The royal nonsense.

[chancery]

Thanks Gregg and much ado!

[northland10]

I didn't think it was a bishop. Wrong vestments (though the English have quite the variety, especially I the royal peculiar* place that is Westminster). Actually it would not be Bishop showing them around Westminster since it is not a cathedral nor under the authority of the Diocese of London and the Bishop of London. That would be St. Paul's Cathedral.

Meme is still humorous. Guess it would have been better with the Bishop of London or the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury).

* A peculiar institution is an institution that is not directly under the authority of a diocese and its bishop. The seminary I went to was a peculiar institution. The bishop, however, was automatically a member of the board as part of the bylaws.

[Foggy]

I just liked it because it conveyed quite cleverly that the Queen is always the most powerful player on the board.

[Gregg]

Thanks Gregg and much ado!

You're welcome but I was wrong.

I've been to St George's and remembered the checkerboard floor, because I thought about the chess reference all those many years ago. I have not (and have no excuse why not) ever been inside Westminster Abbey. FWIW, although she's been to both many times, if you ever have to choose on the million dollar show, the Queen is much more likely to be at St George's than Westminster.

I now wonder at least two things:

A) Is the "chess board" floor a feature common in English churches? It can't be "Anglican" per se, because both of these floors pre-date the Reformation

and

B) Does the floor in these churches have any part in the origins of the game of chess?

[Gregg]

I just liked it because it conveyed quite cleverly that the Queen is always the most powerful player on the board.

And whatever you think of the family Windsor, she has done a right honorable job of it for near 70 years.

[Uninformed]

Re “church” flooring / pavements:

“In the 17th century the continental fashion for chequered marble pavements was copied. Hooke and Busby, the headmaster of Westminster School, worked together on the black-and-white chequer-board pavement in the choir of Westminster Abbey in the 1670s. Subsequently, Wren laid a similar floor at St Paul’s. In the 18th century attention turned to repaving the naves of great churches. In 1786 it was agreed to repave the nave of Canterbury in Portland stone lozenges. In 1789–90 the original paving in the nave and aisles of St George’s Chapel, Windsor, was replaced, although fortunately there is a drawing by John Carter of the earlier nave in 1783, which seems to have consisted of foot-square Purbeck marble paving, set diagonally.”

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wi ... 20churches

[northland10]

I just liked it because it conveyed quite cleverly that the Queen is always the most powerful player on the board.

Well, in the Church of England, officially, she is the most powerful player. The selection of the bishops and the ABC (along with the Archbishops York among others) go through a convoluted process involving a bunch of committees, then the PM, then the sovereign who sends it to the House of Bishops to "elect."

Re “church” flooring / pavements:

Oh great, a new church architecture article that will prevent me from finishing other stuff tonight.

I once was reading a list of "wants" from individuals for a parish that was looking at a building expansion/renovation for their old small wooden building. One person said they would like them to retain the creaking sounds of the old floorboards. That old rustic, creaking building was part of the liturgical experience that they did not wish to lose.

Sadly for that person, they did not retain the creaking floor or even much of the original building layout since they needed to nearly double the size. Wonder if they quit the parish over that. Some people have odd ditches to die in.

[Gregg]

Re “church” flooring / pavements:

“In the 17th century the continental fashion for chequered marble pavements was copied. Hooke and Busby, the headmaster of Westminster School, worked together on the black-and-white chequer-board pavement in the choir of Westminster Abbey in the 1670s. Subsequently, Wren laid a similar floor at St Paul’s. In the 18th century attention turned to repaving the naves of great churches. In 1786 it was agreed to repave the nave of Canterbury in Portland stone lozenges. In 1789–90 the original paving in the nave and aisles of St George’s Chapel, Windsor, was replaced, although fortunately there is a drawing by John Carter of the earlier nave in 1783, which seems to have consisted of foot-square Purbeck marble paving, set diagonally.”

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wi ... 20churches

Now that was interesting. We're gonna get hijack warned for it, but well worth the penalty.
And since I'm gonna do 3 minutes in the box anyhow, I've never been to Canterbury either, how big a trek is that from London by train? Is it doable "leave in the morning, back by late dinner?"



There, ya happy?

[much ado]

It's just my opinion, but I think a topic called "The royal nonsense" is a hijack-free zone. That is, even the most tangentially related post should be considered "on topic". This is not a serious thread.

Do others agree?

[northland10]

I suppose I could discuss my church/denomination here because it was born from, Royal Nonsense.

[Uninformed]

Over an hour, up to two, by train, although you’re supposed to walk

[chancery]

I suppose I could discuss my church/denomination here because it was born from, Royal Nonsense.

Absolutely!

[keith]

It's just my opinion, but I think a topic called "The royal nonsense" is a hijack-free zone. That is, even the most tangentially related post should be considered "on topic". This is not a serious thread.

Do others agree?

I'm the only hijacker in the vill-ee-age.

[Gregg]

It's just my opinion, but I think a topic called "The royal nonsense" is a hijack-free zone. That is, even the most tangentially related post should be considered "on topic". This is not a serious thread.

Do others agree?

I'm the only hijacker in the vill-ee-age.

Pfft, piker.

I can take a discussion of Herbology in Japanese Literature and end up describing a Tarantino snuff scene camera setup.

[RVInit]

I never weighed in on this but bringing it back to Harry and Meghan there is one point on which I totally empathize with Harry and understand if he feels betrayed. The royals famously have an agreement with the press whereby they give a certain amount of access in exchange for being able to call in a few favors every now and then. Harry was very young when he lost the only member of the royal family that was prone to full expression of love. I'm not saying he wasn't equally loved by the other members of the family, but feeling love and expressing love are not the same thing. And the royals clearly do not know how to express love in the way Diana learned to express love. And that was taken away from him when he was still so very young. He had more problems as a teen in terms of acting out, trying drugs, etc. The royals had no problem calling in favors with the press when it was just Harry by himself. But they utterly refused to stand by his side, call in any favors, or try to get the press of Meghan and Harry's back once he was married.

I have no idea about any of the rest of it. Is Meghan abusive? I don't know. Are they full of themselves? I don't know. But on that one issue of the royal family leaving him hanging out to dry with the press once he got married because they have to save all the favors for his older brother, I completely understand his feelings of betrayal.

[Volkonski]

Once when in London on business I took the train to Canterbury on a Saturday.

Walked around, had lunch in a pub and was back in London for dinner. It was a great day out.