This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Blanche Fury (U10266196) on Thursday, 27th March 2008
The previous bishop (Cyril) liked Usha. What about the current one? Do we know anything about him? Is he more conservative than Cyril?
Would Alan need the bishop's approval to marry a Hindu?
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Thursday, 27th March 2008
I don't think Cyril's replacement has ever been mentioned He seems to have been replaced by Archdeacon (Rural Dean) Rachel as far as church dignitries are concerned. Don't think she's ever expressed any opinions about the Usha/Alan relationship but since she is a 'woman vicar' I suppose we are meant to assume that she may be in the liberal camp on such matters.
Intersetingly enough the Bishop of Hereford, who may be the RL Bishop of Borchester, was on Law in Action yesterday taking a distinctly less than liberal attitude towards homosexuality.
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Thursday, 27th March 2008
All we know of bishop Andrew, is that most of the village seemed to go to his "installation."
So maybe he is artistic? We could invite him to the Tate meet next year, and see for ourselves.
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:41 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham in message 2
Crossed in the post, cos, as we used to say - he's Bishop Andrew, and Shula said he wasn't much like Cyril!
That is bad news for Alan and Usha. I see trouble ahead.
Surely there's nothing in ecclesiastical law requiring a priest to marry a Christian? Or if there is, I've never heard of it. OTOH, there definitely is a problem with living with/having socks with a parishioner, at least in some people's eyes. So I'd have thought marrying her would reduce his problem status to the Bish rather than increase it.
Interesting if Ambridge really were in Hereford - wasn't it Hereford who got into trouble recently for discrimination against a gay youth worker (asked intrusive questions at interview he wouldn't have asked a heterosexua)?
Wasn't there an Easter service from Hereford televised last week?
But IIRC it was conducted by the Dean.
bob
Interesting how this post seems to have drifted towards the homophobic Hereford (he would get on well with Sid).
But on his website (Hereford not Felpersham) it says " The main task of a Bishop is to look after and care for the clergy, who serve the Church in the parishes, and support staff who serve the Diocese in other ways."
Do Alan should be sure of his support (and so should Shula!)
bob
, in reply to message 6.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Thursday, 27th March 2008
wasn't it Hereford who got into trouble recently for discrimination against a gay youth workerÂ
That's why he was on Law in Action.
I think that they ought to go for a register office wedding with only Amy and one other as witnesses.
That'd put the cat amongst the chickens
Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:29 GMT, in reply to The Phantom Juggler in message 10
I can't help feeling that the departure of the old Bishop Saruman, who was heard to be so supportive of Alan and Usha, must have been meant to clear the way for a Bishop Nasty, who won't.
VH
, in reply to message 11.
Posted by theImprobablyNamed (U7123337) on Wednesday, 2nd April 2008
Alan will then resign and follow his true calling as a drugsworker and then Shula and Bert with have to deal with the interregnum and then the reality that most villages don't have their own vicar. They will have to share with even more far flung parishes than previously as more villages are brought into the benefice. the vicarage will be sold and become a second home or home to some commuters using Hollerton Junction. The church then can become the semi-museum that the pew-lovers wanted so much (btw why not just have the sort of pews you can move - did we ever hear that the St Stephens ones are screwed to the floor?)
, in reply to message 12.
Posted by Vicarshusband (U6051871) on Wednesday, 2nd April 2008
The trouble is that even if you can move them, to clear space you have to put them somewhere. Chairs stack or fold...
VH
We heard that the archdeacon (Rachel) approves of the marriage. She was "delighted", Alan said.
Does anyone know if this is enough? Does Alan need the approval of the bishop or is the archdeacon "high up" enough to represent the church?
Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:01 GMT, in reply to Blanche Fury in message 14
A sensible Archdeacon might take the opinion of the Bishop, on the other hand she might sincerely disagree with him. She doesn't necessarily speak for the Bishop, I think.
VH
Thanks, Vicarshusband.
So there can still be trouble with Alan's employers.
Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:39 GMT, in reply to Vicarshusband in message 13
The trouble is that even if you can move them, to clear space you have to put them somewhere.Â
And even then, a rook can get in the way, or a pawn, or a knight. Checkmate is never certain with bishops. :+)
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.