Comments: Opinion - 12 July 2017

I'm with you Andrew Lightblown and when I return to ministry following my three month sabbatical I shall certainly look forward to wearing Eucharistic vestments once more.
It was a sad day when Speaker Bercow announced that male MPs need no longer wear ties in the chamber of the House of Commons. In my recent extensive tour of Iran I must have been the only person wearing a tie in the entire country (well, someone has to keep up the standards of Empire!).
Similarly, the Synod's decision regarding the abandonment of clerical vestments is a retrograde step. The wearing of the chasuble takes us right back to another empire - the Roman Empire - the imperial power at the very time of our Blessed Lord. The simple white alb is a garment that Jesus himself would recognise and wear. So, in spite of the Synod's unfortunate decision I shall continue to wear my tippet at Choral Evensong with pride.

Posted by Father David at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 10:44am BST

The proposal to abandon clerical attire coincides with the ascendancy of evangelicalism and is all part of the dumbing down exercise. Much like abbreviated Christian names - Pete, Dave, Mick - to show the vicar is just "one of the lads" (or lasses)

Posted by FrDavidH at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 1:12pm BST

The intimacy of the SEC so gushingly commended by the author is of course due to its very small size and meager stipendiary funds. Bishops have to do everything, have almost no staff (when I was in St As, Dunkeld, Dunblane, the Bishop ran a lot of things out of his private home), there is no need for archdeacons or suffragans, and the country is small. Coates Hall has been gone for some time, replaced with residential courses of various kinds. With all this comes an intimacy. One is happily dwarfed by the RCC and CofS, and if one likes being 'different' as he does, this is perfect. I was a little puzzled by the comments about the epiclesis being a SEC prize not present in the CofE liturgies of today. That is simply false; perhaps I misheard him. I was once at a drinks party in Angus where an old dowager--not SEC, but the point remains--said without boasting, "I know everyone in Scotland." I thought she was joking but after almost a decade in the country I began to understand what she meant. There is a very good history of the SEC that I read during my time there that did a kind job of bursting the bubble of Seabury as a great figure in the Scottish episcopal DNA. He said he was almost entirely absent from histories until a fund raising campaign was launched in Aberdeen geared at tapping into US funds. Sadly the stock market crash came hard on its heels and it fizzled. At any rate, it is good to be proud of one's scottish episcopal identity, one supposes. It does however seem to be fairly chauvinistic vis-a-vis the CofE. Maybe that is OK when one is proudly small and intimate. In St Andrews I did not have that sense of the SEC churches there. They were full of english folk and did not flinch much at being called by Scots 'the english church.' Maybe things have changed since being away.

Posted by crs at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 1:23pm BST

Fr David, a priest after my own heart. A very retrogade step by the synod. By their vestments you shall know them.

Fr John Emlyn

Posted by Fr John E. Harris-White at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 3:01pm BST

I was on synod when the motion to allow clergy not to robe first began its way through the synodical process. Two things were said at the time. Firstly, the practice of not robing is widespread and it cannot be good to have a law which is simply ignored by many people. There are many Anglican churches in my deanery where robes are not worn. My own church is very much one which uses robes, but even we do not use them for Messy Church, Breakfast Church or the occasional Sunday evening Praise Service. Secondly, as part of the ethos of 'what makes others flourish' that was engendered in the debate over the ordination of women as bishops, some of those who might have voted against this vesture motion said that they would vote for it if it helped others to flourish. There is more to the motion than meets the eye, as the decision whether or not to robe must be taken by incumbent and PCC and it cannot just be the whim of the officiating minister.

Posted by Nigel LLoyd at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 3:03pm BST

To respond to Professor Seitz, 'gushing' is not a word I would associate with the Provost of Glasgow Cathedral and I would hesitate to generalize about Scotland from the perspective of St Andrews which is transplanted Englandshire. The University has the lowest proportion of State-School educated students in Scotland by some distance. It is further reported that in 2016 the University of St. Andrews offered 62.5% of applicants from England a place, compared with just 36% of Scottish students. It is scarcely surprising that people called the SEC the English church. I can assure him that St Mary's Episcopal Cathedral in Edinburgh is proudly and distinctively Scottish. The SEC is right to be defensive of their church vis-a-vis the CofE, going back to the imposition of the 39 Articles in 1804 in exchange for freedom of worship and coming forward to the denunciation of Richard Holloway by Lord Carey and the recent Columba declaration. I don't suppose that I am proud of my SEC identity. I AM proud of it.

Posted by Daniel Lamont at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 5:25pm BST

Those who rhapsodise over Eucharistc vestments (as opposed to traditional Church of England clergy robes) and deplore the leading of public worship by non-robed ministers are silent (or perhaps unaware) of the fact that their beloved vestments were only given legal status by the 1965 Vesture of Ministers measure. In the same way the recent Synod vote has merely regularized actual parochial practice.

Posted by John Darch at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 5:48pm BST

Pray Tell!

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/recruitment-employment-employer-employee-employed-jobs-cgon466_low.jpg

Posted by Rod Gillis at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 8:58pm BST

Robes: as Nigel says, the requirement was flouted in any case, making a mockery of the canon. Since there was zero chance of bishops punishing the evangelicals who bankroll the church and who stop its numbers from imploding -- in any case, doing so would destroy any claim that the CoE was a broad church -- abolition of a dead letter definition of a thing indifferent was the right call.

Scotland: interesting piece, and however small the SEC may be, the Piskies certainly appear to be avoiding the woes of the CoE.

Posted by James Byron at Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 10:27pm BST

Rod, it appears to me that in your cartoon at the Job Centre - Mr. Bagley appears to be not only wearing a mitre but also sporting a toothbrush moustache. I do believe that it is against Canon Law for male clergy to simply have a moustache alone. Like in the Royal Navy clergy can either be clean shaven or wear a full set.
Facial hair (like tattoos) seems to be all the rage at the present time - it's rather like a kick-back to Victorian England with all these Hipster mean with luxuriant beavers adorning their faces. At present all three chaps mending the wall of St. Peter's Community Centre have tremendous beards, which the Duchess of Sheffield would greatly admire. On the whole it would seem that moustaches alone are favoured by blue-shirted Evangelical clergymen.
Since the retirement of Rowan and now of Richard Chartres there doesn't seem to be many beards on the episcopal bench, although the Bishop of Stepney has one to watch. Also with the sad demise of Geoffrey Rowell we have lost another beard, although Geoffrey's top lip, like Jacob's, was clean shaven.
As for the wearing of pointy hats - not many (including women) who are raised to the Bench refuse to wear a tea cosy. Although I've never met him I suspect that + Rod Maidstone doesn't. I certainly know for a fact that his Conservative Evangelical predecessor + Wallace Benn never wore a mitre and preferred Convocation Robes - there's another beard lost from the Bench.
Mr. Darch seems to have it in for Eucharistic vestments and prefers "traditional Church of England clergy robes". The latter include academic hoods which might well advertise that the clergy wearing them are saying "Look, how clever I am!" Whereas Eucharistic vestments are a great leveller and are designed to take the attention away from the Eucharistic Minister in order to focus more upon the Christ being represented there at the altar.

Posted by Father David at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 5:47am BST

Mr Lamont, do you recall the recent poll in which by surprising percentage the SEC was referred to by its own members as something other than the SEC, viz., the Church of England, the English Church, etc? Not in St Andrews only -- whose townspeople I was referring to, not university students who are busy playing golf and pubbing -- but across the entire country. As for gushing, I thought the explanation was the content, which was so self-praising that a certain tone had to be adopted to accommodate the genre and avoid appearing haughty vis-a-vis the church to the south. Every now and then the anger slipped through, as with the Columba affair, but otherwise the irenical boasting was steady. I thought it was a fun piece, but a little over the top. (I played a lot of golf with his father and he was a proud Englishman).

Posted by crs at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 6:54am BST

Correction - For "Hipster mean" read Hipster men!
With apologies for the typo.

Posted by Father David at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 8:17am BST

I think, crs, that you are half-remembering the census data that noted more people in Scotland giving their religion as CofE than SEC which is to be expected given the number of English immigrants to Scotland and England's long history of nominal Anglicanism.

Posted by Jo at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 9:06am BST

Re Fr. David, barba tenus sapientes ( :

Posted by Rod Gillis at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 1:50pm BST

Picking up briefly on Fr David's comment on vestments above, I recall Charles Cranfield (URC) (I think - if not it was Kingsley Barrett (Methodist)) saying inter alia that they had no problem with vestments, which drew attention to the action of God in calling a person to ministry, but struggled with the luxuriance of academic hoods in worship,since they proclaimed the wearer's own achievements. I've resisted wearing my lowly BA dead rabbit ever since.

I also remember a clergy conference where in one of those dreadful games one is expected to play we were asked to express our opinion of vestments by arranging ourselves either side of a line, and distancing ourselves from it in proportion to the strength of our feelings.

When the organiser of this nano-drama spied me pressed hard against the wall on the 'vestments' side,she pounced and alone of all those present I was asked to explain myself. 'It's camouflage.' I replied.'I don't want people to see me and my taste in suits, I want them to see God.'

Posted by David Rowett at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 1:57pm BST

@crs "the epiclesis being a SEC prize not present in the CofE liturgies of today."

For centuries the SEC was the only church in the British Isles to explicitly invoke the Holy Spirit to come upon the bread and wine. Since Vatican II this reference has been introduced to some Roman Catholic Eucharistic prayers, but it was not in the Tridentine mass. There is also no such reference in the Book of Common Prayer, and I am not aware of any other C of E Eucharistic Prayer which specifically requests the Holy Spirit to come upon the bread and wine. There are some which ask that by the Spirit the bread and wine may be to us the body and blood, but there is nothing which specifically involves the Holy Spirit acting on the elements as opposed to the people. Are you aware of any such Eucharistic prayer in the C of E?

That, I suspect, is what was meant by the SEC having an epiclesis the C of E does not.

Posted by T Pott at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 2:06pm BST

"..more people in Scotland giving their religion as CofE than SEC"

Actually, that is exactly what I remember and referred to. Thanks.

If there was such a crucial distinction as is being maintained, surely people would have wanted to say "SEC" very robustly and not the CofE or English Church.

There were Scottish Episcopalians who struck up a letter writing exchange with the Orthodox when such contacts began to be possible. The Eastern Churches wanted non-Roman allies. The Episcopalians wanted a way to signal they had something distinctive of their own. The claim to antiquity can be very alluring. Even Calvinists claimed the Fathers against late mediaeval Roman extravagances, and Anglicans had their own form of this of course.

The epiclesis is of course found in the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church (Mass of St John Chrysostom). They were happy to share it. Who knows, they may feel happy that Romans and Anglicans have now deployed the language in various forms in their respective liturgies. I doubt they would think claiming it as an SEC distinctive made much sense, however.

The Holy Spirit blows where he will. May the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Posted by crs at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 2:48pm BST

Yes, good old Erasmus of Rotterdam hits the nail on the head although I do note that he didn't have a beard. Cranmer in old age and Rowan Williams both had splendid beards - two great Archbishops of Canterbury, neither of whom could be said to be wise only in appearance.
After growing a beard when I played the part of Wicked Uncle Abanazar in a pantomime it stayed put for 13 years. Then I thought better of it and shaved it off shortly after moving to the south coast.

Posted by Father David at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 4:35pm BST

I'm too old to want preferment, too dim/untalented/idle to get it, and the cassocks worn by our cathedral canons are a most unappealing powder blue, so I'm probably immune to charges of sycophancy when I say, "Isn't it nice when a diocesan puts his cards on the table by publishing his prepared speech for Synod on the diocesan website?"

(On the other hand, had the cassocks been black with red piping....)

Posted by David Rowett at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 6:26pm BST

@crs: I still think you're a little confused. I'm referring to a national census, not a church one, and those in Scotland answering CofE almost certainly don't darken the door of a church outside of weddings and funerals. They are unlikely to be aware of the denominational distinction between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, much less be able to identify where the SEC fits in. It would be very unwise to conclude anything about SEC members from that data.

Posted by Jo at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 7:25pm BST

As a former member of SEC, now sometimes a shade bewildered by the ways of the CofE, I greatly enjoyed Kelvin Holdsworth's blog. It can't be said too often that Scotland and England are two different countries.

Posted by Flora Alexander at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 7:55pm BST

" I am not aware of any other C of E Eucharistic Prayer which specifically requests the Holy Spirit to come upon the bread and wine" @ T Pott


CW

Prayer A:
grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit
these gifts of bread and wine
may be to us his body and his blood;

Prayer B:
grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit,
and according to your holy will,
these gifts of bread and wine
may be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ;
"
Prayer E
send your Holy Spirit,
that broken bread and wine outpoured
may be for us the body and blood of your dear Son."

Prayer F:
by your Holy Spirit let these gifts of your creation
be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ;

That's half the Eucharistic prayers. For starters.

Posted by Fr Andrew at Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 10:04pm BST

"...much less be able to identify where the SEC fits in."

Of course the poll did not evaluate this and so you are simply speculating. This isn't my confusion but one that derives from trying to speculate beyond what was asked. Bastille Day blessings.

Posted by crs at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 5:59am BST

In his article promoting the Scottish Episcopal Church's Tourist Board the Provost of Glasgow keeps referring disparagingly to "Englandshire" should not that rather be Englandstan? (Please forgive the tautology)
To make the tempting offer to move North of the Border even more attractive perhaps Kelvin should have included more on the lovely scenic beauty of lochs and mountains to be found in Scotland.
However persuasive his article may be I would be very reluctant to move from my Sussex south coast parish as I've seen the videos of the Presbyterian Minister the Reverend I M Jolly which offer a less attractive and inviting picture of Church life above Hadrian's Wall.

Posted by Father David at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 6:09am BST

I'm not a liturgist or a theologian, but my understanding is that the Epiclesis specifically calls on the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine, whereas the CofE prayers are ambiguous about whether the Holy Spirit is acting on the bread and wine or in a receptionist sense in the heart and mind of the believer.

Posted by Jo at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 6:44am BST

"In St Andrews I did not have that sense of the SEC churches there."

St Andrews is sui generis, and any argument which attempts to generalise to Scotland, or even Fife, or even East Fife from the example of St Andrews is doomed to disaster. In term-time 40% of the population are students or staff, the student body is disproportionately (compared even to, say, Edinburgh) non-Scottish, and amongst the Scottish students they are wildly unlike Scotland (far richer, far more privately educated). I have a child there, and I am gaining a rich understanding of just what a bubble "the bubble" is.

Posted by Interested Observer at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 7:32am BST

Fr Andrew

Compare the extracts you quote from C of E CW prayers A B E and F with this typical SEC version (this one is 1982 A):

Hear us, most merciful Father,
and send your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon this bread and this wine,
that, overshadowed by his life-giving power,
they may be the Body and Blood of your Son,


The SEC is absolutely clear that the Holy Spirit is to come upon the bread and wine, and upon the people, and that as a result of this the bread and wine will "be" the Body and Blood. Not "be to us" or "be for us" but simply "be".

In place of the SEC asking that the Spirit come on the people and the bread and wine, the CW prayers quoted merely ask the involvement of the Holy Spirit, but whether by coming upon people, elements, both or neither is not specified.

There is nothing in the English prayers that specifically requests that the Holy Spirit come upon the bread and wine. That is the difference.

To those in England who believe that the Holy Spirit coming on the bread and wine is essential, the difference is no more than that between "open the door and let your grandmother in" and "let your grandmother in", the latter assumes the former, we don't expect her to climb through the window. Others will be clear in their own minds that they are not asking for anything to happen to the elements, but only to the people. To put it another way, in England we do not dictate to God exactly how He is to perform His miracles.

Posted by T Pott at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 7:44am BST

I can't see, Fr Andrew, that these "specifically request the Holy Spirit to come upon the bread and the wine". Not in the way that this does:

Hear us, merciful Father,
send your Holy Spirit upon us
and upon these gifts of your creation, this bread and this wine,
that, overshadowed by his life-giving power,
they may be the Body and Blood of your Son,
and we may be renewed for the service of your kingdom.

Posted by american piskie at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 9:31am BST

Interesting thread re epiclesis!

T Pott: (charming handle :-) )

"There are some which ask that by the Spirit the bread and wine ***may be to us*** the body and blood, but there is nothing which specifically involves the Holy Spirit acting on the elements as opposed to the people."

All of the prayers you list, Fr Andrew, seem to be of the type T Pott disclaimed. I won't speak to whether that's a significant distinction (above my paygrade), but the distinction is specifically mentioned. [I furthermore leave it to minds brighter than mine to comment on crs "Scottish/Orthodox penpals" story: "claim to antiquity"? In the eye of the beholder, "one supposes".]

Posted by JCF at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 9:52am BST

I lived in Fife and never found the townspeople anything but proudly Scottish. It was them to which I referring, not university folk. They spoke of the episcopalians reflexively as attending the English church. My point was that I never heard any episcopal church-goers flinch or react defensively, scots or english folk.

I think the entire idea of claiming some special provincial distinctive a reverse instinct of certain chauvinistic african anglicans. Provinces are different. The epiclesis was a gift of the Eastern church and one could find a way to turn it into an anglican sine qua non in just the right form in just this region, but why?

Posted by crs at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 9:54am BST

The epiclesis so described as distinctive in the SEC/Eastern mode also participates in a longstanding tension between East and West over the procession of the Holy Spirit. The CofE language wants to assure that the Holy Spirit functions in relationship with the Godhead and in relation to the Body of the Church ("...merciful Father, send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts that they may be..."). The West has traditionally worried about what they fear is a mysticism of independent Holy Spirit action in Eastern thought; and the East has worried about the integrity of the Holy Spirit as person.

As for the letter exchange, there was a mature student doing doctoral work at St Andrews when I was Professor there on just this research area. He was an SEC Priest. It was a fascinating topic.

Of course the epiclesis in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom requires no research.

Posted by crs at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 2:35pm BST

"Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ."

The Epiclesis of the Eucharistic Prayer II of the Roman Rite.

I can't really see that Rome is inviting ambiguity about what the Holy Spirit is up to here, or are the 'no Anglican epiclesis crowd' claiming a major semantic difference between 'to us' and 'for us'?

Posted by Fr Andrew at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 3:06pm BST

"I can't see, Fr Andrew, that these "specifically request the Holy Spirit to come upon the bread and the wine"'

Watch the priest's hands at this point in the Eucharistic prayer next time you're at Mass. If the President is in any sense trained in the catholic tradition of the C of E they will be indicating quite precisely where the Holy Spirit is being requested to act- on the bread and wine. The liturgical epiclesis is a text AND an action.

Posted by Fr Andrew at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 3:10pm BST

@crs: "They spoke of the episcopalians reflexively as attending the English church".

How times do change. When I was there "the English Church" meant St Andrew's St Andrews, while All Saints St Andrews were "the piskies".

Posted by american piskie at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 5:07pm BST

"The liturgical epiclesis is a text AND an action." - Fr Andrew

But only the text is part of the Church of England liturgy, the action at that point is not. The action is an intrusion which, while it is helpful to the congregation, and the Holy Spirit, in understanding the priests personal interpretation of what he is saying, does not narrow the prayer of the Church.

The SEC is quite specific in requesting that the Holy Spirit must be sent upon the bread and wine, and the people. The C of E leaves it up to God.

Posted by T Pott at Saturday, 15 July 2017 at 9:23am BST

It is of course all a matter of perception but, as one who lives, moves and has his being in Scotland as I write, I have to say that my sense of St Andrews, both town and gown, is more akin to that of Interested Observer than that of Professor Seitz. I have to say that I have not heard in 20 years anyone refer to the SEC as the English Church. The substantive point is that the SEC, albeit small and poor, is confident in itself and does what it thinks is right both for itself as a church and in its Scottish context. The events of the past few years - the Independence referendum, Brexit and more specifically the Columba Declaration - have reinforced its distinctive sense of itself and its refusal to be intimidated or díctated to by the larger and more powerful church south of the Border. This was very clear when listening as an observer at the debate on changing the marriage canon.

Dr Daniel Lamont

Posted by Daniel Lamont at Saturday, 15 July 2017 at 10:25am BST

I have heard "the English church" from an elderly Presbyterian in the last few months, but it is not something I've heard in common usage.

Posted by Jo at Saturday, 15 July 2017 at 12:25pm BST

Dear Dr Lamont, I was Professor at U of St As for almost a decade, and I also knew a fair number of townspeople and Fifers well. I played a fair amount of golf and belonged to the two golf clubs for locals (St Andrews Gold Club and the New Club, neither to be confused with he lavish R and A, full of Englishmen). I attended St Andrews church and did the Lenten addresses there one year. I guess we just hung out with different crowds! My scottish friends called yorkshiremen Scots with the generosity squeezed out. The bantering over 5p splitting up a bill still brings smiles to my face. I hope you are enjoying your stint as much as I did mine. Greetings from sunny France.

Posted by crs at Saturday, 15 July 2017 at 1:54pm BST

The Pott/Fr Andrew discussion highlights the fact that within the Anglican Tradition there have been two broad streams of understanding Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Until the Oxford Movement most Anglicans would have believed that those who receive with faith the consecrated elements receive Christ's body and blood but the emphasis was on reception and the relation of presence to element was left undefined. The Tractarians appealing to the Fathers revived a stronger doctrine of consecration tying Christ's presence more definitely to the elements before reception (with the corollary that Eucharistic adoration was legitimate.. hence Keble's treatise On Eucharistical Adoration} The ARCIC statement on the Eucharist endeavoured to bridge this "gap" especially in the Elucidations though its not clear how many especially evangelicals have "bought" into this. These two traditions have coexisted reasonably well because of the rubric requiring the consecrated remains to be reverently consumed at the end of the service. That this is now flouted in some quarters is therefore very regrettable and is further evidence of fragmentation.

Posted by Perry Butler at Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 8:15am BST

The perspective of crs is probably somewhat influenced by the demographic of St. Andrews as an institution and also his own theological pre-commitments.

Posted by mlh at Monday, 17 July 2017 at 3:30pm BST

As a graduate of St Andrews, a Scot, and someone who lived and studied there for 7 years, I would say that St Andrews is atypical of most of Scotland - and indeed a place of some student/academic privilege. It certainly attracts an unusual % of upper middle class English students from private schools. On the scale of student types across the UK's universities, it is 'posh'.

I was fortunate to go to St Andrews on a scholarship, which among other things afforded me one of the best rooms at St Salvator's Hall of Residence. When I accompanied my daughter (who also studied there) on a tour of the University, the guide showed us the room where Prince William stayed. It was the very bedroom I'd been given. St Andrews harbours considerable privilege like that.

The town is also a tourist magnet because of the golf, the picturesque locations, the West Sands, the whole 'gowny' atmosphere of the place.

But as well as 'gown' and tourists, there is also authentic, east Fife 'town'. There is a working class strand within the town... but overall it is vastly different from Dundee across the Tay.

Generally I think it is a place where (mostly wealthy) English and Scots can meet and mingle and learn from each other. It's a bit of an idyll to be an academic there. It's certainly something of a 'bubble' in some ways, an ivory tower for not-quite-Oxford types.

But it is still Scotland. In many ways it is a meeting place of cultures, including the very welcome contingents from the States and Canada. Nevertheless there are undeniably social cliques there too. Like attracts like, as they say.

Most of my time was spent mountaineering, and that attracted a healthy band of rough and raucous climbers, which knocked the edges off privilege. Class counts for little in a white-out blizzard in the Cairngorms. Camaraderie far more.

Like I say, we all have much to learn from each other. I occasionally went to lectures as well.

Posted by Susannah Clark at Monday, 24 July 2017 at 9:54am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.