|
Post by Uncle Henry on Nov 26, 2017 3:16:43 GMT -5
Picture Postcard twenty-oneI had not realized that there were many Hatfields in the United Kingdom, but Wikipædia lists eight or nine. The particular Hatfield of St. John's is therefore difficult to identify; our most familiar Hatfield, the New Town twenty miles north of London, makes in its Wikipædia entry no mention of a St. John's: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield,_HertfordshireYet that is where St. John's is: A legend on the reverse of our card informs us: And here is its own web-site, inviting you to attend: www.stjohns-hatfield.co.uk/Its vicaress calls herself the "vicar"; difficult to accept for some after two thousand years must such modernisms not be?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 26, 2017 3:40:35 GMT -5
Picture Postcard twenty-oneI had not realized that there were many Hatfields in the United Kingdom, but Wikipedia lists eight or nine. The particular Hatfield of St. John's is therefore difficult to identify; our most familiar Hatfield, the New Town twenty miles north of London, makes in its Wikipedia entry no mention of a St. John's: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield,_HertfordshireYet that is where St. John's is: A legend on the reverse of our card informs us: And here is its own web-site, inviting you to attend: www.stjohns-hatfield.co.uk/Its vicaress calls herself the "vicar"; difficult to accept for some after two thousand years must such modernisms not be? It's the term "vicaress" that is wholly unfamiliar, even though it hardly qualifies as a "modernism"! She calls herself the vicar (as no doubt do her parishioners) because that's want she is. I do hope that you won't refer to the first female Archbishop of Canterbury as an "Archbishopess" or, for that matter, the first woman Pope as a "Popess"; these would sound clumsy as well as demeaning and inappropriate!
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Henry on Nov 26, 2017 23:15:57 GMT -5
Such uncouth trans-Atlanticisms will not worry most of our sensible Abbesses, Deaconesses, Duchesses and waitresses. Nor would her Britannic Majesty our Monarch ever submit to being renamed "King Elizabeth" henceforward would she.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 27, 2017 5:15:51 GMT -5
Such uncouth trans-Atlanticisms will not worry most of our sensible Abbesses, Deaconesses, Duchesses and waitresses. Nor would her Britannic Majesty our Monarch ever submit to being renamed "King Elizabeth" henceforward would she. By "transatlanticisms" I presume you to refer in the present context to the term "vicar" and I was unaware that this was such. "King" is gender specific so, as such, Queen Elizabeth would not refer to herself as such. Terms that are gender specific do cause something of a problem, I admit; "Monarch Elizabeth", whilst it would dispense with one such, would be incredibly clumsy. Perhaps the answer is therefore to dissolve the UK monarchy (and those few others that remain around the world) although this would seem a rather drastic move if motivated only by such terminological issues!
|
|