Talk:Glastonbury Abbey

Introductory Text
This is ridiculous! The mystical land of 'Avalon'? This isn't supposed to be a place to advertise the place. The opening text should just be a straight description of the site, not some melodramatic sprawl.

CharlieRCD (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thorn
Is the thorn definitely monogyna? Some references on the web suggest that it's a laevigata. The difference can be found in this key:


 * 2. Leaves deeply 5-7 lobed, leaf incision index > 50%, lobes acute; style and nutlet 1
 * .......................................... 1. C. MONOGYNA


 * 2. Leaves shallowly 3-lobed, leaf incision index usually < 30%, lobes obtuse, terminal usually largest; styles and nutlets 2
 * ......................................... 2. C. LAEVIGATA

Anyone know for sure? &mdash;Ashley Y 11:41, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)


 * Isn't Crataegus naturally more variable than our organizing system permits? Isn't the Glastonbury Thorn one of numerous hawthorn hybrids? Aren't chromosome counts as essential in categorizing species as a leaf incision index? I don't think there is a "for sure", only a most recent formulation. --18:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So is it a cross? What do the leaves and nutlets look like? &mdash;Ashley Y 02:19, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Holy Grail and King Arthur
Why associated with the legends of the Holy Grail and King Arthur in the tenth century? 12th century seems more likely. Laurel Bush (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern history section text
The following text from the above named section does not make sense as it is not a complete sentence: "Before he was dismissed by Bishop Armitage Robinson in 1921, because of his use of seances and psychic archaeology,[40][41]". I tried to follow the link for citation #41. It takes me to a site whose search engine indicates there is no article named 'Glastonbury Enigma' nor any article with the word 'Glastonbury' in it. I am, therefore, deleting that reference. The information is supported by citation #39 so I fixed the text to reflect that.Carmaskid (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I brought back the references and add an archived version of the Wayback Machine. Regards, mabdul 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

pre-christian
The introduction claims that "The origins are unclear although Glastonbury was a religious site in pre-Christian times", but the History section opens with "uggestions that Glastonbury may have been a site of religious importance in Celtic or pre-Celtic times are referred to as dubious by the historian Ronald Hutton". Which is correct? I suggest the removal of the sentence in the intro, unless we have a reference to back it up? Markb (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it. This is about the Abbey, it wouldn't have originated as a pre-Christian religious edifice quite obviously. Whoever added that sentence was thinking about earlier use of the site, not the Abbey. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Monasteries
I revised the following sentence by adding the word "who" to improve the grammar: "In September 1539, the Abbey was visited by Richard Layton, Richard Pollard and Thomas Moyle, arrived there without warning on the orders of Thomas Cromwell. Carmaskid (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

cause for execution
The article states that Richard Whiting was hanged,drawn, and quartered as a traitor, but fails to adequately explain why. It also states that the abbey was stripped of its valuables.

The book Magical Treasure Hunting in Europe and North America explains that he had hidden the wealth of the abbey, leaving little more than would be found in a regular parish church, and it was for this that he and two others were executed.

Philologick (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glastonbury Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719035426/http://www.caroe.co.uk/uploads/download/pilton-barn.pdf to http://www.caroe.co.uk/uploads/download/pilton-barn.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glastonbury Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304115111/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/eus/glastonbury_eus.htm to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/eus/glastonbury_eus.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327101924/http://www.mendip.gov.uk/Documents/Regeneration/Glastonbury%20Conservation%20Area%20Appraisal.pdf to http://www.mendip.gov.uk/Documents/Regeneration/Glastonbury%20Conservation%20Area%20Appraisal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Tomb of Arthur - contemporary historiographical views
Page numbers or quotations for Rahtz, Watts, 2003, as well as Harris, 2018, would be beneficial. Moreover, if it is to be addressed, an expansion on contemporary historiographical stances on the claimed tomb of Arthur is needed; Along with this, I think there should be a more clear outlining of whether the sources supplied actually supply the claims attributed to them here. (It is easier to find the claim of invention in regards to Carley, 2001, but this is a broad collection of articles, not just one, so I think that the stances contained here should be more clearly outlined as well.) As an aside, it's somewhat strange that Baptist pastor John Dowling's "A History of Romanism" is used as a reference, being strange both in regards to this and in regards to it being used solely as a brief reference for architectural dimensions. Zusty001 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is misleading as it does not make clear that the great majority of experts on the period do not believe that Arthur existed. There is a place for this discussion in an article about myths concerning Arthur, but the detail is excessive in the article on Glastonbury Abbey. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)