Jump to content

Talk:Egham

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

Runnymede

[edit]

I think it's probably better to separate Egham and Runnymede. I'm not sure of the status of Runnymede as a location, but I'm fairly certain that the entirety of what would be called 'Runnymede' (ie the meadows and flood plain) does not lie within Egham's boundaries. The Magna carta was actually signed (probably) on MC island, which I suspect is now technically in Wraysbury or Staines. If anyone has a more exact knowledge than me re the status and geographic relationship between Runnymede, Egham and Staines, then feel free to revert, with an explanation here. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 10:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. The facts first. The only political boundaries today are county and borough bounderies, and perhaps voting wards. Runnymede (the meadow) is clearly within Surrey and within Runnymede (the borough). But Egham itself has no government -it is part of Runnymede. There is a voting ward that is known as "Egham central". So is Runnymede (the meadow) in the voting ward? I believe it is not in, since no one lives there. There is also the parish boundary which is not the same as the ward boundary - again since no one lives in the meadow, this is no help.
Is the Statue of Liberty in New York? I'd say so. So is Runnymede in Egham? I'd say yes. The edge is across the road (10 metres) from houses which ARE in Egham central - it is certainly not in a different town. More to the point, Egham Chamber of Commerce, among others, considers Runnymede to be in Egham. (Sources > opinion).
Your question as to whether the Magna Carta was really sealed in Runnymede or somewhere else is a question for the Magna Carta page. Briefy though, the island thing was invented only a few centuries ago according to the Egham historical society.
Separately from the Magna problem, this lack of agreed boundary of Egham makes this article tricky. Egham is not just Egham central voting ward.Obina 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Statue of Liberty IS in New York- but what about Ellis Island? As you say, it is not clear that Runnymede is actually in Egham. In reality, I suspect the meadows area straddles Egham/Old Windsor/Wraysbury. I don't know what ward or wards the area may lie in, but I'm fairly certain it will fall into one (or more). I suspect it doesn't matter if there are few or no voters- voting wards are (to the best of my limited knowledge) geographic, not demographic. Since we don't know, it's probably better to refer to it as a separate entity from Egham. As I hinted at above, I realise there is some ambiguity as to the exact location of the MC signing- but everyone knows it was signed at Runnymede, not Egham, my point being that Runnymede is a distinct location in the popular consciousness (and indeed among most historians etc). If a good source (ie the council) states unambiguously that Runnymede meadows are entirely within Egham, then that's that. In the absence of such a source, I think it's prudent to refer to them as separate, but overlapping, localities. I agree that the problem is that British towns and cities tend to have diffuse limits and it is not always clear where one place stops and another begins (London being the extreme example; ie is Staines in London? By some measures yes, by others no). Thanks for the response, Badgerpatrol 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for now that Runnymede is next to Egham not in it. Agree the Egham C of C is biased. But it is not Wraysbury (that is other side of Thames) and is not old Windsor (that is Berkshire). Runnymede (meadow) is in Runnymede (borough). Per the Surrey cc website, it would be in the Englefield Green East voting ward today. (If any voters moved there I bet the boundary would move). But anyway I've not seen any sources saying Runnymede is in Engelfield Green. Englefield Green people live "up the hill" (local speak) and the flood plain is certainly not :) (the Surrey cc map site is helpful)
Staines in London? Next you'll wonder if Puerto Rico is in the US of A.Obina 17:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is best to treat Runnymede and Egham as separate- BUT to clarify (there's always a but!)- the political boundaries are possibly abstract from the historical or geographic ones. As you say, it's clear that Englefield Green (the area at the top of the hill, essentially past the Dog's home and terminating at or just beyond Royal Holloway college) is NOT Runnymede. Equally, Magna Carta island (which is on the other side of the river- [1] ) IS, I suspect, a part of Runnymede (in the popular consciousness), but I imagine actually lies within the confines of Spelthorne politically and administratively. Political and council boundaries are plastic and ever changing- Runnymede (as the place where the Magna Carta was signed) is abstract from Runnymede (as per the current political reality). In essence- 'Runnymede' is the area of meadows (or what still exists of it) around the Thames between Staines and Windsor. Most, but not all of it, is in modern Egham (modern Egham does rather sound like a contradiction in terms!), but it is best to treat the two as separate. Badgerpatrol 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Runnymede meadows are within the parish of Egham as can been in this map. Sorry this contribution comes to your discussion a bit late. Claval 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's never too old to revive the dialogue, which seems at last to have settled. The history section can mention Runnymede was most historians agree within the parish when it was agricultural. Be wary though, 'cos parish was an acceptable unit, with a vestry administering much of the road repairs and needy poor relief people take for granted as what local administrations do now. But do not conflate a civil parish which is secular so still fine, but there is no civil parish here. So in short, Egham has thrown aside any prospect of an acceptable civil parish, its ward is certainly not quite big enough. Egham Town ward is too restricted a subject for the whole of this article. If you would like to refer to Gatton, Surrey, you will see that what has been notable, mostly remains so in England in wikipedia. That means that Egham can cover in History any of the old places that are relevant. But its mention in Old Windsor too is ok as Runnymede, protected NT property is not likely to be encroached upon by even the most audacious of developers. - Adam37 Talk 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended coffin

[edit]

I am a member of the congregation at St. John's Church Egham (Egham parish church), and the vicar has asked me to remove the text about a suspended coffin as it is untrue. I shall do so, and suggest if anyone wants to re-add it, they should provide a source. Andybalaam (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Egham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Egham. 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:

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) 19:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egham&oldid=1235072308"