Talk:Roman Baths, Strand Lane

A fact from Roman Baths, Strand Lane appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,515 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Roman Baths of Strand Lane were featured in David Copperfield?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/March.

Wikipedia

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concerning "Roman" in the title

The following I have cut and pasted from my talkpage, as of general interest. Wetman (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the use of this word, but it came from one of the sources. Roman Baths are often sourced from cold water, and then heated ... if you take the Roman away, then you will just be left with a Frigidarium. It appears, they were generically known as Thermae.

The sources talk of remains of Roman villas in the vicinity of the Strand, and the Holy Well is of a pre-Roman use. These would often be taken over for bath houses, or Roman religious use. Yes, the main centre of Roman London lay over by the Guildhall - essentially the reason the Guildhall ended up there. The Strand was then part of the hinterland - cheap, roomy properties with a nice view over the river.

As it makes clear in the article, the baths origin was historically thought to be Roman; what can be seen dates from the 17th century - and the origin is more likely to be as Tudor cisterns - but why place them at the property boundary? The reality can only be found by taking the remains apart - together with a substantial number of historic churches, a university and the like. When the area was redeveloped by the Victorians the majority of evidence under the more modern buildings would have been lost. Thanks for your interest. Kbthompson (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps— without making a federal case of it— "Roman" needn't be quite so prominently inserted in the very title, as if to forestall doubt? "Historically thought to be Roman" would be an excellent way to distance the text from the "Roman-ness" or not of this cold plunge, which is not remotely a thermae though indeed deriving its water from a spring, as you observe. Here's mention of the plunge, with suitable reservations, from Ivor Hoole, A Guide to the Alleys, Courts, Passages, and Yards of Central London (1900:27). Has any evidence surfaced of any Roman villa along the Strand, in spite of the river view? A brick? a drainage tile? Survey of London covers only the north side of the Strand, or have I missed something? No ruins of riverside villas are implied by a place Anglo-Saxons would call the strand. A pre-Roman use of the Anglo-Saxon Holy Well of St Clement Danes is un-documentable, though pre-Christian is as like as not, as is generally the case in Britain and France. I have taken the liberty of copying these interesting remarks to a more apposite place, Talk:Roman Baths, Strand Lane, where they may be more public food for thought. --Wetman (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, the article is called the Roman Baths, Strand Lane, because they're called that by Westminster Council and the National Trust call them 'Roman' Bath, 5 Strand Lane - which is probably a WP:MoS no-no and would cause confusion with, eh, Roman Bath. If you want to look that up on the National Trust website, please do, they still say possibly Roman. The MoLAS reports for the area mention Roman remains in the foreshore, but they're not in context - so, not a lot of use to anyone. The only MoLAS report for Strand Lane - performed when some work was done on the Kings College side of the lane - mentions a mixture of predominantly Tudor demolition rubble from when Somerset Palace was demolished to create Somerset House for the Lord Protector. This was used to extend the high ground into terraces above the river. Most of the other local archeology (north of the Strand), is much as you'd expect Saxon.

I changed far away to 1 mile - because it is; also popularly known to historically known, as in the modern era they are not thought to be of Roman origin - and this is made clear in the article. However, all the sources prior to the 20th century thought they were, and so did the preacher at St Clement Danes, who purchased the baths and donated them to the National Trust - who promptly passed the care, of such an obviously hot potato, to the LCC.

So, the utterly bleak and empty Akeman Street proceeded to Chiswick and Brentford without a taverna, villa, cemetary, or a dropped denari? Seems utterly uncharacteristic of the Romans, but then speculation is not in the article. It was merely an interesting private aside to you (although, I have no expectation of privacy, being wikipedia). Sorry it seems to have upset you, that was certainly not my intention.

Anyway, Feds don't have jurisdiction - if not for the few buildings in the way - this stands in the shadows of the Royal Courts of Justice. Kbthompson (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! and excellent to have this aired publicly here, to offset the "Roman" in the article title. Thank you for taking this time over it. Wikipedia is quite without privacy: usually a good thing. --Wetman (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better picture?

Is it my internet browser or is this pictures absolutly disgusting? can we have better picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearaaw (talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a pleasant drawing. :-)Trillig (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to "Roman Bath, Strand Lane"

I can't find any reliable sources on the web which refer to the site in the plural ('baths' and opposed to 'bath'). Numerous sources refer to it in the singular:

Can anyone provide sources saying otherwise? If not, I suggest the name and page be changed. Cheers Trillig (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird references in the middle

I have no idea how to deal with the "# ftnref" things, but they are clearly an aberration. Voltteri (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I turned them into into ordinary refs, hopefully in the right place. MinorProphet (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]