My feeling is that the church is older than many are allowing for, mainly because the windows are so narrow, from looking at photos on various websites Victorian and later buildings usually have windows at least half as wide again. So could it have been an older church re-decorated in a more modern style? The choir members, are there 2 choirs? Those wearing white and those in red (with red scull caps?) And for the coloured choir members, do the hair styles give a clue as to when the photo was taken, eg early 70s? The floor of the aisle. Is that carpet, or is it tile? I've seen tile work like that in some churches, but don't recall carpets of that standard. If it is a school church, or one associated with a school, then I would suggest that the table contains Bibles to be presented to the new boys, something that happened to me in the early 60s in Nottinghamshire. Again, if it is a school associated church, then the angle of the organist, to help keep and eye on the boys, makes more sense. Final thought, for now. The location of the photographer. The church has a gallery above the back of the aisle. Not uncommon, but not universal. Cheers Steve On 14/11/2012 20:41, La Greenall wrote: > Thanks v much Dudley. It is a puzzle! I agree with everything your less > untutored eye than you think it is told you; I'm not very familiar with > the finer points of Protestantism but it looks fairly high-church to me. > Behind the red banner with a gold crown is some sort of other small > screen (it looks like a fire-screen to me but obviously isn't). It seems > to bear a heraldic shield which has a black background, a red thing > (sash?) running horizontally across the middle, and three objects > possibly in gold which might be candlesticks or chessmen. That sort of > shape anyway. The shape of the screen, if it is meant to resemble a > heraldic shield, is also unusual in being doubly a-bouche, i.e. having a > jousting lance socket on both sides near the top corners. There would > normally only be one on the top left corner as we look at it (for > right-handed jousters). Very over-elaborate and ornate (Germanic?). It's > a shame the photo is such poor quality - I've improved (slightly) the > tonal range and hue, but left the focussing/sharpness alone, as it only > makes things worse on close inspection. > > I also suspect that the church couldn't be one that has other well-known > connections to Burges, because his pulpit was clearly unloved enough by > its people to be packed off into museum storage! Any church with Burges > connections would surely consider such an object one of the gems in > their crown? But on the other hand, this church is clearly > architect-designed and of the Victorian period, and that single wooden > chair to the right of the high altar looks possibly Burgesian to me. > However, the rest of the architecture (mouldings, arches, pillars, > capitals) is too plainly elegant and unfussy to be Burges. It seems to > embrace the spirit of modern (for its time) Protestantism with slightly > puritanical overtones, whereas High Gothic was partly about > rediscovering the richness of medieval Catholic ornament. > > And I think Steve is right to notice the schoolboys between the > wheelchairs - perhaps the wheelchair-goers were part of the same group > and this is some sort of special service, a commemoration or > thanksgiving perhaps? Or a prize-giving... In fact most of the people > forward of the frontmost wheelchair also seem to be children, with one > jacketed exception who could be a teacher. Most seem to have short back > and side haircuts, which could suggest younger children rather than > older, and perhaps a boarding school. > > Is it also noteworthy that the choir members in front of them seem to be > mostly black? Could this church be in a big city? The congregation on > the other side are much less distinguishable, but beyond them on the > crossing pillar behind the pulpit is a banner which seems to have an > unusual and distinctive design. This must be identifiable, or at least > would have been if the photo was any good! > > I wonder if this is a service being attended mainly by children from one > school, with their relatives seated on the other side of the central > aisle, in sort of wedding fashion. Perhaps the school has an active > musical department and some of its pupils are singing in the choir, with > everyone else there to see them doing so well. It is certainly > interesting that the primary focal point, the centre of attention, from > all angles, seems to be firmly on these choristers. The minister and his > three cohorts are clearly singing along (either that or yawning). > > And why two altars, or are they? The one nearest to us is more curious, > it looks like some sort of unusually special offering is being made. > Whatever is placed on it is a mystery to me - a long unscrolled > parchment? Being directly behind the heraldic screen may suggest a > connection - could this be the deed granting the land for the church by > some local lord? On the other hand it doesn't look that much like a > scroll and could be several small objects, perhaps hymn books, lying > side by side. Maybe they're gifts or prizes for the choristers or > schoolchildren? > > Maybe someone on this list has some insight into CofE rituals and could > explain why there would be a second table in front of the sanctuary > steps? It does look as if the church is giving something out via this > table to the congregation. > > Lastly, the organ console seems to be placed at 45 degrees, allowing > face contact between organist and congregation. This seems unusual to > me, or are they playing a portable organ or piano instead? It looks most > like a tall chamber organ to me (i.e. to suit grand 18th and 19th > century domestic accommodation with very high ceilings), but even so, it > being at 45 degs seems quirky. Almost as if set up for educational > reasons, to train singers. Could this be a university or school chapel? > > Anyway, I tried to include a genealogical thread last time but I used it > all up and don't want to annoy our ringleader any more. > > Cheers to all, > Lawrence. > >

On 2012/11/15 12:58, Steve wrote: > My feeling is that the church is older than many are allowing for, mainly > because the windows are so narrow, from looking at photos on various websites > Victorian and later buildings usually have windows at least half as wide > again. So could it have been an older church re-decorated in a more modern > style? Well, it's definitely not Paddy's Wigwam :-) -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg