Talk:Proprietary chapel

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

The entry lists "Notable historical" churches and then "a number of lively Anglican churches". Two of the three listed "historical" chapels are still proprietary. Is a distinction being made between "historical" churches and "lively Anglican churches"? Who decided the churches in the second list are lively, and the ones in the first are not? Is it the personal judgement of the author, or should there be a reference? Wouldn't it be better to give a list of current and former proprietary chapels? 90.193.109.70 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The amendments that I have recently made to the article are a step in this direction, though I had not seen this 'Talk' item. The distinction is being brought out between the few proprietary chapels that function as Anglican churches (usually strongly Evangelical in their outlook, but not always), and others which are redundant or are now parish churches. So far as I am aware the status of St Mary's Reading is unique, as a chapel which was a functioning Anglican church, but now owes allegiance to the Anglican Church (Continuing). As it is privately owned, its trustees are free to do this.Ntmr (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article; and illustration

Should the picture of the chapel in Can Papiol Romanticism Museum not be REMOVED? The entry deals with the rather unusual Anglican phenomenon of the Proprietary Chapel, not private chapels generally. Numerous large houses have private chapels intended for the use of the household: family, servants, etc. I have come across many, both Anglican and Roman Catholic, in the UK, and in historic houses across Europe. The essence of a 'Proprietary Chapel' is that it is privately owned, but open to the general public for worship. Usually this was principally for subscribers, although sometimes (as in St John's, Chichester) there would be free places available for poor local inhabitants: this may indeed have been a common practice. 'Private' ownership is possibly even a misnomer, as although these chapels may have been owned by an individual originally, those that have survived have become owned by trustees on charitable trusts (viz. the advancement of religion). A proprietary chapel is therefore in many respects more akin to a public place of worship than to a private chapel, in the usual sense. The definition in the opening sentence probably needs clarification: do others agree? Ntmr (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has suggested why the picture of the Can Papiol Chapel should be considered relevant it has been removed.Ntmr (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]