Chaplain's preaching scarf

wheresthetorchwheresthetorch Shipmate Posts: 9
I am due to be ordained to the diaconate this Petertide (God willing) and am in the process of ordering various clerical wear.

One thing I don't have yet is a preaching scarf, but I do have my late grandfather's. However, he was a chaplain in WW1, so his scarf has what looks like a regimental crest or similar on it. I'm not sure how to add a picture here, but it is a crown with the letters F and C entwined below.

So I have two questions:

1. Does anyone know what the crest represents?
2. Would it be 'permissible' for me to wear it?

Sadly both he and my father are deceased, so I can't ask them!

Many thanks for any help you can offer.

Comments

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    It isn’t possible to post pictures here. If you can upload it to somewhere and post a link then people could see it. There are upload sites which would allow you to preserve your anonymity here.

    Strictly speaking, I suspect etiquette suggests that you shouldn’t display something on your preaching scarf which you’re not entitled to, except perhaps for special reasons on special occasions.

    It’s possible your grandfather’s preaching scarf is reversible, in which case you could wear it with the symbols concealed. I have a preaching scarf machine embroidered at the ends with gold outlines of the symbols of the four Evangelists, but it is reversible so when plain black is de rigeur I can wear it as such.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I suspect the F C stood for and denoted that he was a Forces Chaplain. The crown also suggests that. It might well have been issued to him as part of his kit. They would have been there so it could indicate that when worn in the field when he was in uniform. So, although it would be a touching gesture to wear it in his honour, it's possibly impersonation to do so - though not as bad as wearing one with his medal ribbons visible.

    Normally, except for service chaplains, I think that they are supposed to be plain black with no ornamentation. If you wanted to wear it to respect his memory, there might be something to be said for @BroJames's suggestion of doing so in a way which makes sure no one can see his insignia.

  • wheresthetorchwheresthetorch Shipmate Posts: 9
    Thank you both for these helpful responses. I certainly don't want to create the impression of impersonation by wearing it, so the suggestion of sometimes wearing it but 'reversed' so the emblems don't show is a good one - though I wonder about when it flaps about in the breeze at a burial service! Perhaps I should simply buy a new one, and keep his wrapped in a drawer as it is now.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    There’s a WW2 chaplain’s badge here, and here’s a WW1 chaplain’s Communion set.
  • wheresthetorchwheresthetorch Shipmate Posts: 9
    BroJames wrote: »
    There’s a WW2 chaplain’s badge here, and here’s a WW1 chaplain’s Communion set.

    That's the exact logo - thank you. I tried photographing it and then using Google Lens to search but with no luck. Much appreciated.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Ah well credit to @Enoch who pointed me in the direction of the right rabbit hole.
  • I think I'd be inclined to keep Grandfather's scarf as a memento of him, and of his ministry as a Chaplain, and to fork out for a plain one for everyday use!

    If you wished to pass his scarf on, as it were, his former Regiment might be interested, or even perhaps their current Chaplain.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Normally, except for service chaplains, I think that they are supposed to be plain black with no ornamentation.
    Interesting. In my experience, scarves/tippets in the Episcopal Church (US) have the arms or seal of the diocese, or perhaps the arms of the Episcopal Church, on one end (the wearer’s right, I think) and the arms or seal of seminary from which the wearer graduated on the other end.

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    What is the origin of the preaching scarf which Anglican clergy wear ?
    Is it an other form of the stole ?
    Is it or was it a sort of muffler adapted later for ecclesiastical use ?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    What is the origin of the preaching scarf which Anglican clergy wear ?
    Is it an other form of the stole ?
    Is it or was it a sort of muffler adapted later for ecclesiastical use ?
    The origin of the tippet/scarf is different from that of the stole. My understanding is that the tippet is descended from the liripipe.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    That’s my understanding too. I believe it was an indicator that the preacher was sufficiently educated to be allowed to preach.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Thank you to both. I recognise the garment form the pictures provided but had no idea that the tippet/scarf originated from this garment.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    edited March 26
    As a liturgical symboliste, I object to the garments that parade academic arrogance. That includes the bleak black scarf.

    (As it happens this includes the clerical collar, too but that's another post mortem equine I suspect).


    [ETA ... I do not in saying this mean your grandfather was academically pretentious, wheresthetorch ... I mean the era of churchmanship that produced and still uses that garb was. I apologize for the offence of my poor self-expression].
  • wheresthetorchwheresthetorch Shipmate Posts: 9
    Zappa wrote: »
    [ETA ... I do not in saying this mean your grandfather was academically pretentious, wheresthetorch ... I mean the era of churchmanship that produced and still uses that garb was. I apologize for the offence of my poor self-expression].

    Yes, quite understand - no offence taken at all.
  • So is there a difference between the (black) preacher's scarf and the (blue) reader's scarf? Is the route tippet > preaching scarf > reader's scarf, or is there an alternative derivation for the blue?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A blue scarf, even in Sydney, would indicate a licensed diocesan reader, whereas the black scarf is used by ordained clergy - in the case of many, wearing a surplice and scarf is as close as they get to vesting.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    A blue scarf, even in Sydney, would indicate a licensed diocesan reader, whereas the black scarf is used by ordained clergy - in the case of many, wearing a surplice and scarf is as close as they get to vesting.
    I realise that, but is their origin different? Did one come from the tippet and the other from a tappet or whatever?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I think ‘preaching scarf’ was a thing, and the blue colour was just to distinguish them from clergy.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    I think ‘preaching scarf’ was a thing, and the blue colour was just to distinguish them from clergy.

    The only better reason for the difference is that that's how it is.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 27
    As blue is not a liturgical colour in most of the C of E, the Reader's scarf cannot possibly be mistaken for a stole!

    When they were first introduced back in the 50s (I think - before that, Readers wore a sort of badge on a ribbon round the neck IIRC), the ends of the scarf were serrated, but in more recent years (at least in this Diocese), the ends have been straight.

    I'm not sure why blue scarves were introduced, though, and it may well vary from one Diocese to another.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    As blue is not a liturgical colour in most of the C of E, the Reader's scarf cannot possibly be mistaken for a stole!

    When they were first introduced back in the 50s (I think - before that, Readers wore a sort of badge on a ribbon round the neck IIRC), the ends of the scarf were serrated, but in more recent years (at least in this Diocese), the ends have been straight.

    I'm not sure why blue scarves were introduced, though, and it may well vary from one Diocese to another.

    In honour of Our Blessed Lady of the sanctuary lamp obviously!
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... I'm not sure why blue scarves were introduced, though, and it may well vary from one Diocese to another.
    Does the need to be a reason? They're not clergy. So it would be misleading if they wore clergy clothes. Just wearing suits would imply they weren't authorised, dissenters or were less important than the choir. Just wearing a surplice would imply they were merely a sort of speaking chorister.

    Why does everything have to symbolise something? It's like Advent candles. There is one for each week but since they came into use various different schemes have been invented to give meanings to each candle.

    Going back to black scarves though, I'm fairly sure that it is correct for clergy in their deacon year to wear them the same way as other clergy. They do not wear them over one shoulder and tied of the waist.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    ... I'm not sure why blue scarves were introduced, though, and it may well vary from one Diocese to another.
    Does the need to be a reason? They're not clergy. So it would be misleading if they wore clergy clothes. Just wearing suits would imply they weren't authorised, dissenters or were less important than the choir. Just wearing a surplice would imply they were merely a sort of speaking chorister.

    Why does everything have to symbolise something? It's like Advent candles. There is one for each week but since they came into use various different schemes have been invented to give meanings to each candle.

    Going back to black scarves though, I'm fairly sure that it is correct for clergy in their deacon year to wear them the same way as other clergy. They do not wear them over one shoulder and tied of the waist.

    You're right as regards the black scarf being worn by clergypersons whilst still deaconpeople.

    I don't think the blue scarf was ever intended to symbolise anything in particular, but was just to identify the Reader as such - a sort of badge of office, replacing, as being easier to see, the former actual badge.
  • SpikeSpike Admin Emeritus
    When they were first introduced back in the 50s (I think - before that, Readers wore a sort of badge on a ribbon round the neck IIRC), the ends of the scarf were serrated, but in more recent years (at least in this Diocese), the ends have been straight.

    I think it depends who made/sold the scarf. Mine is from Watts and is dark blue with straight ends, but I see other Readers wearing scarves with serrated ends. Different manufacturers have different shades of blue as well.
  • Ah, I see. My *original* scarf from 1976 (I still have it somewhere!) has serrated ends, but the one I was given when re-entering the fold in 2008 has straight ends - and is indeed a slightly darker shade of blue.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    This all sounds like the blue ribbons worn crossways ( like a deacon’s stole) worn by the prefects at the gulag ( convent boarding school I attended in the mid to late 60s)😂

    Some were plain some had fringed edges ( something to do with the wearer being an Extra Good Girl and probably postulant material a year or two later)

    The wearers were even known as Blue Ribbons ( a certain similarity to Green Berets I suspected)
  • Is this the time to introduce a debate on the rights/wrongs as clerical dress per se?
  • Depends on whether you require Heat, or Light!

    I suspect any discussion might generate more of the former, than of the latter...
  • I would think that it might be possible to wear it in one of two circumstances, but in both cases I would think it useful to explain to the congregation why you are doing so: 1) Remembrance Day, and/or 2) the anniversary of his death. Just explain the exceptional and sentimental nature of your breach of correctness and perhaps use it as a teaching point.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Is this the time to introduce a debate on the rights/wrongs as clerical dress per se?
    Probably not. Anybody who sees clerical dress in terms of RIGHT or WRONG, whichever way they fall on the subject, isn't somebody capable of having any sort of sensible discussion about it, yet alone a debate.

  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    I can quite satisfactorily debate with myself on the subject, without the help of others. Sigh.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Is this the time to introduce a debate on the rights/wrongs as clerical dress per se?
    Probably not. Anybody who sees clerical dress in terms of RIGHT or WRONG, whichever way they fall on the subject, isn't somebody capable of having any sort of sensible discussion about it, yet alone a debate.

    Steady on there, you'd lose half the discussions on the Ship with that sort of rule. Next thing you'll be wanting to stop discussions on the order of lighting altar and sanctuary candles!
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Is this the time to introduce a debate on the rights/wrongs as clerical dress per se?
    Probably not. Anybody who sees clerical dress in terms of RIGHT or WRONG, whichever way they fall on the subject, isn't somebody capable of having any sort of sensible discussion about it, yet alone a debate.

    Clearly a sensitive issue for you then!
  • wheresthetorchwheresthetorch Shipmate Posts: 9
    I would think that it might be possible to wear it in one of two circumstances, but in both cases I would think it useful to explain to the congregation why you are doing so: 1) Remembrance Day, and/or 2) the anniversary of his death. Just explain the exceptional and sentimental nature of your breach of correctness and perhaps use it as a teaching point.

    Yes, I did wonder whether Remembrance Day might be that one exception.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ... Clearly a sensitive issue for you then!
    Not sure 'sensitive' is quite the right adjective. It's more that regarding it as really important and a matter of doctrine that one doesn't wear clerical dress is just as much distracting oneself with inessentials as fixating on different sorts of chasubles, dalmatics, what colour they are or whatever.

  • edited August 1
    Picking up @Zappa 's point about academic pretension above - I'd (respectfully :smile: ) disagree, and I'm a Methodist who is used to almost no 'tat' or uniform. I live in an area and amongst people with widely varying levels of education, some of whom are represented in our church. We've been through a 'let the Holy Spirit speak through all, from the pulpit if necessary; what could possibly go wrong' era - and thankfully we appear to be out the other side with a remnant of the congregation still intact. It isn't pretension to train people, and to save those whose enthusiasm wildly outstrips their ability from themselves, and to save the rest of the congregation from their administrations and admonitions. Don't be thinking it's only the educated who get the hump about (lovely, sometimes) numpties running services.

    (OHHH - this thread was long dead. Who's the numpty now!! :smiley: ).
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    (OHHH - this thread was long dead. Who's the numpty now!! :smiley: ).
    Well, I appreciated your post which enabled me to read an interesting thread which I'd somehow missed before. I agree with what you say as well.
  • Thanks N. I'm glad I didn't follow my first instinct on the edit and turn the whole post into a '.' :smile:
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Picking up @Zappa 's point about academic pretension above - I'd (respectfully :smile: ) disagree, and I'm a Methodist who is used to almost no 'tat' or uniform. I live in an area and amongst people with widely varying levels of education, some of whom are represented in our church. We've been through a 'let the Holy Spirit speak through all, from the pulpit if necessary; what could possibly go wrong' era - and thankfully we appear to be out the other side with a remnant of the congregation still intact. It isn't pretension to train people, and to save those whose enthusiasm wildly outstrips their ability from themselves, and to save the rest of the congregation from their administrations and admonitions. Don't be thinking it's only the educated who get the hump about (lovely, sometimes) numpties running services.

    (OHHH - this thread was long dead. Who's the numpty now!! :smiley: ).

    Not at all numptyish. And in many ways concurred ...

    ... looking back I think my beef is with

    a) a past experience when I worked for the National Broadcaster and the presenters all seemed to engage in "my degree is bigger than yours" pissing contests, and

    b) a local cleric who will spend every opportunity telling anyone interested or otherwise about the magnificence of his academic career - oh look, have you noticed my doctoral hood? I'm glad you asked. Oh? You didn't? Well let me tell you anyway.
  • b) is really funny! I have a PhD from a shit university, but these days I work part-time in a workshop (still in HE, I didn't quite escape), covered in who knows what. I therefore keep my credentials more than a bit quiet - else I invite the enquiry 'f*ck, what did you do, bugger the vice-chancellor?' :smile:
Sign In or Register to comment.