Talk:St Bartholomew-the-Great

Photo

Just deleted unnecessary proposal on this page (My own).

I have reverted the change of photos. The proposed replacement is no better: it still has the problems with exposure that plague all of these, so the top windows are too bright. Indeed it is a worse photo in that it has a load of foreground clutter and manages to lose the view of the founder's tomb. I am surprised that anyone thought it was worth the trouble of replacing it. A MUCH better photo is needed, not this fiddling. 138.37.188.109 08:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this photoshopped version any better?

Thanks for trying but no, I don't think so, because the general darkening in the upper part seems to lose too much detail and makes that part of the church seem dark when it isn't. I suspect the answer is a whole new photo; the current one may be the best possible at present: it does at least give a good general impression. Trying to darken just the windows does not seem to work well either. Maybe it should just be lived with? Anyway, I think I will leave this debate for now in the hands of wiser people ... 138.37.188.109 13:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did try for a long time (as I'm sure the previous photographer did) to resolve this problem. The trouble is that the interior of the church is dark, and the only significant light source is the windows. Without using a powerful flash or interior lighting, the only practical choice is between having dark windows and a very dark interior or a visible interior and over-exposed windows. I think we'll just have to live with it.

BTW, I'll re-revert the images - the original had a number of other problems (an overly narrow angle and an odd green tint) which prompted me to take that replacement. -- ChrisO 13:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

which is full of clutter in the foreground, and in which you cannot see Rahere's tomb. It's so nice that you are so full of confidence in your own virtues. 138.37.188.109 07:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hyphen

St Bartholomew-the-Great or St Bartholomew the Great? The article doesn't seem sure. Are you? :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Former Roman Catholic church categories

This is a only former Roman Catholic church in that it was a church before the English Reformation. It should not be included in Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in England because it is still a church. The parent category Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings specifies Church buildings which were built by the Roman Catholic Church, but are either (1) no longer standing, (2) no longer in use as church buildings, (3) now used by another religion or denomination. I will remove this category and also Category:12th-century Roman Catholic church buildings. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have re-read the guidelines quoted above, and realise that I was mistaken. As this church is now used by a denomination other than Roman Catholic it qualifies under clause 3. However, so would thousands of pre-reformation churches in former Roman Catholic countries. Adding all these to the Former Roman Catholic churches categories would make these categories unusable, and these categories are unhelpful here. I will raise this on the category talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Name

The name of the church doesn't have hyphens in the name, according to the website for the church, yet it won't let me to move the article's name to the correct name of this church. Why is that?Legend of Remy (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

New Parish of Great St Bartholomew

It appears that the parish of St Bartholomew-the-Great has been combined with two neighbouring parishes and renamed as Great St Bartholomew. However, there is surprisingly little detail on this on their website and I have not found a citable source. The church website says:

Church Diary 1st June to 6th June 2014 – Week 9 Ordinary Time Mon 1st June Today is the first day of the new Parish of Great St Bartholomew

The year appears to be wrong (1 June 2014 was a Sunday). This page says:

Rupert Gough became the first Organist and Director Music of the Parish of Great St Bartholomew on 1st June 2015, the same day the new Parish was formed.

This proposal from the Diocese of London dated 30 March 2015 has

Proposals to unite the benefices and parishes of St Bartholomew-the-Great, Smithfield and St Bartholomew-the-Less in the City of London to create a new benefice and Parish [...] the name of the new benefice and parish should be simply "Great St Bartholomew".

Can someone please confirm this and provide a citable source? Verbcatcher (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The references to "2014" on the website appear to be typos. If you scroll further down further you will see that directly after "8th to 13th June 2014" is "Sunday, 14th June 2015". Afterwriting (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Bartholomew-the-Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611214737/http://www.british-history.ac.uk/catalogue.asp?gid=97 to http://www.british-history.ac.uk/catalogue.asp?gid=97

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rectors' List

1991–1993 David Lawson (imprisoned for drink-driving 1993)

Any reason this misdemeanour should be memorialised for eternity ?

.

Many clerics have done wicked things; from feeling up parishioners to joining foul republican conspiracies against their rightful King. This one though seems so trivial it is invidious to single out this gentleman for a mistake 30 years ago. Claverhouse (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would let this stand. In the UK imprisonment for drink-driving is very unusual, and this was apparently a third offence. Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the London Times report:

THE vicar of London’s oldest parish church is serving two months in Bruton prison for drink driving, it was disclosed yesterday. The Rev David Lawson, 46, who was jailed after his third drink-driving conviction, is expected to be released after serving one month of the sentence.

Under church law Mr Lawson, formerly a hospital chaplain, will automatically lose his living unless Dr George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, agrees to let him stay.

Although clergy of many denominations have been sent to prison for different offences, Church of England lawyers know of none jailed for drink-driving.

This link is to a rather poor OCR version of The Times, 1993, and "Bruton" is conceivably "Brixton". Thomas Peardew (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

I was puzzled to find that on the page listing pages in the category "Grade I listed churches in the City of London" this one was listed at the end of those beginning "St", after St Vedast. The explanation seems to be the inclusion of "" whereas all the others are sorted as "Saint ...". Is there any good reason for including "Smithfield" at the start of the defaultsort? Clerkly (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)