Talk:Royal peculiar

message: Wolverhampton ceased to be a Royal Peculiar in 1846.  I suspect that some of the others (added by an anonymous user) also have.  --RFBailey 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This shows how confusing the subject is; the diocesan page here shows Wolverhampton, and a few other places, as Royal Peculiars, and some ordinary Peculiars as well. Moonraker12 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolverhampton

message: Why is this article at Royal Peculiar and not at royal peculiar? Is the capitalisation some kind of royalist peculiarity? If there is no good reason for it, naming conventions suggest that we should use the latter capitalisation. — Gareth Hughes 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Royal Peculiar (both capitalized) is the way it is in all the sources I've seen. Moonraker12 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: The listing of historic, but not current, peculiars has been eliminated.82.43.116.249 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: The article for Temple Church links to this website as a source for the proposition that it is a royal peculiar: https://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk/inner-temple/history/temple-church/ 
The other source we have,  p. 61, says that it does not "appear to be" a royal peculiar, which sounds like the author is uncertain. I propose to amend the article to say that the Temple is a royal peculiar. After all, they should know. Richard75 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple Church 

message: I'm also having doubts about these chapels, for which the same source is cited, because they're not on this list at the Diocese of London website:  Richard75 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't questioning the source, only its interpretation in the case of Christ Church. The list of "Royal Peculiars and Extra Diocesan Churches" includes Temple Church (as a church) but (presumably) not extra diocesan chapels such as those of Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn. TSventon (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn chapels 

message: Christ Church, Bath is listed in this article as a peculiar, but it cites this article, which only says it's a proprietary chapel and then goes on to say "...sometimes known with slight amusement as a “Peculiar in Ordinary”..." So it probably doesn't belong on this list, and I think this whole list is now suspect. Richard75 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this document  is a bit more informative. They describe themselves as "Peculiar in ordinary" which they define as being outside the local parish system but under the bishops jursitriction. Christ Church is a privately owned chapel that is opened to the public. BTW - the Royal-peculiars are also proprietary chapels, however the priest  is under the juristriction of the monarch, hence not the local bishop, thus they are "peculiar". With Christ Church the priest is licenced by and is under the juristriction of the local bishop, therefore if the priest is under the juristriction of the local diocesan bishop, then it is not a peculiar. If the chapel owners have rights over the choice of priest then it could be classed as an Advowson. I think that we should keep Christ Church, Bath in the list but have a note of explanation. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Christ Church, Bath