lpm wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:19 pm
The actual problem isn't words, but that the land and building have been stolen from us. They were paid for and phsyically built by our ancestors and they belong to us. The CoE falsely claims ownership and falsely exerts control. Their claim to ownership is built on fraud.
This is true. See also the Crown Estates, the aristocracy, most National Trust properties, etc etc. You're not even allowed to walk (or stand, or sit) on 92% of land and 97% of the waterways in England.
There was an interesting interview with a right-to-roam campaigner in the Graun a few days ago, but I think the underlying issue is the theft of commons from everybody - that is, ownership and management - rather than just being allowed to stroll across a few fields.
Testify!
'S why I'd love an English equivalent of The Poor Had No Lawyers (yes, Peter Hetherington and Guy Shrubsole address some of this, but not as much or in as much detail as Wightman does for Scotland).
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk
lpm wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:19 pm
The actual problem isn't words, but that the land and building have been stolen from us. They were paid for and phsyically built by our ancestors and they belong to us. The CoE falsely claims ownership and falsely exerts control. Their claim to ownership is built on fraud.
This is true. See also the Crown Estates, the aristocracy, most National Trust properties, etc etc. You're not even allowed to walk (or stand, or sit) on 92% of land and 97% of the waterways in England.
There was an interesting interview with a right-to-roam campaigner in the Graun a few days ago, but I think the underlying issue is the theft of commons from everybody - that is, ownership and management - rather than just being allowed to stroll across a few fields.
Testify!
'S why I'd love an English equivalent of The Poor Had No Lawyers (yes, Peter Hetherington and Guy Shrubsole address some of this, but not as much or in as much detail as Wightman does for Scotland).
Me too. I read Guy Shrubsole's book unfairly expecting the English equivalent but funnily enough it didn't quite match up.
A few of us had a (pretty unfounded - I know about RtR) 'get off my land' moment in Scotland a while back, and it still wasn't until a few hours later that I got properly pissed off that we were somehow expected to keep off that person's (or rather their employer's) land when they own about half the country...(not literally half but you get the sentiment). Should have taken up Andy Wightman's challenge and offered to fight them for it.
Anyway, bit of a derail.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
Gfamily wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:07 pm
For Civil weddings, the:
reading, music, words or performance which forms part of a ceremony of marriage celebrated on the premises must be secular in nature
;
so I'm not sure whether that's an infringement of people's rights to self expression etc.
My brother got away with it by having the God references in a Welsh hymn, so the person in charge didn't notice; or not enough to protest anyway!
We ended up having quite an argument as we wanted the Finale to Saints-Saens Symphony No. 3 at the start of our civil wedding - we won the argument, but to begin with the registrars assumed that 'cos it involved an organ it must be religious and therefore not allowed.
Spike Milligan once said he wanted his headstone to say "I told you I was ill." He was buried at St Thomas' churchyard in Winchelsea but Chichester diocese refused to allow this epitaph. A compromise was reached with the Irish translation, Dúirt mé leat go raibh mé breoite and in English, "Love, light, peace".
Gfamily wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:07 pm
For Civil weddings, the:
reading, music, words or performance which forms part of a ceremony of marriage celebrated on the premises must be secular in nature
;
so I'm not sure whether that's an infringement of people's rights to self expression etc.
My brother got away with it by having the God references in a Welsh hymn, so the person in charge didn't notice; or not enough to protest anyway!
We ended up having quite an argument as we wanted the Finale to Saints-Saens Symphony No. 3 at the start of our civil wedding - we won the argument, but to begin with the registrars assumed that 'cos it involved an organ it must be religious and therefore not allowed.
We wanted music that was somewhat in keeping with the location of our wedding (a hotel that was built on the ruins of a mediaeval abbey, oh the irony) but finding mediaeval music that is not deemed religious is quite a challenge, we found. What little we could find we didn't like. In the end a very musical friend suggested a bit of the soundtrack from the 1944 film version of Henry V - sounded suitably appropriate, was acceptably secular, had a jolly fanfare bit that was a good opening for my stroll up the aisle, but was sufficiently unknown that no-one would wonder why we were effectively having war music for our wedding.
As for the OP, I know feck all about CofE law (except a tiny bit where it applies to old wills) but hope that they are able to have the inscription they want on the stone. The objection to it seems entirely unreasonable and I hope that the law eventually agrees.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
