Jump to content

Talk:Peterborough Cathedral/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Peterborough Abbey

I might say this, mightn't I, given how much attention I've been paying to the Medeshamstede article lately, but shouldn't Peterborough Abbey have its own article too? This abbey emerged from the almost complete obscurity that Medeshamstede had fallen into by the 10th century, to become one of the most important and wealthiest abbeys of medieval England; and Peterborough Cathedral is a very different animal, despite occupying the same building, and having preserved what it could of the abbey's archive. Also, there are articles for other abbeys of similar status and lower (e.g. Bury St. Edmunds Abbey, Croyland Abbey), so it would be in good company. I mention this particularly because, in editing the article for Medeshamstede, I've had the choice of either linking any mention of Peterborough Abbey internally to the article for Peterborough Cathedral, or leaving it unlinked. I'm a bit tied up with Medeshamstede right now, though I could have a go at Peterborough Abbey too; but I'd only be much use up to the later 12th century. Any thoughts? I'm cross posting this to the talk page for Peterborough. Nortonius (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So far the general thing seems to have be to treat the whole history in one articel, whether as Abbey or Cathedral. Ely Cathedral has one article (though that was of course both Abbey and Cathedral fromt he Norman era on), Bath Abbey, Westminster Abbey cover all aspects of the history, yes there are big differences, but also continuity, the last Abbot became the first Bishop at Peterborough, and it may well be that the presence of Katherine's tomb in the Abbey was one of the deciding factors in it becoming the Cathedral. Unless the article exceeds the size guidelines, it seems more natural to keep the history together. If it becomes long enough to split, the Dissolution of the Monasteries is the natural break. David Underdown (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean about "so far", and that's certainly another POV! How about this, though:
  • I would also recommend a separate article for Ely Abbey: at present, the whole of its complex, c.900 year, pre-cathedral history, in which it actually started as a royal nunnery, is covered by a short subsection oddly entitled "Previous buildings" - which I think says a lot. For the relevant aspect of its Anglo-Saxon history, it misses the point spectacularly (apologies to you and other Ely editors!). But I'm not in a position to work on it.
  • The article for St Albans addresses its history as an abbey much more effectively, so to an extent I agree with you on that one. But it takes up quite a bit of space there, and again there's much more to be said about St Albans - I don't think it would be long before an "improvement" there would start to indicate a separate article.
  • I think Bath and Westminster abbeys are good examples of abbeys with their own articles.
  • About the continuity provided by the last abbot/first bishop at Peterborough - I think you could say he was a very lucky man! Many of his peers suffered death, *somehow* he avoided suffering anything so bad! Though I suppose having a royal tomb there might well have helped. But beyond that, continuity in the institution would be a bit of a mirage - because he was thenceforth a bishop, not an abbot. (If I remember correctly, Mellows' book on the dissolution of the monastery gives pointers on this, e.g the fate of the monks - I have a copy somewhere, but short of digging it out I could be wrong on that.)
  • About Crowland, yes it's now a parish church - but is that so different to saying, rather loosely, that Medeshamstede was later known as "Peterborough Abbey", but now the place is "Peterborough Cathedral"? Obviously Medeshamstede needs its own article, though, so...?
On the whole, then, I personally still think it's very unnatural to keep the abbey and the cathedral at Peterborough together - it's another POV, anyway! And yes, the Dissolution would be the obvious break. Nortonius (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
one thing that occurs to me about the Medehamstede article - was there settlement there apart from the Saxon monastery, at the moment (the much improved) article concentrates on that one aspect. both Westminster and bath cover (to a greater or lesser extent) all phases of building on the site, and both monastic and non-monastic history. If someone has the resources to expand the treatment of a specific part of the history, great, but I think that for the most part the general reader will be best served by having the info all in one place so far as possible. A visitor to Peterbrorough Cathedral today cannot really understand the history of the cathedral without including something of the earlier history too. Have you looked at WP:SUMMARY at all? The usual form is to start off themain article, and split it as required, and when you split use {{main}} to point readers to the relevant daughther article, and include in the main article a summary of the daughter (if you have a well-written lead to the daughter article, this should form a pretty good start for the summary. On the luck of the abbot/bishop a novel I was reading ealier suggested that Cromwell would on occassion get his placemen appointed as Abbot in order to run down the monastery and make its dissolution easier - the last Abbot of Westminster was a apparently one such case. David Underdown (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That all sounds good, about daughter articles - I now realise that I didn't say it in so many words, but, in effect, that's what I meant! Yes indeed, there needs to be some useful mention of the abbey under "Peterborough Cathedral". Sorry if I was confusing you. I think discussion of the settlement at the abbey's gates would belong fully in the Peterborough article - but again, after the model you mention, there will need to be some mention of the stimulus provided by the abbey and the cathedral - I haven't checked, isn't there any in the Peterborough article already? About Cromwell's placemen, I seem to remember that aspect too, but not from any novel, so it sounds like the author did their research! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a little bit about the Abbot and later Dean being in effect lords of the manor, but that aspect could probably be improved upon. The novel was Revelation, by C. J. Sansom who has both a BA and PhD in history, so his research skills should be good! David Underdown (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
All good stuff! And your equation "BA + PhD = good research skills" makes me feel better today! ;o) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there are other examples of famous former abbeys now used as parish churches, with their own articles:
Nortonius (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Response I don't agree with splitting the current article, because a history of the abbey is integral to the history of the cathedral. However, if there is sufficient additional information regarding the monastry specifically, then it is worth a separate article. Amandajm (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Which lead picture?

  • Current version: OK detail but poor lighting, heavy perspective distortion and top of left tower missing
    Current version: OK detail but poor lighting, heavy perspective distortion and top of left tower missing
  • Oblique view: Detail is OK, lighting is good, perspective is OK
    Oblique view: Detail is OK, lighting is good, perspective is OK
  • High-resolution view: Very good detail, perspective OK, good lighting; bottom right is obscured
    High-resolution view: Very good detail, perspective OK, good lighting; bottom right is obscured

There are now three possible pictures to go in the infobox at the top of the article. I would like to replace the picture currently being used, because it cuts off the left tower and because the problems with perspective and lighting don't do justice to the majesty of the building. Bearing the above discussion in mind, I think Oblique view might be a suitable replacement. Any comments? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peterborough Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peterborough Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peterborough_Cathedral/Archive_1&oldid=1258408099"