Talk:All Saints' Church, Shuart

A minor thing

"An analysis of the archbishop's holdings in Domesday Book has included All Saints among them"--I'm not convinced by the sentence, beginning with the "has". Besides that, is All Saints include in the holdings in the DB, or does the analysis include them among the holdings? Yours, 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi – it's a bit of an awkward sentence because I'd rather it said "Shuart" than "All Saints", but the latter is what the relevant source says: it's the analysis which includes All Saints among the archbishop's holdings in DB, here ("5 Commentary") – the link on that page downloads a pdf, and the reference I've made is actually to a map, where "All Saints" is marked as a blob numbered "2". It's not much, but the author's an expert on Kent DB, and given the obscurity of the place and DB's way of referring to many places I counted myself lucky! ;o) Maybe the sentence could read "An analysis of the archbishop's holdings in Domesday Book has concluded that All Saints was among them"? Or...? Nortonius (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good--though I'd delete the "has", since the sentence isn't pointing at the process as much as at the result. Nortonius, I'll say it again, I think you're doing an excellent job and I'm happy you joined the project. When I get home I'll toast you with the best beer I can find in the fridge. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good, and very kind, again! :o) Ok, "concludes" instead of "has concluded" – unless Malleus beats me to it! ;o) I'll join that toast, with a pint of Abbot ale, yum! Tho, not from the fridge! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation error

Can't figure out why ref 38 throws off error: "Harv error: link to #CITEREFLewis1732 doesn't point to any citation." (I have a script that shows such errors.) I've asked at Template talk:Sfn. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It works perfectly well for me. Might the problem be with your script? Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry all it was just that I'd mistyped 1732 instead of 1723! Nothing wrong with the template at all, it took me a few moments to spot the error, and I wrote the bloomin' thing! lol Fixed now per this diff. MathewTownsend found something wrong, I fixed it, then Malleus couldn't find anything wrong: I'm the master of confusion again! Thanks for taking the trouble to look at it, though, and let me know if you spot any more boobs, I like boobs! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing charters!

Actually, I'm having the Ur-Bock Dunkel right now

Hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of moving this discussion from Talk:All Saints' Church, Shuart/GA1 to here 207.157.121.92, it's just that Malleus has now awarded the GA and closed the review! We had written:

Wait--do I understand correctly that the charter does two things? It is the means by which the land is transferred, AND it verifies that some land still belonged to Reculver? But in that case I'm not sure about the "nonetheless"--does the aforementioned A-S charter suggest that this land should not have belonged to Reculver anymore? Thanks, 207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Charters were issued recording a grant, usually of land: by the 10th century they were usually drawn up in advance, then "signed" with (usually) a Christian cross by each witness and given to the grantee. They're full of dire warnings of heavenly penalties should they not be respected. So, the charter was the "deed" being done in the eyes of God, and possession of it showed possession of whatever it entailed. That word "nonetheless" does indeed point to an inconsistency in the record, yes: although King Eadred didn't give the church of Reculver and its estate to Christ Church until 949 according to one charter dated then, another charter of 944, issued by Eadred's predecessor Edmund 5 years earlier, speaks of there being land on the Isle of Thanet which was regarded as belonging to Reculver then. Charters are tricky things, most have been lost over the last 1,000 years or so, and what's left includes many forgeries and scribal errors as details were copied on over the centuries. Sometimes all you can do is state what's there. Does that help, or merely confuse?! Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What was not clear to me was that there was overlapping land, so to speak, in those charters. I wonder if splitting/rearranging would clarify more--after all, your sentence places most of the emphasis on the layman, but what's important for your argument is the "by means of a charter recording etc." Like, "The charter which granted the land at Monkton also indicates that some land west and north of Monkton already belonged to Reculver...before the 949 deed...." I see now what confused me: are you sure it should read "still" and not "already"? 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My response to your latest point is, my emphasis is intended to be on the "more complicated picture", hence the colon, and the "still" refers to the fact that the records point to some land on the Isle of Thanet still being regarded as belonging to Reculver in 944, even though the archbishops of Canterbury took it over in the early 9th century, and it was in the king's hands by 949, according to the charter issued then. Tell you what though, how I wish we still had every Anglo-Saxon charter ever issued! Then we'd all know. As it is, like I said, sometimes all you can do is state what's there. I think that's one that just has to be left up to the reader to take in, but by all means suggest another way of putting it if one comes to you! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. I'm off for a BEER or several now, I'll check in later! And thanks for joining in! :o) p.p.s. It's just occurred to me, things might be clearer if I just finish the sentence with "rather than to either the archbishop or the king." So, I've added that, see what you think?

• Yes. Cheers. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool! But there's a thing, I've had some beer in Portugal called "Super Bock" and thought it was just a weird name, but you've gone one better and are drinking "Ur Bock"! I had no idea bock was a type of beer! Still, I'm an ale man myself, for tonight's quaffing pleasure I've had Abbot ale from Greene King – I loathe their way of doing business, but Abbot has a reasonable pedigree and it's my favourite – topped off with, oh, Marston's Pedigree! Cheers. [hic]. :o) Nortonius (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Einbecker is a few centuries older (and at one point was the official beer of the Hanse), but interesting events have taken place in Bury St Edmunds, some of them with a green hue. Looks tasty. I've heard of Speckled Hen, but I have to admit that the only beer from your parts I've ever drunk was Guinness, and I didn't care for it. Sorry, 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it must be nearly 30 years since I had a Guinness, it's not my cup of tea(!) – a mini-Guinness is an entirely different matter! Nortonius (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird harv error

In this article, inline citations starting at no. 23 don't work. There's also a harv error reported for the entry for "Eales, R." in the Bibliography, which may be somehow connected. I've gone boss-eyed looking at the formatting, would someone with a fresh pair of eyes have a look at it for me? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nortonius, I've checked pretty much all of the refs from 23 onward and they all appear to be working properly. Try clearing your cache? If the problem still persists, either drop me a ping or re-open the {{help me}}. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Primefac – I just cleared the cache (duh, forgot about that!), and had a look in a different browser, and I'm still seeing the same problem! The harv error's still in the bibliography too. Do the refs also work correctly for you "in reverse"? That is, if you click on the ^ for reference no. 23 (and higher) under "Notes", does it take you to the correct inline citation? When I do that it takes me to inline citation no. 32! Looking at the article's history, I somehow introduced the error with this edit: the problem doesn't arise for me in previous versions of the article. Any further thoughts? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. It seems to have something to do with the {{sfn}} tags in the Church and Community section. I'll see if I can fix things. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nortonius, RexxS, I figured it out; when the <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line--> notes were placed in the references, one of them was missing the -->, so it commented out every reference until the next instance of that text. Fortunately, this means that I don't have to fix all of the references that are there :-p Primefac (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. I wish they'd never started that "Staff writer" nonsense. I'll roll my efforts back to restore the original referencing. --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah fantastic, thanks both very much indeed! Yes, thank goodness it was something so simple – I knew it had to be my own fault, but my eyes refused to co-operate any longer! Phew! :o) Nortonius (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, I undid your undo, as I feel that having the separate references makes it easier to parse out what's actually being done, both from an editing-the-text standpoint and from a reading-the-refs standpoint. If you strongly disagree, of course, I'm fine reverting, but I liked it better the other way. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Me too - over-bundling refs is fun for an author, but a nightmare to maintain. Not to mention that a screen reader really wants a proper list, not a bunch of refs running into each other. I'm just wary of folks bludgeoning me for violating CITEVAR (spits). If I thought I could get away with it, I'd have converted the whole thing to list-defined references and sfn for the books, just to take pity on the next editor who has to track down a cite error. --RexxS (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting – I feel I might be about to learn something here – I've bundled all those refs because I find it irritating when reading an article to have to check separate refs, instead of seeing them all together; and because it looks tidier to me! It hadn't occurred to me to worry about maintenance before, because the kind of stuff I work on doesn't tend to attract other editors (the latest example of my obscure fact-ferreting is the Hatch bell foundry!). And for some reason I decided to type in those <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line-->, whereas normally I'd have copied and pasted – if I'd done that this time, either the problem wouldn't have arisen or I'd probably have spotted it myself PDQ, d'oh! Nor was I aware of what RexxS says about screen readers. On balance, I'm wondering now if I should be bundling or unbundling... Nortonius (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nortonius, the general rule is that for 3 or fewer supporting refs, they should be separate, if there are more than that they should be grouped (like the current Refs #2 and #4) in order to avoid CITEKILL. Of course, grouping 2-3 refs isn't the end of the world, so don't worry if you've been doing that! Primefac (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Riiight... Yes, CITEKILL's new to me too! My usual rule is to give multiple references only where each contributes something or is directly needed – like those two you mention – but I know I do it a lot. Thanks for suggesting I shouldn't worry about it! But I'll see if I can't nudge myself towards unbundling where there are only two or three. I'll go through this very article later and see how I get on. Thanks so much for your input! :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on All Saints' Church, Shuart. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/taxation-before-1689.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Parish or Chapelry?

This article states: In 1310 Archbishop Robert Winchelsey of Canterbury established St Nicholas-at-Wade as a separate parish, with All Saints' Church as its chapel, served by a vicar and an assistant priest. According to the document by which that was done, the population of the parish of Reculver had grown so large that the provision of a single vicar had become inadequate.

The reference is to Graham's Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 57 - 1944 page 10 which states: ... on July 24th, 1310, the seals of the Archbishop, the chapter of Canterbury and the public notary were affixed at Charing.3 In the preamble to the document the Archbishop stated that a rector and one vicar could not minister to parishioners who numbered over a thousand under Archbishop Peckham, and were continually increasing. In the past the rector had appointed as vicar an ignorant priest removable at his will. Therefore Winchelsey ordained that there should be three perpetual vicars, one for the parish church of Reculver and the nearby chapel at Hoath, another for the two chapels in Thanet, St. Nicholas and All Saints, and a third for the chapel at Herne, all three to serve their cures under the rector to whom they owed canonical obedience. To the vicar of Reculver the Archbishop assigned all oblations in that church and in the chapel at Hoath, the tithes of hay, flax, wool and milk, of lambs, gardens and other small tithes and the land on which the rector's house stood. To the vicar of the chapels of St. Nicholas and All Saints the Archbishop assigned similar offerings and tithes and the land belonging to those chapels and the same to the vicar of the chapel at Herne. The three vicars had each to maintain a suitable assistant priest. The vicars of St. Nicholas with All Saints and of Herne were bound to pay pensions of £3 3s. 4d. and £2 repectively to the vicar of Reculver. They were under an obligation to come in procession with the assistant priests and the parishioners of the chapels to the mother church on Whit Monday, and to be present for the procession and office of the mass on the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (September 2nd).The parishioners of the mother church were held responsible for repairing or rebuilding the chancel and providing service books and ornaments in accordance with their laudable custom in the past. The vicar of Reculver was bound to fulfil the obligation which he previously bore for Reculver and the chapel of Hoath. The vicars of St. Nicholas with All Saints and of Herne had the obligation to provide service books and ornaments and to repair or rebuild the chancels of their chapels. Whenever the tax of a tenth should be levied on the assessment of the undivided vicarage in 1291, the Archbishop fixed the contributions at 12s. 1d. for the vicar of Reculver, 11s. 4d. for the vicar of St. Nicholas with All Saints, and 9s 11d. for the vicar of Herne to make the total of £1 13s. 4d.

This seems to me to be unequivocal: St Nicholas with All Saints was established as a perpetual vicarage with All Saints subordinate to St Nicholas but both remained chapels dependent on the church at Reculver. So while the locals were parishioners of St Nicholas or of All Saints, these remained chapelries of the parish of Reculver. This document did not create St Nicholas and All Saints as a separate parish. RobertSimons (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)