Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2026: 120, Saturday 5 September 2026

‘While Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain’ (Luke 6: 1, NRSV) … walking through the fields along Comberford Lane between Wigginton and Comberford in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Patrick Comerford

We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and tomorrow is the Festival of Creation in Christ or the Fourteenth Sunday after Trinity (Trinity XIV, 6 September 2026).

This weekend includes the Festal Weekend in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford, coming between the Feast of Saint Giles (1 September) and the Feast of the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary (8 September). There are children’s activities in the church this morning, a Festal Eucharist tomorrow morning, and Calverton Fete at All Saints’ Church, Calverton, tomorrow afternoon.

Later this morning, I hope to go to Το Στεκι Μασ / Our Place, the ‘pop-up’ coffee shop in the Greek Orthodox Church in Stony Stratford, from 10:30 to 3 pm today. Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:

1, today’s Gospel reading;

2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;

3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;

4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.

‘While Jesus was going through the cornfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain’ (Luke 6: 1, NRSVA) … cornfields near Lismore, Co Waterford (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Luke 6: 1-5 (NRSVA):

6 One sabbath while Jesus was going through the cornfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, ‘Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’ 3 Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?’ 5 Then he said to them, ‘The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.’

The 12 loaves of shewbread or Bread of the Presence depicted in a fresco in the 17th century Kupa Synagogue in Kraków (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Today’s Reflections:

There are two minor details that continue to puzzle me about today’s Gospel reading (Luke 6: 1-5).

On this Saturday morning, I am slightly puzzled about the timing or the day when this event takes place. The NRSV and NIV translations refer to ‘one sabbath’, although footnotes explain that other ancient authorities read ‘on the second first sabbath.’ The KJV and similar translations refer to ‘the second sabbath after the first’.

But the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, and the phrase in question, ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ (en sabbáto deuteropróto) only exists in the Textus Receptus, a later text, and not in the earlier manuscripts or the critical versions. The phrase is omitted by many manuscripts, including the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.

In any case, what day did this event occur on?

When was ‘the second first sabbath’ or ‘the second sabbath after the first’?

Is the second sabbath after the first not the third sabbath?

Because the Greek word δευτερόπρωτος (deuteróprotos) is limited to Luke 6: 1, it is not found in all the manuscripts – or in other, contemporary Greek texts – and it is difficult to define and it is impossible to agree on its meaning.

One suggestion is that it refers to the Sabbath following the first day of Passover or Pascha, the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Some of the other efforts to provide explanations include:

• the first Sabbath in the second year of a seven-year cycle comprising the period from one Sabbatical year to the other;
• the first Sabbath after the second day of Passover;
• the second Sabbath after the Passover has taken place;
• the first of the seven Sabbaths the people were to ‘count unto’ themselves from ‘the morrow after the sabbath’ until Pentecost (see Leviticus 23: 15);
• the first Sabbath in the Jewish religious calendar of the time – about the middle of March;
• the Sabbath during Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks;
• the first Sabbath in the civil year – about the middle of September;
• the Sabbath for the presentation of the second offering of the first fruits;
• or, simply, some ‘technical expression of the Jewish calendar’ – without asking or explaining what that may be.

Indeed, the term δευτερόπρωτος (deuteroprotos) is an awkward, clunky combination of the words δεύτερος (deuteros, ‘second’) and πρω̑τος (protos, ‘first’). Its use may point to unskilful work and textual emendations on the part of copyists. If so, then it is not necessary to try to unravel this conundrum.

The phrase has confounded scholars from as early as the fourth century, when Jerome, in a letter to Nepotianus, confesses that he consulted Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, and was unable to determine what the phrase meant:

‘My teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus, when I once asked him to explain Luke’s phrase σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, that is ‘the second-first Sabbath,’ playfully evaded my request saying: ‘I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, everyone will put you down for a fool’ (Jerome, Letter LII, 2).

I suppose I may simply accept it is not essential that we know the precise meaning of this calendar term. It is more important to get to the heart of what this story is about.

The second minor detail that continues to puzzle me about today’s Gospel reading is why Luke’s account does not include a peculiar detail in Saint Mark’s version of this event (Mark 2: 23-30).

In Saint Mark’s account, Jesus and his disciples are criticised for ‘harvesting grain’ on the Sabbath. They are simply plucking some heads of grain to munch on as they walk through a grainfield (verse 23). When the disciples are challenged about what they are doing on the Sabbath, Jesus cites an event in I Samuel 21: 1-6, and refers to a time when ‘Abiathar was high priest’.

In that event, David and his men ate the 12 loaves of shewbread from the tabernacle in Nob. David approaches Ahimelech the priest in Nob and asks for food for his men They were on the run from King Saul, but David keeps that fact from Ahimelech. Ahimelech gives David some of the ‘bread of the Presence’ (verse 6) and then, at David’s request, he gives him Goliath’s sword, which was being kept in Nob (verses 8-9).

Later, when Saul summons the priests to Gibeah to question them, Ahimelech is the priests’ spokesperson (I Samuel 22: 6-14). The passage implies that Ahimelech is the chief priest during the time David fled from Saul. Abiathar fled to join David and served as his priest all through David’s years of wandering and exile. He was appointed high priest after David became king, and he shared the high priesthood with Zadok, Saul’s appointee, until David’s death.

Neither Matthew (Matthew 12: 1-8) nor Luke mention Abiathar. Did Matthew and Luke eliminate the reference to Abiathar, realising there was an error in the original source?

To explain why in Saint Mark’s account Jesus refers to Abiathar as the high priest, several theories are put forward, although each one is equally tortuous and difficult. They include:

• Since Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, it is possible that both men took part in high priestly duties.
• Abiathar was more closely associated with David than Ahimelech and was a long-time high priest during David’s reign.
• Abiathar, being present in Nob when David visited the tabernacle, is called the ‘high priest’ in anticipation of his future title.

Each explanation is eager to avoid accepting a literal reading of the conflicting or irreconcilable texts. To accept that there is a conflict between the passages means accepting that I Samuel is wrong, that Mark’s text is wrong, or that Jesus has made an historical error.

In addition, this event took place not in ‘the house of God’ (verse 4), for the Temple in Jerusalem had not yet been built, but in ‘the Tent of Meeting’.

It is interesting that the people who are most likely to refuse a literal exegesis of one or both passages are those who are most likely, in a very contradictory way, to demand a very literal exegesis of their own concoction when it comes to their interpretation of passages, for example, on sexuality.

Is it any coincidence that these self-styled ‘conservative evangelicals’ are also those most likely to reject a literal exegesis of the Eucharistic passages in the New Testament?

Both Jesus and the Pharisees regard the decision to provide the shewbread as righteous on the part of both Jesus and the Pharisees.

The important points in this reading are not in the debate over the day on which the events took place, nor are they to be found in debating who knew who was once the high priest and when.

The important points in this morning’s reading are that the Sabbath is most sacred when it is about God and about people rather than about the minutiae of interpreting rules and regulations. And one of the most important emphases in Jesus’ ministry is to feed the hungry: the physically hungry with bread, and the spiritually hungry with him as the true Bread of Presence, the Bread of Life.

‘While Jesus was going through the cornfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain’ (Luke 6: 1, NRSVA) … cornfields near Stoke Bruerne, Northamptonshire, with the tower of Saint Mary’s Church in the background (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Today’s Prayers (Saturday 5 September 2026):

In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week, from 30 August to 5 September 2026 (pp 34-35), has been ‘Anglican Youth Tackle Waste in Madagascar’. This theme was introduced last Sunday with a Programme Update by Ialy Tongasoa, Community Development Lead, Diocese of Toliara, Madagascar.

The USPG Prayer Diary today (Saturday 5 September 2026) invites us to pray:

Lord, may this initiative continue to grow, reaching more parishes and bringing hope, care, and practical solutions to Madagascar and across the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean.

The Collect:

Almighty God,
who called your Church to bear witness
that you were in Christ reconciling the world to yourself:
help us to proclaim the good news of your love,
that all who hear it may be drawn to you;
through him who was lifted up on the cross,
and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

The Post Communion Prayer:

God our creator,
you feed your children with the true manna,
the living bread from heaven:
let this holy food sustain us through our earthly pilgrimage
until we come to that place
where hunger and thirst are no more;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Additional Collect:

Almighty God,
you search us and know us:
may we rely on you in strength
and rest on you in weakness,
now and in all our days;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Collect on the Eve of the festival of Creation in Christ:

Holy and eternal God,
you are the Maker of heaven and earth,
you are the Word through whom all things were made,
and you are the Spirit, the giver of life:
draw us into the mystery of your love,
that with all creation we may proclaim your praise,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

or:

O God and Father of all that was, is and ever shall be,
help us to be thankful for all that is made
at the hands of your Son
and through the wisdom of your Spirit,
that we may care in heart and in deed for the life of our world,
to the praise and glory of your holy name.

Yesterday’s reflections

Continued tomorrow

‘While Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain’ (Luke 6: 1, NRSV) … walking through the fields in Comberford, Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org

‘While Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain’ (Luke 6: 1, NRSV) … walking through the fields along Cross in Hand Lane near Lichfield (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Rutland’s struggles to survive as England’s smallest county, but it has its rivals, including London, Bristol … and Lichfield

Rutland’s name and fame have spread far beyond its small size … the Rutland Fountain in Merrion Square, Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Patrick Comerford

I was musing earlier this week (31 August 2026) on which is the smallest state in Europe, recalling my visits to the Vatican City, San Marino, Malta, Cyprus and the tiny territory of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta,and even stepping on the steps of the former supreme court of Andorra, albeit in French sovereign territory.

In a similar vein, I have sometimes wondered what is the smallest county in England. I have some of the places that make that claim, and as I was researching Monday’s posting on Europe’s micronation, I came across a feature in The Guardian last week (26 August 2026) on how Rutland’s council is due to merge with Leicestershire in 2028 and how some local people are incensed. Lucy Knight asked whether the county can hold on to its ceremonial status.

But is Rutland still the smallest county? Well, that all depends on which list of counties you work from and how you define a county.

The Historic Counties Trust lists 39 English counties, there are 48 ceremonial counties, 84 metropolitan (6) and non-metropolitan (78) counties, and the 48 former postal counties from 1974 to 1996, making England a confusing patchwork of administrative counties, ceremonial counties, postal counties and unitary authority areas.

England’s counties are the source of much regional pride, not least when it comes to cricket. To identify with Yorkshire, Devon or Northumbria is to invite certain expectations about your forthright views or your fondness for cider and clog-dancing. The historic counties continue to be the basis for county cricket teams. Sussex and Yorkshire, for example, continue to be widely recognised as cultural regions, significant in sport and used by many organisations as regional units.

Although Middlesex dates back to the eighth century, Middlesex County Council was abolished in 1965. Yet Middlesex County Cricket Club, and Middlesex University live on, and so too does the historic county of Middlesex, even though most of its inhabitants now live in the ceremonial county of Greater London.

Middlesex has disappeared as a county, but the Fitzrovia Chapel survives as the former chapel of the Middlesex Hospital (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

A major reform and reorganisation of local government in 1974 redrew the map of England and introduced metropolitan counties such as Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the West Midlands. Administrative counties and county boroughs were abolished, England, with the exception of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly, was divided into two types of counties: metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties.

Several counties, such as Cumberland, Herefordshire, Rutland, Westmorland and Worcestershire, vanished from the administrative map, while new entities such as Avon, Cleveland, Cumbria and Humberside appeared, in addition to the six new metropolitan counties.

A review of local government structures led to the Rutland, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire being restored as administrative areas in the 1990s, while Avon, Cleveland and Humberside were abolished less than 25 years after their creation. Traditional borders were restored between Somerset and Gloucestershire (except at Bristol), County Durham and Yorkshire (towards the mouth of the River Tees, but not in Teesdale), and Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

The case of Huntingdonshire was considered twice, but the commission found that ‘there was no exceptional county allegiance to Huntingdonshire, as had been perceived in Rutland and Herefordshire’.

The Duke of Rutland depicted on the Rutland Fountain in Merrion Square, Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Rutland is a ceremonial county in the East Midlands, described by Lucy Knight in The Guardian as a pocket between Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, and she repeats the claim it ‘is often considered to be England’s smallest county’.

If we go by the list of historic counties, Rutland is the smallest with a total area of 382 sq km (147 sq miles), and an estimated population of just over 41,000. It has the second-smallest population for a ceremonial county after the City of London.

Rutland is a rural county, and the only towns are Oakham in the west and Uppingham in the south. Rutland is so small that I only remember passing through it on a train between Cambridge and Birmingham that stopped at Oakham.

But despite its size, the name of Rutland has spread far and wide: Parnell Square, one of the oldest Georgian square in Dublin, was laid out in 1753-1785 as Rutland Square, and kept that name until 1933. Charles Manners, Duke of Rutland, was a popular Viceroy of Ireland until he died on 24 October 1787 at the Vice-Regal Lodge in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, now Áras an Uachtaráin, the official residence of the President of Ireland. His memory lives on in the names of Rutland Street, Rutland Place and Granby Row, Dublin, Rutland House and Rutland Street in Limerick, and the Rutland Fountain, an imposing monument in Merrion Square, Dublin, and a second Rutland Fountain in James’s Street, Dublin.

Rutland became a non-metropolitan district of Leicestershire in legislation that took effect in 1974. Under plans for local government reorganisation announced in July 2026, Rutland is about to become part of a new unitary authority area, Leicestershire and Rutland.

The City of London measures just 2.9 sq km, making it the smallest ceremonial county in England (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

But if we rely on the list of ceremonial counties, then the smallest county in England is the City of London, which includes Saint Paul’s Cathedral, Fleet Street, the Bank of England and the Stock Exchange. It is often known as ‘the Square Mile’, measures just 2.9 sq km (1.12 sq miles) and is the smallest ceremonial county in England and the smallest city in the UK by area.

Although more than half a million people work in the City of London, it has a population of only 8,583 people.

Surrounded by the modern ceremonial county of Greater London, the City is a unique local authority area governed by the City of London Corporation, which is led by the Lord Mayor of London, not to be confused with the elected Mayor of London. It is also part of the Greater London Authority, which shares local government powers in the region with the councils of 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation. However, it does not include two historic liberties, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple, enclaves within the City of London.

Tyne and Wear, including Newcastle, Gateshead and Sunderland, is 540 sq km (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

If the City of London is removed from the debate, the ceremonial county of Bristol must be taken into account. It measures 110 sq km (42 sq miles) and was part of the county of Avon from 1974 to 1996, but then returned to being an independent county.

The Isle of Wight is usually regarded as part of Hampshire, but is also a ceremonial county and a unitary authority. It has a land area of 380 sq km (146.7 sq miles), so it is marginally smaller than Rutland, but larger than Bristol and much larger than the ceremonial county of the City of London.

Tyne and Wear, including Newcastle, Gateshead and Sunderland, is 540 sq km (210 sq miles); Merseyside, including Liverpool and the Wirrall, is 652 sq km (252 sq miles); and the West Midlands, including Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton, is 902 sq km (348 sq miles).

St Neots is the largest town in Huntingdonshire, now a local government district in Cambridgeshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

All are smaller in area than Huntingdonshire, historically a county in its own right and also, at times, claimed as the smallest county in England. Huntingdonshire has an area of 918 sq km (354.3 sq miles) and boundaries dating from Anglo-Saxon times. It became an administrative county in 1889. It was merged in 1965, with the Soke of Peterborough to form Huntingdon and Peterborough, which in turn was merged with Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely in 1974 to form Cambridgeshire. Huntingdonshire is now a local government district in Cambridgeshire, and St Neots (33,410) is the largest town.

Cambridgeshire also incorporates the Isle of Ely and the Liberty of Peterborough, each of which was treated as a separate county in legislation in the 19th century.

The Isle of Ely in Cambridgeshire was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Ely from 1109 to 1837. From 1889 to 1965, it was an administrative county of about 970 sq km (374.5 sq miles). The Soke of Peterborough, associated with the City and Diocese of Peterborough, was part of Northamptonshire but was had its own county council. The Soke, also known as the Liberty of Peterborough, was abolished in 1965.

We might also consider the shires that were never counties. Large exclaves affected by legislation in 1844 included the County Durham exclaves of Islandshire, Bedlingtonshire and Norhamshire, later treated as hundreds of Northumberland.

Lichfield became a city and county, separate from Staffordshire, in a charter from Queen Mary I in 1553 and remained so until 1888 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

But, of course, one of the smallest counties that ever existed, at least in name and with its own sheriff, from the mid-16th century and that will always be my favourite is Lichfield, one of only 18 towns and cities in England to have held county corporate status in the past. A charter from Queen Mary I in 1553 made Lichfield a ‘City and a County’, separate from the rest of Staffordshire, and it remained so for 335 years until 1888.

Richard II gave a charter in 1387 for the foundation of the Guild of Saint Mary and Saint John the Baptist, which effectively exercised the function of local government in Lichfield until it was dissolved by Edward VI, who incorporated the town in 1548, vesting its government in two bailiffs and 24 burgesses.

The corporation established in 1548 probably acquired legal rights to the surrounding land, but the line of the boundary at that date is uncertain. The charter states merely that the limits of the city and its suburbs ‘should extend as far as in times past they have been reputed and considered to extend’.

Queen Mary I’s charter in 1553 repeated this formula. She granted the charter in 1553, the first year of her reign, as a reward thanking the citizens and bailiffs of Lichfield for their loyalty and support during the Duke of Northumberland’s attempt to block her accession to the throne.

The charter separated Lichfield administratively from Staffordshire, making it a county of itself until it was reincorporated into Staffordshire in 1888. The charter also created the ancient office of the Sheriff of Lichfield, and the city remains one of the few towns in England that still appoints to this ancient office.

Queen Mary I’s charter to Lichfield in 1553 … it remained a city and county until 1888

The City and County of Lichfield extended to an area of about 14 sq km (5.4 sq miles), which is larger than the City of London, but smaller than, say, Bristol, the Isle of Wight or Rutland. The area of the Lichfield City remained so until 1934, when it was enlarged to 14.56 sq km with the addition of part of Streethay on the east, and there have been further adjustments to the boundaries since then.

The charter stated that Lichfield ‘should be a city and county of itself, for ever, and not parcel of Staffordshire. That there should be one sheriff of the city and county of Lichfield, to be chosen on the feast of St Thomas’.

The charter required the newly appointed sheriff to ride the boundaries of the city and county, a distance of 16 to 20 miles, every year on the Saturday nearest 8 September, the Feast of the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to inspect and enforce the borders. This tradition continues today through the Lichfield City Council events, and the Sheriff’s Ride this year takes place next Saturday, 5 September 2026.

There was no Earl of Comberford in Hopwas in the 16th century, but a Regency blockbuster has a fictious Earl of Cumberford

The Earl of Cumberford is a fictional character in the Regency romance novel ‘Contrary Cousins’ (1981) by Judith Harkness

Patrick Comerford

When I was walking around Hopwas in one of my recent treks through the countryside in Staffordshire, I came across a blog posting from 2010 on ‘Tamworth Time Hikes’ in which a blogger, writing about the Woodhouse in Hopwas Wood back in 2010, said the house was ‘probably built on orders of the Marquess of Donegal around 1750 for use as a hunting lodge and retreat, being close to his Fisherwick estate.’

The blogger goes on to claim: ‘Local hearsay reports that there was a site here as far back as 1540, from the wife of the earl of Comberford, I cannot confirm any of this but its [sic] worth investigating.’

Of course, the blogger could never have confirmed any of this. The family of the Marquess of Donegall owned Comberford Hall in the 18th century, and before them the Comberford family owned large tracts of Hopwas, which is west of Comberford, on the road between Lichfield and Tamworth.

But there never was an Earl of Comberford, nor was there a Countess of Comberford who built the Woodhouse in Hopwas in the mid-16th century. Much as the conceited side of my inner personality might delight in the prospect of inheriting such a title, the nearest there ever was to an Earl of Comberford is a fictional character in a blockbuster or ‘chick-lit’ novel by the American romantic fiction writer Judith Harkness.

’A Mapp of Staffordshire with its Hundreds’ by Richard Blome (1715) names Comberford as Cumberford

The spelling ‘Cumberford’ is used on the Comberford family monument erected by Joseph Comerford in the Comberford Chapel in Saint Editha’s Church, Tamworth, in 1725. Ten years earlier, Richard Blome’s ‘A Mapp of Staffordshire with its Hundreds’ (1715) is unusual in tilting Staffordshire, viewing it from south to north on a left-to-right axis. Like many maps of the name, it spells Comberford as ‘Cumberford’. The same spelling was used 20 years before that in Robert Morden’s map, ‘Staffordshire’, for Camden’s Britannia (1695). Reviewers claim Judith Harkness often makes historical errors in her English settings. But, at least in her spelling of this fictitious aristocrat’s title she is not being entirely unhistorical.

The Earl of Cumberford is a fictional character in her Regency romance novel Contrary Cousins (1981), and she portrays him as a pompous English nobleman who detests the American branch of his family. Cumberford hates his American relatives and when his nieces arrive in London, the romantic comedy begins. When the Powell cousins take London society by storm, Cumberford is livid with rage. Lady Pendleton was certain her plan would succeed, for lively Antonia was irresistibly pretty, and Serena merely required the attentions of a first-rate dressmaker and a more confident manner to attract the notice of London’s most eligible bachelors.

But if Lady Pendleton could have foreseen how well her scheme would work and just which lords would soon be courting her charges in earnest, she would never have let Antonia and Serena off the boat from America.

Judith Harkness paints the fashionable world of Regency England, when styles were dictated by Beau Brummel, the Duchess of Devonshire held court, and dandies paraded in their phaetons and four. Groomed by their mothers to capture the hearts of the most eligible bachelors of the day, fashionable young ladies passed the Season in London and at Bath, where they were presented at a string of assemblies and balls in their finery and feathers.

Brimming with period detail, Contrary Cousins was written to appeal to readers who enjoy a good, old-fashioned romantic caper in the tradition of Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer.

Judith Harkness is the author of five classic Regency romances: The Montague Scandal, The Admiral’s Daughter, The Determined Bachelor, Contrary Cousins, and Lady Charlotte’s Ruse, all originally published by Signet. She is the co-author of a screenplay, Emma in New York, an updated version of the classic Jane Austen novel set in contemporary Manhattan.

As JH Richardson, Judith Harkness also writes non-fiction on subjects ranging from children with learning and developmental issues to profiles of notable creative artists. She lives in Rhode Island with her husband, Will Taft.

The Woodhouse in Hopwas was also known as Hopwas Hayes Lodge and was built in 1730 by Zachary Babington

As for the Woodhouse in Hopwas, it was also known known as Hopwas Hayes Lodge. It was built in 1730 by Zachary Babington (1690-1745) as part of the Fisherwick estate. It was situated on the highest part of Hopwas Wood.

Zachary Babington was a barrister and was High Sheriff of Staffordshire in 1713 and 1724. He was the son of John Babington (High Sheriff in 1702), and was named after his grandfather, the Revd Canon Dr Zachary Babington (1549-1613), Chancellor of Lichfield Cathedral and Master of Saint John’s Hospital. He was distantly related to Anthony Babington, who in 1586 was hung, drawn and quartered on Tower Hill for his role in the Babington Plot to put Mary Queen of Scots, on the English throne.

Although there never was an Earl of Comberford, it is here we find a link with the Comberford family: Zachary’s grandfather, Humphrey Babington, married one of three sisters who jointly became heiresses to the vast Beaumont estates, including Wednesbury:

• Jane or Joan Beaumont, the eldest daughter, married William Babington of Teremore;
• Dorothy Beaumont, the second daughter and co-heir, married Humphrey Comberford of Comberford, Staffordshire;
• Eleanor Beaumont, the youngest daughter, married William Babington’s brother Humphrey Babington of Rothley Temple, Leicestershire.

The grandson of Canon Zachary Babington, the younger Zachary Babington, lived at Curborough Hall, near Lichfield, and later at Whittington Old Hall. His daughter Mary married Theophilus Levett, town clerk of Lichfield, and so the Levett family inherited the Babington estates at Curborough and Packington, including the Woodhouse.

The Woodhouse was altered in the 19th and 20th centuries, but it fell into disrepair and was demolished in 2010.

The Earl of Cumberford is a fictional character in a novel by Judith Harkness

Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2026: 73, Sunday 19 July 2026, Seventh Sunday after Trinity (Trinity VII)

‘There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew 13: 42) … Gnasher and Gnipper in the ‘Beano’ always seemed ready to gnash their teeth

Patrick Comerford

We are in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and today is the Seventh Sunday after Trinity (Trinity VII, 19 July 2026). Later this morning I hope to take part in the Parish Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles, Stony Stratford, singing with the choir and reading the first lesson.

Having stayed up last night to see England beat France 6-4 for third place in the World Cup, there are two interesting sporting events attracting my attention later today: the All-Ireland hurling final between Limerick and Galway this afternoon, and the World Cup final between Argentina and Spain this evening. But, before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:

1, reading today’s Gospel reading;

2, a short reflection;

3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;

4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.

A field ready for the harvest off Cross in Hand near Lichfield (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Matthew 13: 24-30, 36-43 (NRSVA):

24 He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. 27 And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” 28 He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” 29 But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. 30 Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn”.’

36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.’ 37 He answered, ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!’

Fields of green close to Comberford village, between Tamworth and Lichfield in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Today’s Reflections:

In my imagination, when I was a child, not only were the summers long and sunny, but weekend entertainment was simpler and less complicated. The highlights of the weekend seemed to be Dr Who and Dixon of Dock Green, and the weekly editions of the Eagle and the Beano.

I may have been just a little too old (16) for the first appearance of Gnasher (1968), the pet dog of Dennis the Menace in the Beano. The G- tagged onto the beginning of the name of both Gnasher and his son Gnipper is pronounced silently, just like the silent P at the beginning of Psmith, the Rupert Psmith in so many PG Wodehouse novels.

Most of the Beano speech bubbles for both Gnasher and Gnipper consist of normal English words beginning with the letter ‘N’ with a silent ‘G’ added to the beginning, as in ‘Gnight, Gnight.’

I was a little too old for the introduction of Gnasher, but nonetheless my friends in my late teens and early 20s loved Gnasher and Gniper, joked about those silent ‘Gs’ and even recalled how as children we had joked about ‘weeping and G-nashing of teeth.’

There is very little to joke about in today’s Gospel reading (Matthew 13: 36-43). The idea of people being thrown into the furnace of fire is not a very appealing image for children, and so to joke about it is a childhood method of coping.

But throughout history, humanity has stooped to burn what we dislike and what we want to expunge, and we have done it constantly.

We have been burning books as Christians since Saint Athanasius ordered the burning of texts in Alexandria in the year 367 CE. In the Middle Ages, and sometimes even later, we burned heretics at the stake. When that stopped, we burned anything deemed to be an occasions of sin.

They were burned publicly as an accompanying theme for the outdoor sermons of San Bernardino da Siena in the early 15th century. These included mirrors, cosmetics, fine dresses, playing cards … even musical instruments, and, of course, books, song sheets, artworks, paintings and sculpture. In his sermons, the book-burning friar regularly called for Jews and gays to be either isolated from society or eliminated from the human community.

Later in Florence, the supporters of Savonarola collected and publicly burned thousands of objects, including cosmetics, art, and books in 1497.

On the other hand, Franz Kafka’s last request to his friend Max Brod in 1921 was to ‘burn all my diaries, letters, manuscripts … completely and unread'.

But, more recently, the Nazis staged regular book burnings, especially burning books by Jewish writers, including Thomas Mann, Karl Marx and Albert Einstein.

Extremists of all religious and political persuasions want to burn the symbols and totems of their opponents, whether it is Pastor Terry Jones burning the Quran and effigies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in Florida or jihadists burning the Twin Towers in New York.

The limits of our extremists seem to be defined by their inflammatory words.

But who is being burned in this morning’s Gospel reading?

Who is doing the burning?

And who will be weeping and gnashing their teeth?

Contrary to many shoddy reading of this Gospel reading, Christians are not asked to burn anyone or anything at all. And, if we have enemies, we are called not to burn them but to love them.

Christ has been speaks by the lake first to the crowd, telling them the parable of the wheat and the weeds (verse 24-30). The word that we have traditionally translated as tares or weeds (verses 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40) is the Greek word ζιζάνια (zizania), a type of wild rice grass, although Saint Matthew is probably referring to a type of darnel or noxious weed. It looks like wheat until the plants mature and the ears open, and the seeds are a strong soporific poison.

Christ then withdraws into a house, and has a private conversation with the Disciples (verses 36-43), in which he explains he is the sower (verse 37), the good seed is not the Word, but the Children of the Kingdom (verse 38), the weeds are the ‘Children of the Evil One’ (verse 38), and the field is the world (verse 38).

The harvest is not gathered by the disciples or the children of the kingdom, but by angels sent by the Son of Man (verses 39, 41).

It is an apocalyptic image, describing poetically and dramatically a future cataclysm, and not an image to describe what should be happening today.

It is imagery that draws on the apocalyptic images in the Book of Daniel, where the three young men who are faithful to God are tried in the fires of the furnace, yet come out alive, stronger and firmer in their faith (see Daniel 3: 1-10).

The slaves or δοῦλοι (douloi), the people who want to separate the darnel from the wheat (verse 27-28), are the disciples: Saint Paul introduces himself in his letters with phrases like Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Paul, a doulos or slave, or servant of Jesus Christ), (see Romans 1: 1, Philippians 1: 1, Titus 1: 1), and the same word is used by James (see James 1: 1), Peter (see II Peter 1: 1) and Jude (see Jude 1) to introduce themselves in their letters.

In the Book of Revelation, this word is used to describe the Disciples and the Church (see Revelation 1: 1; 22: 3).

In other words, the Apostolic writers see themselves as slaves in the field, working at Christ’s command in the world.

This is one of eight parables about the last judgment that are found only in Saint Matthew’s Gospel, and six of the seven New Testament uses of the phrase ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων) occur in this Gospel (Matthew 8: 12; 13: 42; 13: 50; 22: 13; 24: 51; and 25: 30; see also Luke 13: 28).

When it comes to explaining the parable to the disciples in today’s reading (verses 36-43), the earlier references to the slaves in the first part (verses 27-28) are no longer there. It is not that the slaves have disappeared – Christ is speaking directly to those who would want to uproot the tares but who would find themselves uprooting the wheat too.

The weeding of the field is God’s job, not ours. The reapers, not the slaves, will gather in both the weeds and the wheat, the weeds first and then the wheat (verse 30).

Farmers are baling the hay and taking in the harvest in many places already. In a few weeks’ time, many farmers will be seen burning off the stubble on their fields to prepare the soil for autumn sowing and the planting of new crops. In this sense, the farmer understands burning as purification and preparation – it is not as harsh as city dwellers think.

It is not for us to decide who is in and who is out in Christ’s field, in the kingdom of God. That is Christ’s task alone.

Christ gently cautions the Disciples against rash decisions about who is in and who is out. Gently, he lets them see that the tares are not damaging the growth of the wheat, they just grow alongside it and amidst it.

But so often we decide to assume God’s role. We do it constantly in society, and we do it constantly in the Church, deciding who should be in and who should be out.

The harvest comes at the end of time, not now, and I should not hasten it even if the reapers seem to tarry.

The weeds we identify and want to uproot may turn out to be wheat, what we presume to be wheat because it looks like us may turn out to be weeds.

We assume the role of the reapers every time we decide we would be better off without someone in our society or in the Church because we disagree with them about issues like sexuality, women bishops and priests, and other issues that we mistake for core values.

The core values, as Christ himself explains, again and again, are loving God and loving others.

It is not without good reason that the Patristic writers warn that schism is worse than heresy (see Saint John Chrysostom, Patrologia Græca, vol. lxii, col. 87, On Ephesians, Homily 11, §5). We do not need to demythologise this morning’s reading. Christ leaves that to the future. This morning we are called to grow and not to worry about the tares. That growth must always emphasise love first.

When some members of the Church have sought to ‘out’ or ‘throw out’ people because of their sexuality, they have caused immense personal tragedy for individuals and their families and friends – weeping and gnashing of teeth indeed.

When I want a Church or society that looks like me, I eventually end up living on a desert island or as a member of a sect of one – and there I might just find out too how unhappy I am with myself!

But if I allow myself to grow in faith and trust and love with others, I may, I just may, to my surprise, find that they too are wheat rather than weeds, and they may discover the same about me.

‘The field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom’ (Matthew 13: 38) … fields of green off Comberford Lane, between Wigginton and Comberford in south Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Today’s Prayers (Sunday 19 July 2026, Trinity VII):

In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week, from 19 to 25 July 2026 (pp 20-21), is ‘Flood Relief in Mozambique’. This theme is introduced today with a programme update from the Revd Mauricio S Mugunhe, Executive Director Anglican Social Action, Igreja Anglicana de Moçambique e Angola (the Anglican Church of Mozambique and Angola):

Since late 2025, Mozambique has endured a severe cyclonic season that culminated in catastrophic flooding across the southern regions in January 2026. Following heavy rainfall, many rivers including the Umbeluzi, Maputo, and Incomati overflowed, while cities such as Matola, Xai-Xai, and Maxixe experienced severe flooding due to blocked drainage systems. The government declared a national red alert.

The scale of the disaster has been immense. According to national authorities, more than 720,000 people have been affected, over 120 lives lost, and tens of thousands of homes damaged or destroyed. In the Gaza Province in the south of Mozambique, where the new Anglican Diocese of Maciene is located, over 40% of its territory was submerged and over 150 km of roads destroyed. Communities remain displaced, with some cut off by damaged roads, and there is an increased risk of water-borne disease.

In the face of this suffering, the Church is called to respond. The Anglican Church in Mozambique has mobilised to provide food, clothing, blankets, mosquito nets, and other essentials, while also supporting the rebuilding of safer homes. With the support of USPG, we have been able to extend this ministry of compassion by offering immediate relief and contributing to longer-term recovery for displaced families. Even in the midst of loss, we trust in God’s presence among those who suffer, and in the calling of the Church to be a sign of hope and healing in the world.

The USPG prayer diary today (Sunday 19 July 2026, Trinity VII) invites us to pray as we read and meditate on Matthew 13: 24-30, 36-43.

‘But gather the wheat into my barn’ (Matthew 13: 30) … a barn near Comberford Hall, between Tamworth and Lichfield in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

The Collect of the Day:

Lord of all power and might,
the author and giver of all good things:
graft in our hearts the love of your name,
increase in us true religion,
nourish us with all goodness,
and of your great mercy keep us in the same;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

The Post Communion Prayer:

Lord God, whose Son is the true vine and the source of life,
ever giving himself that the world may live:
may we so receive within ourselves
the power of his death and passion
that, in his saving cup,
we may share his glory and be made perfect in his love;
for he is alive and reigns, now and for ever.

Additional Collect

Generous God,
you give us gifts and make them grow:
though our faith is small as mustard seed,
make it grow to your glory
and the flourishing of your kingdom;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Yesterday’s reflections

Continued tomorrow

Franz Kafka's last wishes … a video in the recent exhibition ‘Kafka: Making of an Icon’ in the Weston Library in Oxford (Patrick Comerford)

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org

Four weddings and some Wolseley funerals: stories of marriage and divorce in a Staffordshire family

Wolseley Hall, destroyed in a serious fire in the early 1950s and demolished in 1966 … the ancestral home of the Wolseley family

Patrick Comerford

I have been writing in recent weeks about the divorce scandal in the Talbot and Chetwynd family that becoming a sensation far beyond polite social circles in Victorian Rugeley and Lichfield in the 1860s and filled column after column in newspapers across the world.

During my summer rambles through Stafford, Rugeley, Wolseley, Lichfield and Tamworth, I was reminded of some of these marriages and divorces, with stories that must have created gossip among people who saw themselves at the centre of social life in south Staffordshire 150 or 200 years ago.

William Henry Chetwynd (1811-1890) and his wife Blanche Mary Talbot (1836-1898), 25 years his junior and a niece Henry Chetwynd-Talbot, 18th Earl of Shrewsbury, were involved in a sensational divorce case in 1864-1865. The gossip created by the case of Chetwynd v Chetwynd echoed, in many ways, the attention a century earlier to the bigamy and divorce trials involving the widowed Sir William Wolseley (1692-1779) and the widowed Ann Whitbey (1724-1782), a case that dragged on in civil and church courts over two years, from 1752 to 1754.

But I was reminded too during those summer walks of at least four other marriages in the Wolseley family down through the generations that were interesting and colourful. They may not have created scandal in the same ways but, at times, they saved the Wolseley family from what seemed like certain financial and social ruin.

The coat-of-arms used by the Duques de Losada y Lousada … but were they really entitled to their titles? (Source)

1, The Jamaican planter: was he a Spanish duke?

Marianne Wolseley (1813-1881) of Wolseley and Count Francis Baruch Lousada (1813-1870), who was born into a rich family of sugar planters in Jamaica, were married in Saint George’s Church, Hanover Square, London, on 25 November 1834. Marianne’s father, Sir Charles Wolseley (1769-1838), had succeeded as the seventh baronet in 1817 and was a radical politician who was at the storming of the Bastille in 1789 and was surety for some of the victims of the Peterloo Massacre in 1819. He was jailed in 1820 for sedition and conspiracy, and his political activism threatened the financial stability of his family.

However, his daughter Marianne managed to avoid her own possible financial and social ruin in 1834 when she married Count Francis Baruch Lousada. The Baruch Lousada family in Jamaica commissioned a Spanish herald and genealogist to produce a set of lurid, expensive-looking but specious documents enabling them to claim they were the successors to the titles of the Duque de Losada.

Isaac Lousada (1783-1857) assumed the title of Duque de Losada in 1848, and after he died his eldest son, Emanuel de Lousada, lost little time in making himself known as the Duke de Losada y Lousada, drafting and fabricating a family tree for an entry in Burke’s Peerage.

It is a pointless genealogical exercise to explain his claimed link to the Spanish duke, and there is no logical way to trace how the dukes inherited – in Spain – a moribund Italian title that had been held by someone they were not related to. The creative, but nonetheless fictitious, explanations are found in the work of the Spanish herald and genealogist, the gullibility of the genealogical authorities in Spain and London, and the audacity of Emanuel.

The reward for the whole escapade and the social and political compensation for the expenses in pursuing this genealogical deception were many: Emanuel received a British passport in 1862; his brother Francis married into the minor ranks of the British nobility when he married Marianne Wolseley, wangled another title in the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and became a British diplomat in the US. Indeed, three further members of his immediate family went unchallenged in their use of the title of duke.

Another version of the coat-of-arms used by the Duque de Losada y Lousada … Marianne Wolseley was daughter-in-law of the first duke, sister-in-law of the second duke, and mother of the third and fourth dukes (Source)

In polite Victorian society, most people seem never to have queried the standing of the soi-disant dukes, overlooking their peculiar change of name, their use of a hybrid coat of arms and the lack of official authentication. Members of the Lousada family married into leading Sephardic families in England, including the Montefiore and Mocatta families.

Twelve years Marianne and Francis were married, Francis was given the title of Marchese de San Miniato by the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1846. It was said widely at the time that he paid for the title while Marianne was a lady-in-waiting in London to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany.

Francis Lousada was the British Consul in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and died in Boston in 1870. Marianne died on 1 November 1884 in Tarvis in Carinthia, Austria, now Tarvisio in Italy. Their eldest son, Horace Francis Lousada (1837-1905), succeeded his father as the second marchese and his uncle as the third duke. The fifth and last duke, Edward Eugene Lousada (1853-1941), returned to live in Jamaica.

The confirmation by Pope Leo XIII of Anita Murphy, later Lady Wolseley … a painting in the Villa Magistrale on the Aventine in Rome

2, the daughter of an American Papal ‘marchese’:

Marianne Wolseley’s marriage to this soi-disant marchese, and the titles used by her children create a story with many parallels in that of the marriage almost 30 years later in 1883 of her nephew, Sir Charles Wolseley (1846-1931), the ninth baronet, and Anita Murphy, the daughter of an Irish-American magnate, Daniel T Murphy, who bought the title of marchese from the Pope.

Sir Charles Wolseley may have found a role model or inspiration in his aunt Marianne, for he married into a wealthy family with a title that had been bought and in the hope of rescuing lost fortunes and social status.

Esther (née Chichester) Grehan wrote from London in 1882 to her husband in Dublin, Stephen Grehan (1859-1937), describing how Charles came to London to look for an heiress. My interest is added to by Stephen’s descent through his mother from the Langton and Comerford families of Danganmore Castle, Co Kilkenny. In her letters, laden with snobbery, elitism and disdain, Esther describes how Charles was introduced to two Irish-American Murphy sisters from San Francisco, who were ‘vulgar but pretty.’ He fell in love, but had a reputation as a fortune hunter, and was distraught when he was rejected.

But, undeterred, Charles married the elder sister, Anna Theresa (Anita) Murphy in 1883. Her father, an Irish-American entrepreneur Daniel T Murphy, founded the pioneer house of Murphy, Grant & Co, and was living in San Francisco. Anita, her sisters and her mother had moved to London, and they moved in fashionable circles in England and Europe. Anita was confirmed by Pope Leo XIII and a painting of Anita and her sister at their confirmation by Pope Leo XIII was once in the Wolseley family collection, and was still at Wolseley in 1971 when I interviewed Sir Charles Wolseley for the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury.

Later, Anita was presented at the Court of Saint James. She visited Osborne, the royal residence on the Isle of Wight, where she met Queen Victoria and Princess Beatrice, ancestor of the Mountbatten family. In her diary, Anita tells how she turned down a proposal of marriage from Prince Luigi del Drago, an Italian whose family included many cardinals and princes. Back in England, Anita’s first choice as husband was George Brundenell-Bruce, then known as Viscount Savernake and later 4th Marquess of Ailesbury. But Willie, as he was known, was an incessant gambler with an excessive lifestyle, and he brought his family to the brink of financial disaster. Eventually, he married Dolly Tester, a music hall actress, and Anita had a fortuitous escape from certain calamity.

Anita’s father, Daniel T Murphy, was a self-made multi-millionaire who had more money than he could spend. In 1857, he married Anna Geoghagan, also from an Irish family. The couple were the parents of four daughters, Isabella (Issy), Helene (Nellie), Anna Theresa (Anita) and Frances (Fanny), and three sons, Eugene, Daniel and Samuel.

Daniel Murphy visited his wife and daughters in London at least once a year. He was a staunch Roman Catholic and donated $5 million to Pope Pius IX. In return, the Pope made Murphy first a Knight and then a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory. Pope Leo XIII, who confirmed two of his daughters in Rome, gave Murphy the Grand Cross of Saint Gregory, and with a royal and papal patent of nobility, gave him the papal title of marchese or marquis, with the right of succession to his eldest son and his heirs.

Murphy enjoyed showing his American friends the papal patent, but he never used the title in public and his wife continued to be known in London only as Mrs Murphy and not as marchesa.

Anita Murphy and Sir Charles Wolseley were married on 17 July 1883 in the Catholic Pro-Cathedral in Kensington. The four bridesmaids were her three sisters, Nellie, Frances and Isabella, and a Miss Bedingfeld. The wedding Mass was said by the Revd Cuthbert Wolseley, OP, a Dominican priest and a younger brother of the groom – he was born Robert Joseph Wolseley (1850-1920). The wedding was blessed by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, and there was a telegram from Pope Leo XIII.

The newspapers of the day delighted in lengthy lists of the titled and public figures who attended, including the US ambassador and poet James Russell Lowell, the Duke of Norfolk, Prince Doria Pamphilji, a son-in-law of the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Marquis of Bute and Lady Londonderry.

Anita (Murphy) Wolseley tired of life at Wolseley Hall and travelled abroad, alone … it was divorce Catholic-style in the early 20th century

On the day Anita and Charles were married, Mrs Murphy gave her first-born a cheque for $5 million drawn on the Bank of England. Daniel T Murphy died within two years in the Windsor Hotel, New York, on 3 June 1885. Many of his business interests passed to his brother Henry M Murphy and son, also Daniel T Murphy. His wife had arrived from England earlier that week and was with him when he died, as were two of his sons and a daughter.

In his will, dated 15 May 1883, Murphy left various bequests to the Catholic Church and family members, with his daughters receiving at least $50,000 each, even if that meant his sons received less. At first, Anita’s inheritance was estimated at $2 million, but Charles Wolseley never got his hands on it. By the time the marriage contract had been signed, Daniel T Murphy had died Anita’s sisters contested their father’s will. When Anita received her money, it was for her personally and not for her husband.

Jeannie Wolseley later said the marriage was relatively happy to begin with; the couple were the parents of two sons, Sir Edric Charles Joseph Wolseley (1886-1954) and Colonel William Wolseley (1887-1977). But Anita soon tired of life at Wolseley Hall and in rural Staffordshire, and she began travelling abroad, alone. She sent Charles a regular allowance, but this dropped steadily. It was divorce Catholic-style in the early 20th century.

By 1919, he had to sell almost all the contents of Wolseley Hall and several hundred acres of his estate. A broken man, he moved to Surrey and died on 30 January 1931, and was brought back to Rugeley to be buried in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda churchyard, where he had donated the East Window by Hardman and Powell; Anita died on 11 October 1937.

The grave of Sir Charles Wolseley (1846-1931), the ninth baronet, in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda churchyard, Rugeley (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

3, Colonel William Wolseley and the Catholic Church:

When Sir Charles Wolseley died in 1931, the Wolseley title and estate passed to his elder son, Sir Edric Wolseley, tenth baronet and grandfather of the late Sir Charles Wolseley. Their younger son, Colonel William Wolseley (1887-1977), also had an interesting life and his life story is also the story of yet another interesting Wolseley marriage.

William Ralph Joseph Wolseley was born in London on 1 July 1887, the younger son of Sir Charles Michael Wolseley and Anita Murphy. He was a captain in the Staffordshire Yeomanry during World War I, and was mentioned in dispatches and decorated. He was a Justice of the Peace for Shropshire from 1939, and during World War II he was a colonel in the Royal Pioneer Corps.

William Wolseley married a vicar’s granddaughter, Ruth Gertrude Hargreaves (1893-1962), in Gnosall on 10 November 1923. Ruth was one of three daughters of Colonel Robert Halstead Hargreaves (1861-1909) of Knightley Grange, near Eccleshall. Her maternal grandfather was the Revd Charles Holden Steward (1859-1915).

The Wolseley family were staunchly Catholic, but when William married Ruth, the vicar’s granddaughter she would not agree to bring up any future children as Roman Catholics. In order to go ahead with the marriage, William had to leave the Catholic Church and he was excommunicated.

Ruth (Hargreaves) Wolseley (left) as a child with her sisters Violet (centre) and Nancy

Family members tell me Ruth ‘smoked cigars like a chimney and swore like a trooper’. She was, by all accounts, a tiny woman with a very domineering character, who probably gave William little choice but to leave the Catholic Church in order to marry her. They lived at Knightley Grange, and during World War II Ruth was in the Women’s Land Army and the WVS. Although William was devoted to Ruth, family members believe his decision to leave the Catholic Church caused him great upset in later life.

Ruth and William were the parents of a son and daughter: Robert William Hargreaves Wolseley (1924-1998), and Veronica Ruth Theresa Rose Wolseley (1928-2019). Ruth died at Knightley Grange in 1962, William Wolseley died in 1977. Some of the more valuable contents of Knightley Grange were sold off at auction over two days in June 1966, and the property, which had been in the Hargreaves family for over 100 years, was sold in 1967.

The house at Knightley Grange was finally demolished in 2019.

The house at Knightley Grange where Ruth and William Wolseley lived after they married in 1923 was demolished in 2019

4, Another American in the family:

William Wolseley’s elder brother, Sir Edric Wolseley (1886-1954), was the grandfather of the late Sir Charles Wolseley (1944-2018), the 11th baronet. A painting of two of the Murphy girls at their confirmation by Pope Leo XIII was once among the paintings in the Wolseley family collection. It was still at Wolseley Park in 1971 when I interviewed Sir Charles for the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury.

It was a well-edited feature, with a fine photograph of Charles and his first Anita (Fried) and their eldest daughter. They warmly welcomed me to Wolseley Park House, more features followed on the Dyott, Anson, Levett and other families, and I built up a portfolio that helped to set me up for a 30-year career as a journalist.

At the time, I was in my late teens training as a chartered surveyor, and Charles Wolseley was then a chartered surveyor with Smith Gore in Lichfield, driving a trademark red sports car around town, commuting daily between Lichfield and Wolseley.

Charles and Anita were divorced in 1984, and later that year he married the American writer Imogen (Jeannie) Brown (1943-2024), who was researching a book on American heiresses who married impoverished English aristocrats.

When Charles and Jeannie had to move out of Wolseley to Penkridge after he was declared bankrupt, she talked about the painting being so large that it would be better placed in a museum in San Francisco. Today it is in the Villa Magistrale on the Aventine in Rome, where it was identified some years ago by Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen when he was the Hungarian Ambassador to the Vatican.

Sir Charles Wolseley and his second wife, Imogene (Jeannie) Brown, in 1992 … after their bankruptcy, they relied on the generosity of neighbours and friends

Family members recall how Charles and Jeannie Wolseley spoke openly of their situation and how people would come up to Charles in the supermarket in Rugeley and place a £10 note in his hand. Frequently they discovered gifts of food, money and even a car delivered to the house.

‘They were clearly a strong couple,’ a family member told me.

I wrote to him when I heard about his problems, enclosed a cutting of that full-page feature in the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury. I thanked him for an opportunity that secured a career in journalism that lasted most of my adult life, and thanked him too for that offer at Smiths Gore.

Despite his divorce and remarriage, Charles seems to have had a happier relationship with the Catholic Church than his uncle William. Charles died on 5 March 2018 and his funeral took place in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda Church on 24 March 2018. His widow Jeannie died in Rugeley two years ago, on 11 July 2024, and her funeral was held in the church on 26 July 2024.

The Wolseley Arms by the River Trent near Rugeley in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2026: 71, Friday 17 July 2026

‘At that time Jesus went through the cornfields on the sabbath’ (Matthew 12: 1) … walking through fields in Hopwas, between Lichfield and Tamworth (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Patrick Comerford

We are in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and the week began with the Sixth Sunday after Trinity (Trinity VI, 12 July 2026).

Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:

1, reading today’s Gospel reading;

2, a short reflection;

3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;

4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.

Walking through the fields near Comberford Hall, between Lichfield and Tamworth (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Matthew 12: 1-8 (NRSVA):

1 At that time Jesus went through the cornfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.’ 3 He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”, you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.’

The Bread of the Presence in the Temple depicted in the Kupa Synagogue in Kraków (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Today’s Reflections:

Summer is a beautiful time of the year in the countryside, with ripe fields of green and yellow under blue skies. In the past few weeks, I have walked through ripe fields and meadows by Stony Stratford and Winslow in Buckinghamshire, near Lichfield, Tamworth and Rugeley in south Staffordshire, in Oxford, and I have passed through beautiful fields on bus journeys in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire and Norfolk.

As I read this morning’s Gospel reading at the Eucharist (Matthew 12: 1-8), I imagine Christ and his disciples walking through fields of green and gold such as these when they are confronted with the bureaucratic rules of the day and are accused of breaking the Sabbath.

Christ responds by stating that plucking grain on the Sabbath does not profane sacred writ. In doing so he reinterprets the Torah and clarifies the true nature of sacred endeavour.

Matthew 12:1-8 may be a retelling of Mark 2: 23-27. An analysis of this passage shows:

• verses 3-4 are an historical analogy found in I Samuel 21: 1-6, where David’s hunger supersedes the Law;

• verse 5 is a reconfiguration of Numbers 28: 9-10 and Exodus 35: 3;

• verse 7 is a reworking Hosea 6: 6: ‘For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings’ (NRSVA).

The reference to David’s story (I Samuel 21: 1-6) associates the temple with the alleviation of hunger and makes the point that hunger supersedes form and tradition.

Hosea 6: 6 repeats the principle that human need is pre-eminent over tradition.

Christ presents his own teachings not as a replacement for Torah but as a guide to its fulfilment. Ultimately, the Torah is to reflect God’s character of love, mercy, and generosity, and human need has priority over religious observance. Mercy was, and is, more in line with God’s intentions for the Sabbath rather than the strict obedience of the Sabbath demanded at the time.

This morning’s Gospel reading offers an interesting challenge to oppressive bureaucracy and rule-making, an important insight at a time when oppressive rules and regulations are being made day-by-day by capricious decision-makers in the White House.

This passage also offers insights into how Christ looks to a future beyond both Torah and Temple. It is a reading that looks forward to a new era of mercy, beyond compliance to the narrow interpretations of laws and regulations.

Fresh bread welcoming guests at the Captain’s House in Panormos, near Rethymnon in Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Today’s Prayers (Friday 17 July 2026):

In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week, from 12 to 18 July 2026 (pp 18-19), is ‘The Land of the Highlanders’. This theme was introduced on Sunday with a reflection by the Most Revd Mark Strange, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

The USPG prayer diary today (Friday 17 July 2026) invites us to pray

Lord God, strengthen your Church in the Highlands as it ministers across great distances. Sustain our leaders, clergy and congregations with perseverance and hope.

The Collect of the Day:

Merciful God,
you have prepared for those who love you
such good things as pass our understanding:
pour into our hearts such love toward you
that we, loving you in all things and above all things,
may obtain your promises,
which exceed all that we can desire;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

The Post Communion Prayer:

God of our pilgrimage,
you have led us to the living water:
refresh and sustain us
as we go forward on our journey,
in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Additional Collect

Creator God,
you made us all in your image:
may we discern you in all that we see,
and serve you in all that we do;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Yesterday’s reflections

Continued tomorrow

Walking through the fields at Hawkesyard Hall in Armitage, near Rugeley in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org