After an excellent and informative morning at the Tower of London, my mother and I strolled along the Thames. The walk was at times lovely, at times warehousy, and at times confusing. But we made it to St. Pauls!

It is a massive church designed by Sir Christopher Wren in the English "sober Baroque" style in the 17th century. The dome was inspired by St. Peter's in Rome.
This building is the latest in a long line of churches on this spot. The fourth church to be built here was called Old St. Paul's and was begun by the Normans in the 11th century. Yes, there had already been three churches there by the 11th century. London is really old. Old St. Paul's was a beautiful Gothic structure--one of the longest churches in Europe with one of the tallest spires on top. But the Great Fire of London in 1666 destroyed it, along with almost everything else, so they replaced the Gothic church with a sober Baroque one. (I think "sober Baroque" is a great term, almost an oxymoron.)
Although St. Paul's was a target during the Blitz, it escaped pretty much unscathed. It was hit three times, and one of those times was a very near thing. In 1940 a time-delayed bomb fell on the Cathedral but the bomb squad was able to remove it and detonate it in a safe location. This "safe" detonation left a 100 foot crater, so had the bomb gone off in the Cathedral not much would have been left besides some sober Baroque dust. Here is an image of the dome during the Blitz. Thanks, Wikipedia. Amazing.
Oddly, I did not get any more pictures of the church itself. Part of the reason for my uncharacteristic photographic reticence is because the church is set up pretty high in a small square and it is difficult to get far enough away to take pictures of the facade. Also, there was a big line of people waiting to get into the church, and they detracted from the sober-ness of the Baroque-osity. But the main reason--I was distracted. There was a bride!
I was more interested in the bride than the architecture. Sorry about that.
How stylish with the giant columns. She was freezing in her strapless gown. It was funny to watch that woman run up to her between shots and cover her with a coat.

A bird almost took down the groom.

I am a sucker for weddings. I like the yellow flowers. Very bright and cheerful especially on a chilly November day. The crowd's reaction to the bride was also bright and cheerful. Everyone took out their cameras and snapped and oohed and ahhed and grinned. It is fun to watch people watch something happy.
This bride reminded my mother that Princess Diana and Prince Charles were married at St. Paul's. Most of the royal family's stuff happens at Westminster Abbey, but when they need a bigger venue they use St. Paul's.
My mom and I had lunch at a fun restaurant called Apostrophe by the Cathedral. After our tummies were full it was time to fill our minds. (sorry.) We got in line and watched the bride some more, and then I saw a St. Paul's person ushering people to the crypt entrance. So we headed that way and got into the church without having to wait in the line. As I mentioned before, museums are free but churches are absolutely not. The tickets to walk around in St. Paul's were quite expensive, but it is a neat building. It was more Catholic than I thought it would be. It looked a lot like St. Peter's, complete with the black snaky columns at the High Altar.
There were lots of war memorials and tombs of sailors and soldiers in the church. Most moving for us was the American Memorial Chapel behind the altar. It commemorates all the American service-people who died in WWII. There is a beautiful book with the names of 28,000 Americans who died while stationed in Britain, or on their way to the UK. Every day they turn the page of the book so that other names can be seen. The memorial was paid for by donations from the British people (!) and dedicated in 1958. It was very special to see it.
I liked St. Paul's, but as I have said before, I prefer Gothic churches. Sober Baroque is nice, but give me dark, mysterious, reaching Gothic any day. Also, I am incredibly spoiled. Having been fortunate enough to travel quite a lot in my young life, I am getting harder to impress. For ornate craziness, I don't think you can beat the Basilica di San Marco in Venice. (Although I warn you, I am a teensy bit obsessed with that city so whatever is in Venice is naturally the best.) St. Paul's was like a smaller St. Peter's, and I wasn't educated enough/interested enough/or with time enough to really explore the church. Next time I would like to make a more thorough examination of the tombs and memorials. But we weren't in the mood for intense exploration. Also, we had decided to attend a 3pm evensong at Westminster Abbey, so were understandably anxious to begin our journey there so we wouldn't be late.
We walked from the city of London, where St. Paul's is, to the city of Westminster. On the way we passed the Temple, the law courts. We had both read a P.D. James novel about a murder that takes place in the Temple, so that was fun to see it.


As I look back over my travels I am realizing how much my fiction reading impacts my reality. Is that good?
We passed by Trafalgar Square. This shot has Nelson's Column on the left and the National Museum on the right.
The Museum:
This is Admiralty Arch, built in honor of Queen Victoria. It is right next to Trafalgar Square.

And now that famous landmark...

Big Ben! It is beautifully golden.
Westminster Abbey is right in the middle of a busy part of London. Big Ben and Parliament are right there, so it seemed odd to find such a beautiful, quiet, ancient (10th century though perhaps even 7th) church in that busy spot.
Once at the Abbey we asked an official looking person about evensong.

We were ushered past the tourist lines and through a side door straight into the choir of the church. There were not that many people. Surprising, since it is free, extraordinary, wonderful, and not that long, and since the church is closed to tourists during the services so the only way you can see it is to attend one.
My mom and I sat in the choir. We were lucky since the people who came in after us had to sit in normal chairs near the altar. The boys choir with some men, too, filed in wearing red robes with white ruffs. The little boys were adorable. My mom and I were practically sitting next to them. One little boy had super cute round glasses with black frames and he kept staring at me. When I looked at him he would look away really fast, but then I would catch him again a minute later. I wanted to wave but I didn't think that it would be appropriate.
The little boys were so well-behaved and professional. Which reminded my of my little boys...since they are the opposite. If Honzik had been in the choir he would have hit his neighbor a few seconds in, and Lukas would have gotten out of his seat and started dancing in the aisle.
The music was wonderful. Most of the service was music, which suited me. It was so cool to be there! Thank you, Mom, for suggesting we go! I highly, highly recommend that you attend something in Westminster Abbey if you are ever in London, even if you are not religious at all. It is a breathtaking building with so much history, and it is amazing to sit there and hear the music and watch the choir sing and the clerics process. The only downside is that we didn't have much time after the service to wander around the church.
I have an urge to learn more about the Abbey, especially as it pertains to the Royal Family. Every English monarch since 1066 that has had a coronation has been crowned in Westminster Abbey. It was neat to spend the morning at the Tower and watch the videos of Queen Elizabeth II being crowned in the Abbey, and then spend the afternoon in Westminster a few feet from where the coronations happen. Although I did not want to, I could feel myself becoming more and more fascinated with the Royal Family while I was in London. It is such a weird institution that is so outdated in so many ways yet continues to exist and prosper. I want to know who keeps track of all the ceremonies and protocols. I want to know what counts among the Queen's possessions and what belongs to the country. I want to know what it is like to be a servant at Buckingham Palace or Balmoral. Thankfully, this budding obsession is un-budding since I returned from London.
It was rather intriguing to compare Germany and the Czech Republic with England in regards to their attitudes towards their respective histories. England seems fiercely proud of itself and pretty fascinated by its history. Almost narcissistic. But you can understand that since their history is awfully extraordinary, and for the most part positive. At least, they were on the "right" sides in the World Wars and their monarchy continues to exist when almost all other have crumbled. They have produced a lot of great people and have been the conquerors instead of the conquered. I think that last fact makes a big difference in the psyche of a nation. Of course, England has done awful things, too. But they still seem rather proud of that stuff, like their past empires, their treatment of Ireland, and their colonies even though that has caused a lot of trouble. The brutality of their monarchs and things like Jack the Ripper are more cheeky tourist tales than embarrassments. I guess when you have such an absurdly long history you can start to giggle at what was once horrific. And there is a difference between being the victimizers and the victims, as I shall discuss now.
Germany, as I believe I have beaten relentlessly into this blog, has some trouble with their past. There is an odd combination of terrible guilt and perhaps a hint of pride at what they have done. I don't mean that people are proud of World War II or the Holocaust--not at all--but that, like England, they were conquerors, not the conquered. So although they did horrible things with their power, they were powerful, incredibly so. And that can give a boost to a nation's confidence.
Now, the Czech Republic is a different kettle of dumplings and meat. They have mainly been the conquered. And that makes a big difference. This is a gross over-simplification, but in their thousand year history, the Czechs have been free and independent for about 40 years. It is pretty sad when you think about it. I mean, Czechoslovakia was given to Hitler as part of the ill-fated appeasement. Sort of a "if we give you this country will you leave the rest of us alone? Okay, then, sorry Czechoslovakia." This had its advantages--for instance, Prague wasn't bombed during the war. But come on. The Czech Republic just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, when the Communists were finally overthrown in 1989. But people today are extremely disappointed in their government. Democracy hasn't been the magical panacea.
Basically, the point of this rather long tangent was that I noticed a huge difference in England and the Czech Republic as regards their attitudes towards the past and future. England seems so proud and nationalistic, ready for what comes because look at what we have accomplished! On the contrary, the Czech Republic is a bit more subdued. More sullen than proud, more "if we stay quiet will everyone leave us alone?" than "Hear us roar!" The hope of England is not as evident here. (This is an
interesting article about the Czech Republic and this same sort of stuff if you are interested.)
So--take away points. Go to a service in Westminster Abbey. Don't become a Royal Family freak. Countries are diffe--wait, is that a bride? Where is my camera???