Conclusions
|
| 1. |
In undertaking this Review we have constantly been surprised
and impressed by the range of activities and the complexity of the institutions
which we were asked to study. These are living institutions which are
conscious not only of their historic role and their connection with
the Crown but also of their wider duty and mission to the outside world.
One function of this Review will have been to make this better known.
|
| 2. |
In a narrow sense the Review grew out of the discussion
surrounding the passage of the Cathedrals
Measure 1999. But the Deans themselves have welcomed it and have
given us constant and generous support, not least in funding the expenses
of the Review Group and in supplying their own submissions, and in providing
patient answers to many subsequent questions and requests for further
information. We have greatly appreciated this reception, and have enjoyed
the fellowship that has been offered with the clerical and lay communities
who serve the institutions. |
| 3. |
In many cases we have found that good practice followed
elsewhere, whether in cathedrals or great churches, already exists or
is being adopted within the Royal Peculiars. We commend this progress
and wish it to be more widely known. |
| 4. |
We have repeatedly said in the Report that while the
Peculiars are not cathedrals they do share many aspects in common with
them. Another feature which links them with cathedrals is the challenge
which they face of finding a contemporary role in a world which, to
quote from a lecture given by the Revd Victor Stock and cited in the
Dean's Christmas Newsletter of Westminster Abbey in December 2000, 'no
longer knows what an antiphon, canticle, fauxbourdon, succentor or ossuary
is'. They are staffed by 'religious people who are trustees of the glories
and riches of the past for the people and children of the future', yet
who must function in an environment in which vast numbers of their visitors
may be ignorant not only of English history but of Christianity itself.
|
| 5. |
The situation, or as some would see it, the dilemma,
of cathedrals has received considerable discussion recently, not only
in Heritage and Renewal, in which chapters 2 and 14 assess their
contemporary role and situation, but also in other publications. |
| 6. |
This discussion, and the response of cathedrals themselves,
is more encouraging than might have been expected in some quarters.
Certainly their role has changed. But new possibilities have opened
up. It is often noted for example that as the numbers of regular worshippers
in local churches has dropped, the number of visitors to cathedrals
has increased. These are not all tourists. Many worshippers also prefer
the sense of space, history, and even anonymity that cathedrals and
great churches offer; many others are attracted by the quality of the
music and the liturgy. But there is also an important mission to visitors.
It has become very clear to us that all of this applies to the Royal
Peculiars. One aspect of it is graphically illustrated by the astonishingly
high number of votive candles lit by visitors to the Chapel Royal at
Hampton Court since they were introduced just over a year ago. |
| 7. |
The Peculiars share with cathedrals and great churches
the duty of offering daily worship and a living sense of liturgical
life, and of balancing this with the challenge of serving the changing
world in the ways that we have mentioned. In today's world they are
called to look outward rather than inward, and whatever the circumstances
of their foundation, it is right to expect them to be centres of mission
as well as worship, with ministries of teaching, of service, of evangelism
and of witness.(19) |
| 8. |
Thanks to their long history, the Royal Peculiars have
a special role in relation to the Crown. As royal foundations, places
of royal burial and the location of coronations and royal and state
events, they carry the weight and dignity of tradition and are redolent
of the public and private symbolism of Monarchy. At a time when the
possibility of disestablishment is frequently discussed (though rarely
defined) and the Monarchy itself called into question, it may seem bold
to be upholding institutions which sit at the heart of the history of
the English Crown. The public doctrine of England in the twenty-first
century is not the same as the public doctrine of England in the Middle
Ages or under the Tudors. But a society which does not value its history
has lost something very precious. In this case the numbers of visitors,
and the emotional attachment which surrounds places like Windsor and
Westminster Abbey are alike proof of their continuing symbolic value.
|
| 9. |
The Deans and clergy of the Royal Peculiars must balance
the demands of their royal foundation and accountability with the changing
situation of the world around them and with the general mission and
ministry of the Church. For despite their independence of diocesan authority
they do not exist independently of the rest of the Church, nor would
they see themselves in that light. We value their independence. But
part of our aim has been to show that it is not incompatible with responsiveness
to the wider concerns of mission and Christian ministry in the Church
as a whole, and that the special status of Royal Peculiars does not
and should not stand in the way of the mutuality of support and responsibility
which the Archbishops' Commission identified as the desirable underpinning
of all Christian relationships.(20) |
| 10. |
We have noted many instances in which the principles
recommended for cathedrals have already been adopted in the governance
of the Royal Peculiars. They are already conscious for example of the
need for good management and employment practice, reliable financial
control, effective trading and management of visitors. We recommend
further moves in this direction, for example in the training of volunteers
and the review of staffing structures. We also believe that limited
tenure for Canons would be valuable, provided that it was combined with
effective appointment methods and responsibility for ongoing career
moves. And we accept the appropriateness for the Royal Peculiars of
the provision in the Cathedrals Measure 1999 for lay membership of Chapter.
None of this is in any way incompatible with their special and non-diocesan
status. |
| 11. |
In that the three institutions which we have considered
have different characteristics and differing situations, we have also
made a series of individual recommendations which take this into account.
The College of St. George is faced with financial problems and other
issues in which it differs from the Abbey, whereas the latter's exposure
lies at present in the area of public relations. |
| 12. |
It would be surprising indeed if there were no problems
of any kind to report, and we feel that the inclusion of lay membership
on Chapter will be an aid to these institutions in their strategic planning
for the future. But this still leaves the Deans and Chapters unduly
exposed, and without a mediating body short of direct appeal to the
Visitor. In today's world this is anomalous. It also exposes both the
Visitor and the Deans and Chapters to a high degree of risk. We therefore
asked ourselves how this could be reduced, and considered the model
of a cathedral council. However we preferred to recommend a shared Standing
Commission which we believe would be helpful to the Visitor and to all
the Royal Peculiars, and which would have the valuable role of providing
advice and encouragement. The Royal Peculiars have in common the facts
that they are royal and that they are peculiars. This would continue.
However in addition the institutions would benefit from this degree
of collaboration, mutual support and advice. |
| 13. |
Many of our recommendations could be adopted by the institutions
themselves without further ado. Others would require the action adopted
for similar changes in the past, Orders in Council or Royal Letters.
In two cases, those relating to the fabric and to clergy discipline,
the changes would have to be brought in by Measure. However in both
cases the existing Measures are under review or revision and the incorporation
of the Royal Peculiars would therefore be possible and timely. We hope
that the Deans themselves will recognise the thinking behind the recommendations
and that they will be willing to assist in their implementation. |
| 14. |
We offer our recommendations to the Deans of the Royal
Peculiars, who had the vision to petition The Queen for this Review,
and thus to see that it was appropriate. Their institutions have endured
for many centuries, and occupy a position invested with majesty deriving
from their royal connections. But in the twenty-first century majesty
cannot exist in separation. We commend the willingness of the Deans
to request this Review as an indication that they themselves define
their role not only in terms of majesty but also in terms of ministry
and service. |
| 15. |
Finally, we offer this Report and its recommendations
to The Queen, through the Lord Chancellor. We have learned much in the
course of preparing it about so-called 'establishment', that delicate
balance of custom, law and sentiment of which the Royal Peculiars are
such an intimate part. But we have learned above all that in common
with other great institutions resting on centuries of history, and with
the cathedrals that like them attempt to serve God and humanity, the
Peculiars also depend on the love and service of generations of people:
the kings and queens who have been their founders and patrons, those
who have ministered, those who have given to the buildings their artistry,
their music and their craftsmanship, and those who have come to look
and to worship. This is a heritage that should be loved and preserved.
|
Return to contents page