To love and to cherish. (obey?)

With all the media coverage on the upcoming royal wedding between Kate Middleton and Prince William, there's not been much of a religious angle to the news. But the hordes of reporters working the London beat rather than global war zones, have finally stumbled across some news of interest to people familiar with the Book of Common Prayer:

"Kate Middleton may only pledge ‘to love and to cherish’ but not ‘obey’ Prince William when she chooses her wedding vows.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who will marry the couple at Westminster Abbey April 29, said the centuries-old tradition of ‘obeying’ one’s husband was ‘sexist and outdated’.

Royal aides, meanwhile, said the couple have chosen their vows they will use, but want to keep their decision under wraps, according to the Daily Mail.

Guidelines published by the Archbishops’ Council said a wife promising to ‘obey’ her husband was an ‘archaic notion’ and could even be used to justify domestic violence."

More here.

NB: The phrase "and obey" disappeared from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (it was found in the marriage liturgy of the 1928). The Church of England still uses the 1662 as the official Book of Common Prayer though there are approved alternative liturgies that are becoming increasingly popular. (see correction in comments)

Posted by Nicholas Knisely on April 2, 2011 6:00 PM | |
Comments (4)

Someone tell Zimbio that the Archbishop of Canterbury will not marry the couple. What! Will he marry both of them, in addition to his present wife? The couple will marry each another, and the ABC will officiate.

June Butler

Posted by GrandmèreMimi [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2011 6:46 PM

I laugh at the headline at Zimbo. . .'Kate Middleton may not pledge to obey Rowan Williams'

I despair the loss of quotation marks, apostrophes, and commas in most of the internet world.

Posted by Susan Hedges [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2011 6:54 PM

NB: The phrase "and obey" disappeared from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (it was found in the marriage liturgy of the 1928).

No, it wasn't.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Marriage.htm

[Was it ++KJS who also "misspoke" about this one in the past year or so?]

It's in the 1898 BCP, but got taken out of the 1928 (Pssst, note *30* years between them? A very appropriate interval between BCP revisions, which we're now past w/ the 1979? O_o)

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2011 7:33 PM

Well, it's the 1892 not the 1898 but, yes you're right JC. My bad.

Next time (when Prince Harry marries?) I'll walk across the room and check in my copies of Prayer Book Parallels.

Posted by Nicholas Knisely [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 2, 2011 8:12 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space