Jump to content

Talk:Alkborough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Becket

[edit]

Would it be better to qualify this paragraph with something like 'A local legend links the murderers of Becket to the church' ? The Sudely mention [ Lord Sudeley, 'Becket's Murderer William de Tracy', in Lord Sudely (ed.),The Sudeleys - Lords of Toddington ( 1987), p.82 ] references de la Pryme and his visit to the village on 29 May 1697 where the antiquarian claims to have seen a Latin inscription on a great stone in the wall of the chancel [The Diary of...p.138]. Confusingly, de la Pryme two years later, in 1699, writes to the Dean of York that he has 'received the following inscription' which he takes 'to be very observable'.[p.203] The implication is, perhaps, that he never actually saw the Latin lines and is referring to something which was a tradition even then. I have a memory that the chancel was thought to have collapsed in the 1640s... Anyway, not enough surely to claim that the murderers 'took refuge here and, as a penance, did much to restore this building'. --Semutfu (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems to hinge on the question, did de la Pryme actually see the Latin inscription with his own eyes? If it existed, it points to something stronger than 'local legend'. If it was a case of de la Pryme's wishful thinking (like Countess Close being a Roman fort), then we can't claim more than legend. So, let's weigh the evidence:

At the time de la Pryme was working as a Curate in Broughton, and this is fairly local, even by the standards of 1700, so he certainly had the opportunity. We can be pretty certain he did travel extensively, so had the means. I think, on balance, his accounts of everything at Alkborough are too detailed to be second hand, and being an antiquary, Alkborough would certainly be high on his list of places he'd wish to visit. Therefore, he also had the motive. Let's look at what he had to say:
He doesn't specify that he saw it himself, merely that it was there at some time. However, if he'd heard it was there, I believe he'd want to go and look at it. I know I would. As you say, he did claim it was observable.

To add a very, very, very small amount of weight to the 'pro' argument, there is also the existence of Jerusalem Cottages, which local legend does seem to say were given the name Jerusalem by, or in honour of, our homicidal heroes.

For one last bit of (circumstantial) evidence, I'll turn to Stanley's memorials of Cantebury (page 105) where he says that (according to tradition) the four knights who murdered Thomas à Beckett died at Necklin, and over their grave was the following epitaph:
This is very similar, and does make the Alkborough inscription look that bit more likely to be real.
Now, this is where it gets potentially quite exciting. I spoke to a resident who is quite friendly with the current Vicar. She seems to remember the vicar mentioning an old, Latin inscribed stone from the church which is currently stored in the vicarage. I am, at the moment, engaged in verifying this, and maybe even getting a closer look. I'm skeptical, because John Goulton Constable gave a lecture in 1886 that included the stone, and nothing physical came to light. I'm sure the vicar at the time would have been aware of the lecture, and piped up. . . but you never know. Wouldn't that be something if it was the stone we've been talking about! Sammy_r (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that in the little time that he was in north Lincolnshire, he travelled extensively; indeed on that Saturday 29 May, he went first to Normanby, Burton Stather, on to Alkborough, Whitton and West Halton before returning home. At West Halton he talks about the inscriptions on the bells lying buried in the ruins of that church, and he leaves spaces in his diary for the lettering to be inserted; the spaces remain …. I take it that someone had agreed to supply the wording, but did not do so. (Diary of...p.140) He tells a story about Wrawby churchyard, but it is by no means clear from the narrative that he ever visited the place, although it only few miles from his lodgings at Broughton. (p.62). The tale is related however, as though he had been there. I think what I am saying is that he rushes about the neighbourhood like a schoolboy collecting locomotive numbers (although he is 26 and not long out of college) rather than a solemn antiquary like the later, estimable, William Stukeley. De la Pryme’s descriptions are enthusiastic and hasty, rather than thoughtful. Indeed he says: ‘My zeal for old MSS., antiquitys, coins and monuments, almost eats me up, so that I am some times almost melancholy that I cannot prosecute ye search of them so much as I would…’ (p.203) In the case of the elusive Alborough stone he wrote to the Dean of York: ‘I received, a while ago, ye following inscription (which I take to be very observable), from of a great stone in ye ruins of ye chancel of ye church of Alkburrow…’ (ibid) I think this means that (despite what he writes in the main body of his diary) he did not see a stone in the ruins of Alkborough chancel, but instead, received later a note of the supposed wording from, perhaps, Rev Turpin. ‘Observable’, in his day meant that is was ‘worthy of note’, or ‘remarkable’, and not just that it was visible to the eye... (For example: S. Pepys Diary 25 July 1667 VIII. P.352 ‘Hogg is..the most observable embezzler, that ever was known.’)

If I had ever thought about Jerusalem Cottages on College Close at all, I suppose I would have guessed they were on the site of a long gone Alms House or Bede House. Second guess: something to do with land once owned by the Knights Hospitallers !!?

A. P. Stanley does indeed mention another tradition associated with the murderers, this time their burial place at Mechlin, modern day Mechelen in Belgium (A P.Stanley, Historical memorials of Canterbury…(1868), pp.105-6 ), but he does refer to it as a legend. The similarity with the supposed Alkborough stone surely rests solely with the Latinised names… and the inscription, Stanley tells us predictably, is ‘now destroyed’. No point then in going, by Eurostar, to Brussels to check this one.

I think that if we are going to claim Becket’s murderers as good history, rather than an agreeable local legend, we are going to have to rely on Alison producing the stone! --Semutfu (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. This is what my colleague would call "a curvy one". All we can do is state the case as per our conversation, and without speculation: Report what D.L.P. reported, and then outline the doubts, and the reasons for them. Let the reader make up their own mind. Thoughts? (I remain skeptical about the stone in the Vicarage.)
By the way, do I know you? Sammy_r (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the story needs mentioning at all, why not ?:

A local legend, supported by the diarist A. de la Pryme, claims that three of the four knights who murdered Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170, ( Sir Hugh de Morville, Lord of Westmorland, Sir William de Tracy and Sir Richard le Breton ) took refuge in Alkborough.
de la Pryme in 1697 reported the existence of a stone, in the ruined chancel of the church, bearing the inscription:
Richardus Bruto Necnon Menonius Hugo/Willelmus Trajo templum hoc lapidus altum/Condebant patria gloria dignia Deo
If any such stone ever existed, it cannot now be found.

J. Goulton Constable wrote over twenty times to the journal Notes & Queries on a variety of antiquarian topics, but did not mention Becket, or any stone. No, do not believe I have had the pleasure of meeting you. --Semutfu (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delayed reply - been working away.
True or not, I do feel it is sufficiently significant a story that it should be mentioned, even if just to cast an element of doubt. It is widely taken as an absolute truth in the village, and the residents are understandably quite proud of this claim to fame.
I'm not too comfortable using the word 'legend', which tends to plant the idea firmly in the reader's mind that what follows isn't true (rather than 'we can't prove whether it's true or not', which I'd prefer to aim for.) How about something like the following, which can be expanded to air a few more pro and con arguments?


By the way, are you an Alkborough resident? Sammy_r (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a slightly better translation of the dodgy Latin might be:

Richard Brito as well as Hugh Morville and William Tracy, built with stones this lofty temple, a worthy glory to God

In general, just feel that it is better not to perpetuate legends, even if village residents do consider them true and are proud of them ! Feel the same about the Templars at Julian's Bower and battles on the Flatts, etc ... Not a village resident, merely a poor student of history with an interest in north-west Lindsey. --Semutfu (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and do that over the weekend.
You're obviously a useful person to know. If you ever find yourself in the village, let me know and I'll cheerfully treat you to a cuppa in the tea shop.
I would especially be interested in your views on the battle on the Flats - I had that in my sights for a future addition to the Alkborough Wiki. Sammy_r (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Wars – there seems enough documentary evidence in contemporary broadsheets and Calendars of State Papers, to confirm that there was indeed a skirmish on 18 Dec 1643 after which the parliamentarians, Meldrum and Fairfax, went south to capture Gainsborough two days later. However, all the evidence that I have seen is concerned with Burton u Stather, and Alkboro’ does not get a mention! A fort is referred to (and ‘four great pieces of Ordnance’) and it is tempting to think that this fort is the one, that certainly did exist, on the Flatts and was subsequently mapped. What if the captured fort was at the Stather however and the Flatts fort was built afterwards, to keep the Trent and the Isle of Axholme from changing hands again? Alkborough, I think, only starts being mentioned as part of the story in October 1881, when Goulton Constable delivers his famous lecture ‘Alk in very early times’ and, I suppose to entertain his audience in the school room, tells the story vividly, as though he had been an eye witness and has Sir John Meldrum climbing Alkborough Hill and clearing the village of royalists while Rev Hebblethwaite and Peter Chafer watch from their doors! Goulton Constable mentions skeletons being found’ at my end of the church walk’, and ‘14 prisoners’ and ‘nameless corpses’…I fear he had transposed events from Burton to enliven an autumn evening lecture. The story of Alkborogh in the Civil Wars gets better as the years go by, and last Sept on a visit, I was told that Cavaliers were buried in Alkborough church ‘in their cloaks’….--Semutfu (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rail line?

[edit]

Didn't a rail line used to pass through the town? It connected to the rail line down at Fixborough, and ended(?) at Whitton off to the north.. --208.65.188.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm pretty certain it didn't. If you look on a 1:25 000 OS map, there's evidence of what looks like an old railway line going up to Winteringham, and another running south from Winteringham along Halton Drain, and south along the base of the escarpment, where it runs into an extant rail system. Sammy_r (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to an elderly resident, he thinks there used to be a short railway line on the Flats (between Flatts Farm & the river.) Sammy_r (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Do list

[edit]

At end 2010:

Check Google Earth to see if the Wikipedia tag is now in the centre of the village by the war memorial. If not, see Keith D's comment below.

Please could someone look at doing articles for:

Landmarks:
Tower House,
Walcot Hall,
Walcot Old Hall,
The Nev Cole Way,
The methodist chapel(s),
The 'new' 1905 cemetery
History - more periods need adding, for example:
English Civil War (the fort on the flats and the battle to take it)
Recent
etc.
Also:
The Harrison clock in the church

Sammy_r (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Photos

[edit]

How do we stand legally / copywright-wise about putting old photos on Wikimedia? It'd be great to get them on the Alkborough page.

Sammy_r (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images must be licensed as public domain or under the GNU Free Documentation License to be used here. See Finding images tutorial for more details. Keith D (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Wikipedia Tag

[edit]

The lat/long coordinates were located some way out of the village. I updated them, but the Wikipedia tag on Google Earth is still showing at the original location. Anyone know how to get it moved? Sammy_r (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are updated by Google when they realise there has been a change to the wiki article, minor changes are not usually recognised very easily. It can sometimes take months for them to be updated. Do not know if there is a way of forcing an update. WP:Geo may know. Keith D (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pianos in the church

[edit]

I added a note about the two pianos kept in the church by the Goldstone and Clemmow piano duo, who lived locally. This, and the use of the church for recordings is well documented, but Anthony Goldstone died a couple of years ago, and I have no idea if the pianos are still there. This makes the tense of "were kept in" difficult -- someone with local knowledge might be able to tidy it up. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alkborough&oldid=1204803400"