Ship of Fools: Westminster Abbey (TV series)

Thread: Westminster Abbey (TV series) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024098

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've only seen half of two programmes, but I'm impressed. I've got lots of questions about establishment, about the worship of royalty, about much that goes on there ( the exorbitant entry fees to the building might have been mentioned, but not in the bits I saw). But it did show a very positive side to the C of E in other respects. The excellence of the music and liturgy, the ecumenical outreach (I saw the bit about the choir visit to the Vatican and Monte Cassino), the pastoral care of the choirboys and the abbey community generally, the welcome to pilgrims. Having associated 'establishment' religion with boring MOTR Mattins and such like, it was good to see St Edward's chapel wreathed in incense smoke, and a catholic feel to the worship generally.

Maybe shipmates who have seen more of the series will concur with or challenge the above.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I have issues with Establishment too, but I think it's a good series and I've seen two full programmes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Same here.

I did not like the current dean when he was promoting church schools as head of the arrogantly named 'National Society' but he is good in his current job.

It does feel like a worshipping community as opposed to a museum to dead monarchs.There was a brief clip showing a sign about the entrance fee - £21 per person.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There was a brief clip showing a sign about the entrance fee - £21 per person.

Their website currently gives £16 for an adult (concessions £13). Still more than I would stump up.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Their website currently gives £16 for an adult (concessions £13). Still more than I would stump up.

Yes it's a lot, but I think they are trying to limit the number of visitors. They have a BIG problem - practically every tourist who comes to London wants to see the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey (which are, of course, across the road from each other). There isn't a lot of room to move around inside the Abbey with all those royal tombs and stuff. If they just let anyone walk in, or charged a small fee, there would be real safety problems or else they'd have to employ a lot of crowd control staff.

It's hard to maintain the atmosphere of a place of worship when a building is packed with tourists. The Abbey does a good job, I think.

Canterbury cathedral has the same problem. Also St Paul's and York Minster, but not to the same extent.

Of course there's no charge for attending a service.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I have seen them all, and am enjoying the series. The entry fees are tourist rates though, and I would not want to pay that much to go around, however interesting it is.

The problem I constantly have is that they emphasise the church at the heart of government, the church at the heart of the state, something which I have never really argued with. It does not talk about faith - Christian or otherwise - at the heart. There is a sense of the various establishments all working together - the church, parliament, royalty. And physical proximity does not necessarily match with influence or impact.

The danger is that they are simply the place that the other establishments give their nod to God. There is a sense that it is organisations that interact, not people. (yeah yeah yeah, I know. Organisations are made up of people, yada yada).

None of which is to deny that what they do, they do well. And they have presented what they do very well too. Its just that "what they do" seems to be, at its core, put on services.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Have just watched the last of the series.

Canon Andrew Tremlett was in our diocese and I am glad that he is now there. Our loss, its gain.

The Battle of Britain service raises lots of questions - as it did for me long ago as a choirboy in a port.

The Stanford solo- my lower middle class insecurity made me with too ditto that as a boy - the posh choirboys ditto - our choir from a Russell Group uni. ditto.

'Nodding at God' as part of the establishment is OK - that is our outreach as the established church.

The bit where the Dean has a lump in his throat - carol services - is great. Makes him human.

However- on interfaith - I had a horrible experience of the Week of Prayer for World Peace - we attended Evensong - during which there was perfect calm - followed by our interfaith service during which the tills were turned back on and all we heard was 'ker ching.'

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm impressed by the way the series has been put together - a good example of responsible journalism.

Obviously I was most interested in the behind-the-scenes insight into the choristers' experience, but - like leo - was also pleased to see how Canon Andrew Tremlett has progressed into a responsible and fulfilling role, as I remember him as a small boy (his father did much of his training at my church - we obviously didn't manage to put him off!).

During the year and a half I spent Mon - Fri in London, where Mr. C. was working, I went to the Abbey many times for Evensong, where I got to see the finished product - this series helped me to understand the tremendous amount of work which goes on in order for the daily services and other events to take place. [Overused]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem I constantly have is that they emphasise the church at the heart of government, the church at the heart of the state

Take a look at the tower-space chandelier in Southwark Cathedral - hung in the 17th C when it was just a parish church. At the bottom a dove (holy spirit) then in ascending order a mitre (the church) and above them both a crown (the state).

Posted by Rosalind (# 317) on :

I appeared briefly on the third programme, in the piece on interfaith marriages. They filmed the whole lot, all the speeches and discussions, and although they edited heavily,ie about 3 hours down to a few minutes, I was impressed at how they managed to give a balanced account of what we were doing and why it was significant.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Same here.

I did not like the current dean when he was promoting church schools as head of the arrogantly named 'National Society' but he is good in his current job.

But it isn't arrogantly named at all. It's merely abbreviated - arrogantly, if you like, The full name of the National Society is the National Society for Promoting Religious Education.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes it is - it promotes a narrow, partisan RE for church schools. The vast majority of us have worked in normal (LA) schools and the National Society has no interest in what we do at the cutting edge.

It isn't 'National'. It's sectarian.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0