Talk:Battersea Bridge

Whistler's painting of the bridge

Whistler sued Ruskin over Ruskin's remarks on Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket, not the Old Battersea Bridge painting. The judges remarks only make sense when looking at The Falling Rocket, whereas the Battersea Bridge image is clear enough. I'd prefer not to alter a featured article while it's on the front page until others weigh in. freshacconci talktalk 06:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified this within the article. Good catch. JNW (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. He sued over The Falling Rocket, but the "which part of the picture is the bridge?" comments refer to Old Battersea Bridge not The Falling Rocket. The section in question is:
The picture called the nocturne in blue and silver, was now produced in Court.
"That is Mr. Grahame's picture. It represents Battersea Bridge by moonlight."
Baron Huddleston: "Which part of the picture is the bridge?" (Laughter.)
His Lordship earnestly rebuked those who laughed. And witness explained to his Lordship the composition of the picture." – iridescent 2 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent2; I've specified that it was the Old Battersea Bridge painting which elicited the comment. JNW (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Background

It would be useful to explain which areas and main roads from London were more easily reached via this bridge than Putney or Westminster at the time it was built. It was certainly not built to connect Chelsea and Battersea, whose importance the article overstates. Neither can be called towns: no charter, no mayor. Chelsea was a posh residential suburb, a "village of palaces" rather than the industrial centre depicted; domestic service was probably the largest source of employment. How reliable is Cookson, I can't help wondering? Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cookson's the definitive source on Thames bridges, to the WP:VNT extent of "even if something in there is untrue, go with that". Battersea was very important in this period as a hub for the demi-monde, despite its relative lack of population (there's more on this on Chelsea Bridge), while Chelsea hadn't yet become the "village of palaces"—that came later—but was a major centre for the ceramic trade (Birmingham and Stoke hadn't yet begun their rise). The main driver of trade when the old bridge was built would have been traffic between Chelsea and Battersea, rather than through-traffic from London to the West Country, which followed the old Roman roads to the north and south of the river. As with all the bridges between Westminster and Kingston, there was also an element of speculation—people saw that London was steadily growing westwards, and were looking to cash in on this—although this wasn't as explicit in Chelsea as at Vauxhall. – iridescent 2 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't track down the first use in print of "village of palaces" but it seems certainly older than the bridge - various sources put it to the 16th century, which makes sense. That was the period when Henry VIII, the Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Shrewsbury, Bishop of Winchester and Thomas More all had houses. Defoe apparently called it a "town of palaces" in his A tour thro' the Whole Island of Great Britain (1724-27). According to Faulkner in 1810, Chelsea "was anciently denominated the " Village of Palaces"." By the 19th century any palaces left were being knocked down to build terraces. Wimbledon is a similar case, though there there are a few more survivals. The early English porcelain factories were all one offs and Chelsea, from 1743-45 the earliest, was not much more of a "centre" than Bow porcelain factory (c. 1745) or Lowestoft, Plymouth & Derby. Derby had already bought up Chelsea before the bridge was built. I'm still dubious that local trafic was the main driver for the bridge. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so much local traffic in the sense of people from Battersea visiting Chelsea and vice versa, but people travelling from London to Battersea and following the road to the north. Because of that sharp bend in the river, this area wasn't (and isn't) on the north-south route between any two population centres—the road from London to Richmond passed well to the south of Battersea, while the Great West Road and the King's Road were some distance to the north of the river. The roads from the south coast to the north and midlands still crossed at London Bridge and Kingston in this period; the new road network south of the river was built as part of the improvements connected with the first Vauxhall Bridge. If you look at the excerpt from the Rocque map on this article, no significant roads from any direction ran to the ferry site (marked "Horse ferry") in the 18th century. (Chelsea Waterworks, and the associated housing and industries, is just off the right hand side of the crop, so Chelsea appears deceptively small.) – iridescent 2 16:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Allisions

Shouldn't this read Collisions? Biscuittin (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Collisions are between two moving objects. Allision is when one of the objects is at rest (the bridge, in this case). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No; two moving objects collide, a moving and a fixed object allide. – iridescent 2 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The OED lists allision as probably obsolete, but you seem to be keeping it alive.--DavidCane (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not me; someone changed it, and I don't have the time for the inevitable "technically it's incorrect even though 'allision' is a word nobody has used for over a century" edit war. If you do, feel free to change it back. – iridescent 2 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Could the sentence be written to use impact instead? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battersea Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hGRGjDr7?url=http://www.mbmclub.com/auto/newsdesk/20080031191043mbmnews.html to http://www.mbmclub.com/auto/newsdesk/20080031191043mbmnews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)