Ship of Fools: St David's, Stanwell, Surrey, England


imageShip of Fools: St David's, Stanwell, Surrey, England

Advent vigil mass on a cold, rainy evening – but Jesus didn’t come so that we could celebrate and feast

Read the full Mystery Worshipper report here


Comments

  • caerdeonmancaerdeonman Shipmate Posts: 5
    The county of Surrey? In the east of England?
  • :lol:

    East-ish, sort of...

    But there's a St David's church here in Kent - it's part of an Anglican Team Parish, and was, I believe, originally built by the Methodists as a Local Ecumenical Project (Parish? - I'm not quite sure what the P stands for!).

    It may be that these churches were financed/founded/instigated by people with Welsh connections, I suppose.
  • ETA - the P in LEP stands for Partnership i.e. Local Ecumenical Partnership.

    The other two churches in the Team are St William (a local saint, but believed to have been from Scotland), and St Alban (England's first martyr), so maybe St David was chosen to make up the trio!
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Alan29, you have provided the address of the same website that is linked to in the report. Not sure why.

    But here's something I truly don't understand. The original draft of the report identified the church as being in "Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex." Fact-checking, I see that the Wikipedia entry for Stanwell identifies it as being in Surrey. And I so I edited the report accordingly.

    Fact-checking Staines, I see that its Encyclopedia Britannica entry identifies it as being in the "administrative county of Surrey, historic county of Middlesex."

    The church's website linked to in the report (and by Alan29) identifies the church as being in "Stanwell Parish, Middlesex" and its mailing address as " Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex."

    So where is Stanwell, and where is Staines? Should I delete the county reference altogether (I was tempted to)?
  • Alan29, you have provided the address of the same website that is linked to in the report. Not sure why.

    But here's something I truly don't understand. The original draft of the report identified the church as being in "Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex." Fact-checking, I see that the Wikipedia entry for Stanwell identifies it as being in Surrey. And I so I edited the report accordingly.

    Fact-checking Staines, I see that its Encyclopedia Britannica entry identifies it as being in the "administrative county of Surrey, historic county of Middlesex."

    The church's website linked to in the report (and by Alan29) identifies the church as being in "Stanwell Parish, Middlesex" and its mailing address as " Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex."

    So where is Stanwell, and where is Staines? Should I delete the county reference altogether (I was tempted to)?

    Staines is deffo in Surrey - I went to Uni not far from there.
    It was seeing the reference to Kent and to the east of England that prompted me to put in the link. Residents of classy Surrey would shudder at being associated with the likes of Essex (where apparently Jesus was not born for the lack of three wise men and a virgin!)
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Residents of classy Surrey would shudder at being associated with the likes of Essex (where apparently Jesus was not born for the lack of three wise men and a virgin!)
    Oh, I thought that was Italy. (I say that as an Italian-American.)
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Residents of classy Surrey would shudder at being associated with the likes of Essex (where apparently Jesus was not born for the lack of three wise men and a virgin!)
    Oh, I thought that was Italy. (I say that as an Italian-American.)

    Originally the USA, I'm afraid!
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Well, wherever. But getting back to the report . . . I would welcome a low mass without music every once in awhile. The custom of having Christmas cards addressed to parishioners set out on a table is interesting. The only thing I've seen that comes close to that is to have boxes of offering envelopes for the New Year set out on a table for parishioners to take.
  • Well, wherever. But getting back to the report . . . I would welcome a low mass without music every once in awhile. The custom of having Christmas cards addressed to parishioners set out on a table is interesting. The only thing I've seen that comes close to that is to have boxes of offering envelopes for the New Year set out on a table for parishioners to take.

    Liturgy geek alert - according to the regulations attached to the modern Mass and Lectionary at least the Alleluia (and Lenten replacement) and Holy, holy etc have to be sung at all masses.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Alleluia (or replacement) and Sanctus are one thing. "Shine Jesus Shine" and "Here I Am to Worship" and the like are something else.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    edited December 2019
    Alan29, you have provided the address of the same website that is linked to in the report. Not sure why.

    But here's something I truly don't understand. The original draft of the report identified the church as being in "Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex." Fact-checking, I see that the Wikipedia entry for Stanwell identifies it as being in Surrey. And I so I edited the report accordingly.

    Fact-checking Staines, I see that its Encyclopedia Britannica entry identifies it as being in the "administrative county of Surrey, historic county of Middlesex."

    The church's website linked to in the report (and by Alan29) identifies the church as being in "Stanwell Parish, Middlesex" and its mailing address as " Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex."

    So where is Stanwell, and where is Staines? Should I delete the county reference altogether (I was tempted to)?

    Well it looks like you've stumbled over a bone of contention. The area was historically, it seems, in Middlesex but has been put relatively recently into Surrey. It looks like some like to emphasise that they are still Middlesex.

    I'd probably stick with Middlesex of that's what they want to use.
  • Alleluia (or replacement) and Sanctus are one thing. "Shine Jesus Shine" and "Here I Am to Worship" and the like are something else.

    Love that stuff too ...... catholic in all things.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    De gustibus non est disputandum (There's no accounting for taste).
  • Middlesex effectively ceased to exist in 1966 with the creation of the Greater London Council and the abolition of Middlesex County Council. However, this being England, it can be argued that Middlesex still exists (there is still a High Sheriff and a Lord Lieutenant, I believe) although there is no administrative county of that name. Please also see Stockport (once Cheshire, Greater Manchester from 1974 to 1986, still not back in Cheshire whatever its residents say) and many others.

    However, I really wanted to comment on the style of the church which reminded me of a number of post-war Roman Catholic churches I have been in - designed as a sort of segment of a circle rather than a standard rectangle. The Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King in Liverpool is probably the most famous example, but I was in the parish of one in Leicester (corner of Uppingham Road and Goodwood Road) whose name escapes me. A strange design and not one I've seen in churches of other denominations - expecting, of course,, to be corrected by others here.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    De gustibus non est disputandum (There's no accounting for taste).

    It's many years since I did Latin, but my recollection is that the disputandum means arguing, discussing etc rather than accounting.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    edited December 2019
    Literally, yes, but the axiom is often rendered in English the other way.

    My point, though, was that I'd rather attend a low Mass without music than to sit through the stuff commonly heard in Catholic churches. The Wikipedia entry for "Shine Jesus Shine" quotes Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, as saying that it is "the most loathed of all happy-clappy hymns."
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Literally, yes, but the axiom is often rendered in English the other way.

    My point, though, was that I'd rather attend a low Mass without music than to sit through the stuff commonly heard in Catholic churches. The Wikipedia entry for "Shine Jesus Shine" quotes Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, as saying that it is "the most loathed of all happy-clappy hymns."

    Judgements of taste of course go both ways.
    Damian Thompson ...... snigger.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Totally agree about the songs
  • If the reporter put “Middlesex” in the report, why wasn’t it left at that? Especially as the address is Middlesex on the church website
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Oh, good Lord. If the reporter had put Cumbria should I have left that?
  • The question of 'Surrey' or 'Middlesex' is an entirely arcane affair, unintelligible to just about EVERYBODY...and who cares, anyway?

    But - whence the dedication to Dewi Sant? It is indeed unusual, outside Wales, I believe, and one presumes some Welsh connection, somewhere.

  • Oh, good Lord. If the reporter had put Cumbria should I have left that?
    You could always ask the reporter
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    edited January 2020
    Oh, good Lord. If the reporter had put Cumbria should I have left that?

    Just as an aside, is there a reason why you don't include the postcode?

    I know it isn't a thing worldwide, but here in the UK it is probably the easiest way to identify the location of a particular church.

    I just looked up the "official" version of the address, and it looks like it doesn't include the county at all.

    English counties are pretty stupid, but in my opinion you'd be better either using the address supplied by the church in question or the "official" one supplied by the post office.

    I know it is just a small editorial decision but people do get touchy about such things.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Spike wrote: »
    Oh, good Lord. If the reporter had put Cumbria should I have left that?
    You could always ask the reporter

    No, I can't. GDPR forbids me from knowing the true identities of our reporters, including their e-mail addresses. This adds a level of difficulty to the editing process that didn't exist pre-GDPR, where I knew who the reporters were and could communicate freely with them. I have to rely on my judgment and common sense when resolving issues of ambiguity. Several sources I found via fact-checking stated that Stanwell is in Surrey, not Middlesex. And so that's what I went with.

    At any rate, let's leave questions re editing decisions for the Styx, or for a Higher Authority.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Just as an aside, is there a reason why you don't include the postcode? << snip >> English counties are pretty stupid, but . . . people do get touchy about such things.

    Via fact-checking, I do rely on information found on the church's website, if it has one, to verify or (sometimes) to flesh out data supplied by the reporter. In this case, since there was a contradiction between what the reporter wrote and what the church's website said, on the one hand, and what Wikipedia and other sources reported, on the other, I made the decision I thought best.

    I don't see how knowing the postcode would enhance the reporter's account of his or her experience at the service attended. At any rate, I've learned my lesson. Miss Amanda's New Year's Resolution No. 1: Omit references to counties. (She's also resolved other things that she won't bore you with here.)

    But, as stated above, let's take questions re editing decisions to the Styx, shall we?
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I know it is just a small editorial decision but people do get touchy about such things.

    Don’t I know it. I live in an area where people have argued for the last 50+ years whether it’s South London or Surrey
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Spike wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I know it is just a small editorial decision but people do get touchy about such things.

    Don’t I know it. I live in an area where people have argued for the last 50+ years whether it’s South London or Surrey

    And great was the rejoicing in these parts when our postcodes were changed from L for Liverpool to CH for Chester. Sadly the anticipated reductions in insurance premiums didn't happen.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I know it is just a small editorial decision but people do get touchy about such things.

    Don’t I know it. I live in an area where people have argued for the last 50+ years whether it’s South London or Surrey

    I suppose it depends on whether they are buying or selling property. You'd be surprised at what vendors here call Upper North Shore when it's 15km away.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I know it is just a small editorial decision but people do get touchy about such things.

    Don’t I know it. I live in an area where people have argued for the last 50+ years whether it’s South London or Surrey

    And great was the rejoicing in these patts when our postcodes were changed from L for Liverpool to CH for Chester. Sadly the anticipated reductions in insurance premiums didn't happen.
  • Middlesex effectively ceased to exist in 1966 with the creation of the Greater London Council and the abolition of Middlesex County Council. However, this being England, it can be argued that Middlesex still exists (there is still a High Sheriff and a Lord Lieutenant, I believe) although there is no administrative county of that name.
    It was 1965. Most of Middlesex went into Greater London, but the south-western corner was added to Surrey for adminstrative purposes. However, for many years those areas (Staines, Ashford, Stanwell and a few other villages) retained Middlesex as their postal address, as did the rest of the former county that was now in Greater London (Harrow, Uxbridge, etc). The Royal Mail ceased to use counties in postal addresses in 2000, so this particular anomaly (or very English eccentricity, depending on your point of view) should be fading away, but it's likely to take a long time yet.

    Please, Miss Amanda, do keep the county in the church address for UK reports. Like the State for US reports, it provides a valuable instant reference to the appropriate part of the country.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Well, I'll have to take it under advisement. But, as requested, let's keep the nuts and bolts of editing in the Styx, shall we?
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    What Miss Amanda just said, please.

    John Holding, Host in Ecclesiantics
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Alan29, you have provided the address of the same website that is linked to in the report. Not sure why.

    But here's something I truly don't understand. The original draft of the report identified the church as being in "Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex." Fact-checking, I see that the Wikipedia entry for Stanwell identifies it as being in Surrey. And I so I edited the report accordingly.

    Fact-checking Staines, I see that its Encyclopedia Britannica entry identifies it as being in the "administrative county of Surrey, historic county of Middlesex."

    The church's website linked to in the report (and by Alan29) identifies the church as being in "Stanwell Parish, Middlesex" and its mailing address as " Stanwell, Staines, Middlesex."

    So where is Stanwell, and where is Staines? Should I delete the county reference altogether (I was tempted to)?

    Staines is deffo in Surrey - I went to Uni not far from there.
    It was seeing the reference to Kent and to the east of England that prompted me to put in the link. Residents of classy Surrey would shudder at being associated with the likes of Essex (where apparently Jesus was not born for the lack of three wise men and a virgin!)

    You presumably went to a University that was near Stained but on the other side of River. The other side of the river is deffo in Surrey, Staines is deffo in Middlesex.
Sign In or Register to comment.