The Instrument of Consent reads:
“NOW KNOW YE that We have consented and do by these Presents signify Our Consent to the contracting of Matrimony between Our Most Dearly Beloved Grandson Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and Rachel Meghan Markle.”
And the Bishop Michael Bruce Curry of Chicago, IL, who will give the address, has said,
“The love that have brought and will bind Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle together has its source and origin in God, and is the key to life and happiness . . . and so we celebrate and pray for them today.”
CBS News reports it like this:
“Buckingham Palace has released an image of the handwritten document in which Queen Elizabeth II gives her consent for Prince Harry to marry. The Instrument of Consent image was released Saturday – a week before Harry is to marry the American actress at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor.
The document, illuminated on vellum, features a design to the left of the text that incorporates a red dragon, the symbol of Wales. The design to the right features a rose, the national flower of the United States.
Under British law, the first six people in the line of succession to the throne must obtain the queen’s permission to wed.
when he and Markle got engaged. He was bumped to sixth with the birth of his brother’s son last month.”
I don’t know what the queen would or would not have done if Prince Harry wanted to marry a man. I do know that the progressive culture of the UK would have approved of a man wedding a man – but what about the royal family? It’s a fair question to ask since the world will be watching with joy and awe at such a majestic display of the union of a man and a woman. I just wonder if the world would have the same holy reverence and humbled awe if Harry were to marry George? Would the Buckingham Palace and St. George’s Chapel in Windsor have graced and blessed the union of Harry to George? Or would these halls and chambers require more? I don’t know . . . but it’s still a fair question to ask in this age of confusion of what a marriage is and who is the author of marriage and what is the purpose of marriage.
Since the Bishop Bruce Curry of Chicago, Il. is on record for stating that this marriage has its origin in God, will the Bishop actually read the Words of God that speak to what a marriage is: the complementarian union between Christ and the Church, a male and female wedded in both body and soul that displays the original? I don’t know if he will or not, but it’s a fair question to ask.
I do know this: come May 19, 2018 the world will celebrate a mystery:
“‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church'” (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31, 32).
That is, when Harry marries Meghan the world will witness with inner knowledge and consent that this is right. Why? Because Jesus married his wife, the church (all true lovers of Christ). What I don’t know is this, if the world would have witnessed a “profound mystery” had Harry wanted to marry George? Is it possible that since such dignity and royal majesty befits the crown of a male Prince wedded to a female Princess, then maybe this is why we know deep inside that not only the Queen, but we as the human race reserve marriage between a man and women, if it’s the Prince! And if the Prince, then why not all mankind? Or do we dethrone marriage for the progressive peasants?
It seems that we hold royalty to a high standard of dignity and propriety. As it should be. We want more character, not less. But why stop there – surely this auspicious occasion should at least in principle be duplicated? Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, contracted not by man, but by God who made man in his own image: “What therefore God has joined, let not man separate” (Mark 10:9), says King Jesus.
May God bless you Harry and Meghan with life-long joy and perseverance as you become one flesh.