Page 3 of 3

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:49 pm
by Pe.A
marty wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:26 am
wagenman wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:46 am That said, I also think there was a type of teacher who had zero interest in a social life, Omera, Shippen and Sutcliffe as examples and would imagine CH suited them in this regard.
If you mean Roger Sutcliffe I'm not sure he fits into that category. He had 2 separate stints at the school. Whilst I recall he was single during his first stint, he was married (i think to a member of staff - perhaps a matron...#hazymemory) by his second one.
Yep. A matron who had a son a year below you. Name escapes me...

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:08 pm
by harryh
Peter Wilkins, who is currently Assistant Coach of Connacht.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:09 pm
by harryh
Peter Wilkins, who is currently Assistant Coach of Connacht.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:37 pm
by Pe.A
harryh wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:08 pm Peter Wilkins, who is currently Assistant Coach of Connacht.
That's the one! Recognised the face. Ta, Mr. H!

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:02 pm
by Foureyes
Many of these posts refer to the lives of unmarried masters as if they moved simply between their study (ground floor) and their bedroom (one of the upper floors). This is not the whole story and the Common Room has never been mentioned. This was (and I presume still is) a suite of rooms at the chapel end of the Dining Hall, with a large dining-room and a large anteroom (i.e., sitting room). This anteroom was furnished with comfortable chairs grouped round coffee tables. It was run by a committee and had its own staff. This was the centre of social activity for the masters, which included everything from formal dinners to whist and bridge evenings.
For those familiar with the Armed Forces it was almost exactly equivalent to an officers' mess/wardroom.
David :shock:

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:36 pm
by michael scuffil
I left in 1963 and was offered a job at CH (by Newsome) in 1970. He, I think, regarded me as a safe ally as he'd helped me in the past. I turned it down without much thought. The reason I gave him was perfectly true, namely that I'd been at CH for 8 years and wasn't prepared to go back after just 7 (he wrote back to say that maybe this was wise of me). The reason I didn't give him was that the thought of being a junior housemaster appalled me. I didn't actually have any teaching qualification either (which by 1970 was unusual for new teachers), and so there was not much prospect of career development.

Were there attractions? Well, the place was in pleasant countryside not far from London and not far from the sea. You were well looked after in the common room. Some of your colleagues would have been pleasant company. But if you were married, it must have been a pretty awful place for your wife.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:01 pm
by J.R.
Good post Michael !

I think we are getting even nearer the truth of CH after the C.M.E.S. era.

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:45 pm
by Avon
J.R. wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:01 pm Good post Michael !

I think we are getting even nearer the truth of CH after the C.M.E.S. era.
Do you have some sort of shrine to the man, JR?

Re: What was the attraction?

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:15 pm
by J.R.
Avon wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:45 pm
J.R. wrote: Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:01 pm Good post Michael !

I think we are getting even nearer the truth of CH after the C.M.E.S. era.
Do you have some sort of shrine to the man, JR?

Absolutely not !
Just looking back in time after my leaving in1963.