Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Or the more commonly known translation 'Never speak ill of the dead' which I think is sheer hypocracy! If you hate someone's guts when they are alive, why suddenly change your mind when they die? I suspect that it is an ancient superstition based on fear of the deceased taking their revenge on you from 'on high'. Of course if they were really as vile as you originally believed then they would not actually be 'on high', but elsewhere!!

As for Latin being a dead language, in Finland it is apparently still taught as a spoken language in school; maybe that is so that the youngsters get to understand the meaning of all those different cases - 15 or 16, I think (help me out here Maria). Having gone on to study various other languages, but mostly Romance (Latin-based) I did find Latin useful, as far as understanding the workings of grammar was concerned; the same applies to German and even what little New Testament Greek I attempted - except there it was little use with making wild guesses at strange vocabulary. That is where my problem lies with Finnish, the fact that the vocabulary is all totally new, and getting my head round all those extra cases. I am faintly amused that the person who actually codified the Finnish language, and turned it into a written language was called Michael Agricola (agricola being a word which most of us probably remember from school Latin). He was a former Bishop of Turku (or was it Archbishop?) and has his own flag day - not exactly a public holiday, but a day when flags are flown on many buildings in his honour). Isn't it amazing the useless rubbish one picks up?

.

barwen wrote:I am now left wondering if offers of a place for year 9 are imminent or could happen any time between now and September. Also can means testing still apply to entrants at this level of entry. Barwen

Doesn't means-testing apply to all parents who aren't paying full fees, at whatever age their children join CH?

.

barwen wrote: I am wondering if as our son had once already been accepted having passed the residential in 2008 and at that time we were eligible for fee reduction due to income, will that still apply if we were now lucky enough to secure a place. Barwen Still

I suspect, Barwen, that the answer would be "NO". The conditions seem to be quite clear - full-fee payers only - so regardless of your son's earlier success, my guess would be that the Foundation would not deem it relevant.
Still, it's worth a try - but be prepared for disappointment, as the Foundation's attitude now seems pretty well set.

Barwen

I think it might be worth contacting the school to find out the definitive answer. At the recent residential session for the 11+ entry the Headmaster encouraged parents whose offspring were not successful in this round to think about applying again at 13+ and no mention was made of this being only direct entry, which would clearly not be possible for a majority if not all of the assembled families.

Good luck.

well i understand that responses were supposed to be in by Friday. I wonder if any of us waiting listers will hear good news this week! fingers crossed.

I suppose now, kids boast, "I go to CH - You know, the 'bluecoat-school near Horsham, coz Mummsie and Papa can afford it !"

Happily, mine doesn't! She started in Sept 09 and is (mostly) very happy.

We have been self-employed for many years and earning less each year; our assessment had us paying about 10% of fees. However, once we filed our end of year accounts we were reassessed and the contributions fell dramatically, much to our relief. I can only praise the help that we have had from the contributions staff. For us - at the moment - CH certainly IS giving a chance for a child from a poor family. We would both described ourselves as middle-class by upbringing and education, but certainly not by earnings or standard of living!

Incidentally, she (we?) was assessed by a personal sponsor who felt that she was a worthy case but had one deemed more worthy. He came to our house, spent ages chatting to us and also visited our business, so he had a pretty good idea of our living situation. It would have been quite difficult to disguise our earnings. Funnily enough, he told us that when he was at CH it was known as a school for "the impoverished gentlefolk"!

Also - I have seen elsewhere on the forum - comments about CH's charitable staus compared to other public schools, such as Eton. The writer said that CH was founded to help the children of the poor whilst others were not. I suggest reading Jonathon Gathorne-Hardy's excellent "A history of the public school" (oprobably out of print though!) which explains that most of the original public schools were founded exactly for the same reason as CH; they have strayed from their original purpose. That is why they were called "Public" schools rather than "Private" schools.

Nice to join you all on the forum!

SAS wrote:I suppose now, kids boast, "I go to CH - You know, the 'bluecoat-school near Horsham, coz Mummsie and Papa can afford it !"

Happily, mine doesn't! She started in Sept 09 and is (mostly) very happy.

We have been self-employed for many years and earning less each year; our assessment had us paying about 10% of fees. However, once we filed our end of year accounts we were reassessed and the contributions fell dramatically, much to our relief. I can only praise the help that we have had from the contributions staff. For us - at the moment - CH certainly IS giving a chance for a child from a poor family. We would both described ourselves as middle-class by upbringing and education, but certainly not by earnings or standard of living!

Incidentally, she (we?) was assessed by a personal sponsor who felt that she was a worthy case but had one deemed more worthy. He came to our house, spent ages chatting to us and also visited our business, so he had a pretty good idea of our living situation. It would have been quite difficult to disguise our earnings. Funnily enough, he told us that when he was at CH it was known as a school for "the impoverished gentlefolk"!

Also - I have seen elsewhere on the forum - comments about CH's charitable staus compared to other public schools, such as Eton. The writer said that CH was founded to help the children of the poor whilst others were not. I suggest reading Jonathon Gathorne-Hardy's excellent "A history of the public school" (oprobably out of print though!) which explains that most of the original public schools were founded exactly for the same reason as CH; they have strayed from their original purpose. That is why they were called "Public" schools rather than "Private" schools.

Nice to join you all on the forum!

Welcome to the forum.

J.R. wrote:

SAS wrote:I suppose now, kids boast, "I go to CH - You know, the 'bluecoat-school near Horsham, coz Mummsie and Papa can afford it !"

Happily, mine doesn't! She started in Sept 09 and is (mostly) very happy.

We have been self-employed for many years and earning less each year; our assessment had us paying about 10% of fees. However, once we filed our end of year accounts we were reassessed and the contributions fell dramatically, much to our relief. I can only praise the help that we have had from the contributions staff. For us - at the moment - CH certainly IS giving a chance for a child from a poor family. We would both described ourselves as middle-class by upbringing and education, but certainly not by earnings or standard of living!

Incidentally, she (we?) was assessed by a personal sponsor who felt that she was a worthy case but had one deemed more worthy. He came to our house, spent ages chatting to us and also visited our business, so he had a pretty good idea of our living situation. It would have been quite difficult to disguise our earnings. Funnily enough, he told us that when he was at CH it was known as a school for "the impoverished gentlefolk"!

Also - I have seen elsewhere on the forum - comments about CH's charitable staus compared to other public schools, such as Eton. The writer said that CH was founded to help the children of the poor whilst others were not. I suggest reading Jonathon Gathorne-Hardy's excellent "A history of the public school" (oprobably out of print though!) which explains that most of the original public schools were founded exactly for the same reason as CH; they have strayed from their original purpose. That is why they were called "Public" schools rather than "Private" schools.

Nice to join you all on the forum!

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you! Good to be here.

Good to hear that info - and welcome. My husband is a musician and luthier and the recession has hit hard - oddly enough, companies dont feel the need to spend as much on jazz trios at their functions these days! He has earned about a third less this year then we put on our original CH forms. I'm not sure when we get to tell them this but i do hope they take it into account as i am not working at the moment either.

SAS wrote:I suppose now, kids boast, "I go to CH - You know, the 'bluecoat-school near Horsham, coz Mummsie and Papa can afford it !"

Happily, mine doesn't! She started in Sept 09 and is (mostly) very happy.

We have been self-employed for many years and earning less each year; our assessment had us paying about 10% of fees. However, once we filed our end of year accounts we were reassessed and the contributions fell dramatically, much to our relief. I can only praise the help that we have had from the contributions staff. For us - at the moment - CH certainly IS giving a chance for a child from a poor family. We would both described ourselves as middle-class by upbringing and education, but certainly not by earnings or standard of living!

Incidentally, she (we?) was assessed by a personal sponsor who felt that she was a worthy case but had one deemed more worthy. He came to our house, spent ages chatting to us and also visited our business, so he had a pretty good idea of our living situation. It would have been quite difficult to disguise our earnings. Funnily enough, he told us that when he was at CH it was known as a school for "the impoverished gentlefolk"!

Also - I have seen elsewhere on the forum - comments about CH's charitable staus compared to other public schools, such as Eton. The writer said that CH was founded to help the children of the poor whilst others were not. I suggest reading Jonathon Gathorne-Hardy's excellent "A history of the public school" (oprobably out of print though!) which explains that most of the original public schools were founded exactly for the same reason as CH; they have strayed from their original purpose. That is why they were called "Public" schools rather than "Private" schools.

Nice to join you all on the forum!

'Impoverished gentlefolk' is exactly the right description for the past CH. Mostly middle class pupils whose parents had been public school educated themselves and could not afford it for their children, as they had fallen on bad times and/or were in hardship one way or another. Eg: had a disabled parent, or from a single parent family.

fra828 wrote:

SAS wrote:I suppose now, kids boast, "I go to CH - You know, the 'bluecoat-school near Horsham, coz Mummsie and Papa can afford it !"

Happily, mine doesn't! She started in Sept 09 and is (mostly) very happy.

We have been self-employed for many years and earning less each year; our assessment had us paying about 10% of fees. However, once we filed our end of year accounts we were reassessed and the contributions fell dramatically, much to our relief. I can only praise the help that we have had from the contributions staff. For us - at the moment - CH certainly IS giving a chance for a child from a poor family. We would both described ourselves as middle-class by upbringing and education, but certainly not by earnings or standard of living!

Incidentally, she (we?) was assessed by a personal sponsor who felt that she was a worthy case but had one deemed more worthy. He came to our house, spent ages chatting to us and also visited our business, so he had a pretty good idea of our living situation. It would have been quite difficult to disguise our earnings. Funnily enough, he told us that when he was at CH it was known as a school for "the impoverished gentlefolk"!

Also - I have seen elsewhere on the forum - comments about CH's charitable staus compared to other public schools, such as Eton. The writer said that CH was founded to help the children of the poor whilst others were not. I suggest reading Jonathon Gathorne-Hardy's excellent "A history of the public school" (oprobably out of print though!) which explains that most of the original public schools were founded exactly for the same reason as CH; they have strayed from their original purpose. That is why they were called "Public" schools rather than "Private" schools.

Nice to join you all on the forum!

'Impoverished gentlefolk' is exactly the right description for the past CH. Mostly middle class pupils whose parents had been public school educated themselves and could not afford it for their children, as they had fallen on bad times and/or were in hardship one way or another. Pupils with single or disabled parents were very much the norm in Hertford 40 years ago.

fra828 wrote:'Impoverished gentlefolk' is exactly the right description for the past CH. Mostly middle class pupils whose parents had been public school educated themselves and could not afford it for their children, as they had fallen on bad times and/or were in hardship one way or another. Pupils with single or disabled parents were very much the norm in Hertford 40 years ago.

I have a feeling that this description was used of CH in the nineteenth century before the move to Horsham.

I have a feeling that this description was used of CH in the nineteenth century before the move to Horsham

The chap who told it to me said it was used in his time at CH which would have been the 1940s and 50s.