Not at all. But a vapid 14 minute sermon is too long, and I thought it was vapid and incoherent.
I thought the sermon was way too long, too. Funny headline on BBC - the Bishop timed himself at seven minutes. I think any speech that goes twice as long as your practice is going to ramble and seem unfocused.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-44204504/royal-wedding-preacher-i-timed-the-sermon-at-seven-minutes
It rambled. The sermon had positives but it lacked quotables, IMO, which would have continued its impact beyond the wedding.
I actually loved most of the sermon, but I did think he let it get away from him a bit too much somewhere in the middle-to-end. At that point I started thinking it was time for him to wrap it up, but then he captured his focus again and finished beautifully.
Anthony Lane of The New Yorker loved it, and he imagined that the Archbishop of Canterbury was sitting there thinking “I’ve got to up my game,” just as Harry reportedly thought when introduced to Meghan. 
(Lane, BTW, is a Brit.)
Every Episcopal priest was sweating how they were going to live up to it the next day with their own sermons.
The title of the linked article is “I timed the sermon at six or seven minutes” but the actual article didn’t say that. It said he aimed to speak for six or seven minutes, which is not the same thing at all. Elsewhere I’ve read that he didn’t write a speech, but spoke extemporaneously. It certainly sounded like it to me, which is perhaps why I thought it was unfocused and rambling.
Honestly, @“Cardinal Fang” I wasn’t at all thinking of you in particular. I hadn’t been reading your posts (I don’t think), so I’m sorry if it looked to you as if I was being coy and indirect. I think I’m just trying to be constructive here, because I’ve been accused publicly and privately of harboring feelings I do not have. To me, seriously, I wasn’t judging the sermon from a rhetorical/oratorical point of view. If I were, I would probably agree with some of your criticism. Instead, I was caught up at that moment in the wedding – in watching the couple and the Mom, all of whom seemed to be enjoying the more spontaneous moment in the midst of the official pageantry. That seemed more important to me at the time than dissecting the sermon – not that you were. (It might be more in my nature to dissect a sermon.) I hope I’ve clarified my thoughts on this. Thank you for the non-spiteful reply. Best wishes. 
I didn’t mean to accuse you in any way, @epiphany. I didn’t think you were attacking; I just wanted to expand on why I had made the previous remark.
“I liked the scenes in “The Crown” when Queen Elizabeth and her mother were watching a tiny black and white TV with poor reception”
I don’t know if anyone has seen the Lifetime Meghan and Harry movie. It was cringeworthy in parts but has this great scene where Elizabeth asks Meghan if, as an actress, she was involved with The Crown and then sniffs ( jokingly) that “One had hoped that they would wait until one is dead to make that sort of thing”. !!
Thank you for your kindness, @“Cardinal Fang” but I think I meant more that you were merely wondering about me rather than “accusing” me. I appreciate the explanation nevertheless.
I think that Michael Curry is wonderful. I didn’t see his entire sermon at the wedding, only short clips of it, so I have no opinion on that. But before the wedding I was curious, and I watched a youtube video of him discussing gay marriage. It was an informal setting, he was sitting at a table just talking, but he has a way of presenting his reasoning that is not only respectful of others who might hold the opposite view, but that sort of brings them along with him. (At least, I imagine that some people are persuaded - I hold the same view on this topic that he does.) I love the way his mind works and I have never seen anyone quite like him before. There’s a combination of intellect and expansive humanity that I found very powerful.
As I said, things can change. And there have been rumors that Charles will change his mind upon becoming King.
Not that they can’t be HRH. Just under the current rules (which can be changed), they will not be entitled to it. And I should clarify, that it is assuming that these hypothetical kids are born while the Queen is on the throne. If they are born while Charles is king, they would be HRH as the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line. I have no idea if they would become HRH automatically once Charles becomes King, which leads me to speculate that the Queen will change it if they are born in her lifetime.
While not HRH Prince(ss), Prince Edward’s kids do have titles, albeit by courtesy as children of an earl: James, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor. That’s still a bit more than Anne’s kids, Mr. Peter Phillips and Mrs. Zara Tindall.
Correct me if I’m wrong, @skieurope, but just because the Queen’s grandchildren via Anne & Edward don’t have titles, they aren’t removed from the line of succession. Correct? I think you can renounce that if need be; for instance, when Prince Michael married his Catholic wife, I think he renounced his place in the line of succession which was so far down that it wasn’t worth much anyway.
Regarding Bishop Curry’s sermon, I suspect the length as much as the content would have led to the amused faces from some of the royals. If I remember correctly, when the Queen attends church on her estates, the entire service is limited to 20-25 minutes.
@2vu0609 Correct. One can be untitled and still be in the line of succession. One has nothing to do with the other.
Correct again, However, the automatic exclusion upon marrying a Roman Catholic was dropped in 2015 when they changed the rules from male-preference primogeniture, and any people, like Prince Michael of Kent, who were previously removed for this reason were restored to the line of succession.
One addition to the rules–prior to 2012, only George would be HRH. His siblings Charlotte and Louis would not have the title.
i thought Bishop Curry’s sermon was better the second time I listened to it. The first time we were really waiting for the main event and so it seemed longer and more rambling. The second time I listened it seemed much better.
I recall reading at the time of Prince Edward’s marriage that his fiancee Sophie was disappointed to learn that she would not get the title of Princess. I don’t know whether this is actually true. It seems to me that she should have known from the prior example of Fergie that a Princess title was not in the offing.
Also as I recall, Diana was stripped of her HRH after the divorce from Charles. Which makes logical sense, since being married to Charles was the source of her royalness in the first place. But somehow it seemed spiteful and petty at the time. And you can be sure that William will restore his mother’s royal status the day after he becomes king.
Did anyone see the video of the 5 yo English girl talking and crying about not going to the wedding? She thought she was invited and told her mother she had been looking forward to it.
did not see it, no.