Westminster Abbey on BBC2

[Gabriel Jackson]

Yes it is. But they don't charge for that purpose and function. They charge essentially as visitor attractions.

It would just be good if as many people as possible could visit this part of our heritage. The country could afford it. What an excellent way to spend public money, and help attract foreign visitors .

I don't think Westminster Abbey has any difficulty attracting foreign visitors!

But why not have the government pay for everything people like doing - going to the football, going to the pub, going shopping?

[DracoM]

Wabbey is a sort of national shrine, Old Trafford is one to only a few and made expensive for business reasons.

[ardcarp]

Maybe it's time for a test of "faith" at the door......... believers to the left , the rest to the right ?
With someone sitting in a tennis umpires chair to arbitrate ....

That may have been said in jest, McGG, but I rather think it gets to the heart of the matter. Why not a sorting hat?

[chitreb]

13 pages and counting - not quite a record (yet) for this forum - St Johns College and Wedding Music still ahead.

One thing is for sure - it costs money to maintain buildings. Either they crumble or someone pays to maintain them. Taxes, lottery money, subscriptions, preservation societies, entry charges ... can all play their part, but free entry just means someone else is paying. I do realise a cathedral is more than just the stonework.

As someone who supports his local Diocese through the CofE Parish Share I do feel a little aggrieved at having to pay to enter "my" cathedral. I also sympathise with all those who would visit but are put off by the cost. I don't know what the best solution is but I'm not sure why all public art galleries are still free.

I quite like the idea of a National Trust Mk II, perhaps 'Friends of Cathedrals', as I'm already a member of FCM (Friends of Cathedral Music) although I wonder how they would agree on the division of the subscriptions...

[Resurrection Man]

I can't help but feel that, if Westminster Abbey didn't have such Royal connotations, there wouldn't be the 'concern' about charging.

[David-G]

I can't help but feel that, if Westminster Abbey didn't have such Royal connotations, there wouldn't be the 'concern' about charging.

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. The concern is about cathedrals that charge, as well as the Abbey. They don't generally have particularly Royal connections. In any case, I don't understand the logic of this suggestion. After all, nobody has expressed concern about the charges to visit Buckingham Palace.

[ardcarp]

A case could be made that all 'heritage' sites should have free admission. But I think many people's concerns (including mine) are specifically about buildings consecrated in the Christian tradition. I wonder if those of a certain age (including me) remember a time when, apart from the collection plate, anything to do with money in church was looked down upon, if not banned. For instance, if you wanted to do a concert in a church or cathedral you could not charge for tickets. There are a few RC churches where this is still the case, and indeed one I know even insists that music performed must have some religious connection. (Recently I could not do the Fantasia on Greensleeves, but the ditto on a Theme of TT was OK. Luckily anything with an organ in it passed the test, so Poulenc's Organ Concerto was OK even though a completely secular piece by a composer of wobbling faith.)

But I'm going off topic. My point is, there was and is an unease about Christian institutions and Mammon. (Has anyone used that word yet?)

[ardcarp]

It was Wabbey III tonight. Quite a lot more of the same. Amusing to see judges be-wigged en masse...a Gilbertian scene. Less so the military. Lots of choristers interviewed, but as predicted, no lay vicars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pg23c/Westminster_Abbey_Episode_3/

[David-G]

I have enjoyed this series very much. In the previous programme the whole Rome episode was very interesting, likewise Monte Cassino. I thought the architecture of the restored monastery was astonishing. And again I thought, why could we not rebuild buildings destroyed in the war in this country? The Wren churches? Canterbury? Plymouth? Coventry?

In this last programme I enjoyed the Surveyor of the Fabric's enthusiasm for the Coronation Chair, the glimpse of the Triforium, the choir boys. The whole series has been fairly typical for this type of programme, but I have found it quite enlightening regarding an institution in which I am very interested.

It was curious that there was not one mention of Westminster School from beginning to end, despite the many links both physical and institutional between the School and the Abbey. The closest we got was in the second programme, when the Roman Choirboys were seen practising in the School (though the location was not mentioned).

I did not know what to make of the pilgrimage to the shrine of St Edward. Would people say that this was "mainstream" C of E?

And could someone enlighten me as to what a "lay vicar" is, and why they might be expected not to appear on the programme?

[decantor]

The money-changers so perfunctorily ejected from the Temple were out to line their own pockets. The charge at the Abbey door, by maintaining fabric and traditions, enriches none but the nation and its history, AMDG. Why agonise? The services are free; the Cenotaph has as much resonance as the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior; a tax-payer subsidy would still be a levy in filthy lucre, largely for the benefit of foreign visitors. Perhaps God's House should ideally offer free access, but, in a secular world, free access might easily degenerate into an undignified free-for-all, with the bills still unpaid, and - shock! horror! - the choir under threat.

I enjoyed this last programme, even while aware it was a light-year or two away from "everyday life". It is clear that the Abbey goes to a great deal of trouble to achieve its mission - everything from the Battle of Britain to Muslim rapprochement - and does so with confidence in its ability to make a difference. To my surprise, I find I am actually proud of this British institution which does more than just 'tick over' its traditions. And what a pleasure to see bright and articulate 8-yo English eccentrics embarking on the chorister regime!

Ardcarp, you were right about the Lay Vicars. I'm dismayed - not at losing, but at the suspected pettiness. Now, what do I owe you? Does it have to be The Widow? Or would a double gin at the Rising Sun suffice?

[Wolsey]

On a personal note, it was a joy for me to see and hear one of the choristers whom I had lost (with some sadness) at the end of the summer term, settling in so well and so happily in his first term at the Abbey.

[DracoM]

I echo that last sentiment - the smooth, never touching the sides Dean pretty well every other minute, that egregiously thrusting Minor Canon AGAIN, acres of tumbling about very self-important and funny little boys, a dash of Quinney and a package of O'Donnell - but the men in that choir? Who they? Not a mention, and actually hardly a shot of them even in choir sequences. Very weird. And nothing on the kitchen staff who must be working flat out over time.

BTW I'd have loved a one-off spin-off, fly-on-the-wall 'One Day in the Life of a Wabbey Verger'. And more of that Matron - bet she's got a story or five tell!

[ardcarp]

bright and articulate 8-yo English eccentrics

Deacantor, vis-a-vis the wager, a G&T at The Rising Sun will be just fine.

[ardcarp]

David-G

As no-one has answered your question yet:

could someone enlighten me as to what a "lay vicar" is

they are simply the paid back desks, the altos, tenors and basses of the choir. Some places call them lay clerks, some vicars choral. In earlier monastic (or collegiate) times, worship was entirely in the hands of ordained priests and monks. At some stage musicians who were lay people were drafted in to enhance the standards. This may well have begun when music more elaborate than plainsong emerged....no doubt someone more scholarly than I will post in to elaborate.

As to why none of the Abbey singing men were included in the programme, I can't (or won't) say! But I'll send you a pm.

[Vox Humana]

Greetings! As a non-singer I feel hardly qualified to post in such august company, but I hope this small contribution might be of interest and not too OTT.

Our cathedral choral tradition evolved from the "secular" cathedrals and colleges of medieval Britain rather than from the monasteries. The medieval cathedrals were typically well stocked with clergy, but a system of absenteeism evolved, whereby it became the norm for every canon (whether resident or not) to provide a stipend so that a deputy priest could be employed to take his place in choir. Thus were vicars born (vicarius = substitute). As the Middle Ages progressed it became more difficult to find ordained vicars.

The prime purpose of the choirs was to sing plainsong. Polyphony was originally, and for a long time remained, the preserve of soloists. Many choirs only had three or four clerks to sing polyphony. When Edward III refounded St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle he spared little expense, endowing it with 13 canons (including a warden) and 13 priest-vicars, yet he saw no need to provide more than four clerks to sing polyphony.

It was not until around 1460, when the boys in these choirs began to be trained to sing notated polyphony and the staffing of the lower parts was increased, that choral polyphony as we know it was born.

The writings of Roger Bowers are the best starting point for information on this topic. His seminal thesis on the subject (since refined in places by himself and others) is available online here, though you might need to register in order to access it: http://www.diamm.ac.uk/resources/doc...dissertations/