Nelson & His World

My letter of objection has been emailed today. I hope it's one of many. And that together they'll make the difference.

Mine went off yesterday. I received an email in reply from the Diocesan Administrator saying that no petition from the church had yet been received, but if and when one is received, they will write to me and tell me how to 'pursue my objections'.

Thanks again for all the support, and don't worry about the confusing canned response - objections do have to be in by the deadline tomorrow in anticipation of the church sending in their application for the disposal, but which they do not have to do until the end of the public notice period tomorrow! Barmy or what?

My letter went off so hopefully will add to the pile.

Just a few more thoughts. I would love to have seen the form and wording of the notice that was posted in the church and had the chance to compare it to the laid-down rules of notification. Not saying they might have got anything wrong but . . . . . . . . . . ! I only realised yesterday taht Selling is less than 10 miles from where my brother lives. If I had realised that earlier I would have asked him to go over and photograph it. But a bit late in the day for that now.

Whilst writing my letter to Mr Carew-Jones I started to wonder exactly what a Diocesan registrar is. Previous to this I would have assumed there to be a big centralised legal/administrative team for the CoE but apparently not. Each diocese seems to have their own registrar and in the case of Canterbury that is Mr Carew-Jones who works for the legal firm of Winckworth Sherwood.

The Diocese of Peterborough are kind enough to include the following information on their website:



This does not achieve anything per se, but I always feel that a little bit of additional knowledge is never a bad thing!!

In conclusion, wouldn't it be wonderful if Mr Carew-Jones was related in any way to Ben Hallowell Carew who was at the Nile with Nelson and only missed being at Trafalgar by a whisker!

MB

Well done, Tony, for all your sterling work in bringing this matter to wider attention. I shall be very surprised if the church's petition is successful. The church is very careful of its heritage. Now that the powers that be have been made aware of the significance of the flags, I think it is most unlikely that permission to sell them would be granted.

A visiting collector noticed that our small village church had a Burges font and offered to buy it for vast sums, and pay £10,000 for an identical replacement. The church was eager to sell as the roof needs repairing, but the need for funds wasn't considered pressing enough and permission was refused.

NB I originally typed 'Pugin' for 'Burges' but have edited for accuracy. I have also removed my negative comment on the item - a purely personal opinion.

Mark, here is the notice we think is posted in the church:

They actual notice might differ, if your brother would like to pop round tomorrow to check while it is still there!

Anna, one thing that really bothers me is that for the process to have got this far, the church must have made a preliminary application to the DAC (diocesan advisory council), and received no objection. How on earth could it have passed that stage if the DAC looked at it properly?

It would appear that appeals can be made, even if the diocese grants permission.

In the case of our village church, the diocese initially agreed to the sale of the font, but permission was revoked after a successful appeal by the Victorian Society. Maybe we should be prepared to initiate an appeals procedure if the Diocese grants permission for a sale.


http://www.heritageandhistory.com/conte ... -draycott/

Letter in the Daily Telegraph today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/lett ... hurch.html

Last day for objections!

Statement from St. Mary's Selling regarding Trafalgar flags

It has come to our attention that there has been considerable speculation regarding the Union flag and Austrian ensign, taken as prizes by Stephen Hilton, Master's Mate on HMS Minotaur, at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. These were later given to the Church by his descendants in 1930.

We can confirm that the flags will not be sold at auction or lost to the nation.

The Union Flag is the only flag of this type from Trafalgar remaining in the UK, and is therefore of national significance. The flags are also extremely fragile and are in need of extensive conservation work. So much so that we've been unable to display them since 1994.

In order to ensure their survival for this and future generations, we are currently in negotiations with the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, which holds the largest maritime collection in the world.

The Museum has both the expertise and resources to conserve and care for vulnerable objects such as the Selling flags. If the flags were to go to the Museum they would receive the care that they require and would be displayed in their forthcoming permanent gallery 'Nelson, Navy and Nation.' People from around the UK, and the world, will be able to see them and appreciate Kent's contribution to Nelson's great victory.

The National Maritime Museum holds the world's largest Nelsonic collection, including the uniform Nelson was wearing when fatally wounded at the Battle of Trafalgar.

They already have a collection of objects relating to the Minotaur, including Captain Mansfield's sword and medal as well as the original plans for the ship, which was built in Woolwich dockyard.

Thank you to St Mary’s Selling for making that statement above. I am greatly relieved that the church recognises the significance of these flags and commits to ensuring that they are not lost to the nation. That is wonderful news.

But the statement does leave a number of crucial questions unanswered, and I would be extremely grateful if the church could explain the following:

Why has the church entered into negotiations with the NMM without consulting the Hilton family? Surely this is of overriding importance? And why such sudden haste after seventeen years?

Has there been a full investigation into the possibility of retaining the flags in the church? Previous reports suggested this had not been given serious consideration. Has it been investigated fully since?

If display in the church has been fully investigated and is not possible, why is it not possible to locate these flags somewhere closer to Selling, such as Canterbury or Chatham? Have these options been fully investigated?

Do the negotiations with the NMM include an absolute guarantee that the flags will remain on permanent display?

In what way would the flags connection with the Hilton Chapel at St Mary’s be marked, both at the NMM and at St Mary’s? Would there be replica flags placed in the Hilton Chapel, and would the NMM guarantee to feature the connection prominently?

Do the negotiations with the NMM involve donating or selling the flags? Is a financial return to the church a factor in this proposed disposal?

Were these negotiations instigated by the church or by the NMM?

How long have the negotiations been under way?

Given that disposal to the NMM would be viewed more positively than disposal on the open market, why was this not disclosed before?

I have absolutely nothing against the National Maritime Museum, and I imagine that the NMM entered negotiations in good faith believing everything to be in order. My own family have loaned Captain Mansfield's Trafalgar sword & medal to the NMM (as mentioned in the church statement). If all else fails the NMM would be an excellent place to have the flags on display.

Of far greater importance than my questions above is the need for the Church of St Mary’s Selling now to consult with the Hilton family. The Hilton family has confirmed that they oppose the current proposal to sell or give the flags to the National Maritime Museum, and wishes to see the flags retained at Selling if at all possible. Why does the church not sit down and enter into discussions with the Hilton family in order to come to an amicable agreement on future plans for the flags?

Tony

I was pleased to see that the church exercised their "right of reply" as I intimated in Post 11.

Even though, as you say, it opens up a new raft of questions.

Specifically regarding the Hilton family - has anybody investigated any paperwork, documentation etc. that may have been raised when the flags were originally donated.

When I donated items to an archive there was a form to be filled in including a section to specify conditions attached to the donation.

I just happen to have close to hand the history of the church where I was once a chorister/server etc. (sweet thought I know!! ) It has 10 pages listing all manner of gifts of money and artefacts to the church over a one hundred year period. This information must have been easily extracted from the church records.

So what is in those same records for the church at Selling?

If no conditions were indeed attached then I guess it becomes a purely moral issue rather than in any way a legal one.

Anyway I just hope this angle has or will be investigated.

MB

The Church's statement that:

We can confirm that the flags will not be sold at auction or lost to the nation

is, of course, welcome, as is the involvement of the National Maritime Museum in their preservation. I note, however, that the statement does not make clear whether the transfer of the flags to the custody of the NMM will be a caretaker operation or a commercial transaction - in effect, will the flags be sold to the NMM? If this is what the church is negotiating then I feel it is incumbent upon them to make this clear. The flags were donated to the church in good faith that it would act as their custodian in perpetuity. If they cannot fulfil that obligation, then surely they should inform and consult the Hilton family, as others have said, before entering into negotiations, commercial or otherwise, with a third party.

In addition to my comments above, I should add that I understand the difficulties confronting many parish churches whose often tiny congregations have to maintain historic buildings and artefacts. However, in the case of the flags, the conservation of textiles that are of symbolic and associative, rather than intrinsic value should cost much less than an piece of skilled or unique embroidery. I imagine a few thousand pounds would be sufficient to mount the flags on a protective backing and frame them. I am sure many organisations such as the 1805 Club would have found it a fairly easy matter to raise the sums required and so relieve the church of the burden of doing so.

Theft is another problem that has afflicted churches, but I have seen notices in church porches warning potential thieves that stolen items are trackable. Several local churches have a rota of formidable ladies who provide a constant presence which deters thieves.

I do feel most strongly that every effort should be made to keep the flags in Selling, not simply because they are of particular interest to us. Many churches in the land are specially chosen recipients and custodians of artefacts of artistic or symbolic value, and something very vital is destroyed if these connections are eroded. The Parish Church in St Ives, for example, has a beautiful work donated by Barbara Hepworth in memory of her son who was killed serving with the RAF. Something would be lost, I think, if that piece were transferred to the Tate Gallery in St Ives. It might be an appropriate, even a worthy setting for it; but it is not the one chosen specially by the donor. The same argument applies to the Trafalgar flags.

In addition to my comments above, I should add that I understand the difficulties confronting many parish churches whose often tiny congregations have to maintain historic buildings and artefacts. However, in the case of the flags, the conservation of textiles that are of symbolic and associative, rather than intrinsic value should cost much less than repairing a piece of skilled or unique embroidery. I imagine a few thousand pounds would be sufficient to mount the flags on a protective backing and frame them. I am sure many organisations such as the 1805 Club would have found it a fairly easy matter to raise the sums required and so relieve the church of the burden of doing so.

Theft is another problem that has afflicted churches, but I have seen notices in church porches warning potential thieves that stolen items are trackable. Several local churches have a rota of formidable ladies who provide a constant presence which deters thieves.

I do feel most strongly that every effort should be made to keep the flags in Selling, not simply because they are of particular interest to us. Many churches in the land are specially chosen recipients and custodians of artefacts of artistic or symbolic value, and something very vital is destroyed if these connections are eroded. The Parish Church in St Ives, for example, has a beautiful work donated by the sculptor Barbara Hepworth in memory of her son who was killed serving with the RAF. Something would be lost, I think, if that piece were transferred to, say, the Tate Gallery in St Ives. It might be an appropriate, even a worthy setting for it; but it is not the one chosen specially by the donor. The same argument applies to the Trafalgar flags.