User talk:Trappedinburnley/Archives/2011

MANORIAL LORDSHIPS

Greetings from Cambridge!

Manorial titles are incorporeal hereditaments, a species of property right. They are lawful if supported by proper documentation and are analogous to mineral rights which can also be manorial in origin. Manorial lordships are not titles of nobility and in consequence, can be bought and sold. They are heritable like other forms of property. They do not entitle the owner to style himself "Lord ..." but can used as a descriptor, "Mr Jones, Lord of XXX" should the owner wish to adopt such a title. Most would judge such an adoption to be in poor taste.

The issue with poor Dr Cawley is that he has been sold someone else's property. There is absolutely no question that Thomas Assheton is Lord of the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn, West Bradford and Grindleton and that this manor has included Newton(-in-Bowland) since at least the late C14th. The Land Registry holds all the documentation. Copies of these title deeds have been made available to me courtesy of Ingham & Yorke, the Assheton family agent. CJ Spencer, the foremost authority on Bowland and its archival records, has also been consulted. He has confirmed to me and to Ingham & Yorke in writing that Newton has not been a manor in its own right since at least 1399. In his words, the "manor of Newton is a fiction".

In short, the answer to your question is lordships of the manor can be both historically and commercially significant. However, they are NOT significant if you assess them as titles of nobility. In that sense, as they do not denote nobility, they are no more meaningful than a person styling himself "Landlord of the Dog and Duck". Trust this clarifies matters?

In answer to your final question, I think we should retain the detail on the manorial history on these pages but only if is properly researched, accurate and referenced.

Manorial (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

LORDOFNEWTON: CONTINUED ASSAULT ON SLAIDBURN AND NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND PAGES

Neautone has adopted a new identity - LordofNewton - to continue his assault on the Slaidburn and Newton-in-Bowland pages. Can we please protect these pages?

Manorial (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Collapsible table

Template:Collapsible table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made two new edits to Weavers' Triangle and Harle Syke to show the result of using {{hidden begin}}. I am basically indifferent to the MOS:COLLAPSE issue, but feel more strongly about the complexity of using a template to generate the entire internal table, rather than just wrapping a table inside of some collapsing templates. I hope you feel this is an acceptible solution. I think it's better if we don't reinvent the wheel when we don't need to, since editors will most likely be more familiar with the syntax used by older existing templates. Thank you for your work on these articles by the way. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help,

Hidden begin seems to work well. Collapse top and the overflow method would seem to violate the dreaded MOS:COLLAPSE on the grounds of difficulties printing the content contained within. I was always aware that there was going to be better way to do this, I hoped that if I created the template, someone would come along and help me refine it, rather than just try to delete it. I feel a bit in limbo regarding continued work on these and a few other articles until the future of Collapsible table has been decided. If it somehow survives, I’ll feel obliged to use it (rewritten or otherwise), just to protect it.

It’s no surprise people want to reform things, my experiences with the deletion forums make me wonder how many contributors have walked away from the project as a result of them. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Honor of Clitheroe

This new article only duplicates a chunk of Clitheroe, as you point out. I'm not sure whether that commented note is enough to satisfy the copyright/attribution experts, but we don't need duplication of content - one or the other version will get updated, expanded, and we end up with two near-identical but non-identical copies, neither of which is optimal. So I've reverted your edits, but have added the two useful-looking "Further reading" links to the Clitheroe page. Hope that's OK by you. PamD (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry, this is the start of a planned expansion of this article. Clitheroe contains almost no info on the subject. Honor of Clitheroe relates to Clitheroe Castle, but that article contains no info. As the honour covers an area across Lancashire and into Gt. Manchester, I don’t think it would be appropriate to put much about it in either of the other articles. I left myself the note, so that I don’t forget to tidy up Clitheroe. Can I suggest that you give us a couple of weeks? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OK - have added the "In construction" template for you. PamD (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, thanks for setting up the page. I will have the time to begin populating the page from Friday. Much appreciated.

Manorial (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, I am getting increasingly frustrated that the year of primary research undertaken by myself, CJ Spencer, and academic colleagues from Cambridge and Reading universities on the manorial history of Bowland is being called into question. Shell removed the Slaidburn lordship material apparently based on a misreading of the text we published in 2010. Why aren't you folks asking me questions rather than making ill-judged revisions? I'm happy to explain and clarify but simply trashing stuff is surely not good practice. I really want to cooperate to get these pages right. Can we please have a proper debate before paragraphs are excised without appropriate debate/explanation? Manorial (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Chill out man! Welcome to the sometimes frustrating world of Wikipedia. Due to the everyone can contribute nature of this project, we sometimes have to take a few steps back before we can go forward. Changes can always be undone, today (yesterday now) I’ve been involved in a large reversion of the De Lacy article due to copy write violations. As knowledgeable as I’m sure you are, we all could claim to be anyone. Other editors are not just going to take your word for things, they are going to look for sources, read them, and attempt to contribute to the best of their understanding. I’m sure Shell’s alterations where made in the best of faith, and it was just a misread (to be fair, your Land Registry references don’t give us a lot to work with). At Wikipedia references are of primary importance, you can write something you know to be a complete lie, as long as it is properly linked to published sources. And as I’m sure you know everything is likely to contain the odd error, for instance it would seem that when the Escutcheon special was published, you were unaware of the full extent of the honor of Clitheroe (or maybe that's a misread on my part). On the bright side this methodology can lead to new info from all sorts of places, and allows the mistakes of others to be rectified.

You may of noticed that although I have been tinkering with a few articles, I have been waiting to discuss them, before making any sizeable changes. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

PS I were you I wouldn’t pee Shell off, she seems quite important around here.

Trappedinburnley, thanks for the advice. I've got time marked out this week to work on the Bowland pages so I hope that will keep everyone happy. I can fully reference the Land Registry documentation if required. Shell seems a thoroughly good thing but I want a fair run at things this week before we get into snap editing. On which pages have you been tinkering?

Manorial (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As I feared your dispute with Neautone 1 over the content of these articles, is not yet over. I’ve never been involved in such a dispute, so I’ve sent an e-mail requesting advice on how to proceed, but for now I don’t think it is a good idea to do much with the parish articles. I’ve had a look at them all, and have a fair idea of what needs to be done with them. What you could do is have a search (preferably on the web), for sources that could be used for info you want to keep / put on them. Also, I’d familiarise myself with Wikipedia:No original research. I see no reason, why you can’t continue with Lordship of Bowland or for that matter Honor of Clitheroe. On the subject of references VCH Lancaster Vol 6 (Link on honor article) has some stuff on Bowland-with-Leagram. On Bowland, what is the point of Lord of the Fells, does it need to be a separate article?

With regard to the bits I’ve done to the parish articles, I’ve just added the odd infobox and some images. I’ve been categorising images of the area on the Commons site, and added a link from the articles that I’ve completed. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Check out the note on page x on the Chetam Society link I've just put of the honor page - shame there's not more of it. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see Neautone 1 has turned nasty. His line "Charles Towneley Strachey, 4th Baron O'Hagan, 15th Lord of the Manor of Newton sold the Manorial Lordship of Newton(in Bowland), together with some, but not all of its historical rights in February 2011" is dangerous. I understand the Asshetons may be considering legal action against Dr Cawley, Lord O'Hagan and Manorial Auctioneers - Cawley bought a bogus title from someone who was selling someone else's property without their consent. Do we really want to get dragged into this? Surely, he needs to resolve the matter with his and the Asshetons' lawyers before he is permitted editing rights.

I will focus on the Honor of Clitheroe for the moment but will give Shell the full reference details for the legal documentation held at HM Land Registry relating to Newton.

Manorial (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AMENDS TO THE HONOR OF CLITHEROE PAGE

Trappedinburnley, I have spent a couple of hours working on this page. See what you think. The Stewards section needs work. I'm checking the list of manors and forests with an independent expert. You should note that Lord O'Hagan recently tried to sell the Lordship of the Manor of Pendle. This manor - in fact a forest in the technical sense - has been owned by the Asshetons since 1945.

Manorial (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful edits!

Manorial (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a good start, most of the changes I made are little more than sugestions. Comments I have are:

Judging buy the number of small edits you are making, I'd say that you are not using the preview button enough, something I can be guilty of.

Please put a short discription of your changes in the box provided - it helps other editors when they look at the edit history.

References - freely and easily accessible sources are preferred because they can be easily verified, see WP:REF for more info. Use stuff like the Lancashire record office very sparingly.

Thanks for your efforts with this, I'll keep helping where I can --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, thanks. Good advice - as ever. As I'm sure you realise, a lot of this stuff is based on primary research but I take your point about LRO references.

Manorial (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

THE 28 MANORS OF THE HONOR OF CLITHEROE

I've talked to my specialist on Blackburnshire and here's his response:

"Regarding the 28 manors, this is the number given by T D Whitaker in Chapter Two of his “History of Whalley” [1872 edition volume I page 238] . Whitaker does not list the 28 manors but indicates these were all the manors of the Blackburn Hundred.

I would use the particulars given to William Farrer by F D Robinson [VCH Lancashire vol.6 page 362] as a good starting point. It differs from your Wikipedia list on only a small number of points: according to Farrer, there were never separate manors of Briercliffe, Burnley, Cliviger (members of Ightenhill), Marsden (Colne and Ightenhill), Haslingden (Accrington), Habergham, Padiham (Ightenhill). The Manor of Rochdale does not appear in Robinson’s list because it was sold by King Charles I in 1625. I am not sure why Robinson does not include the Forest of Rossendale, presumably it is all covered within Accrington New Hold".

I've now run out of time on this page and have to pursue my other academic work but hope this helps.

Once our friend Neautone has calmed down, I'll return to the various Bowland pages and do some pruning. In the interim, I've made some cosmetic changes, largely the introduction of subheads to break up the text. Hope this meets with your approval.

Manorial (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that my efforts of last night show that it is not safe to leave me alone with this! I feel there is still a lot to do with the article, but at the same time, I didn’t mean to suggest you should be giving up work (or anything else) for it. The nature of most Wikipedia articles is that they continually develop as editors find the time to contribute. When you have the time (no rush) what are your opinions on the following:

History is looking good, I thinks it needs more on the development side, what was added and what was sold.

Manors – if places like Burnley and Towneley were not manors in their own right what where they? I’m struggling to understand the relationship between individual manors, the honor, and Blackburnshire. If you take a look at Blackburnshire I previously put a list of manors lifted from the VCH, how do they fit in? There seems to be a school of thought that the honor was the manor, and the courts where only held in other places for convenience – however could this mean that they were all manors but their rights had been subsumed in some way?

28 Manors - I’ve not had chance to re-read it, but I think Whittaker’s figure of 28 came from Doomsday, can new ones be created? On the subject of Doomsday, the entry for Blackburn says that King Edward held it?

Accrington – my understanding is that the old hold was the original manor and the new hold was formerly the forest of Accrington? Could this true of Rossendale also?

New section – Governance – I want to know more about the courts, what was this thing apart from a massive country estate? Master foresters?

--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

THE MANORIAL CHALLENGE

Trappedinburnley, where do I start? The relations between a manor, an honor, a liberty and a hundred are exceedingly complex. There is great uncertainty in legal terms and each manor, honor, liberty and hundred has to be assessed on its own merits. For instance, a liberty - and Bowland had one which was basically all manors outside the jurisdiction of the forest courts - was never a monolithic concept. It was usually an idiosyncratic bundle of franchises dependent on the exercise of the royal prerogative under certain local conditions.

To my knowledge, there is no authoritative account of how the honor of Clitheroe developed. Whitaker must be treated with caution and one would require months of primary research to understand the detail. It took me and a colleague almost 18 months to be able to give an account of the history of the Forest & Liberty of Bowland and even now, there are many unanswered questions. (One of the reasons I get cross when I see casual amendments made to hard-won data).

Can new manors be created? Well, the general view is no but in reality, the evidence does not necessarily bear this assertion out. There are manors that do not appear in Domesday. Furthermore, commentators often confuse vills with manors - for instance, Radholme appears in the account for the area we would now call Bowland. It had a fortified hall but it is unclear whether or not this was built later (in the time of King Stephen?). The laund it abutted may also have been a later (C14th?) feature. It may simply have been a vill. Another Domesday locality Bogeuuurde has vanished completely and it is not known whether it was a vill or a manor or merely a river crossing. But the Old Norse boge- gives us Bowland so the place must have been important.

Subinfeudation was a continuous process and undoubtedly manors were merged, consolidated and lost over many centuries. Domesday gives us a snapshot of manorial England but of course, the manor existed before the Normans albeit within a different legal framework. Forests in the technical sense did not.

Finally, you ask about courts. This is horribly complex too. There were numerous courts and often overlapping jurisdictions and over the centuries, the laws changed. I don't doubt there was an honor court at Clitheroe Castle but we know that the hundredal court was held elsewhere (first at Grindleton and after the late C14th, at Slaidburn). There were forest courts - Whitewell served Bowland - but I have no idea about Pendle or Trawden or Rossendale. Again, you would need many weeks in the archives to establish the facts.

If I may say, I think you are being a mite ambitious ... if you'll forgive me for saying it!

On a separate note, in light of this discussion, I hope you'll see why I am reluctant to start trying to centralise all the manorial information on Bowland in one place. Each manor differs and it is better to have distributed accurate information as it relates to each locality. You also asked about the LORD OF THE FELLS page. That needs to be kept separate in my view. The title LORD OF THE FELLS is a significant hereditament, equivalent to the titles LORD OF MANN or LORD OF THE ISLES. It would be wrong not to give its own distinct page. It is a very ancient and early title.

Keep the questions coming ...

Manorial (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking to create the definitive work on the Honor of Clitheroe (I’d remind you of WP:NOR). I would like to get the article to a point where it gives the reader and reasonable understanding of what it was. I terms of source material, the stuff I’ve found so far, makes me feel that this should be relatively easy (If I can reference a book then it is true enough for Wikipedia).

Again I stress that I don’t mean this has to be done with any great hurry, and hope that you’ve got a reason other than this to meet with Michael Parkinson, that would be too much effort by far.

In terms of the time required for research, I would highlight the power of Google (other search engines are available). A search for “Woodmote Ightenhill” leads me to page 104 of “The royal forests of England” Pendle > Ightenhill, Trawden > Colne, and Rossendale > Accrington. True? Who knows. Good enough for Wikipedia? Absolutely. I'll try to do something with this over the weekend, I apologise in advance for the mess you will probably need to sort out when I’ve finished.

Just in case you missed it previously, where did you get “the lands of Blackburnshire were held by Tostig, son of Godwin, Earl of Wessex” from?

On Lord of the Fells – I don’t have strong views on this, but strictly speaking, it should only have a separate article if it either: contains some info that is not relevant to Lordship of Bowland, or the quantity of info is overloading the original article. If you think that other editors might create links to Lord of the fells, then you can use a redirect template (same as Lord of Bowland).

On the Bowland parishes – Info on manor/s specific to that parish = Good; Sentence linking to Lordship (the honor and Forest of Bowland as well) = Good; Copied text from the Lordship article (or any other) = Bad. I’ve some ideas for easy to source and repeat stuff that could pad out the articles to deal with the overloading issue.

Finally, a tip on linking to other articles. There are many pages on here such as Bowland, called disambiguation pages – linking to them is frowned upon. Try to remember to check where your links point to (I favour right clicking on them in the preview area, and opening them in a separate tab, but be careful not leave the preview or you’ll lose your work). --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Weavers' Triangle

I have had a brief look, and see where difficulties arise. The article is about two topics, waterside development and a museum. I would be tempted to try and move it to an article about a location, so the location could be investigated and the history of the area be addressed. The redevelopment could be treated much as you have done it. A model may be Castlefield. I imagine a target reader- say a BBC journalist living in a place far away, who has to write a 15 minute filler but knows nothing about the subject. If you like I can help with the restructuring. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about place vs museum, but it’s a tricky one. As far as I am aware, the area isn’t officially a district of the town, the name was coined by the people who setup the visitor centre. Again as far as I am aware, the visitor centre was setup specifically to highlight the historical value of that part of the town. I’m sure if it wasn’t for the Trust that run the centre, someone would of bulldozed the lot and we’d have some sort of mediocre affordable housing development by now.

I've almost got the collapsible table template sorted, except for one issue, it is currently here. It’s based on template:table. Unused column header varibles are rendered as carrige returns on the last column. Most annoying! See here for an example of what I mean. Any ideas?

Back on Queen Street, have you seen Engineering Heritage Awards?

Maybe your right about Harle Syke [Burnley Express] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of information can be found by reading the Local Plan Burnley Local plan Section 10.17 this confirms in policy BTC6 that the Weavers Triangle, for planning, is an a knpown area of Burnley Town Center. In Wikipedia terms Canal Street (Manchester) Northern Quarter (Manchester) are about such planning districts.

I'll take the page into my sandbox and show you what I mean

See if you want to add anything to Harle Syke- I have been checking details with the camera car on Google maps (thats a new first!)

--ClemRutter (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Engineering Heritage Awards? Done

Weavers Triangle- I have copied it User:ClemRutter/sandbox. I have switch around a the sections which I think opens it, and will make further editing easier. It demonstrates where the article is thin and where it is top heavy.---- apart from that I am still thinking about it.

Queen Street Mill I am holding fire until I get an email from Margaret Nowak.b

Harle Syke-

Dubious facts- maybe- i haven a clue. The Briercliffe Society is a good source but whether they are authoritative ? Do what you c an and we will see if any other editors take the bait. Ramsbottom is an well written article to watch

The reason I devised the TMtemplates for lisks of mills to introduce consistency across all the lists. See for List of mills in Shaw and Crompton, List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited- and look at Dawn Mill, Shaw. The TR template can be cut and paste into the infobox template and then additional field added. Harle Syke comes from List of mills in Lancashire. Any tweaking can be achieved by modifying the TMbegin, and facilities exist for overwriting architect with owner. It is important to keep data separate from presentation. I haven't figured out the coding needed to add an ordering function, or to make it hideable. It should be possible by rewriting TMbegin as TMbeginvheo. Another task for the to do! Today I need to sort out the house, enjoy the sun and prepare for the London Demo tomorrow. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the table on Harle Syke, I won't mind if you choose to revert back to the old method. I just wanted to see how my Collapsible table would work with some images in it. I'm not quite sure of the terminology, but I wanted it to be able to be used like Navbox (as a basis for other templates). For now I've just knocked up a quick template that makes things look more like yours and could be the basis for Template:TMbeginvheo.

Demo you say? Interesting, you'll have to let me know how that works out for you. Try not to smash any windows :-) --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been slowly building up an alternative format- Weavers' Triangle revisited. Yes more to do but what do you think? --ClemRutter (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I seem to have gotten myself involved in several things all at once, and now seem to spend all my time writing on forums and talk pages! Your version of Weavers’ Triangle is looking good – I’ve just made a few minor tweaks that I hope meet with your approval.

Unfortunately my collapsible table template was poorly received and has been deleted. During the nomination process User:Frietjes has made changes to Weavers' Triangle and Harle Syke using {{hidden begin}}. I’ve had a little experiment on List of mills in Lancashire, it would seem quite simple to use. He has also converted all the references, so I think that might cause a bit of a headache, in merging them back together.

On the subject of the Globe Iron Works, take a look at this, I’m not sure how accurate it is, but it’s certainly talking about the same site. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND & SLAIDBURN PAGES

Trappedinburnley, have added all Land Registry references (there were no codings before 2003) to these two pages. I also now have all three conveyances in my possession.

In addition, I see that the formatting on the Newton page has gone awry, with the insert box screwing up the references section. I don't know how to fix this. Can you help?

Thanks!

Manorial (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I’ve sorted it. It was caused by 2 references merged into 1, meaning that the line was too long to fit in the space available. However the paragraph that this occurred in, is exactly what I’m talking about when I say copied text from the lordship article shouldn’t be on these parish articles. I think it should really be removed. What do you think?

I've not had time to do much with the honor article, but there are a couple of things that require your attention (I've highlighted them with citation needed tags), when you have a minute --Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

STEWARDS OF THE HONOR OF CLITHEROE

Trappedinburnley, an excellent meeting with the current Steward. Will post updated info on manors and stewards shortly. Interestingly, the stewards have traditionally been appointed by deed poll.

Manorial (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

MANOR OF ACCRINGTON

Trappedinburnley, we need a distinction drawn between the manors of Accrington New Hold and Acrringhton Old Hold. I am still not clear about the distinction despite looking at Lord Clitheroe's terrier plan on Friday. However, I can certainly get confirmation on this if you wish?

Manorial (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HASLINGDEN

Trappedinburnley, the Steward of the Honor tells me Haslingden is definitely a manor. Where did you get your information from?

Manorial (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I’ve been doing a bit of reading.

Whitaker did get the figure of 28 manors from Domesday and felt that the manorial structure especially in the demesne areas was replaced at or after the creation of the honor. My re-ordering of the manors section is based on the Dixon Robinson list. What is the significance of the places grouped under the wapentake of Blackburn? The Haslingden bit actually came from the Township section of the VCH see here. There seems to have been a grouping (latterly at least), of Chatburn, Worston, Pendlteton and Downham?

Do you have a copy of Porter, John (1980). The Making of the Central Pennines. Broughton Gifford? I notice it’s referenced in your escutcheon publication, is it any good? I’ve not seen it and have stolen the ‘disafforested the chases’ bit from here. It raises the question of why the woodmote and swainmote courts seem to continue?

On the subject of Accrington, Whitaker says that the forest of Accrington was latterly considered a part of Rossendale. And that Accrington new hold was created following the disafforestation. This seems to be supported buy the place names in the Robinson List. There seems to have been a problem in the early 1600s when the crown decided that the copyholds where illegitimate.

I’ve been looking at the de Lacy inquisition and (with the help of the VCH) working up a list of the places named in it. I’m not sure how much use it actually is, take a look User:Trappedinburnley/test#De Lacy Inquisition 1311. One thing it did bring up is the term ‘dependant manor’ especially in Tottington. Another term I have come across is ‘civitas manor’ in relation to Briercliffe. Do these terms mean anything?

Trappedinburnley, I am pretty sure that a number of your entries are wide of the mark or at the least the manner in which you've organised them is confused/confusing. Have you looked at Farrer's court rolls for the Honor? Vol 1 begins in 1377 and up to 1567, it lists a relatively restricted set of manors and forests. For instance, no mention of Ramsgreave. Tottington was a bailiwick, I believe. I am hard-pressed right now for time to look into any of this but will be free from next weekend. Might I suggest you draw a provisional distinction between Whitaker's 28 manors and the manors of the Honor on the page? Michael Parkinson's C19th terrier plans (which I viewed on FRiday) suggest you should break things down as follows:

MANORS (Chatburn, Worston, Pendleton, the two Accringtons, Haslingden, Tottington, Ightenhill, Colne) FORESTS (Bowland to 1835; Trawden, Rossendale, Pendle) HUNDRED OR WAPENTAKE OF BLACKBURN

I suspect the hundredal organisation is of townships (vills) rather than manors but will need to check that.

Manorial (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND

Please note I've updated this page to reflect a little of the village's nonconformist history.

Manorial (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

EASINGTON, FOREST OF BOWLAND

Trappedinburnley, we need a page on the manor of Easington in the Forest of Bowland. Are you willing to set one up? It is one of the more obscure manors in the Liberty of Bowland but I have been researching it recently and can start poppulating a page if one is created.

Manorial (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the lost settlement of Easington, I was going to suggest that article to you at some point. It is currently listed as Easington, Lancashire on the Template: Lost settlements in the United Kingdom. I’m just about to go out but will have a look at it tomorrow. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

DISAFFORESTATION

Trappedinburnley, what do you mean by asserting that disafforestation took place in 1507?

Manorial (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As I’ve previously mentioned, the question really is "what did John Porter mean, in his book The Making of the Central Pennines?". I believe that from that time the areas ceased to be covered by forest law. The vaccaries became copyholds of inheritance (that 100 years later the Crown took issue with), and the tenants where governed in largely the same way as those in the demense manors. This seems like a notable change in the structure of the honor to me? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the page reference in Porter? I'd like to check. This makes no sense to me, I'm afraid!

Manorial (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see we still need to work on your referencing skills - p30 as the ref states. Also the Court Rolls (pages vi-xi - was also ref'd untill you removed it) and History of the forest of Rossendale support this. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Porter is loose in his description. There was a relaxation of forest law in 1507, not full-scale repeal. If you study the Whitewell court rolls, you'll see that encroachment was a challenge well into the C17th. I think it is misleading to talk of disafforestation rather than deforestation.

Manorial (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

CLIVIGER

Made an amendment to History section to reflect association of Cliviger with Kirstall in C13th.

Manorial (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed, I also don't think that the Abbey liked the area very much. I think they gave it back, or swaped it pretty quickly. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

MISSING BOWLAND PAGES

Trappedinburnley, if you have time, we have no Wikipedia pages for the following Bowland manors:

• Knowlmere
• Withgill (Crook)
• Mitton
• Hammerton
• Dunnow

If you can post them, I'll happily provide content.

Manorial (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have look, when I've got time, but I would be quite supprised if all of these manors couldn't be found somewhere inside the current civil parishes. So for now at least info should go in the history section of the parish concerned.

On Easington, remember to make it clear when you are writing about the historical stuff (I belive that Lower Easington became part of Newton on 01/04/1938, the present parish has no upper and lower divisons), remember to ref, I'll add the photo later. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PS If Dalehead is submerged beneath Stocks Reservoir, how can it contain both?

Because Dalehead is the valley!

I'll look into the Lower Easington point - I suspect you are correct. That said, you have to be careful with terminology. Parish, civil parish and township mustn't be used interchangeably.

You are correct: for instance, Hsammerton, Dunnow aare certainly within Slaidburn so I'll add to that page. Knowlmere and Withgill are more mysterious. The exception is Mitton: this certainly requires its own page.

Manorial (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowlmere Manor 53.94303°N 2.49087°W / 53.94303; -2.49087, parish of Newton, Ribble Valley

Withgill 53.86374°N 2.44613°W / 53.86374; -2.44613, parish of Great Mitton

--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute:

Dunnow Hall 53.95610°N 2.44999°W / 53.95610; -2.44999, is just inside the parish of Newton, Ribble Valley, Dunnow Brook marking the boundary.

Hammerton Hall 53.97963°N 2.42972°W / 53.97963; -2.42972, is just inside the parish of Easington, the Hodder, being the boundary here.

Saving the easy one for last – Mitton Hall 53.84241°N 2.43180°W / 53.84241; -2.43180, is in Little Mitton, which as you can see doesn’t have an article. As it shares a parish council with Bashall Eaves and Great Mitton, I’m not inclined to create on for it either. I feel that for the time being, all Mitton stuff can go in the Great Mitton article. If necessary, I’ll create a redirect from Little Mitton. Objections? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be for a article on Mitton which we could subdivide into Great and Little Mitton. This would be a more sensible approach,I think. Would you be happy to make the amendment?

Thanks for the useful coordinates. Hammerton was effectively destroyed as a manor after the Pilgrimage of Grace so I am not sure that its coordinates within the current Easington civil parish are meaningful. You use the term "parish" loosely. I take it you mean civil parish?

Manorial (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Vision of Britian site (which can be quite helpfull, once you get used to it) uses the designation ‘Ancient Parish’ for this period. I tend to use 'Ecclesiastical parish', the odd time I'm talking about the CoE variety.

Unfortunately Mitton points to an article about a main-belt asteroid, so we'd have to be something like Mitton, Lancashire. I think Great Mitton is fine. Just remember that it is an article about two present day civil parishes, for which you are expanding the history. It should read as such, when you're finished. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

MITTON, KNOWLMERE, WITHGILL, BATTERSBY, BASHALL AND HAMMERTON

Trappedinburnley, spent a couple of hours updating all these pages. I've included Withgill under Mitton and Knowlmere, Battersby and Hamerton under Slaidburn. Also, tidied up the Easington page and added in the ownership of Rushton Grange post-1539.

Can I suggest you consider adding photography to the Mitton, Bashall and Easington pages to liven them up?

Time to enjoy the sun while it lasts!

Manorial (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DISAFFORESTATION

Trappedinburnley, the best study of this process is Maurice Turner's PhD thesis, "Post-medieval colonisation in the Forests of Bowland, Knaresborough abd Pickering" (University of Hull 1987). It is available on the British Library's Ethos service. It casts doubt on the claims Porter makes for 1507.

Manorial (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. My initial thoughts on this are that the Lancs / Yorks divide led to differences between Bowland and Blackburnshire. The court rolls doesn’t specifically state that Bowland had the same sort of post 1507 enquiry as the other forests. However everything I’ve read supports the 1507 disafforestation in Blackburnshire. The only thing I’ve read so far that made me think that the same thing happened in Bowland is this. The research continues! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the history of Browsholme and this pdf comes from the Hall's website. The foundation of Browsholme Hall in 1507 may indeed be significant marking a shift in local demographics but my reading of the Whitewell court rolls suggests that things in Bowland stopped well short of total disafforestation. For instance, we know that in Leagram the hunting park was only alienated in 1563. I don't doubt that there was some impact on Bowland from the 1507 Act of Disafforestation but it was one of a number of measures that led to the slow demise of the Forest by the end of the seventeenth century. As you say, it would be interesting to understand precisely what did happen. Have a look at Turner. He focuses on Yorkshire and as you think, there were likely differences in implementation between the two counties. I am going to gently amend your wording. See what you think.

PS technically, you can't talk of "chases" within Royal Forests. By definition, a "chase" is non-Royal. Another error by Porter.

Manorial (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing information

With respect this editor has inserted the SAME info into several articles. This is not what Wikipedia is for and he has been told previously. I have posted on the editors talk page and he has not responded. The article is linked and that is all that is required. Please don't threaten me with blocking when I am not at fault or tell me I am not grown up. Why would anyone want to read the SAME edit over half a dozen times? This editor has been asked not to do this earlier on his talk page.--109.145.69.250 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

URGENT - WARNING

See the attached. I think it is Martin Cawley again.

Why are you adding the same information to numerous articles?Why are you adding the same information to numerous articles when there is an article linked to the Lordship of Bowland? This is totally unneccessary. Please stop. Thank you. --109.145.69.250 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not need to identify myself. The link Lordship of Bowland is sufficient for wikipedia. You appear to be point of view pushing by adding the same paragraph to so many articles.--109.145.69.250 (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at previous comments this is not the first time you have been told not to do this.--109.145.69.250 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I ask you again to identify yourself. It is a mere courtesy. Your tone seems to me aggressive. If you are LordofNewton or Neutone1, then I will ask my colleagues to investigate your postings.

Manorial (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manorial"

Manorial (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unless he is on holiday in the Bowland region. I'm just about to post something on (talk).

ANONYMOUS POSTER

I have no links with any other author, I was a visitor to Clitheroe who used wikipedia as a means of discovering the history of the area I have just visited and got fed up with reading the same edit. Please don't spoil wikipedia with your own personal preferences it is supposed to be neutral. I have actually discovered very little about the places I visited other than getting fed up with rereading something I wasn't interested in.--109.145.69.250 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this. We are all volunteers and we try our best!

Manorial (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorial (talk • contribs)

RATIONALISATION OF BOWLAND REFERENCES

Trappedinburnley, have now completed the editing process and excised all the lordship detail as we agreed from all the Bowland-related pages. Hope you approve.

Manorial (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Busy day! I’ve never seen so many changes in my watchlist. I’ll have a proper look at the articles later, and add some images and an infobox here and there and I think we can proud of the progress.

Assuming the anonymous poster was telling the truth about being a visitor to the region, they are precisely the reason why I’m involved with Wikipedia. That being an attempt improve things around here the area (well Burnley primarily), by improving the coverage of it on this site.

They raise a good point that many readers may have little interest in the ancient history of the region. I sure many of the articles could continue to be improved with more present day info and recent history (As time permits of course).

I thank you for your efforts --Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I'm not the person to do the modern stuff, I'm afraid.

BTW, Neutone/Lordofnewton has been in touch again. Apparently, he now accepts that he does not own the "manor" of Newton and is taking action against those who sold it to him. We did a good job there too. What a team!

Manorial (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

SLAIDBURN AND BOWLAND FOREST PAGES: FORMATTING ISSUES

Someone's quite reasonable Insertion of the image of St Andrew's Church on the Slaidburn page screwed up the formatting on the References section so I have reluctantly deleted the image.

On the Bowland Forest page, the insertion of a photo of Parlick has disrupted the flow of the text and needs correction.

All the best

Manorial (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that was me. I've since decided that the using an image gallery (like the ones I put on Great Mitton & Bashall Eaves last night) is a better idea, especially in sorter articles where space is limited. Assuming you approve I’ll add one to Slaidburn.

EASINGTON, WHITEWELL AND LEAGRAM: PAGES NEED ILLUSTRATION

Trappedinburnley, good work on the pages I updated yesterday. Please don't neglect the Easington, Whitewell and Leagram pages.

Manorial (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done

Trappedinburnley, you were going to add Easington Manor to the Easington page?

Manorial (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I did, it is the last image in the gallery. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You did - my apologies. I've tidied up the captions.

Manorial (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

HONOR OF CLITHEROE

Trappedinburnley, I've taken the liberty of inviting the Lord of the Honor of Clitheroe, Lord Clitheroe, to comment on our current page. Will let you know when I receive his comments.

Manorial (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We better have another go with the manors and forests list --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs some reclassification. I'm going to wait until I hear back from the Steward of the Honor.

Manorial (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

CROSS O'GREET

Trappedinburnley, this is an important topographical and boundary feature in the Forest of Bowland. Do you think it merits its own page?

Manorial (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing deserves an article unless it can be legitimately linked to from at (the very) least 3 other articles. What makes this cross more notable than the others scattered across the countryside? Are sufficient sources available to reference?

I’d just develop the mention in Easington for now. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll follow your advice - thanks. Been working on Easington again. Not quite right yet.

Manorial (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On every map I've seen it is marked as the 'Cross of Great'. On the article generally, I think that some of the History section would be better moved into the Geography section. Also the woodland area marked on the map as Gisburn forest seems to be a 20th C creation, there is also a CP with the same name, that contains Gisburn, I feel that the distinction needs to be made. With this in mind I'm going to create a redirect that points to Gisburn. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

EASINGTON, NEWTON & SLAIDBURN

On reflection, decided to make the changes you suggested. Easington needs some more work, I think Manorial (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GRANT OF KNOWLMERE MANOR, 1382

Trappedinburnley, I've emailed you a photo of the 1382 grant. I think it'd look great embedded in the body text of the History section. See what you think. Manorial (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that would be a nice addition to the article. The rules on image uploading are very strict, specifically around copyright issues. You mention that it needs to be captioned “courtesy of LRO”, this implies they might hold a copyright on it? In order for us to us it, the owner needs to license it for re-use by anyone for any purpose, although I believe we can stipulate an attribution. Tell me more about it? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo has been provided to me by CJ Spencer. I've written to him to get clarification. Please hold fire until I get a response. Manorial (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

COMMENTARY ON HONOR OF CLITHEROE PAGE

Trappedinburnley

Here is the commentary provided to me by Lord Clitheroe's agent. Can you adjust the page to reflect these comments?

COMMENTS

Page 2

Since 1945, the following transfers have taken place:-

• 12.4.1961 – Deed of Gift of the Honor of Clitheroe from the late Lord Clitheroe (formerly Rt.Hon. Ralph Assheton PC) to the present Lord Clitheroe (then the Hon. R. J. Assheton).

• 3.12.1971 – Conveyance by Lord Clitheroe of all the mineral rights within the Honor, other than those in Haslingden (within the Manor of Accrington Old Hold) to the Trustees of the Hon. R. C. Assheton’s Discretionary Settlement, commonly known as the Minerals Trust.

• 21.10.1991 – Conveyance by Lord Clitheroe of the mineral rights in Haslingden within the Manor of Accrington Old Hold to the Trustees of the Hon. R. C. Assheton’s Settlement.

• 6.11.1991 – Conveyance by Lord Clitheroe of the Honor of Clitheroe other than mineral rights to the Hon. R. C. Assheton.

Accordingly, the Hon. R. C. Assheton can now style himself Lord of the Honor of Clitheroe or more strictly, Lord of the Various Manors and Forests within the Honor of Clitheroe.

Page 3

The index to the Clitheroe Estate Co. Ltd Terrier Plan Book of the Honor of Clitheroe shows the Manors and Forests as comprising:-

• Manor of Chatburn, Worston and Pendleton
• Manor of Accrington Old Hold
• Manor of Accrington New Hold
• Forest of Rossendale
• Manor of Tottington
• Manor of Ightenhill
• Manor of Colne
• Forest of Trawden
• Forest of Pendle

Also copyhold lands of the Wapentake of Blackburn not included in any of the above Manors or Forests.

Cliviger is within the Wapentake of Blackburn and not Ightenhill, as evidenced in the Terrier Plan Book and also a Memorandum of Extinguishment of Manorial Incidents dated 28 June 1940 between Clitheroe Estate Co. Ltd and Lady Alice Reyntiens.

The Township of Habergham is probably more properly known as Habergham Eaves as shown in the Terrier Plan Book. The Terrier Plan Book suggests that Chatburn, Worston and Pendleton comprise a single Manor, which the 1898 Conveyance to the Clitheroe Estate Co. Ltd. seems to support; however the 1660 Letters Patent suggests these were separate Manors.

Clitheroe is not a separate Manor and the copyhold lands within the Borough of Clitheroe fall within the Wapentake of Blackburn, again as evidenced in the Terrier Plan Book and also a Conveyance dated 4.4.1960 of mines and minerals to Ribblesdale Cement Ltd.

Downham is not shown as being part of the Honor of Clitheroe in the Terrier Plan Book, with the Lordship of the Manor of Downham having been held by the Assheton family prior to the late Lord Clitheroe’s purchase of the Honor.

Hoddlesden is not within the Honor of Clitheroe; however Yate and Pickup Bank is within the Forest of Rossendale.

The Stewards to the Honor actually lived in what is now the Clitheroe Castle Museum, with the office being across the courtyard in a building which is now partly used for exhibitions. I recollect being told that the late Col. G. M Robinson was born at the time his father was the Steward and living in what is now the Castle Museum.

Michael Jennings, whilst formally appointed as Deputy Steward in 1971 by Col. Robinson, emigrated to New Zealand in 1973 so was never actually the Steward, with Ken Shaw therefore following Col. Robinson.

Manorial (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley

Is this stuff useful for you??

Manorial (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay I’ve been busy with other things. The short answer is some of it is.

A longer answer is, while it gives us a slightly improved picture, really I’ve just got more questions. We can’t use this stuff directly in the article because it is original research, so I’ll have to do some more digging around on the web.

Questions:

• If we started out with the manor of Accrington and the forest of Accrington, how can we end up with the manors of Accrington New Hold, and Accrington Old Hold?
• How do we fit the Wapentake of Blackburn into the manors and forests lists?
• How could the manors of Chatburn, Worston and Pendleton come to comprise a single Manor?

--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, My knowledge of these manors is very limited. However, I believe Accrington Forest would have been disafforested and that there was where the re-naming came in. A wapentake is a pre-Conquest form and would in effect overlay the manors and forests.

The case of Chatburn, Worston and Pendleton is analogous to Slaidburn which under its C14th Manor and Liberty subsumed Grindleton, West Bradford AND Newton-in-Bowland.

Manorial (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the wapentake of Blackburn, in this respect actually means that area covered by the the Court Leet. The index of Court Rolls at the national archives (link on the honor article) - suggests that the merger of the manors didn't occur untill the C19th --Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you beginning to update the Honor page in light of these comments or shall I do it? The term "wapentake" is pre-Norman. Manorial (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I’ll do some bits, but to be honest there are so many major questions with this article I feel at a bit of a loss with it.

Most of the stuff I’ve read implies that wapentake and hundred mean the same thing, one Danish the other Saxon. However the following two passages have me thinking:

“...the hundred court was held every three weeks. The lord of Clitheroe took all the profits and was not accountable for them to the sheriff. This court was vulgarly termed 'the Wapentake court of Blackburnshire’.” A History of the County of Lancaster: Vol 6 p230

“2. The Great Court Leet of the hundred or wapentake of Blackburn was originally held every three weeks at Clitheroe Castle, having jurisdiction over the Wapentake of Blackburn and within the Borough of Clitheroe, but not within the demesne Manors.” The Court rolls of the honor... Vol 1 pvii

What I'm getting at is which court would copyholders outside the demese belong too?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The hundedral court and some of them might also be subject to the courts of their mesne lords ... Manorial (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

HONOR OF CLITHEROE

Trappedinburnley, are you proposing to update this page in light of the information provided by the former Steward of the Honor? I posted this information on your talk page. Manorial (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As my post from yesterday states, I’m still trying to get to the bottom of a few things. Right now, I’m looking at the Accrington issue. The National Archives have records for the manors of Accrington Old Hold and Accrington New Hold. At least one of them indicates that Rawtenstall was in Accrington New Hold. We also certainly had the townships of New Accrington and Old Accrington, with New Accrington appearing to cover the former forest with that name. I’ve previously worked up a list of townships in the forest of Rossendale( User:Trappedinburnley/test). The current puzzle is how the manor of Accrington New Hold and the forest of Rossendale seen to coexist. It seems that the New Hold and Rossendale titles where in the same sale as Bowland. Is it possible that the more populous areas of the forest became part of the manor, with the rest remaining in name at least forest?

My understanding of the transfers listed at the beginning, makes me thinks that the following sentence would cover it: “And has remained in the ownership of the Assheton family to the present day.”--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wapentake and hundred are different but used interchangeably later. I wouldn't get hung up on it. Once is Norman, the other pre-Norman. "Wapentake" refers to a ritual whereby landholders touched their spear to their lord's spear in tribute and in fealty. New Hold, as I understand it, was carved out of the Forest, as you describe. It was released from forest law (disafforested). I'm happy with your approach to the transfers but I think we do need to amend the list of Stewards? Manorial (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I’m sure that you have noticed that I did a few bits on it yesterday. Perhaps I should explain my motivation behind involvement with this article. For a long time there has been a sentence on Burnley that reads “At this point, it was within the manor of Ightenhill, one of five that made up the Honor of Clitheroe”. I am seeking to understand the meaning behind that sentence, especially how that effected the development of the area.

While some of the stuff I want to know, isn’t particularly needed for this article, I am hoping that it can (at some point in the future) be used to create articles on the forests, and might be relevant to the User:Trappedinburnley/Whalley (ancient parish) article I’m working on.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC) PS I’ve also tweaked the refs on Newton a little. PPS If you want to add to the article, your more than welcome, we'll figure out any ref's as we go.

/* Harle Syke */

looked at the tweak- great one problem in Monobook- the table is now indented off the page! Have you being following my Chimney sweeps that was great fun there were so many references available. OK, so I am bragging.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I started this yesterday, then ran out of time. At the moment, it is just your templates (with some data transferred), wrapped in a hidden begin. I think that I may as well ask one or two people, how to achieve the desired results. At the moment I can see two issues:

• The hidden title bar is not connected to the table, so it is being resized to fit a different width to the table itself.
• Your templates seem to leave a white border on the right side of the tables, the hidden title bar does not.

I think these could be fixed, however I don’t have a clue if we can fix the sort-ability issue. I apologise in advance, if this turns into as big a nightmare as I worry it will! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Try that for me? So far I've not had to ask anyone about it. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PS I hadn’t been following your article, but I’ve just taken a look at it and I’ve got to say that is a masterpiece of referencing! I’m gonna have to figure out how you did some of that.

MANOR OF BLACKBURN

Trappedinburnley, you write "Ramsgreave - A chase attached to the manor of Blackburn" but there is no reference to such a manor in the preceding copy. Do you mean this was part of the wapentake? Surely, there was a manor of Blackburn? It is rather confusing, I fear ... Incidentally, Manorial Auctioneers recently tried to sell Pendle (also owned by the Asshetons). Manorial (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I do mean the manor of Blackburn, but I now think that it isn't part of the honor, so it could be moved to Hoddlesden. Take a look at British History, and let me know what you think. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was part of the Honor at an early date only but quickly and permanently passed to the church. I therefore think we need to exclude the Manor of Blackburn from this piece. I don't understand where Hoddlesden comes in. What happens to Ramsgreave in consequence? ... Manorial (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooops I don't know how Hoddlesden snook in there! I'll move it to Ramsgreave in a bit. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

MANOR OF DOWNHAM

Trappedinburnley, I received a letter from Lord Clitheroe yesterday. He advises me that his forebears bought the manor of Downham in 1558. It had been granted to John de Dinelay by Henry, Duke of Lancaster (Henry of Grosmont) in 1354 and had therefore been part and parcel of the Honor of Clitheroe up until 1558. Manorial (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Downham, is there anything else that can be added? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I should have thought a link would be adequate. There is little point in re-hashing existing material.Manorial (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a ref. I think that the Assheton link to Downham is worthy of a little coverage in the History section. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation formatting

Hi, before either of us add too many more to the list, I just wanted to mention the citation template, as we should be using the same one for consistency. Having looked at the dedicated NHLE template, I'm not really sure if it's best. We're going to have English Heritage linked on every occurrence, which is overlinking in my eyes, I'm not convinced the list should be in italics (WP:ITALICS) and I'm not sure we need to have the number mentioned in the title. On the whole, I'd rather stick with the {{Citation}} template. However, I'm not dead against the other one so would be interested to hear your opinion. What do you think? --BelovedFreak 09:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m a little surprised you have an issue with the template, I thought it a noticeable improvement in terms of space saving and the general advantage templates of this type have in combating link rot. Now I look it is relatively new and not particularly widely used, but my worry in us not using it is that we’ll be just creating extra work for somebody who later decides that we should have. If your concerns are just about the formatting it produces, could we look to improve the template?

Another thing to make a decision on is coordinates. Some of the records have multiple coordinates, do we use them all? If not which ones: the first one, the one we feel is best?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Space saving is one advantage I noticed, for sure. Does the new template combat link rot more than the {{Citation}} templates? My personal preference is the older template, for the reasons stated above, but it's not unusual to have different opinions on things like this when collaborating. I'm not wedded to the other one, consistency is the most important thing I think. I'm sure we'll come across bigger problems as we go!

As far as coordinates, I'm not sure what the best option is, but one possibility is to make it a shorter coordinate (ie covering a slightly larger area) to avoid using more than one. Do some of them have more than one coordinate because they fall into more than one parish? For now, I'd be inclined to either add them both, or just pick one, and we can go back and check later. --BelovedFreak 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The idea behind the template combating link rot is that the URL to the webpage is coded into the template, so should EH decide to change the site in the future someone would only have to change one URL not (potentially) thousands. Dropping the italics and link to the EH article would only take seconds and I hope nobody will mind. I'll do it right now if you want to see what I mean?

On the coordinate front, it seems that some of the sites have several areas of protection, the most I’ve found so far is Ribchester with 4 (see the 2 Burnley ones for examples)--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, ok, I didn't understand about the URL. That does make it more worthwhile. I'm not sure about changing the italics and link without discussion, it might sound silly but you'd be surprised how strongly people can feel about these things. Either way, that clever URL thing makes it worthwhile using the template, so carry on with it and I'll get around to changing the ones I've already added. --BelovedFreak 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK since I made my last statement I’ve found Template:Cite PastScape and that isn’t used at all despite the 1000s of articles it would apply too. This (and your reluctance) is filling me with a sense that I’m missing something and I’ll regret this decision later. I can’t really think what to do except plough on and hope for the best, just as long as I’m not railroading you into it?

Also I’ve tweaked the formatting and decimal places on the coordinates on the warren in Burnley to be closer to the Cheshire lists. I think this will work better especially for the ones with multiple sites, do you agree? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine on the coordinates. I really wouldn't worry too much about the template - you're not railroading me and I'm happy to go with the dedicated one. It may be that the formatting details can be tweaked later at the template, if there's consensus to do so.--BelovedFreak 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)