- I general see three shades of purple used by bishops. The first is a blue-purple, which is best described as blue with a hint of purple. It seems to beMessage 1 of 93 , Jul 12, 2010View SourceI general see three shades of purple used by bishops.
The first is a blue-purple, which is best described as blue with a hint of purple. It seems to be favoured by certain bishops for their shirts. You see it only rarely for cassocks.
The second is a red-purple which I associate with stocks and double-breasted cassocks made by Whippells and Almy. My eyes tend to read this as red with a hint of purple. This seems to be the moderate Anglican/Episcopal bishop's default colour.
The second is the pink-purple I associate with Watts & Co., and some of the Roman firms. It really is quite loud. My wife refers to it as Magenta, I tend to call it fuscia.
Of course, there is a myth that the churchmanship of an Anglican bishop can be deduced from the colour of his shirt. Basically the bluer the shirt the lower the bishop; the pinker the shirt, the higher. However, my observation is that the really Roman leaning types tend wear black.
(The Rt. Rev.) Peter D. Robinson, UECNA, Prescott, AZ
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ormonde Plater" <oplater@...> wrote:
> < In a friend's church blog there is a photo of a bishop in a cassock - now, what would you call the colour of that cassock? >
> Since the question came from England, I referred to Wippellâs catalog for âEpiscopal Wear,â where the color (or colour) of cassocks is described thus: âTwo shades of purple are offered in all materials, either the traditional red purple or alternatively blue purple.â In the photos, blue purple appears darker than red purple. See http://www.wippell.com/pdf_files/1245332084.pdf.
> Ormonde Plater
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- ... the ... Indeed. That is why the earlier Act was repealed. But it provides that such titles have no standing in law. ... become Lady. You have severalMessage 93 of 93 , Jul 20, 2010View SourceDouglas Cowling wrote:
> On 7/19/10 4:37 PM, "Simon Kershaw" <simon@...> wrote:the
>> No 'Bishop' is not a title, 'bishop' is the the name of an order within
>> threefold historic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons.Indeed. That is why the earlier Act was repealed. But it provides that
> Alas, even the Ecclesiastical Titles Act could not prevent Catholic bishops
> from assuming diocesan titles, although, with the exception of Westminster,
> the "papal aggressors" were careful to avoid the names of historic sees.
such titles have no standing in law.
> I think -- although the heat makes me forget -- that my original point isbecome "Lady."
> that English bishops should commit civil insurrection and not abandon
> episcopal titles in favour of a civil honour which lets their wives
You have several times made this point, and each time I have suggested to
you that you are arguing from a false premise. The episcopal title
('Bishop of X') is abandoned on retirement. The episcopal dignity or order
is not abandoned, and the former Bishop of Ely (who retired in January) is
quite likely to be addressed as Bishop Russell, or the Rt Revd Anthony
Russell, or whatever (and his wife as Mrs Russell).
In just a very few cases, which has customarily included the retired
archbishops, the Crown has bestowed a barony on the retiring pontiff, so
that they may continue to give the nation the benefit of their advice from
within the Upper House of Parliament.
> By the way, what do Welsh and Scottish bishops call themselves when theyThe same, I think, as English bishops -- Bishop Jones or Bishop Holloway,
> P.S. Someone on the list could introduce a topic of substance rather thanAre you possibly suggesting, Doug, that our little dance might mot be too
> leave Simon and me as the last dance team on the floor!
interesting to some of the assembly?
St Ives, Cambridgeshire