If you missed Thursday's from Armagh -- the first time the service has been held outside England and Wales -- you can watch it again . I present this 90-minute programme, which was brodcast live on Maundy Thursday, produced by Paul Doran and directed by Davy McCoy.
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
Comments
This Saunday, I watched the Queen distribute the Maundy money on Thaursday. It took, me awhile to realize that it can only be distrubited on a Thaursday. This year it was as Armaugh. Where will it be next year, Weumbly? I'll watch that one on Teusday or Sauterday. Why did the monarch stop washing poor people's feet in this ceremony, too undiginfied for a regal monarch (although not so for Jesus Christ)? It sure would have been something to see her washing the feet of Maunchester United...right after a big game....oops I mean mautch. Of course the players of Maunchester United are anything but poor although I'll wager they pour...and pour...and pour not to mention their lauyal fans. Four pounds fifty seems an aufully paultry sum as a substitute for food and clothing for the poor though. I'll bet her coat is worth more than a pound too.
Thinking about Maundy money distributed on a Thaursday reminded me for some reason of the Firth of Forth. Now as I understand it there is more than one Firth of Forth which had been discovered but the others are actually only tributaries of the first Firth of Fourth. My favorite is the fourth Firth of Forth. My second favorite is the fifth Firth of Forth.
If I don't take any of this too seriously, please fourgive me, I wouldn't blame you four not printing it. It seems an aufully somber ceremony. What, did somebody die or something? This seems as strange to me as watching some aboriginal tribe performing a pagan rite. I wonder if the aboriginies would find the ceremony of the distribution of the Maundy money (on Thaursday) as strange as we find their ceremonies.
Well with one toe still in the 18th century with its kings and queens, and aristocrats and all, the UK is full of surprises. What next, a couple of billion in Fraudy money distributed on Tuesday (to Saudi Princes of course) as bribes to buy 40+ billion in contracts for British military hardware (the gouvernment said no investigation will be made because....hmm, it's a matter of nautional security, so much for laus and maurality.)
Does it seem incongruous to you to see priests lighting candles in the same image with LCD video monitors all over the place? Reminds me of Bin Lauden using the internet and computers trying to force the world back to the 11th century.
Well gotta go now, gotta take my waush to the laundy.
That guy mark never seems to get it, does he?
Jennifer- I've asked that before, but on this occasion I happen to agree with Mark. From this side of the pond this broadcast looked like a window to a bygone era. Do ladies really still wear those awful hats? Do people really actually enjoy these ceremonies with all this pompous ritual? Isn't it the practice of formality for the mere sake of it, like a masturbation of phony opulence?
Sorry to be insolent, but I'd rather kill myself than live a life where I'd be excited to attend an event like this. In my opinion, there were only two redeeming factors of this event: Crawley's professionalism amidst the anachronism, and the hot blonde in the tenth row, presented for us so willingly by Camera 3, who clearly feels the same way about this stiff-fest as I do.
:-)
John please don't try to speak on behalf of those of us livin gin the US. Viewed from New York, the pageantry was wonderful. Yes, there is history there (those glorious Tudor uniforms on the yeomen, for example) and there is tradition (the eight centuries of tradition in this ancient religious ceremony). I am no monarchist, but I was moved by the service and I love the fact that the Queen does this every year to recognise seniors in British life. Ceremonies like this seem to connect the Queen with the public. It was great TV, a great spectacle. The cathedral looked great too. Well done everyone involved.
AnneB- I'm speaking on behalf of myself. For me, "pageantry" is a Miss America contest. "History" is the Industrial Revolution. "Tradition" is Easter. A "spectacle" is when Hitchens debates Galloway.
I'm glad you enjoyed this so much; you must be fun at parties. And that's the point, isn't it? This is an event during which nothing of any significance whatsoever is accomplished other than the purely masturbatory exercise of 'keeping up tradition'. The Queen is walking down a line of seniors patronisingly giving them 82p each, lowering herself -once a year- to the status of a mere subject and daring to use the name of Jesus Christ to suggest that in so doing she is fulfilling his exhortation to serve others??? I'm sure Jesus would be proud.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm not against it, per se, but I'll leave it to people like you to 'enjoy' it. And I should mention that I have a certain fondness of the Queen, insomuch as she can be known in her position. By the way, nobody pulls off pomposity better than the British; you should consider moving there and joining in if you like it so much.)
A reply to JOHN:
I don't insult your president's diminished intelligence. Don't insult our Queen. Your insult is a sign that you don't understand the Scriptures because this entire service is based on an episode in the life of the Lord Jesus. He washed his disciples feet and was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. As William points out in the commentary, Her Majesty the Queen is reenacting that act of humility and she is reversing the betrayal of coins into almsgiving. That is a beautiful and profound symbol from a gracious Lady who is also a believer. You, on the other hand, are not a gracious person and obviously you are an atheist. That is your business. If this service is not a historic tradition, I don't know what is. Read Romans 13. Her Majesty was appointed by divine will and serves as Queen under God. The authorities are given to us under God and we are called to respect them as long as they do not turn away from God. Her Majesty is a fine believer and honours the Lord her God at all times. Perhaps you would be gracious enough to apologise for your insulting words.
John pull your head in and stop being so patronising.
Jennifer, Anne and PTL:
I think the descriptions of this ceremony by the non-apostolic Mark and John are essentially correct: incongruous, window to a bygone age, masturbation of phony opulence, pompous ritual, patronising etc.
Apart from the cultural features, there are two aspects, the political and the religious.
What it highlights is that in the UK in a supposedly democratic age:
1. The British people are not citizens but subjects of an unaccountable sovereign.
2. The monarchy perptuates class hierarchy, hereditary privilege, snobbery and deference.
3. The PM, using the royal prerogative political powers, acts like a medieval monarch himself.
As for religion, why the followers of a propertyless desert nomad who told the rich to give ALL they had to the poor should be associated with a ceremonial distribution of crumbs from a wealthy woman’s table is anyone’s guess. It doesn’t symbolise any real giving on her part. It’s not as if she hands out heating allowances to poor pensioners or invites them (Viridiana-like) to feasts at her palaces. In fact, PTL, what does the Queen do for the poor in Britain?
PTL #6 says: "Perhaps you would be gracious enough to apologise for your insulting words."
The institution of the monarchy must be in bad shape if you really take offence to my opinion about it; in any case I'm not any less gracious for refusing to apologise for having such an opinion (or for stating it). Contrary to what you seem to believe, I'm a British citizen - not that one must be a subject of Her Majesty to comment or opine on the institution of the monarchy and its place in contemporary society. (Not only are you wrong about my citizenship but also my theism, not that either are relevant in the slightest). Unlike your response to me, however, my response to you will not demand any apologies for merely holding these opinions. I'm glad you have the faith to look upon a contrived formality of the establishment and see in it genuine humility; in my view the genuine article looks quite different in that regard, happens more than once every year and tends to be 'actual' rather than an 'enactment'. (Can you answer Brian's parting question in #8 if you dispute this point?) Where you see beauty, I see pomp.
FFS #7 says: "John pull your head in and stop being so patronising."
You agree with me then?
Brian #8: I'm pleased that we concur this once. :-)
John
Why so het up?
You seem so tolerant on so many issues that deeply divide people, why attack this so violently?
You dont even pay UK taxes.
Why not take your normal line that people who want nothing to do with this have nothing to do with it and leave it at that?
Incidentally, I noticed that all the recipients of the award were deeply appreciative.
These were retired people who had given decades of unrecognised service to their communities which would make most people blush when they view their own contributions.
The Queen could have retired decades ago and I believe she cojnsciously uses traditions like these to their best advantage for society.
PB
PS was reading this the other day John and thought it might be of interest to you. I remember you previously scorning me for suggesting that God himself could have provided the light for the earth before the creation of the sun in Genesis;-
Revelation 21
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.....
23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it...
I am not asking you to believe it because I know you wont. I am simply saying the biblical record is easily consistent in this matter.
John
Why so het up?
You seem so tolerant on so many issues that deeply divide people, why attack this so violently?
You dont even pay UK taxes.
Why not take your normal line that people who want nothing to do with this have nothing to do with it and leave it at that?
Incidentally, I noticed that all the recipients of the award were deeply appreciative.
These were retired people who had given decades of unrecognised service to their communities which would make most people blush when they view their own contributions.
The Queen could have retired decades ago and I believe she cojnsciously uses traditions like these to their best advantage for society.
PB
PS was reading this the other day John and thought it might be of interest to you. I remember you previously scorning me for suggesting that God himself could have provided the light for the earth before the creation of the sun in Genesis;-
Revelation 21
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.....
23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it...
I am not asking you to believe it because I know you wont. I am simply saying the biblical record is easily consistent in this matter.
PB: "Why so het up?"
Good to hear from you. Don't confuse my straightforward with my getting 'het up'; as I said above if people enjoy this sort of thing then that's great and doesn't affect my assertions about it either way.
(Incidentally, not everything the Queen does is so futile and archaic, and there have been times I've felt great affection for her if not the institution in general - there have even been times the Queen has stirred some patriotic feelings in me, like on the occasion of her Jubilee. I wouldn't touch the status of the monarchy while Queen Elizabeth is still around, though I'd scrap the Maundy Service overnight.)
john ... you seem to be against monarchy. I agree. I am a democrat and i dont get monarchy. but i dont see why you want to disband the maundy service. its the only service in the year when the queen reverses protocol and is recieved by commoners. of all the royal ceremonies worth keeping surely this one is the best!
Goodness PB M10
You did state before that you admitted (rather gracelessly I might add) that Biblical creationism is bunk! But I see that you were dishonest(as ever!).
PB your nitpicking from the Bible provides no more proof that your god created light than the books of Beatrix Potter provide proof that rabbits talk.
You see PB what you have done(and other creationists) is conclusive evidence that your god does not exist! You and Ken Ham etc have set lines in the sand-testable scenarios and on each and every occasion you fail miserably!
What about some positive evidence for Biblical creationism? I did ask for a year and half and got nowt except for a loonnnggg list of dishomesties.
PB to finish, the last time you brought this subject up you were banging on about your views of fossils were "fact" and a "better explanation" etc-Now you could not answer the very *simple* questions that I gave you to qualify your astounding remarks-what I was wondering did you ever find a big natural resource company that uses your "better explanation"-if not you are a terrible hypocrite!
DD
Paolo- Perhaps my revulsion is at the very fact you mention. The Maundy thing is patronising precisely because it's the only time the Queen is expected to do this.
(In honesty, though, I think the whole idea of these awful, pointless ceremonial routines is anathema to me... I don't understand them, I don't relate to them, I find them so utterly alien to anything in real life that the mere suggestion that they mean something seems like sheer hogwash to me. I think the real world answer to what is happening in this service is that the Queen is walking down a line giving people coins. Want to do something for needy seniors? Start giving away some real, private wealth, do it without a ceremony, and certainly not in church. If the Queen wants to talk about it, she should go on TV in a real interview where she's answering questions and not reading speeches written by other people.)