Talk:Norton Folgate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on London's transport system. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or visit the Portal. |
 |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. (add assessment comments) | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the London Transport WikiProject.
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Parish church
It was the parish - i.e. Norton Folgate had its own parish church until 1921; then absorbed. Administration was divided between two civil authorities in 1899/1900. It's those pesky vestries again! Kbthompson 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is that not an ecclesiastical parish rather than a civil one? What is odd is that this remarkably comprehensive source Survey of London Vol 27: Norton Folgate, which even goes into the minutes of the Liberty trustees, doesn't make any mention of the creation or abolition of any putative civil or ecclesiastical parishes of Norton Folgate...though it does show - inter alia - that this particular 8 acres of England's not so green and pleasant land has an administrative history which rivals that of the Holy Roman Empire in its complexity...Colin4C 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the answer to that question is yes, and the confusion comes about when the problems of managing the city are too big for the essentially amateur vestry organisations to cope with. The gas works is particularly illustrative; it STANK! They got away with it, because they promised this tiny authority, acres of loot and damn the residents of Bishopsgate and Spitalfields. One of the few things to enjoy about living in a 2000 year old city, is surely these little anomalies? When you go back to source texts, they don't normally answer the question you're asking, because they're written from a different PoV, and that's good too! You're getting these from BritHist online? Why not include the link in the reference? Kbthompson 12:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's an interesting story: I see that Norton Folgate lived up to its status as a 'liberty'. Appeals to the anarchist in me. As for the reference, I put the reference-link in 'external links' - however I must admit that I'm mystified by the 7 or 8 different mutually contradictory and/or redundant ways you can reference things in wikipedia. Colin4C 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I particularly enjoyed the bit about servants in Spitalfields Sq, floating in tubs across the cellar to fetch the beer from the barrels. Again, it was springs bursting to the surface, this was probably why the Priory was originally founded here. I think the 'in text' referencing system is fairly good, which is why I use it; bit, as you've said before, the system is flexible enough to accept multiple forms - just a tad inconvenient when someone goes [citation needed] on you! Kbthompson 13:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Census figures
TKU, but more useful if referenced to source - and possibly better looking as a horizontal table - a lot of white space in a web page leaves something to be desired. Kbthompson 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
TKU for providing a reference, I remain a little concerned about the figures. If one compares these figures for (abt) 1890 with the 5 acre Nichol Rookery (200m to the north); there in 1890 are packed 6000 individuals. Norton Folgate was in a similar position, having become home to former soldiers, prostitutes and other ne'er do wells (probably actors) - see the Brit Hist online reference. (So, they seem comparable populations). The organisation of Norton Folgate was poor until it was adopted by neighbouring boroughs, and ruled by ancients, rather than the more normal vestry. It didn't has proper drainage, or even proper pavements until about 1880. The train tracks for Liverpool Street were driven through the area, abt 1874, and this took abt 3 acres out of the area. Yet, the statistics you've put up show a relatively stable population - on the low side. This leaves me puzzled for an explanation. Maybe it would be worth looking at the Charles Booth archive for his records of the area. Kbthompson 11:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The soldiers, prostitutes and vagrants reference refers to the 16th-17th century. The soldiers were associated with the nearby Old Artillery Ground which moved to Bunhill in the late 17th century. Colin4C 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point, but I still think the area analogous to the Nichol, not as it appears from the stats, some rural underpopulated idyll ... Kbthompson 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Top redirection message
maybe add a message on the top saying something like THIS IS THE PAGE ABOUT THE LIBERTY , FOR THE FORTHCOMING ALBUM BY MADNESS GO TO MADNESS Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's mentioned under cultural references, and that's not how disambiguation works on wikipedia. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In the news
Not sure if worth adding, but a group are claiming the liberty was never dissolved in an attempt to halt planning consent for a tall building. [1] MRSC • Talk 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
