Thread: Coronation service: Saying something? 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=025456
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
The Queen celebrated 60 years in a special service today.

It was noteworthy for its omission of any Free Church participation in leading the worship.

Even the Lutherans got a show in.

Were the Methodists, Baptists, URC and the like deliberately ignored?

or am I being over-sensitive?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Yep - all the usual suspects out in force including public schoolboys singing the praise of the queen. Did normal children from a state school get a look in?

It would be VERY interesting to see who was on the guest list.

Didn't say anything to me I'm afraid except to remind me that the old power structures in our nation are still as powerful as ever. But then again we do seem to suspend all our critical faculties when it comes to the inhabitants of Buckingham Palace. You always know when it's time for a dose of them because the news readers adopt a "silly grin" attitude and a patronising tone.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
So you missed the procession then that brought the oil to the altar? A girl scout, 2 primary school kids, a nurse, a lollypop lady, a sailor, a judge and a couple of chelsea pensioner.

No ordinary people there then.

[ 04. June 2013, 18:12: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
And as I understand it, the queens Guide carrying the flask of oil at the beginning of that procession is in training as a Methodist Preacher.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Wasn't the guy from Norn Iron a Presbyterian? Doesn't that make him as non-con?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
shamwari: The Queen celebrated 60 years in a special service today.
There are a lot of jokes in the Netherlands involving imaginary conversations between King Willem-Alexander (whose mother abdicated) and Prince Charles.
 
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
shamwari: The Queen celebrated 60 years in a special service today.
There are a lot of jokes in the Netherlands involving imaginary conversations between King Willem-Alexander (whose mother abdicated) and Prince Charles.
Private Eye currently has a serial on Charles' desperation for his mother to abdicate. He keeps hearing the second half of news articles on someone abdicating and getting his hopes up.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
There was a cartoon in one of the papers recently. HMQ is shown reading a paper with the headline "Queen Beatrix to retire" and underneath, the simple word "Wuss".
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
Just as a matter of interest, ExclamationMark, how many chips do you have on each shoulder?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you missed the procession then that brought the oil to the altar? A girl scout, 2 primary school kids, a nurse, a lollypop lady, a sailor, a judge and a couple of chelsea pensioner.

No ordinary people there then.
What's a lollypop lady?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Just as a matter of interest, ExclamationMark, how many chips do you have on each shoulder?
After two thousand some posts, you perhaps have heard that personal attacks belong in Hell.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you missed the procession then that brought the oil to the altar? A girl scout, 2 primary school kids, a nurse, a lollypop lady, a sailor, a judge and a couple of chelsea pensioner.

No ordinary people there then.
What's a lollypop lady?
A lollypop lady (sometimes a lollypop man) is a person who crosses children over the road to get to and from school. Very often they are pensioners.


Like This
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What's a lollypop lady?
A person who stops cars so that children going to and from school can cross the road.
Here are some pictures of them. What are yours called?
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
Called a school crossing guard here.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Just as a matter of interest, ExclamationMark, how many chips do you have on each shoulder?
Enough to fill a chip shop. Being a fenman I do have more shoulders than most, and broader ones at that (able to fit more chips on). I have to say, though, that the extra heads associated with said shoulders were removed soon after birth.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you missed the procession then that brought the oil to the altar? A girl scout, 2 primary school kids, a nurse, a lollypop lady, a sailor, a judge and a couple of chelsea pensioner.

No ordinary people there then.
MF, you're one of the last I'd want to wind up but my previous hyperbole aside - about 8 out of 2000? That makes it 0.4%. (Surely you can't count the Judge - they're about as establishment and old school as you can get).

It would've been a brilliant idea if the school choir had not been that of Westminster School but a state school instead. I'd have loved it if one of the Army Corps bands (Salvation that is), and songsters were doing it. Now that would be a message!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I agree entirely. I often wonder what it would be like if there were a school choir or a salvation Army band (instead of the military) but I suppose the Dean would not be happy with non-Anglicans actually providing the worship.

In any case, if there were a school choir from "Dump Street Country Primary" singing 'One More Step Along the World I Go', would it be acceptable to all the sniffy music buffs who would turn up their noses at anything that wasn't of the content and calibre of what we witnessed.

It wasn't so long ago that, following the Royal wedding, there were people here on the ship bemoaning the fact that the Abbey Choir had sung a Rutter song.

I think we're happy to listen to 'posh boys' singing their high falutin' tunes - at least we know what we'll get.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
... and further to that; once you open it up to a Salvation Army songster brigade (choir) the next 'equality and diversity' demand will be that at the next Royal church service we'll have to have the local gay men's chorus singing Diamonds Are a Girls' Best Friend and Brian May doing a rendition of Killer Queen with George Michael [Biased] (!)

[ 05. June 2013, 08:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think we're happy to listen to 'posh boys' singing their high falutin' tunes - at least we know what we'll get.
Yes the same old, same old class divisions repeated ad nauseam.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think we're happy to listen to 'posh boys' singing their high falutin' tunes - at least we know what we'll get.
Yes the same old, same old class divisions repeated ad nauseam.
I do have to say, however, that class is perhaps something that the left like to keep going so they can bash people with it. After all, there really is nothing to stop any school starting up a choir that will sing Parry and Vaughan Williams, is there? It is the Left however who will say that even the music is too posh and therefore keep themselves out of the culture where these things are valued.

I'm not posh and I certainly appreciated the music in the service.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think we're happy to listen to 'posh boys' singing their high falutin' tunes - at least we know what we'll get.
Yes the same old, same old class divisions repeated ad nauseam.
I do have to say, however, that class is perhaps something that the left like to keep going so they can bash people with it. After all, there really is nothing to stop any school starting up a choir that will sing Parry and Vaughan Williams, is there? It is the Left however who will say that even the music is too posh and therefore keep themselves out of the culture where these things are valued.

I'm not posh and I certainly appreciated the music in the service.
Will you please identify people that could be said to be of the Left, rather than simply stating "the Left".

You do this far too often and I'm afraid it devalues rather than strengthens any point you are trying to make. Then again, you might get a cheap thrill out of vilifying the Left, rather as I do out of being rude about golf.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Bit sensitive aren't we? It's not as if I invented the term. The Left, the Elite, the Establishment, the Homeless, the Right...

It's just a figure of speech used to identify an attitude, a position, a group.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Bit sensitive aren't we? It's not as if I invented the term. The Left, the Elite, the Establishment, the Homeless, the Right...

It's just a figure of speech used to identify an attitude, a position, a group.
True, but it's a very boring figure of speech, and I thought you might want to be taken seriously. We are in Purgatory after all after all.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Hmmm... I think if EM can get away with the rather vague 'class divisions', then Mudfrog can with 'The Left'. Sauce for the goose and all that...
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I promise that I will try to write in a more exciting way in future [Smile]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
@ Exclamation Mark & Mudfrog

The 'posh boys' were the scholars from Westminster School: that is, they are the boys who have won free academic tuition.

They shout the vivats in I was glad because they are the people who the composer, Charles Hubert Hastings Parry, wrote it for.

And he wrote it for the scholars because they were more likely to be bright boys from ordinary backgrounds who were at Westminster by virtue of their academic prowess rather than parental wealth.

So you can BOTH remove your chip(s)!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
@ Exclamation Mark & Mudfrog

The 'posh boys' were the scholars from Westminster School: that is, they are the boys who have won free academic tuition.

They shout the vivats in I was glad because they are the people who the composer, Charles Hubert Hastings Parry, wrote it for.

And he wrote it for the scholars because they were more likely to be bright boys from ordinary backgrounds who were at Westminster by virtue of their academic prowess rather than parental wealth.

So you can BOTH remove your chip(s)!
It's fine - I have no issue with so-called 'class'; it's Mark I was replying to and I did put 'posh' in quotes in reflection of his attitude.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
@ Exclamation Mark & Mudfrog

The 'posh boys' were the scholars from Westminster School: that is, they are the boys who have won free academic tuition.

They shout the vivats in I was glad because they are the people who the composer, Charles Hubert Hastings Parry, wrote it for.

And he wrote it for the scholars because they were more likely to be bright boys from ordinary backgrounds who were at Westminster by virtue of their academic prowess rather than parental wealth.

So you can BOTH remove your chip(s)!
Please see my response to Pre Cambrian up thread - there's still space for a few more chips yet!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Were the Methodists, Baptists, URC and the like deliberately ignored?

or am I being over-sensitive?
So, now you've had a few answers, how would you answer your own question? I'd be very surprized if there wasn't an almost clinically representative spread of people, faith, occupation and denomination at this bash, as there usually is at all these shindigs.

Exclamation Mark, I agree with you about the tone of the news commentators. Though I suppose on such an occasion - a royal celebration - they're very unlikely to sit there sneering and sniping. It does seem more logical they'll find good things to say.

I'm sure most of us would rather have our achievements highlighted in public by people who weren't apathetic and/or our worst enemies. Fun as that would be for those who hate us!
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So you can BOTH remove your chip(s)!
I thought I was pretty clear above about keeping the personal attacks in Hell, no? Keep ignoring rulings and more trouble will indubitably occur.

Gwai
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


The 'posh boys' were the scholars from Westminster School: that is, they are the boys who have won free academic tuition.

They shout the vivats in I was glad because they are the people who the composer, Charles Hubert Hastings Parry, wrote it for.

And he wrote it for the scholars because they were more likely to be bright boys from ordinary backgrounds who were at Westminster by virtue of their academic prowess rather than parental wealth.

So you can BOTH remove your chip(s)!
I've got a whole bundle of french fries with that

When oh when are they going to pronounce the Latin correctly? They make 'Vivat Regina' sound like an out of order toilet [Mad]

Grrr.......
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I would say over-sensitive. In the procession was not just the Chair of the Methodist Conference but also the leader of the Free Church Group*, a Lutheran as co-President of CTE does lead a prayer and I am pretty sure Lutheran counts as historic Free churches. We have also a Free Church person from Wales, Moderator of the Church of Scotland and a hymn by a Reformed pastor to send people out with.

Jengie

*Free Church group is the successor group to the Free Church Federal Council (which I think took over from the Board of Deputies), which is the body that works as an over arching group for Non-Conformist Protestants.
 
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :
 
What does Stephen consider "correct" Latin pronunciation?"More Romano" - how it is done by modern Italians? "Reformed Classical" invented by scholars in the late 19th century? Or as commonly done by lawyers and presiding officers of CofE synods etc ?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
None of which answers my question.


Those who led the service (including the intercessions) were all of the "established" Church and no Free Church ( Non Conformists) were included.

I dont see where the Lutherans ( who were included) fit in.

You can argue till the cows come home that Lollypop Ladies and Scouters etc were included in the service.

But the fact remains that Free Church leaders were excommunicated from any role in the leadership of worship.

Typical of the "effortless superiority of the Anglican communion" that they were excluded.

And this " effortless superiority" is what annoys and frustrates those of us who desire Union at a time when society is against all "religion".
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
To be honest... I struggle with this stuff.

Firstly, I'm a republican who would happily do away with the monarchy in a resolutely non-killy and, secondly, there's something about the image of the House of Windsor congratulating itself that makes me feel a bit ill. It's all very resolutely high church and it feels at those moments like God is very far away, hopefully with some poor people who need Him a lot more.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Douglas, despite being high church/Anglo-Catholic myself (but also anti-monarchy), I feel much the same way.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
None of which answers my question.


... But the fact remains that Free Church leaders were excommunicated from any role in the leadership of worship.
...
Um, no. There were no excommunications performed at that service. I think perhaps you mean 'excluded', and even that is not the same as 'not included'.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Thanks, Jade. I have to stress that it very much is the non-killy kind, but I can't see, or maybe don't have the spiritual maturity to find God in those big state occasions when it seems that so much is there from the secular world that religious considerations are secondary.

I read a piece some years ago by a Catholic journalist who went to pray in a small church in Rome, early in the morning, before his working day. He smiled at the old gentleman who walked past his pew and then realised with shock that it was Pop John Paul II in 'civilian' clothes, there by himself for whatever reason.

That's the kind of rite that draws me in - small, quiet and intimate.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
None of which answers my question.


Those who led the service (including the intercessions) were all of the "established" Church and no Free Church ( Non Conformists) were included.
That's because your assumption is simply wrong. T
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
To be honest... I struggle with this stuff.

Firstly, I'm a republican who would happily do away with the monarchy in a resolutely non-killy and, secondly, there's something about the image of the House of Windsor congratulating itself that makes me feel a bit ill. It's all very resolutely high church and it feels at those moments like God is very far away, hopefully with some poor people who need Him a lot more.
It might make poor people who are also monarchists very contented though?
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
So a state church led a state event.

Sounds normal enough.

And a wide range of society including other denominations invited to attend.

As a chapel girl I am happy to let the parish clergy worry about the Mayor's Civic service and such like. I don't feel done out of leading these events.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The Queen celebrated 60 years in a special service today.

It was noteworthy for its omission of any Free Church participation in leading the worship.

Even the Lutherans got a show in.

Were the Methodists, Baptists, URC and the like deliberately ignored?

or am I being over-sensitive?
I would notice such a tendency also ... After all, there are also autonomous Christian denominations that accept no Teachings but Jesus':

Quakers and other Anabaptists, the TwelveTribes and other religious and devotional communities.

None who cleave to the Covenant should be left out, I think.

But as we all notice, conventionalism seems to rule.

EEWC
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]Exclamation Mark, I agree with you about the tone of the news commentators. Though I suppose on such an occasion - a royal celebration - they're very unlikely to sit there sneering and sniping. It does seem more logical they'll find good things to say.
That's true but does have it have to be so smug and twee? The newsreaders dont adopt the same kind of attitude for other feel good stories in my observation.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Reading through this thread with a bit of a sigh I'm just piping in to say that I would have loved the service to have included 'One More Step Along the World I Go.' It wouldn't need to have been sung by a choir from a state primary school ('Ooh look! Here are the common children singing one of their own songs!')--it could have been sung by the congregation, or, fabulously by the combined choirs of the Abbey and the Chapel Royal. It would have been gorgeous and a hoot.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
The problem with a state church is that 'smug and twee' are almost a default setting. Power gets entrenched, there are sundry things that you don't need to worry about and everyone ends up getting a little bit too comfortable.

As to the newsreaders being smug and twee as well, I guess they're walking on thin ice. If it's felt they're not showing enough reverence to the occasion, then they'll get complaints that they're cocking a snook at the monarchy and the state church, so it's probably simpler to 'twee up' for the occasion and get it over with. Insight and hard reporting has to wait for another occasion.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]Exclamation Mark, I agree with you about the tone of the news commentators. Though I suppose on such an occasion - a royal celebration - they're very unlikely to sit there sneering and sniping. It does seem more logical they'll find good things to say.
That's true but does have it have to be so smug and twee? The newsreaders dont adopt the same kind of attitude for other feel good stories in my observation.
You'd have to take that up with the individual newsreaders involved. I presume they are given a line to follow and make up their own script. Personally I hate the commentators' comments over most of these occasions. They rarely add anything to my viewing pleasure! Especially if they speak over the music.

Douglas the Otter, you may not like state religious occasions, which is your choice, of course. I'm guessing the Queen probably doesn't have that choice. Being head of state and of the state religion. However, I believe she does have a sincere and lifelong Christian belief, by which she lives her life. So I think it's very likely that whatever unreligious thoughts were going through the minds of the spectating public, there probably was real worship and thanksgiving (and probably a lot of sad reflection) going on in hers. It's even possible a few others at the service where actually worshipping God, too. Who knows.

It's not everyone's cup of tea that kind of horse and pony show. But the service, I presume, was an official and national religious observance of a significant royal event. Hard to see 'small, quiet and intimate' being on the cards here.

And your example of Pope John Paul II's private (though obviously still public) prayer time means very little. I certainly recall he had one or two rather larger events in his diary, featuring much more in the way of massive public adulation, media frenzy, and church pomp, than anything Her Maj could imagine facing in a day's work. Now if he had had his enthronement as a 'small, quiet and intimate' affair, or any of his main public appearances, you might've had a real point to make!

But I wouldn't expect a Pope to be enthroned or make major public appearances in a 'small, quiet and intimate' way, any more than I would expect a monarch to officially celebrate and offer thanks for sixty years reign in that fashion.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Folks, this was a worship service of the Church of England to celebrate and give thanks for 60 years of dedicated and devoted service by the person who has inherited (she didn't ask for it) the role of that Church's Supreme Governor. Why shouldn't that Church lead the worship? Many of us found it moving. Just lay off, will you!
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But the fact remains that Free Church leaders were excommunicated from any role in the leadership of worship.

Typical of the "effortless superiority of the Anglican communion" that they were excluded.

And this " effortless superiority" is what annoys and frustrates those of us who desire Union at a time when society is against all "religion".
The Free Churches are also pretty good at effortless superiority, usually along the lines that their structure/words etc are truly democratic/prophetic etc because unlike the benighted CofE they are free to do their own thing free of the shackles of The State. Until they feel they weren't given a sufficiently Big Part in a Big State Do, when they chuck their principles out of their prams along with their toys.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The Free Churches are also pretty good at effortless superiority, usually along the lines that their structure/words etc are truly democratic/prophetic etc because unlike the benighted CofE they are free to do their own thing free of the shackles of The State. Until they feel they weren't given a sufficiently Big Part in a Big State Do, when they chuck their principles out of their prams along with their toys.
Funny you should say that. Pretty much what I was thinking, particularly the italicised bit. Status-consciousness doesn't really fit the nonco ancestral mold. Not does the desire for that kind of recognition.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
On what basis were the Lutherans included?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
On what basis were the Lutherans included?
Maybe, with reference to the condemnation that I received from Sioni Sais, this should actually be rephrased:

'On what basis were people that could be said to be of the Lutherans included?' rather than simply stating "the Lutherans".

[Big Grin] [Razz]
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
If by "the Lutherans" shamwari was referring to Bishop Jana Jeruma-Grinberga, then Jengie Jon has already answered the question.

The service was conducted by the Dean of Westminster who is minister in charge of Westminster Abbey, and the preacher was the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The procession included representatives of a number of religions. The Christian part of the procession of religious representatives was as follows:
REPRESENTING THE CHURCHES IN WALES:
REPRESENTING THE CHURCHES IN SCOTLAND:
REPRESENTING THE CHURCHES IN NORTHERN IRELAND:
REPRESENTING THE CHURCHES IN ENGLAND:
and prayers were led by
(So that is an Independent, two Presbyterians, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran and two Anglicans.)

Broadly speaking the ecumenical dimension came in through the participation of the relevant ecumenical body, namely Churches Together in England, with additional recognition given to the Methodists and the Roman Catholic church, I guess because of the historic connections those denominations have with the CofE.

I think if you tried to represent every denomination individually it would make the occasion intolerably lengthy, and it would be difficult to be sure of including everybody. ISTM appropriate that the range Christian denominations should find a place in the service through the involvement of Churches Together in England.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
BroJames, what a workmanlike piece of posting.

So, Shamwari, having gone to the trouble to complain of the 'typical' arrogance of Church of England Anglicans to exclude everyone but themselves - oh, and the Lutherans ('on what basis where they included'?!) - perhaps a little redress is in order? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
At the coronation, many of the choir boys were picked from ordinary church choirs - it was a great honour for them to be able to sing for the Queen in this way. I understand that several of them were invited back to be in the congregation during the 60th Anniversary service.

(I can't help wondering, if Charlie were to do this, whether he would pick girls.)
 
Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on :
 
Something like this perhaps...???
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Does anything about the titles these people are given strike anyone as immensely silly and rather vain?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Not really, they're more descriptions of what they do rather than who they are.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Does anything about the titles these people are given strike anyone as immensely silly and rather vain?
Silly certainly! [Smile]

Vain as in look at me, aren't I an important little sunbeam of Jesus? Don't know. Can't read minds. No doubt someone likes the sound their title makes.

Vain, as in the sense of does it make any difference to who they are in Christ - yes, utterly in vain. But I don't think that's the point you were trying to make?
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
The titles just seem rather pointless, is all. We're all the same in Christ's eyes, apparently.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Then all titles are pointless. Mr, Dr, Miss, Mister (surgeon), captain, soldier, officer, MP, Prime Minister, President, veterinarian, teacher, inspector etc. And names, too, for that matter. If we're all the same in Christ's eyes then nobody needs to be differentiated by first names or surnames. Especially if your name identifies you as belonging to a family, caste or race which encourages one to think more highly of oneself than one should.

Come on. Don't make a big deal out of something that isn't.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Then all titles are pointless. Mr, Dr, Miss, Mister (surgeon), captain, soldier, officer, MP, Prime Minister, President, veterinarian, teacher, inspector etc. And names, too, for that matter. If we're all the same in Christ's eyes then nobody needs to be differentiated by first names or surnames. Especially if your name identifies you as belonging to a family, caste or race which encourages one to think more highly of oneself than one should.

Come on. Don't make a big deal out of something that isn't.
I wish I could post photo images here. One of the elements of civil society that I notice from planet-to-planet [with the exception of Mercury] is that human beings, whether composed of silicon, carbon or neon CELLS, breather or non-breather, vocal or telepathic--ALL WEAR HATS to designate role and function.

And the truly surprising thing is, hats are constant in style, from planet-to-planet. I have seen cowboy hats on the Moon, Sikh turbans on Mars, Muslim burkhas on Venus. A Hat SIGNIFIES who a person >is<.

So role and function are not designations given either arbitrarily nor purposeless. Every civil society needs to be able to identify who's who and what's what.

Do you see a problem with that? I don't.

Emily
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
And the truly surprising thing is, hats are constant in style, from planet-to-planet. I have seen cowboy hats on the Moon, Sikh turbans on Mars, Muslim burkhas on Venus.
Fascinating. I assume that there aren't Lunar cowboys / Martian Sikhs / Venusian Moslems, etc. but that the style of headwear is similar? Although you can't post photos in the forum, are you able to link to any photographs of these things?

[ 08. June 2013, 18:02: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
The titles just seem rather pointless, is all. We're all the same in Christ's eyes, apparently.
What an extraordinarily odd idea. From where do you get that notion?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Aaaaah we've got to cowboy hats on the moon - time for the chainsaw Eugene!
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Although delighted there was a service to mark the anniversary of the Queen's coronation, I found it just a little disappointing, although i can't quite pin point why.

The archbishop seemed weedy and waffly, and had a thin, reedy delivery. It made one long for the sonorous tones of Rowan Williams (or Richard Chartres); David Cameron read his lesson beautifully and impeccably in an educated confident voice and, I thought, with considerable sincerity - as did the Commonweath General Secretary.

And yet...

The Queen and Prince Phillip looked bored at times. I am told that organisers of royal services are told 'keep the sermon short, and have familar hymns'.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I wish I could post photo images here. One of the elements of civil society that I notice from planet-to-planet [with the exception of Mercury] is that human beings, whether composed of silicon, carbon or neon CELLS, breather or non-breather, vocal or telepathic--ALL WEAR HATS to designate role and function.

And the truly surprising thing is, hats are constant in style, from planet-to-planet. I have seen cowboy hats on the Moon, Sikh turbans on Mars, Muslim burkhas on Venus. A Hat SIGNIFIES who a person >is<.

So role and function are not designations given either arbitrarily nor purposeless. Every civil society needs to be able to identify who's who and what's what.

Do you see a problem with that? I don't.

Emily
What the fuck are you on about? Or more to the point, just what the fuck are you on? Do you really have to drag this mad, mindless drivel into every debate?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

The Queen and Prince Phillip looked bored at times. I am told that organisers of royal services are told 'keep the sermon short, and have familar hymns'.
Well to be fair to them Philip - did he but know it - was on his way into hospital; and the Queen doesn't usually appear that animated, except maybe at the race-track! They must be connisseurs of royal services which must make it very difficult to appear enthralled on every occasion [Big Grin] !
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
And the truly surprising thing is, hats are constant in style, from planet-to-planet. I have seen cowboy hats on the Moon, Sikh turbans on Mars, Muslim burkhas on Venus.
Fascinating. I assume that there aren't Lunar cowboys / Martian Sikhs / Venusian Moslems, etc. but that the style of headwear is similar? Although you can't post photos in the forum, are you able to link to any photographs of these things?
If you go to her profile you will find a link to her web page which is, erm, illuminating.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
The titles just seem rather pointless, is all. We're all the same in Christ's eyes, apparently.
What an extraordinarily odd idea. From where do you get that notion?
Well that presumes He still exists, or exists in the way that some would like him to. So maybe it is better to hedge our bets and enjoy our titles.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
As a sincere follower of Her Majesty's activities, I can say with complete assurance--

she doesn't have a CLUE what constitutes Leadership, Accountability or Responsibility.

Dinseyworld East, the corporation, is the only vehicle in her sight.

How do I know? I read and study her Financial Reports from year to year, that's how. And my dad is spinning in his grave.


EEWC
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
As a sincere follower of Her Majesty's activities, I can say with complete assurance--

she doesn't have a CLUE what constitutes Leadership, Accountability or Responsibility.

Dinseyworld East, the corporation, is the only vehicle in her sight.

How do I know? I read and study her Financial Reports from year to year, that's how. And my dad is spinning in his grave.


EEWC
Despite being opposed to the institution of monarchy, as someone who actually lives in the UK I can assure *you* that HM the Queen understands more about leadership, accountability and responsibility than most world leaders. Would that elected officials were as competent as she is!

What on Earth is Disneyworld East? Is that American for Disneyland Paris or something? [Confused]
 
Posted by Plique-ŕ-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Services involving royalty always seem pretty broad church (in the American sense) to me, however ornate they are, and I gather that the Queen isn't a High Anglican. Having said that, I can only judge these televised occasions by brief glimpses, as I've never watched one in full. They're royal events that take place in church, not church events involving royalty. Of course they aren't going to be representative, of course they aren't going to be egalitarian, and nor should we expect them to be.

It's better if the cast members of shows like this have an interest in the thing they're celebrating. The existence of the monarchy benefits the privileged, because it centres the national culture on a narrative of righteous inequality. It makes sense that they are the ones leading the celebration. It makes no sense that 'ordinary people' should be more involved. To celebrate their subjection? To thrill to the spectacle of their own obeisance? Leave it to the people who get something out of it. Let's not have any cognitive dissonance: privilege is privilege.

[ 16. June 2013, 03:33: Message edited by: Plique-ŕ-jour ]
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What on Earth is Disneyworld East? Is that American for Disneyland Paris or something? [Confused]
DINSEYWORLD EAST is the annual tour the Queen makes between Palaces to create social events that promote and portray BUSINESS and CHARITY HIERARCHIES as if they were the only reality on the schedule.

Self-sufficiency, self-reliance, self-governance never come up in the program.

EEWC

[ETA Code correction - DT, Purgatory Host]

[ 16. June 2013, 22:53: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Emily Windsor-Cragg, of all the active posters on this site yours is the opinion I would perhaps least esteem. Almost to the point of assuming that whatever idea or sentiment you express, it is almost certainly logical and beneficial - not to say a sign of sanity - to assume the exact opposite.

Nevertheless, it's been of great use to have had access to your views on life the world and other planets and their cowboy-hat-wearing inhabitants, because it throws into such sharp relief what is actually real. And that is very useful indeed.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Anselmina, Hell is that way ->

Emily, this thread is about the coronation service please stay on topic.

I would like to remind you of the Ship's 8th commandment:
quote:
8. Don't crusade

Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
I think this is the second time I have suggested you read this rule.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0