!

    • kitty says:

      I have to disagree. The episcopal church is one of the most liberal religions. They were one of the first to allow LGBT and women to hold be ordained and consecrated. Women have been ordained since the 1970′s and consecrated since the 1980s.

      While, they don’t condone abortions, the official belief is that women should have the right to have one. They also believe in women’s right to birth control. The official line is also that LGBT people have the right to marry.

      Some branches are conservative, but the official line and most churches are liberal.

      • Dixiebells says:

        Yes the American Episcopal Church is quite liberal belief-wise and has actually had some disagreements with The larger Anglican Church over it. But the tone of a service is usually pretty reserved (or maybe that has just been my experience in New England!) I loved Bishop Curry but I had I physically been in the audience i might have reacted a bit similarly as I am very used to quiet and orderly church services :)

    • Dixiebells says:

      I agree! I’m Episcopalean and it’s normally very reserved. And mostly identical to C of E. I just think Bishop Curry specifically has an exuberant personality. They could have had southern baptists up in St. George’s. Then they’d have been shook for sure :)

    • Sara says:

      Ummm…have a seat and let me tell you about my Catholic upbringing…

  28. Mich says:

    I’m getting such a kick out of people saying ‘he should have toned it down’ and tsk tsking the reactions of the Brits. Black Church is passionate and it is meant to evoke response. It isn’t about some dude droning on and the congregation spacing out and trying not to act like their bottom is going numb while they wait for it to be over.

    I loved him.

    • qiq says:

      Perfectly okay for just a regular Sunday in church.
      Way over the top for a wedding.

    • Millennial says:

      Yeah I’m not not sure some of these commenters understand how dog-whistle-y these comments might sound to Americans. Not sure if that’s what meant, but the comments about it being loud or too emotive or rambly – well, that just sounds a bit too familiar. And it was not incoherent! That’s what is making me the most mad. It was not incoherent, some folks just can’t pay attention.

      • equalitygadfly says:

        Thank you! Yes, it is very dog whistle-y!

      • Sam says:

        I’m assuming that’s aimed at my comment and you’re trying to infer something.

        It was over top but it was funny, I’m glad it was there but probably not for the same reason as the Americans who are calling British people stuffy. It was over the top and very American, but so what? It brightened my day. I kept thinking of an Monty Python joke at the 10 minute mark.

        It was rambling, the whole speech kept going sideways and aside from saying love a million time I wasn’t quite sure what he was getting at.

        But hey ho, I’m sure I’ve hit your bingo card.

      • Mich says:

        I’ve winced more than once at some of the whistles.

        It takes a lot of work to be twisted about a message of the redemptive power of love – especially in these troubled times.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        Seriously? Is it so difficult to understand that Europeans are more used to structured and contemplative religious sermons while Americans are more familiar with the “train of thought” and exuberant kind? You find our style stuffy, cold and boring, we find yours melodramatic, phoney and rambling. Black churches in Europe don’t practice the American style of preaching because the people inside them are not American, they’re European and as such they prefer the European style of sermons. African American culture is not the be all and end all of Black culture woldwide, very far from it.

        You want dog-whistle-y? How about the Commonwealth, a quasi-colonial entity, being represented in the bride’s veil? How’s that for a dog whistle?

      • Millennial says:

        42, please note I did not refer to the British style as stuffy and cold – I had a very traditional Catholic wedding, myself. My wedding was much more Will and Kate than Harry and Meghan.

        What I am asking is for folks to think a minute about the American cultural context of calling a sermon by a black pastor loud and theatrical. I get that might not translate across the ocean, but here in America those comments have a storied history.

        Your point about the veil is well-taken and quite interesting. That deserves a lot of thought.

      • Sophia's side eye says:

        Millennial, yes, I am an athiest, but I am feeling a bit offended about they way certain commenters are expressing their dislike. It’s one thing to say, that’s not for me, but talking about the “tone,” saying he was yelling, um no he wasn’t. It is dog whistle-y.

        42, who cares what people are used to? Is there some reason a person can’t be polite for ten minutes just because they’ve never experienced something before? This is how we as people from different cultures learn about each other. And I’m not one of those calling British people stuffy, and neither did Millennial.

        I’m not used to some of the things on display at the wedding but I loved it all.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        Millenial, I understand your point and see where you’re coming from but I can’t agree sadly.

        Yes, calling a black pastor’s sermon loud and rambling is indeed dog-whistle-y in America but America isn’t the world, it’s only a tiny fraction of it and it’s in no way representative of the greater ensemble. Expecting non-Americans to perpetually conform to American sensibilities and behavioral codes is ethnocentric to such an almost disturbing degree that it looks painfully similar to colonialist acculturation. The African American experience does not define Blackness in the absolute, it never has and it never will. Reverend Michael Curry’s style of preaching isn’t quintessentially Black (most Black European churches and many African churches would be puzzled by the mere thought), it’s quintessentially (African) American and these two things are not synonymous.

        I’m glad the point about the veil can serve as food for thought.

      • equalitygadfly says:


        So, it’s fine for them to laugh – laugh! – at the sermon, but it’s not OK for folks to call out the implicit bias fueling the backlash!? Us Americans (commenting on an U.S.-based site), who are currently dealing with a retrograde wave when it comes to race relations in our country, shouldn’t call out obvious dog whistles, just because….why, exactly? Pfft.

        And if you think that these dog whistles don’t exist outside of the U.S., you are sadly mistaken. You are flat out wrong.

        And who are you to tell people what does and does not define blackness?

      • The Original G says:

        You know that the Commonwealth is a modern voluntary association of countries right?

      • insertpunhere says:

        Calling him a preacher? I realize that people here probably don’t mean it to be offensive, but it definitely is. Would you call the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury a preacher? Because that’s what this is roughly the equivalent of.

        I know the people at my sister’s church are pretty fuming mad about the whole thing because the actual title is pretty important (and of course, I don’t remember it). This man is the most powerful Episcopalian priest in the US!

    • NewKay says:

      What people are really saying is he should have toned down his blackness.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        It must be non-Americans saying it then because, believe me, this way of preaching doesn’t even touch some the fire and brimstone sermons I’ve heard as a white Southerner. To me, this is American preachin’ . This is bible belt prosetilyzing. I would be shocked if most Americans, particularly Southerners, we’re unfamiliar with it. The Viera woman noted as much and she is white.
        I don’t think it is about color so much as culture.

      • Mich says:

        Absolutely. And people acting like all of Europe practices ‘high church’ are full of it. There are freaking rock bands in European churches. Hands held high and shaking. Speaking in tongues. The lot.

        I’ve taken the Anglican ‘Alpha’ course. It is evangelical through and through.

      • equalitygadfly says:

        HelenTroy!? Americans are the only ones with racial issues? Jump back.

        And what are you talking about with that “pure white” nonsense? Is your point that since your pastor does it one way, than that’s the only way?

        The message gets tired!? I can’t. I just can’t. Here you are scolding us for not looking beyond ourselves, yet you clearly can’t see beyond your own experiences.

        People got me heated like Jeremiah Wright up in here! And I don’t even believe in God!


        (FYI, the comment I responding to disappeared…so, this is a little out of context.)

      • Vera says:

        @Equality…. You sound a bit over invested. Certainly not in a position to shout Basta at other commenters. Many comments disappeared from this thread which means they have been reported which speaks poorly of the reporters who found no other tool to defend their point. Your opinion is your opinion but it’s not the only one and even less so, the only “correct” one. Some people happen to think differently. Re-read your nickname.

      • equalitygadfly says:

        Vera — clearly you don’t follow American politics. #basta is kind of a thing right now (thanks Avenatti). And you have no idea what HelenTroy said; my response was deserved. And clearly I wrote my response before the other comment was removed.

        And did I say my opinion was the only one? No, I did not. You did not read the original message, so you don’t know what you’re talking about here.

  29. Abby says:

    I loved his sermon, and wondered how the British felt—definitely no snoozing during that one!

    I loved the stand by me song and the instrumental during the signing of the marriage license (or whatever that was). It seemed like great care was taken to represent both the bride and the grooms heritage.

  30. Sam says:

    I found it hilarious, not because it was passionate and exciting but because it was ridiculous
    ,rambling and almost incoherent.

    It’s like one of those mediocre jokes that go on so long that by the end it’s really funny. The people laughing and smirking weren’t doing so because they were stuffy and it was shocking but because it was hilarious.

  31. BooRadley says:

    Love all the blackness in this royal wedding. When I was younger I thought it would be me marrying into the family
    After Kate stole William from me I wasn’t upset cause I still had Harry. Now I’ll have neither, but I still consider it a win. Way to shake it up Meghan!!!!
    You done good girl

  32. Bee says:

    Everything about his sermon was gold. The content, the mood, and the looks on all those faces. At home, we were LOVING IT. You couldn’t write this stuff.

    Whoever was in charge of turning the camera to the guests chose some of the most telling moments. The Queen, Zara, Camilla, Kate, William, Chelsy, all gave face that gave away their true feelings.

    • Bonsai Mountain says:

      Agreed. With all that breeding you’d think they’d know how to school their features. Not impressed at all.

    • flan says:

      Kate had the same expression on her face when the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke and the Queen had her normal angry face on then. The Queen actually seemed to pay more attention when Michael Curry spoke.

      And she still looked friendlier during both than she did during the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics.

      • jwoolman says:

        I wouldn’t assume anything about the Queen’s facial expression myself. She may simply assume a neutral position in public that other people can misinterpret in various ways.

        I’ve had some misguided souls walk up to me while I’m eating alone, absorbed in my own thoughts or reading a book, annoyingly trying to rescue me from my “loneliness”. What pests. They can’t imagine someone being alone but not feeling at all lonely because they can’t tolerate aloneness themselves and don’t welcome the chance to isolate themselves from endless interactions with other pesky humans. (End tirade against pesky humans.)

        When I’m really paying attention to something on tv, other people observing might assume I didn’t like it. I don’t budge. I rarely laugh at jokes in real-time in a really good classic comedy or cartoon because I am too absorbed in picking up every detail. Laughing and smiling are social interactions, and not everybody feels obliged to do such all the time.

      • flan says:

        @jwoolman, I agree.

        If people filmed me listening to a speech, depending on the moment they filmed me, people could think I was very interested, uncomfortable, angry or not listening.

        This while I would probably be listening, but I look both angry to people sometimes when I’m thinking, or am conscious of people watching me and make weird faces because of that.

        Kate didn’t look any different from other times during the wedding. She and Camilla smiled when he made a joke, so they were hardly trying to show off how much they hated it.

        And I loved to see how much Meghan enjoyed it. It’s nice to see this sermon in St George’s Chapel.

      • insertpunhere says:

        I mean, not a Kate apologist, but she is only 3 weeks postpartum, right? She’s still likely not sitting comfortably at this point, and she had to pump repeatedly through the day.

  33. ChillyWilly says:

    Jeez, loosen up people! It’s not like he was rolling in the aisles and speaking in tongues! And no, not ALL American sermons sound like this. Some are more conservative than this and some are even MORE boisterous and pure theater (snake handling and tongue speaking. What matters is the MESSAGE not the style in which it is delivered. And I really hope Princess Michael pissed her Depends over it.

  34. sunny says:

    Loved it! I can see how it would not appeal to some who don’t get the cultural context but that was a direct nod to the American preaching tradition, specifically the black American tradition. Those who thought it was long are clearly not familiar with #blackchurch, it was short! I thought at the moment of her marrying into such a white and racist institution it was a great way to honour that part of her heritage and a clear statement that she will not forget that part of herself to fit in.

  35. Tw says:

    I love that they didn’t whitewash Meghan. This was very much her wedding. It was powerful.

  36. NewKay says:

    He brought the fire and Charles and William laughed and showed their ignorance while Beatrice and Eugenie smirked

  37. Dr Mrs The Monarch says:

    The first minister who met them at the altar seemed like he was shaming them- especially Meghan because he looked directly at her- for having past lovers and pre-marital sex. He was trying to be subtle, but he was frowning at the couple.

    Then the Episcopal Bishop got up and quoted MLK and preached about LOVE. This is about celebrating love.

    He also mentioned and end to poverty and the possibility of a wonderful new era built on love. He said that to the faces of the people who have profited the most from inequality and from a lack of societal change. Bravo to him!

    (I am now imagining a priest-brawl in the parking lot out back after the service).

    • Bee says:

      He really threw it down, however I doubt too many of them will go home to take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror, other than to fix their hair.

    • Olenna says:

      Priest brawl! LOL! Reverend Curry was a bit long-winded, but I found his message of social responsibility to be very appropriate. If it went over others’ heads or was unwelcome, I’m sure Meghan and Harry approved it and wanted it said.

    • The Original G says:

      Actually, he wholeheartedly endorsed Rev Curry’s sermon and the entire approach to these nuptials in a TV interview. He was beyond effusive.

      • Dr Mrs The Monarch says:

        The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was supportive. He presided over the vows.

        But the Right Reverend David Conner obviously thought that this was an appropriate platform to lecture a divorcee on the seriousness of marriage vows. He spoke at the start of the service right after Meghan came up the aisle.

      • Carrie1 says:

        I thought the enduring sermon about love and how nobody should undermine a family was pointed at Camilla. And Charles for that matter. Harry’s mom wasn’t there because she’s deceased because etc etc etc

        It never occurred to me that anyone was being mean to Meghan. I tend to think too well of people sometimes tho. Hmmmm.

      • The Original G says:

        So the Reverend took it upon himself to single out Megan about divorce in front of a church full of divorcees? Or waited 30 years to take this occasion to admonish Camilla? So plausible.

      • Dr. Mrs. The Monarch says:

        Watch the video again if you don’t believe me. He frowns directly at Meghan while he emphasizes that marriage cannot be selfish and that these vows are for LIFE. He even gave an interview a few days ago mentioning his views on this.

    • jwoolman says:

      I didn’t get that feeling from the British guy. I don’t feel he was shaming them in any way, he was just keeping his serious face on since it was such a formal occasion. He showed a bit of a smile at various points because the bride and groom were just so unconsciously adorable…. and so obviously head over heels for each other. I had the impression that he actually was enjoying the job of guiding them through the ceremony.

      I’m sure he enjoyed Curry’s sermon as well and had no trouble focusing on it for 12 minutes….

  38. Mop says:

    Can we take a moment for this piece of comedy gold: “Jesus did not get an honorary doctorate for dying!” Favorite thing I’ve heard in 2018.

  39. Beckysuz says:

    Loved it. And honestly having been raised in the church this was not long or over the top. The looks on all the proper brits faces were pretty funny. Reminds me of when I brought my high school boyfriend to church. He was raised catholic and his eyes were like saucers the whole time. And when a lady started dancing in the aisle during praise and worship he just about fell over lol

    • Ennie says:

      It depends in the style of priest, too I am catholic and most masses are seriou-ish. However, the masses for children, youth and thise lead by priests who are on the missionary side can invilve quite a but of dancing around (in a festive, get together celebratory manner). Sadly some people habe never experienced that.
      I remember visiting the USA and one of my siblings who thiught highly of himself and was reborn ina biblical church (cannot recall the denomination) made fun of a church ee drove by where you could hear singing. He said something racist and I could not understand why he was acting that way. We also have those groups within the Catholic church whoi also speak in tongues, faint due to the power of Christ, etc. All within the catholic denomination. To me that is too much, but I understand that for some peopl or branches of Christianity that is the norm.

  40. Anare says:

    I’m not religious or black but cannot deny the power and motivation in that sermon. He let it fly and my hubby and I hung on every word of it. Fantastic! I always enjoyed listening to Archbishop Tutu and Rev Curry was like that but extra. I felt blessed at the end, sitting in my house in nowhere’s ville! Great choice to wake the sleepy crowd up.

  41. Eileen says:

    While I watched it live I thought to myself “This is going to rock their world” and the facial expressions floored me. I was brought up in the south independent baptist IE formal and conservative so I enjoyed the reverend’s flair! I think the sour expressions were over the top

  42. M.A.F. says:

    I got more of kick when the camera would pan the audience. The majority of them had no idea what hit them. It was great. Definitely woke me up since I’m on the West coast and got my a$$ up at 3 am to watch.

  43. Tiffany says:

    I gotta say, you commenters did not surprise me at all about Rev. Curry’s sermon.

    Basically you are saying she did not stay in her lane and you overcompensating of it shows your true colors and I am glad to be right about y’all.

  44. Anna says:

    I loved how Meghan (I’m assuming it was her idea) brought these elements of black culture to the ceremony. The reverend and the gospel choir were great. It would have been so easy for a new and unlikely member of the Royal family to just play it safe and on their terms, tone down the blackness and keep the ceremony white and traditionally English, but Meghan didn’t. She honored her heritage and made the ceremony reflect her background. It must have felt nice and inclusive for her mama as well, who otherwise probably feels like a fish out of water in this stuffy environment.

    And of course the royals and aristocrats were going to roll eyes and giggle and be embarrassed. They’re not woke, they don’t like blackness unless it comes in a very subdued and humble package. They have been colonizers until very recently. Their behavior today reflected badly on them, not on Meghan and Harry.

    • Jayna says:

      I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church. I’m white. All of the preachers were even more dramatic than his in their style of preaching. I left the church at 16 when our parents let us decide. It was too conservative. I lost interest in formal church. I switched to Presbyterian in adulthood. I enjoyed the more traditional aspects of the Presbyterian Church, a lot like the Episcopalian church in some ways or Methodist.. It was a 90 percent white church and a white minister, who was very dramatic. He had his doctorate, and I loved the intellectual aspect to how they applied the bible to everyday life. The church was always packed. He was so much like Reverend Curry in delivery it’s eerie, but could go even more dramatic sometimes I loved him. He was brilliant.

      I did move away to Atlanta. My friend tried to take me to a Baptist Church. I rolled my eyes there. I said I feel so anti-spiritual with the Baptist Church. It’s too over the top for me with their pacing, delivery, hell fire and brimstone, etc. I wanted to leave halfway through the sermon I was so uncomfortable. I guess I was rude. I was rolling my eyes and sighing. I wanted out of there.

      I switched to a Presbyterian Church there and loved the minister, who was milder in delivery than the one in my old town. I have to say, when I moved back to Florida and started attending the Presbyterian Church there again, my old minister’s dramatic preaching threw me. I had forgotten how animated he was and what a dramatic orator he was and had to acclimate myself to that style again. I did find myself cringing for a few Sundays. It took me a while as I wasn’t used to it for the years I was in Atlanta..

      I don’t understand why people only think this kind of preaching is only within black congregations. The Southern Baptist Church and churches of their ilk all have preaching in a very dramatic style, and they are filled with white congregations or mixed congregations.

  45. GrouchyOldBroad says:

    Wow, I watched and really didn’t take away so much negativity! Wasn’t even planning to watch past her entrance – just wanted to see The Dress – but she and Harry are really sweet and affecting together, so I lingered, and SO GLAD. WOW. Meghan Markle, bringing American Black Church realness to CorgiTown. Even agnostics can recognize and respect a talented, compelling preacher – and a good message, and a beautiful CLASSIC song. I found it a little FUNNY watching some in the church look confused and dismayed by Reverend Michael – “why is he shouting?!” – but it didn’t seem hostile or mocking to me. Even if it was… I don’t think Harry or Meghan or Reverend Michael or Megan’s mom cared. I hope not, anyway. By now, she has an idea what she’s marrying into. Harry’s known all his life. I don’t think either of them give a rat’s ass. This day was about them and sharing it with the people they really love. The people there to genuinely celebrate THEM probably loved it. The people who only show up “to be seen” or because of rank/obligation…who cares?

  46. dion says:

    He was on twitter pretty much the second the ceremony was over admitting he saw their wedding as his chance to get the message in the spotlight, that’s not how you behave when you’ve been invited to be part of someone’s wedding. It seemed pretty obvious he was supposed to finish around the ‘I’m gonna sit down and let’s get y’all married!’, after that he was rambling and Meghan and Harry seemed done with it too by the end. I’m a total peasant of an British woman and it was all so comically earnest and over the top; I’m really pleased for Meghan to bring a breath of fresh air and some American traditions to the BRF but the English generally are very wishy-washy in our religion. The gospel choir was absolutely beautiful and it’s Sheku Kanneh-Mason (the young cellist) who ought to be the breakout star of the day.

  47. Kath says:

    I loved the fact that Reverend Curry was invited to speak and he seems like a nice dude, but I must admit, after he went from the first “love” bit to the second “fire” bit, I thought it was getting pretty self-indulgent. It did go on too long and some bits were like ‘WTF’?

    I thought the first half WAS his sermon, and the second bit seemed to be added on, but I could be wrong.

    Loved the choirs, the cellist etc. but Rev Curry’s bit was a bit surreal – and I’m neither English, a royalist nor religious!

    • KBB says:

      The second half felt a bit meandering to me. The first part felt like it was thought out and the second just felt like he was losing the thread but would randomly say love or fire to bring it back home. Either way, I love that they included him and the gospel choir. It made for a completely unique and memorable royal wedding.

  48. BooBooLaRue says:

    It was inspirational and a wee bit overly long, but the message was beautiful.

  49. Maria says:

    I thought that it was an excellent sermon. Mild compared to what I’ve heard in some evangelical churches. Well thought out, quoted good and intellectual people, MLK and Theillard de Chardin who was a 20th century theologian. I don’t think everyone was snickering except Beatrice and William.
    Charles who is a serious religious seeker put his head down, I think he was thinking about what the guy was saying. Zara, maybe she was having a Braxton-Hicks or something. The Queen was listening and so was Phillip.

  50. Rogue Economist says:

    Bishop Curry is the presiding primate of the American Episcopal Church. He’s quite familiar with English ways and English congregations. He’s just also a smidge more progressive than the Archbishop in Canterbury.

    Last year, he attended a conference of primates in Canterbury where he lost his petition against the 3 year long censure against the US Episcopalian Church for its acceptance of marriage equality and ordination of women. (Background: ordination of women is about 30 years old, marriage equality is about 20 years old.)

    I can assure any doubter that he knew precisely what he was doing. And as an attendee of a local Episcopal church, I LOVED it.

    As for the laughter, I don’t think the royals were laughing at HIM at all. I think they (Harry, William, Kate, Camilla, Eugenia and Beatrice and even Charles) were all thinking the same thing while the Bishop was doing his fiery thing.

    “Oh my word, this is SO American. [Fill in name of stuffy relative] is going to have a FIT!”

    • Rogue Economist says:

      And BTW, the best reactions had to have been those from Her Majesty herself. She was looking around, as if she was thinking,,

      “What’s happening right now? I was not informed I would require cultural attaches at my grandson’s wedding.”

  51. TaniaOG says:

    I am atheist and I loved the sermon. He was passionate and inspiring. I think the brits were shameful in their reactions to the sermon. They were extremely disrespectful and racist. Whether the vows were in the program or not, who looks away during the vows. Who does that??? It was bizarre. I think the behavior reflected so poorly on the BRF. Everything that was great about the day was because of H&M. It was their day and it was amazing–all of it. Clothing, sermon, music, it was full of love and completely uplifting. I for one, am grateful they shared their day with us.

  52. Mopsie says:

    You guys, this preacher clearly took this opportunity as a soap box moment. Watching it made me uncomfortable because I honestly felt like he was trying to make it about him. Not about the two people getting married.
    He went on for so long – and it really seemed like he might have overstepped his time limit by a country mile. He really seemed to be rambling at certain points because he was more focused on being seen giving a sermon. I think that’s where the uncomfortable looks and glances came from. Not from any sort of European aversion to American style church services.

    • Harryg says:

      Agree, he almost toppled over the candles.

    • suz says:

      Agree with this. He had me until his discursive rant about the discovery of fire. What was that about? I take his point: love is a deeply powerful force that could solve much of the world’s problems if humanity embraced its possibility, but….a wedding is about the couple, and a royal wedding is a bad time to extemporize. It seemed like, having said what he came to say, he became enamored of the sound of his own voice.

  53. Andrea says:

    I think all the commentators are projecting here. The sermon was lovely. I was smirking and smiling at home. Just because it was very different then what I’m use to. But it had my attention. I honestly do not think the people in attendance did that out of disrespect. If I was attending I wouldn’t be able to contain myself. Even Meghan was smirking. Come on people… how could you not. It was delightful. Lighten up, it’s a wedding. Not a Sunday church service.

  54. HeyThere! says:

    This man was the highlight of the wedding for me!!!! He was wonderful.

  55. CairinaCat says:

    I’m American and brought up in the christian church.
    This was nothing like the church’s I went too, he was wayyyy more animated. More like southern Baptist
    I was also suprised he was the head of the American CoE
    My X was brought up in CoE, his parents are British. So I have sat in a lot of Episcopal church’s. This was NOT typical for CoE.
    My kids were christened in CoE and I was married in a Episcopal Church.

    But that to say 12 minutes is nothing lol
    The church I was brought up in the sermon was a hour long, and on unfortunate days could stretch to 1 1/2 hours :p
    That’s not counting the singing, the opening remarks, ect. It stated at 9:30 and would end if I was lucky at 12:15
    I’m very envious now hearing about these 10-15 minute sermons lol

  56. Deeanna says:

    I’m on the cringe worthy side. He was way too long and way to repetitive in my opinion. And I personally am not fond listening to any clergyman who speaks in the cadence of the money grubbing televangelists seen on American TV.

    How do we know his stylistic sermon wasn’t as much of a surprise to Harry and Meghan as it was to everyone else? He’s from Chicago. Meghan didn’t live in Chicago. Curry is a black man high up in the American Episcopal church. She may not have been aware of his tendencies to preach a Southern Baptist style sermon.

    I think the British were polite. Not too many rolled their eyes.

  57. Mel M says:

    I don’t agree about the sermon and him having to accommodate to the audience when the only people he should be accommodating are the bride and groom whose wedding it is. I don’t go to weddings expecting it to be catered to me and no one else should either.

    I do agree that I think it was rude of all of them to be looking down at the program while they said their vows. How interesting is a program and isn’t that the most important part of the wedding?

  58. MissMarierose says:

    No, the royals reaction to his sermon reflects on nobody but them. I’m sure that Bishop Curry was chosen knowing his style of sermon and WANTING that for their wedding. If guests didn’t like, tough. It doesn’t take much to be respectful.