Timeline for the WWII Evacuees at The Kilns

I have included here my research on the evacuees and their residence at The Kilns.  I’ve not seen a more detailed chronological outline than what appears below.  I’m still working on it.

Update: 9 June – I have received some more information from Lady Freud that sheds some light on the girls that arrived in the fall of 1940.  More of that anon. 🙂


1 Sept 1939 -Warnie leaves Oxford for Catterick, Yorkshire

The first lot

2 Sept 1939 – Per Walter (& McGrath) 4 girls arrive; Lewis writes on 2 Sept. 1939 to APB that there are only 3; Letters, II, p. 270; McCusker also says 3.

10 Sept., 1939 – “nicest of the 3” a “Rose Macaulay child” (Sheila Morrison? See 28 April 1940 below)

15 Sept – “we have three evacuated children in the house”; to Arthur, p. 274

18 Sept – “our nicest taken away” (Rose Macaulay one) replaced by Austrian Jewess of 16; p. 276; the latter they were told could be “possibly difficult” (cf. 11 Nov.; is this Annamarie?)

5 Nov. – Annamarie being replaced.

11 Nov. – Pleasanter with Annamarie gone (probably the Jewess); replacement is quiet, shy, and a reader (just got a scholarship to HS) p. 289

19 Nov., “all four children and Maureen” off to church, forming a “crocodile”.  When did the new one come in?


The second lot

Jan. – Margaret Leyland, Mary Derrington, and Katherine Fee arrive and stay until July; see Margaret’s letter.

28 April; letter to Warnie, L II, p. 404; Sheila Morrison, “nicest of our old lot of evacuees” visits with her mother.  See below for quotation.  Cf. with 10 Sept ’39 comment.  She could be the Rose Macaulay child.  cf. p. 276; her mother described in both locations.

3 Aug; Lewis speaks of being alone in the house with Minto and Maureen out shopping.  Looks like no new lot.

Third lot

Sept., Per S. Schofield, Patricia Heidelberger and Marie Jose Bosc (“Microbe”) arrive at The Kilns.  Patricia speaks only of the two of them.

24 Oct., “a house full of really delightful children” (letter to Sis P., II 451).


I find no mention of the evacuees for this year in Lewis’ letters, but Patricia says that she and “Microbe” were there two years.


Sept., Patricia and “Microbe” would have been gone by this time.

June Flewett is accepted to stay at the Kilns, aged 14, but does not because of a relocation of her school, which she was still attending.  She begins correspondence with Minto

1943 – June F. keeps up correspondence with Mrs. Moore;

Jan., letter to Arthur: L II 548, Minto laid up with terrible varicose ulcers

1 June – L II 579; Minto still ill; W. helps as secretary; Maureen married.  Rabbits now added to the hens.

June Arrives

July – with exams over, June Flewett visits The Kilns for a 2 week holiday.  She decides to stay on.

13 Sept. CSL letter to June Flewett, L II 589 (so she’s not there at this time; perhaps she sent this book to CSL via a parcel to Minto) – note: Lady Freud told me she was there from July on, yet we have this letter.  Perhaps she went home briefly.

20 Dec., to Arthur, L II 595; “things are pretty bad here” and says Minto’s ulcer is worse and worse with domestic help harder to find.


June F. in residence


3 Jan., June F. leaves

Feel free to share this post

Jesus as “A Chip Off the Old Block”

As I continue to read the Introduction to Reflections on the Psalms, I am struck with another example of Lewis’ use of his imagination to take us beyond our normal thoughts about Christianity. This time it has to do with the humanity of Christ.

Noting that Jesus, when teaching, would use parallelisms similar to those in the Psalms, Lewis speculates that he may have learned something of that style from his mother. She uses parallelisms in her Magnificat. He then asks if perhaps there was a good deal more about himself that came from his family. He definitely sounded like a Galilean.

Thus Lewis gets you wondering just how much there was about Jesus that he inherited from his home environment; how much was he a “chip off the old block” of the Holy Family? This wondering is quite healthy for us.

Why do I say that? Because, our tendency is to overemphasize the deity of Jesus at the expense of his humanity. The result is that we make him to be something that he is not and we miss out on what we are in Him.

Part of the glory of the Incarnation is that Jesus – apart from sin – is “another guy.” Even though he appears in amazing glory now, as we read in Revelation 1, that is because he’s a step ahead of us. He’s a glorified fellow who grew up in Nazareth. Someday we will be glorified like him. We’ll look pretty amazing as well.

But the point is, who do you think is the king over our hearts, our country, and the whole universe? It’s a man, like your brother or your father or whoever. He’s just in the unseen part of the universe that we can’t see right now. But he is there. And he went through life, trusting in God, just like we do. I think he understands what we feel like in the good and the bad. He’s “been there – done that.” And he rules his kingdom accordingly.

One more thing. He has stayed “human” because every righteous human is to stay human. We believers are not going to turn into angels when we are raised from the dead. He has gone before so he can one day raise us up and then we will “catch up” with him. And the whole universe will then see us as we really are in him: chips off of his block.

How does the fact of the humanity of Christ affect you?  Is it important to you?  How?  Why not let us know in the comment section below.  Thanks.

Image from :http://www.little-large.com/NewPhotos/Chip_off_the_Old_Block_op_628x418.jpg  Visit www.little-large.com for more like t-shirts. 🙂

Feel free to share this post

The Origin of Poetry and Why It Matters

In the first chapter of his book Reflections on the Psalms, Lewis introduces us to poetic parallelism because it is so frequently used in the Psalms.  As he does so, he writes a sentence in the sixth paragraph containing a few profound ideas about poetry in general.

One of these ideas is that God is the Author of poetry as we find it in human culture.  Whatever poetry is, God is the Originator of it.  As the Originator, he has made a provision for poetry to operate in a particular way that makes it a benefit for all.

God is, of course, the Author of this poetic resource in our human makeup because poetry is a creative expression of his image, breathed into us at our creation.  The logical conclusion of this fact is that we should say God himself is poetic.  Poetry is a creative expression of his own being.

Now, if God is poetic, that has some huge implications for our lives as Christians.  What should our worship look like?  What should our service look like?  What should our lives look like?

Obviously, we think of the use of our words.  What kinds of stories and images do they portray?  Do they foster the true, the good, and the beautiful in our world?  Do they assume a fundamental order in our world that is recognized as “the beautiful?”  Do we give thought to what we say, write, and sing?

Not everyone has a lot of talent in the area of the artistic use of words, but being created in God’s poetic image, shouldn’t we all care about such things?  Should we not want to foster such things and include them in our lives?

What does the idea of God being poetic mean to you?  Do you even agree with that?  How do you see it applying to your life and our lives as believers in general?  Any other thoughts?  Please enter your comments below and lets see what we can learn from each other about this.

Feel free to share this post

“Mere Christian”

The Revd. Richard Baxter (1615-1691)

The source of C. S. Lewis’ phrase “mere Christianity,” according to Walter Hooper:

“You know not of what Party I am of, nor what to call me; I am sorrier for you in this than for my self; if you know not, I will tell you, I am a CHRISTIAN, a MEER CHRISTIAN, of no other Religion; and the Church that I am of is the Christian Church, and hath been visible where ever the Christian Religion and Church hath been visible: But must you know of what Sect or Party I am of? I am against all Sects and dividing Parties: But if any will call Meer Christian by the name of Party, because they take up with meer Christianity, Creed, and Scripture, and will not be of any dividing or contentious Sect, I am of that Party which is so against Parties: If the name CHRISTIAN be not enough, call me a CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN; not as that word signifieth an hereticating majority of Bishops, but as it signifieth one that hath no Religion, but that which by Christ and the Apostles was left to the Catholic Church, or the body of Jesus Christ on Earth.”

The Revd. Richard Baxter
Church-history of the Government of Bishops” (1680)

Feel free to share this post