Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

NTN wrote:Yes, I'm afraid I was a bit cross but --------

I loved the School, and still do -- is this perhaps a "Generation thing" ?
I admit to knowing nothing about life at Hertford, other than what has been written on this Forum.

We seem to exist, these days, in a Society, which favours the "Protestor" more than the "Protested"


And don't get me started on same-sex "Marriages" in Church !

I couldn't agree more !!

I have nothing against civil contracts, but marriage in Church ? NEVER !!!!

I have no problem with two people of the same sex acknowledging a loving, lifelong, committed realtionship in the form of a civil partnership, but I would prefer not to call it a marriage.

NTN wrote:Here we go again --- "Avon" didn't have a good time at CH -- and therefore wants to denigrate "The Royal and Ancient Foundation and all that Furore"

Nasty little Erks who cannot appreciate their privilege of being at CH good or bad --
should shut up and retire to their holes !

I imagine, with some satisfaction, that they are in a tiny minority.

Yes -- I know this is an insulting and very personal Post and it is so intended !

I shall, possibly be "Edited out" !!!

Congratulations on producing a post so tough to respond to. You clearly managed to learn less than I if your debating style is to become insulting in the first response?

I am the sum of many parts and CH was a formative experience but on reflection it does not aggregate to a positive one. When I attended I think that the school had a dearth of leaders, a cohort of average teaching staff, and was wilfully spartan to the point of cruelty. I remember rice pudding being served to 800 boys and only when it arrived at the table was it realised that salt had been used instead of sugar - a small but indicative story in my opinion.

I'm a school governor now and it's sad to report that I quite often use yardsticks of my experience at CH as 'how things should not be done.' As a republican I also think that the saw of Royal Religious and Ancient is guaranteed to produce a backward perspective. What's the intrinsic merit in being any of these in a teaching establishment, except perhaps to instil a questioning and enlightened faith in something greater than oneself?

That said, I am religious enough to attend church and whilst my tastes remain more BCP than ASB I can recognise progress when I see it. If the Anglican Communion wants to piss its time up the wall worrying about homosexuality whilst it slowly slips from the national mainstream then that's sad. We went from banning gay unions to tacitly accepting them, to recognising them in law. It's now possible to tie the knot in church - surely it's a bit petty to want to deny the term 'marriage'?

By an Erk in a hole, it would seem.

Disliking the term 'marriage' is simply my personal preference, not necessarily what the church has instilled in me. I live and worship in Southwark Diocese, which is renowned for being pretty forward thinking on such matters. Two other things strike me about the last post - (a) CH is rather more than just a teaching establishment - it is a way of life; respecting traditions does not have to mean living in the past and (b) you describe yourself as 'more BCP than ASB' (me too, incidentally); have you not yet caught up with CW (Common Worship), which gave the option for each parish to choose how to tailor their services - our particular church opted to stay pretty much ASB, but there were all manner of variations available at the time of the changeover - pick-and-mix Anglicanism; alongside our formal ASB/CW service we also have a 'Come Together' service which is so informal as to be barely recognisable as C of E.

However, what has any of this to do with Day Pupils?

Hold on a minute, Avon. You put this forward, so let me just pick up on a small but true dictionary definition.....


mar·riage

noun
1.

A. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


I see no reference to 'a man and a man', or 'a woman and a woman' in the above definition.

I am not homophobic, nor indeed, am I lesbiphobic. Indeed a lot of my close friends fall into the above categories. None of them, as far as I am aware, would wish to have a church marriage.

J.R. wrote:Hold on a minute, Avon. You put this forward, so let me just pick up on a small but true dictionary definition.....


mar·riage

noun
1.

A. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


I see no reference to 'a man and a man', or 'a woman and a woman' in the above definition.

I am not homophobic, nor indeed, am I lesbiphobic. Indeed a lot of my close friends fall into the above categories. None of them, as far as I am aware, would wish to have a church marriage.

For clarity, I was not implying homophobia of any poster - but I would level it at churches (various). I would however suggest that definitions change and they cannot be used as a refuge. Popular culture does this with amazing speed but even us older ones are capable of it. Terms change, normalise, then change again...

I was aware of CW, BTW but only loosely - I can't confess to be an aficionado of Anglican doctrine. I do recall that we went through a period of singing Lord of the Dance a lot at CH because the writer was an OB - it stopped rather abruptly when some wag came up with ruder words.

Fjgrogan wrote:However, what has any of this to do with Day Pupils?

Nothing much, really, although the discussions have been both entertaining and enlightening!

As an aside, it strikes me that if any particular church feels able and willing to give their blessing to same-sex relationships by affording couples a marriage ceremony, then so be it. I suppose it's a matter of conscience for the relevant institution and its adherents. As a non-churchgoer, I can't claim to have any particular concerns about it. A lifelong commitment between two human beings seems to me to be just that, no matter what words are used to define it. Nobody else's business, really.

So, in case anyone remembers the original question, does anyone know how the recruitment of day pupils is coming along? The adverts extolling some of the unique characteristics of Christ's Hospital (albeit with no mention of "children from all backgrounds") continue to appear regularly in the West Sussex County Times (and, for all I know, in other publications), so I'm still wondering how things are going.

If homosexuality be wrong, let them marry. Why should they have to wait to hell to be punished?

This isn't related to day pupils - or homosexuality - (so apologies for veering off topic). But in a similar vein there has been concern about the inclusion into the school population of numbers of pupils from Asia and from Europe (especially Germany).
I was up there last week, and witnessed Band Parade. I would just make the following observations. In both cases, the scenario must have been totally alien to the pupils/families before they entered the Religious Royal and Ancient Foundation :-

a) The Chinese students stood out - but by their facial features, NOT their demeanour. They were dotted here and there, marching with their Houses - but were clearly as proud to be wearing the bluecoat as any other pupil. And they cannot have been at CH for more than a few months.

b) There was a German family sitting beside me, outside Dining Hall. They could not have been more excited in anticipation - or more proud when the time came for them to start snapping their family member (who I could not identify) as he/she marched with their House into Dining Hall.

I would humbly suggest that these two observations might reassure fellow Old Blues that the ethos of Christ's Hospital is not necessarily going to be diminished by its inclusion of an increased number of fee paying foreign pupils - in order to bring in more much-needed income which in turn will help to support those more 'needy' pupils for whom Christ's Hospital has always existed.

I believe that what anyone, 'gay' or straight, does in the privacy of their own bedroom should remain just that - private, and strictly a matter for their own consciences; it is actually possible to be 'gay' and still wish to worship God!

Were the Italians marching in the opposite direction ?

(Sorry Kerren - I just couldn't resist it !)

This thread is now intermingling comments on sexual proclivity and legal definition/recognition of different relationships, with the marching practices of a European country which is not (as far as I know) thus far represented at the school. What relationship do those have to the title of the thread which was launched in order to seek opinions relating to CH's intention to recruit Day pupils, as a fund raiser?........
I give up!

I gave up when senility set in. At least, thats what my Grand-Kids tell me !

But they love me for it.

Oooops. Off topic again.

Moderator, moderate thyself !

It fascinates me how upset some people become over the concept of a gay marriage. The concept will only impact those who choose to have a gay marriage, their friends and their families. So what are the rest of the population getting upset about?

AKAP wrote:It fascinates me how upset some people become over the concept of a gay marriage. The concept will only impact those who choose to have a gay marriage, their friends and their families. So what are the rest of the population getting upset about?

The shock of entering the 21st Century?