DOCSLIB.ORG

Caring for Historic Graveyard and Cemetery Monuments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Caring for Historic Graveyard and Cemetery Monuments Caring for Historic Graveyard and Cemetery Monuments Guidance and best practice for the assessment, planning and implementation of conservation work to monuments as well as legal frameworks and statutory duties. www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/ caring-historic-graveyard-cemetery-monuments Contents Summary 3 1 Approach 4 2 Historical background 5 Churchyards 5 Burial grounds 6 Cemeteries 6 War cemeteries and war graves 6 3 Monuments 8 Types of monuments 8 Materials 10 4 Deterioration 14 Material properties and decay characteristics 14 Structure 16 Inappropriate treatments 16 5 Legislation 19 Health and safety 19 Statutory designations 19 6 Management 20 Prioritisation of work 20 7 Inspection and assessment 21 Inspection survey process 21 Documentation 21 Condition survey and risk assessment 25 8 Practical treatment 27 Establishing priorities 27 Commissioning conservation work 27 Routine care and maintenance 27 Practical intervention 28 9 Further information 39 Funding 39 Principal sources of advice 39 Other sources of advice 41 Bibliography 41 2 Summary Monuments mark the final resting place of people DEFINITIONS whatever their origins and status.The materials, design, Monuments: throughout this document, the word craftsmanship and inscriptions of these monuments are ‘monuments’ has been used to include outdoor a rich and irreplaceable repository of information that monuments, memorials, sculptures and other symbols of connects us with previous generations and their history. commemoration They continue to be objects of respect but unfortunately, many monuments are also neglected. Churchyards: a burial ground around a church or other place of worship Many burial sites are still in use and provide us with Burial grounds: a pre-Victorian place of burial without a landscapes of cultural, historical and natural interest. place of worship The monuments within them commemorate the deceased, but also have associated historical, communal Cemeteries: a landscaped place of burial and evidential values.The appropriate care of monuments is essential to preserve these values as well as their architectural and aesthetic character. This advice note is intended for anyone interested in or responsible for the conservation of monuments, memorials and sculptural elements within a churchyard, burial ground or cemetery – this includes those who manage burial sites on behalf of local authorities, churches and other bodies, 01 conservation professionals, statutory bodies and volunteer groups. It should be read in conjunction with both Paradise Preserved (published by English Heritage and Natural England in 2007), which introduces the management and conservation of historic cemeteries, and Managing the Safety of Burial Ground Memorials – Practical Advice for Dealing with Unstable Memorials (issued by the Ministry of Justice in January 2009). This note provides guidance and best practice on the 02 assessment, planning and implementation of conservation work to monuments, as well as legal frameworks and statutory duties. Conservation priorities are likely to be directed towards listed monuments but this note relates to all monuments that, due to their condition, are considered to require specialist repair.The guidance is directed primarily towards the conservation of stone as this is the material from which most monuments are made. FRONT COVER IMAGES: IMAGES: Cover Top Left: Headstone Cover Bottom Left: In Kensal 01: West Norwood cemetery is a 02: Holbeck Cemetery, Leeds, is which is leaning and suffering from Green Cemetery the competition typical example of an overgrown a municipal cemetery with a rich lamination but is still structurally for space and the grandiosity of the cemetery containing a variety of diversity of monuments from the stable © Odgers Conservation monuments is evident © OCC monuments of historic value within 19th and 20th centuries. Many have Consultants (OCC) a diverse natural landscape now been damaged, desecrated Cover Bottom Right: Ivy entwined © Clara Willett or laid down for reasons of ‘safety’ Cover Top Middle: A range of around the cross of a monument © OCC monuments showing a variety of – the eventual result of poor styles, stones and ages © OCC maintenance © OCC Cover Top Right: Detail of monument showing lead lettering and loose pointing © OCC 3 1 Approach Deterioration and the effects of weathering are an • Cleaning – Generally to be discouraged as inevitable part of the history of a monument.The inappropriate techniques can cause damage.The need purpose of conservation is to slow down the rate will depend upon the nature of the original material of decay, remove any causes of structural instability and dirt layers to be removed.The aim should always and provide physical security while, at the same time, be to clean in the safest and least invasive manner preserving as much as possible of the historic significance without damaging the underlying material. and original material of the monument. Many aspects of repair and maintenance of historic monuments, especially those involving complex No intervention should ever attempt to alter the structures, require professional involvement. Specialist intended appearance of the original or seek to achieve conservators should be engaged to evaluate the a pristine or highly restored condition. Restoration condition of the materials of construction, and carry out may only be justified in the case of inscriptions of and supervise treatments. Architects and surveyors need significant historic interest, or where decay has become to inspect buildings and larger structures and, in cases of disfigurement, and repairs are able to overcome losses serious structural instability, a structural engineer will be in a way that is still reversible.These criteria are detailed required. Stonemasons and historic building contractors in English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies and should be used to repair headstones, provide temporary Guidance (pp 55–7). support to displaced elements, repoint defective or failed joints and rebuild collapsed or unstable monuments. Successful conservation and repair requires both careful planning and a clear understanding and Volunteers can have a role to play in tackling knowledge of the proposed approaches, methods and maintenance work such as pruning invasive vegetation. materials. Practical treatment should use materials that They can also help with research into monuments and are suitable in terms of performance (for example the production and updating of the condition reports. durability and compatibility) and working properties (for example methods of application and health and safety In all cases, the approach must be one of understanding, implications).Well-developed practical skills are also assessing and carrying out remedial works as the need essential to carry out the work to the required standard. for them becomes apparent – this will prevent more costly conservation work later and also address any Detailed information necessary for step-by-step health and safety concerns. evaluation of the condition and methods of conservation repair work are covered in Sections 6–8 of this 03 publication, but the main areas of practical treatment for monuments are: • Emergency intervention – Enclosing a monument within a barrier or structure to prevent public access while further inspection, stabilisation and more detailed repair are undertaken. In some instances, application of temporary supports or propping to secure displaced elements (which might otherwise become detached and damaged) may be necessary. However, the routine staking of monuments as a general safety measure IMAGE: should not be considered an appropriate emergency 03: The headstone to Thomas intervention. Rosewell in Bunhill Fields, London, although unremarkable, has • Repair – Ranging from repointing open joints, grouting, considerable historical significance. surface stabilisation and treatment of individual Rosewell was tried for high treason by Judge Jeffries and then pardoned elements to complete dismantling and rebuilding. by King Charles II. The headstone was repaired in the 1990s © OCC 4 2 Historical background The majority of extant grave markers are found in enduring expression of the lives and social relationships established burial sites, such as graveyards, churchyards, of the deceased. burial grounds, cemeteries and war cemeteries – all of which are routinely encountered in England. It is More elaborate outdoor monuments began to appear important to distinguish between different types of in the 18th century, as the well-connected ceased burial sites since each one has its own religious and to always be buried inside the church. In the same cultural background. They may also be defined by period, commemoration was no longer reserved for distinctive legal requirements that can affect the upper classes alone, and the use of local materials monument conservation. and craftsmen led to substantial regional variation in monument styles. Surviving monuments are often just a fraction of those CHURCHYARDS originally erected – wooden monuments have generally perished, and older stones were regularly removed The practice of burial in churchyards commonly dates when damaged or no longer cared for. The lack of space from the 8th century AD and assumed a virtual and the fact that only a small proportion of interments monopoly of such space until the 1850s, when cemetery were marked with permanent monuments means burial began to replace churchyard burial especially that surface
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cemeteries Strategy for the London Borough of Brent
    Cemeteries Strategy for the London Borough of Brent Table of Contents Executive Summary Section1: Introduction Section 2: Current Provision Section 3: Demand for Burial Space Section 4: Income and Expenditure Section 5: Key Issues and Areas for Development Section 6: Vision and Objectives Appendices Appendix 1: Legal Background and Statutory Powers Appendix 2: Action Plan Appendix 3: Consultation Report 1 Executive Summary Brent Council is a burial authority by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 and is legally obliged to maintain its cemeteries ‘in good order and repair’ 1. It is not legally obliged to provide new burial space but the sale of space generates income that funds the maintenance of cemeteries and provides a service to residents. If the council does not continue to provide new burial space to meet demand, maintenance costs will still have to be met, creating a budget shortfall. The council owns and manages three cemeteries within the borough; Alperton, Paddington Old and Willesden New. It also jointly owns Carpenders Park Cemetery, located outside the borough within the area of Three Rivers District Council near Watford. Harrow Council owns approximately 25% of the burial land at Carpenders Park with Brent managing the whole cemetery as part of a joint delivery arrangement. The council is currently exploring options for the grounds maintenance and management of its cemeteries as part of its Managing the Public Realm project. The three cemeteries in Brent are traditionally laid out with memorial stones while Carpenders Park is a lawn cemetery with graves grassed over apart from horizontal memorial plaques. New land for graves is available at Carpenders Park but not at any of the cemeteries located in the borough.
    [Show full text]
  • Cemetery Records
    RESEARCH GUIDE Cemetery Records Research Guide 5: Cemetery Records CONTENTS Introduction Main cemetery records held at LMA Bunhill Fields (CLC/271) New Bunhill Fields, Islington (B/NBF) The City of London Cemetery, Little Ilford (CLA/052) The City of London and Tower Hamlets Cemetery (CTHC) Other cemetery records at LMA Indexes and Transcripts in the LMA Library Records held elsewhere Introduction Before the mid-19th century most burials in London took place in churchyards and from the mid-16th century were recorded in parish registers. Some hospitals and other institutions had their own burial grounds. From the time of the Black Death special burial grounds outside the City walls were provided for people who died from the periodic epidemics of plague which afflicted London. Land to the north of the Artillery Ground known as Bunhill Fields was set aside in 1665 as a plague burial ground, but was not used for this purpose. It then became a burial ground for nonconformists. After 1690 many nonconformist meeting houses and chapels were established in London some of which had their own burial grounds. By the late 18th century the London churchyards were becoming overcrowded. New cemeteries were established as private speculations generally offering slightly lower charges for burials than the churchyards. Some of these burial grounds were originally connected to chapels adjoining them, but were subsequently bought by private individuals. By 1835 there were at least fourteen such burial grounds in London including Spa Fields, Clerkenwell, opposite London Metropolitan Archives (LMA) where about 80, 000 people were buried. An enquiry in 1843 discovered that about 40 burials were taking place each day.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnificent 7 Seminars: 'Diversity in Cemeteries' 11.00-4.30 PM
    Magnificent 7 Seminars: ‘Diversity in Cemeteries’ 11.00-4.30 PM | Small Crematorium Chapel, West Norwood Cemetery 10.30 Registration, teas and coffees 11.00 Welcome and the Future of Magnificent 7 | Greg McErlean, Ruth Holmes , Nigel Thorne | The Royal Parks Panel 1: Challenges to Diversity in Cemeteries 11.15-11.30 Rules, glorious rules: Challenges in introducing Diversity at Highgate Cemetery | Ian Dungavell Friends groups are often founded to protect cemeteries. You can protect cemeteries by keeping people out, but also by welcoming them in. There is no consistent set of rules to govern appropriate behaviour in cemeteries, and notions of what is ‘respectful’ vary enormously. Having too many rules risks alienating visitors and creates problems for those who have to police them. Having no rules invites mayhem. 11.30-11.45 Diversifying Audiences in Abney Park Cemetery | Tom Simpson | Abney Park manager For those of the Magnificent Seven that no-longer operate as working cemeteries, increasing the diversity of park users and uses is crucial in preserving and protecting these unique sites. However, encouraging people to engage with spaces that are ‘full of dead people’ can be challenging. This presentation explores how Cemeteries can diversify audiences and the challenges faced when trying to attract new users to a cemetery. 11.45-12.00 Q&A: Challenges to diversity in cemeteries with Ian Dungavell and Tom Simpson. Chaired by Nigel Thorne Panel 2: Biodiversity in Cemeteries 12.00-12.15 The Green Reaper - bringing life to a Cemetery | Kenneth Greenway - Cemetery Park Manager The Friends of Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park have been involved in site management since the 1990's.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation on Proposed Changes and Investment Into West Norwood Cemetery (Phase 2 Consultation)
    Consultation on proposed changes and investment into West Norwood Cemetery (Phase 2 consultation) Consultation Report June 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Background West Norwood Cemetery was established by Act of Parliament in 1836 and designed by Sir William Tite. It was laid out, in what was then open countryside, close to the Great North Wood to relieve the over-full churchyards of the growing city of London. In recent years the Gothic Revival-style cemetery, which contains 69 Listed Grade II* and II memorials and structures, has faced an increasing threat to its future and long-term sustainability. With local residents and our partners we hope to address this through a National Lottery-funded project. With Heritage Lottery funding (HLF) and Lambeth’s match funding we have a budget of £441,000 to develop proposals for the Cemetery over an 18-month period, up to August 2018. If we successfully secure a HLF grant to protect and improve the cemetery, we expect work will be carried out over five years between 2019 and 2024. 1.2 Our proposals ‘West Norwood Cemetery: A New Beginning’ is a HLF-funded project that proposes conservation of the cemetery’s significant landscape and built structures and increased community use. It includes ideas for the conservation of monuments along with a new visitor centre to tell the cemetery’s history. By enhancing visitor amenities - and accessibility - we want to encourage greater use by local people, in a densely populated area, where there is a lack of open space. We aim to deliver an activities programme to support volunteering and learning as well as design digital and interpretation materials.
    [Show full text]
  • An Audit of London Burial Provision
    An Audit of London Burial Provision A report for the Greater London Authority by Julie Rugg and Nicholas Pleace, Cemetery Research Group, University of York 1 Contents List of tables 3 List of figures 3 1 Introduction 4 2 The demand for and supply of space for burial 6 Introduction 6 Demand for burial space 6 Supply of burial space 12 Conclusion 21 3 Reclamation and re‐use 22 Grave reclamation and re‐use 22 Re‐use under faculty jurisdiction 23 Conclusion 25 4. Recommendations 26 Borough summaries 27 Table conventions 27 Owner 27 Name 27 Date 27 Area 27 Status 95 27 Status 10 28 Total burials 95 28 Total burials 09 28 Capacity 28 Barking and Dagenham 29 Barnet 30 Bexley 31 Brent 32 Bromley 33 Camden 34 Croydon 35 Ealing 36 Enfield 37 Greenwich 38 Hackney 39 Hammersmith & Fulham 40 Haringey 41 Harrow 42 Havering 43 2 Hillingdon 44 Hounslow 45 Kensington and Chelsea 46 Kingston upon Thames 47 Lambeth 48 Lewisham 49 Merton 50 Newham 51 Redbridge 52 Richmond upon Thames 53 Southwark 54 Sutton 55 Waltham Forest 56 Wandsworth 57 List of tables Table 2.1: Projected total burials and required burial space for inner London boroughs for the period 2010/1‐2030/1 11 Table 2.2: Projected total burials and required burial space for outer London boroughs for the period 2010/1‐2030/1 12 Table 2.3: Operational capacity of private and borough cemeteries, 1995 and 2009 13 Table 2.4: Borough capacity status 17 Table 2.5: Additional burial grounds 20 Table 2.6: London Borough provision outside Greater London 21 Table 3.1: Reclamation and re‐use summary 24 Table 3.2: Grave types and re‐use applicability 25 List of figures Figure 2.1: Projected death rates in London, 2010/11‐2030/31 6 Figure 2.2: Cremation numbers in London 8 Figure 2.3: London boroughs by the projected proportion of all estimated burials that will be Muslim people, 2010/11‐2030/1.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Islington Archaeological Priority Areas Appraisal
    London Borough of Islington Archaeological Priority Areas Appraisal July 2018 DOCUMENT CONTROL Author(s): Alison Bennett, Teresa O’Connor, Katie Lee-Smith Derivation: Origination Date: 2/8/18 Reviser(s): Alison Bennett Date of last revision: 31/8/18 Date Printed: Version: 2 Status: Summary of Changes: Circulation: Required Action: File Name/Location: Approval: (Signature) 2 Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5 2 Explanation of Archaeological Priority Areas .................................................................. 5 3 Archaeological Priority Area Tiers .................................................................................. 7 4 The London Borough of Islington: Historical and Archaeological Interest ....................... 9 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Prehistoric (500,000 BC to 42 AD) .......................................................................... 9 4.3 Roman (43 AD to 409 AD) .................................................................................... 10 4.4 Anglo-Saxon (410 AD to 1065 AD) ....................................................................... 10 4.5 Medieval (1066 AD to 1549 AD) ............................................................................ 11 4.6 Post medieval (1540 AD to 1900 AD).................................................................... 12 4.7 Modern
    [Show full text]
  • Triendi3 of Lr{Ei3f 12Orwood Jlemefery
    }triendi3 of lr{ei3f 12orwood Jlemefery NEWSLEITER NO 4: DECEMBER 1990 THE MEETING OF LAMBETH COUNCIL, 17th October 1990 At a typically lively and noisy meeting of the Full Council in October, Councillor John Whelan, and Nicholas Reed, FOWNC Chairman, asked questions of two Committee Chairmen. Councillor Stewart Hunter, Chair of Lambeth's Public Works Corrmittee said his officers were doing a splendid job, and 'Went on to take a completely political stance, accusing his first questioner of wishing to turn. the Cemetery back into a private company (something he had never mentioned). Yet in view of Lambeth I S apparent eagerness to demolish so much in the Cemetery, simply in order to provide more burial space, and thus increase the revenues received by the Cemetery, one begins to wonder if things are so very different from when the old Cemetery Companies used to maximise their burial revenues. One would have expected such behaviour from capitalist Victorian businesses 100 years ago, but one hardly expects it nowadays from a left-wing Labour Council! Lambeth declared the Cemetery a Conservation Area in 1978, This makes it also a matter for the Planning Coomittee, since tedmically, any changes made to such an area should be notified to, and approved by, the Planning Committee. In her reply, Councillor Arma Tapsell, Chair of Lambeth's Planning COIlII1i.ttee, pointed out that many Lambeth Councillors may not be aware of the decisions taken many years ago to carry out "lawn conversion" in the Cemetery. And "in view of the criticisms raised by the Friends of the Cemetery," she is asking for a detailed report on all three cemeteries to be prepared by her officers, after consulting all parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Kensington and Chelsea Archaeological Priority Areas Appraisal
    Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Archaeological Priority Areas Appraisal August 2016 DDDOOOCUCUCU MMMEEENTNTNT CCCOOONTNTNT RRROOOLLL AAAututut horhorhor (((sss)))::: Gillian King , Sandy Kidd, Patrick Booth DDDeeerrriiivvvaaatttiiion:on:on: Final version submitted to th e Royal Boroug h of Kensington & Chelsea OOOrrriiigggiiinnnaaatttiiiononon DDDaaatetete ::: 26 August 2016 RRReeevvviseiseise rrr(((sss)))::: DDDaaattteee ofofof laslaslas t rrreeevvvisiisiisi on:on:on: DDDaaattteee PPPrrriiinnnttteeeddd::: 26 August 2016 VeVeVe rrrsssiiiooonnn::: 2.10 SSStttaaatttuuusss::: Fi nal SSSumm aaarrryyy ofofof ChChCh aaangngng eseses ::: CCCiiirrrcccuuulalala tttiiion:on:on: GLAAS, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and London APA Advisory Panel RRReeequququ iiirrreeeddd AAAccctttiiion:on:on: FFFililil eee NNNaaammmeee /// S: \Glaas\Archaeo logic al Priority LoLoLo cacaca tttiiion:on:on: Area s\K&C \K&C App rais al AAApppprprpr ooovvvalalal ::: (((S(SSSiiiigngngngnaaaatttturururureeee)))) This document has been produced by Gillian King, Sandy Kidd and Patrick Booth (all Historic England). 2 ConConContCon ttteeeennnnttttssss Introduction page 4 Explanation of Archaeological Priority Areas page 4 Archaeological Priority Area Tiers page 6 Kensington and Chelsea: Historical and Archaeological Interest page 8 Archaeological Priority Areas in Kensington and Chelsea page 14 Map of Archaeological Priority Areas in Kensington and Chelsea page 15 Map of Archaeological Priority Areas and former page 16 Archaeological Priority Zones and Sites
    [Show full text]
  • Symbolic Capital and the Performativity of Authorship: the Construction and Commodification of the Nineteenth-Century Authorial Celebrity
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research: Department of English English, Department of Spring 4-20-2013 Symbolic Capital and the Performativity of Authorship: The Construction and Commodification of the Nineteenth-Century Authorial Celebrity Whitney Helms University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/englishdiss Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Literature in English, North America Commons Helms, Whitney, "Symbolic Capital and the Performativity of Authorship: The Construction and Commodification of the Nineteenth-Century Authorial Celebrity" (2013). Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research: Department of English. 74. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/englishdiss/74 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research: Department of English by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. SYMBOLIC CAPITAL AND THE PERFORMATIVITY OF AUTHORSHIP: THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMMODIFICATION OF THE NINETEENTH- CENTURY AUTHORIAL CELEBRITY by Whitney Helms A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: English Under the Supervision of Professor Laura M. White Lincoln, Nebraska May, 2013 SYMBOLIC CAPITAL AND THE PERFORMATIVITY OF AUTHORSHIP: THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMMODIFICATION OF THE NINETEENTH- CENTURY AUTHORIAL CELEBRITY Whitney Helms, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2013 Adviser: Laura M. White Victorian and Antebellum writers were the first literary figures to construct and perform their authorship within the sphere of celebrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Re Hither Green Cemetery [2018] ECC Swk 3
    Neutral Citation Number: [2018] ECC Swk 3 IN THE CONSISTORY COURT OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUTHWARK IN THE MATTER OF HITHER GREEN CEMETERY AND IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION BY MS JANINE HARDWICK JUDGMENT Introduction 1. This is the petition of Ms Janine Hardwick. It was filed some time ago and I regret the delay in dealing with it. What happened was that, having read the petition and supporting documentation, I considered that it might be appropriate for an appropriate person to see the Petitioner and discover whether she might be assisted by some pastoral support. The matter was complicated by the fact that Ms Hardwick does not live in the Diocese and, in the event, a visit did not happen. It is now clear that the moment when such a visit might have been of value has now passed. Ms Hardwick remains of a fixed resolve to pursue her petition, as is her right. The facts 2. The petition seeks a faculty to exhume the remains of Owen Stephen Flight from Plot CZ 1i in the consecrated part of Hither Green Cemetery. This is in order that his remains may be cremated and kept at home by Ms Hardwick. 3. The background to the petition is that Owen Flight was the son of Ms Hardwick and Stephen Flight. He died aged five as a result of a brain tumour in October 2011 and his remains were buried in the consecrated part of Hither Green Cemetery. At a time of profound grief, Ms Hardwick and Mr Flight did not themselves make the arrangements for the burial.
    [Show full text]
  • Kensal Green Cemetery
    KENSAL GREEN CEMETERY The General Cemetery of All Souls, Kensal Green, is one of Britain's oldest and most beautiful public burial grounds. One of the world's first garden cemeteries, and doyen of London's Magnificent Seven, Kensal Green received its first funeral in January 1833, and still conducts burials and cremations daily. The cemetery was innovative in having most of the site consecrated by the Church of England, but reserving the eastern spur for Dissenters and others to practise their own rites. Today, people of many faiths and denominations are buried throughout the cemetery. Uniquely among British cemeteries, Kensal Green has been managed by the same private joint-stock company since its inception: the General Cemetery Company (est. 1830) still has its offices by the Main Gate. The cemetery now covers some 72 acres (29 hectares) between the Grand Union Canal and Harrow Road in west London, and is open to visitors every day of the year. NOTABLE PERSONALITIES From the funeral of HRH The Duke of Sussex in 1843 to that of his nephew HRH The Duke of Cambridge in 1904, Kensal Green was the most fashionable cemetery in England. Its notable personalities include some 500 members of the titled nobility and over 550 individuals noted in the Dictionary of National Biography. Kensal Green is the resting place of the engineers Sir Marc Isambard Brunel and Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the mathematician Charles Babbage, and the novelists Wilkie Collins, Anthony Trollope and William Makepeace Thackeray; Lord Byron's wife, Oscar Wilde's mother, Charles Dickens' in-laws and Winston Churchill's daughter; a cross-dressing Army doctor and the surgeon who attended Nelson at Trafalgar; the creator of Pears' Soap, and the original WH Smith; the funambulist Blondin and the Savoyard George Grossmith; the first man to cross Australia from south to north, and the last man to fight a duel in England; the Duke's nephew who ruined the richest heiress of the day, and the English adventuress who became a French baronne disgraced by the accusation of murder.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Maps and Plans of Islington (1553-1894)
    Mapping Islington Historic maps and plans of Islington (1553-1894) Mapping Islington showcases a selection of maps and plans relating to the three former historic parishes that now form the London Borough of Islington. Maps are a window into the past. They provide historical evidence and offer a valuable insight to bygone streets, industries and landscapes. They are also an important source for local history research and help us to understand the development and changes that have shaped the Plan of parish of St Mary, character and identity of our borough. Islington and its environs. Surveyed by Edward Baker The display’s earliest map dates from mid-16th Century (c.1793) when Islington was a rural village outside of the City of London, ending with a survey published during the late-Victorian era when the area had become a densely populated and urbanised district of north London. The London Borough of Islington was formed in 1965 when the Metropolitan boroughs of Islington and Finsbury merged. In 2019 the borough covers an area of 14.86 km2 and stretches from Highgate in the north to the City of London borders in the south. Before 1900 Islington was historically administered in three distinct civil parishes: • St Mary Islington (north and central) • St James Clerkenwell (south-west) • St Luke Old Street (south-east) The Copperplate Map of London, c.1553-59 Moorfields The Copperplate Map of London is a large-scale plan Frans Franken of the city and its immediate environs. It was originally Museum of London created in 15 printed copperplate sections, of which only three are still in existence.
    [Show full text]