Talk:History of Yorkshire

Section headings
I suggest that the section headings are changed, as the references to the various names of York and other headings are confusing to the casual reader. I would suggest something along the lines of:


 * Pre-historic Yorkshire
 * Pre-Roman Yorkshire
 * The Romans in Yorkshire
 * The Anglian Invasion
 * The Viking Invasion
 * Yorkshire following the Norman Conquest
 * The middle ages
 * Civil war
 * The Industrial Revolution
 * Modern Yorkshire

Even if there is nothing there at the moment, we can at least see which areas need work. Any objections/suggestions etc? --OlderBrother 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with these suggested headings... they are actually quite close to the headings I used when I started the article, but they have been morphed over time to the current ones. Some of the headings that you suggest could probably be merged for the time being at least&mdash;Pre-historic and pre-roman could be one section, as could the Norman conquest and middle ages. JeremyA 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this model: History_of_France? 68.110.9.62 14:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The subdivision of the History of France article is good. However, English history is usually subdivided around major events that don't necessarily fit neatly into that model (Norman Conquest; War of the Roses; Civil War; Industrial Revolution) The History of England might therefore provide a better model (although it seems a bit London-centric). The current subdivision into 'old' and 'new' Yorkshire appears arbitrary, it seems to me that the major periods that shaped Yorkshire history are: Celtic/Romano-Celtic; Angles/Danelaw; Norman Conquest through to the Wars of the Roses; Tudor/Civil War; Industrial Revolution; Modern. I also think that the section on the historical subdivisions could be better integrated into the rest of the article, rather than just being tagged on to the end. JeremyA 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made changes in light of what has been suggested - I still think it could benefit from some tweaks but I think it is hopefully more understandable and less (I never thought I would use this phrase) York-centric! I do think the historical subdivisions are OK where they are at the moment.  Hopefully we'll get some more detail in the later to modern day history before long. --OlderBrother 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to divide as it is on the GenUKI Yorkshire history website: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/Misc/Descriptions/YKS/YKSHistoryIndex.html * THE BRIGANTES AND EARLIER INHABITANTS. * ROMAN RULE. * ROMAN ROADS. * INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY. * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE SAXONS. * INVASIONS OF THE DANES. * DANISH RULE. * SAXON POLITY AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION. * GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. * MODES OF PUNISHMENT. * NORMAN RULE. * FEUDAL SYSTEM. * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE EDWARDS. * SCOTTISH INVASION. * DEPOSITION AND DEATH OF RICHARD II. * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE HOUSES OF LANCASTER AND YORK. * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE TUDORS. * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE STUARTS. This would also include Yorkshire under the Hanovers, etc. 68.110.9.62 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the list you mention is taken from Bulmer's Gazetteer (1892) and I don't think you can just take an old book's chapter headings and construct something that fits what we need to achieve in a modern encyclopaedic entry. As the material increases, maybe more headings need to be brought in but I don't think the list above would help.  I also think that the Stuarts, Hanoverians etc headings, while of some use for ease of reference, are fairly irrelevant to Yorkshire.  Wars and economic events have helped shape it's later history more than changes of royal houses in London. --OlderBrother 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read this and not be fixated on a Marxist view of this heavily non-Marxist shire: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/index.html http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/historyAbout.htm

"Compiling the Lists

The king lists, built up from notes over the course of two decades from sources too numerous to list, have been compiled for a couple of reasons. It seems that history in modern schools is not taught in terms of dynasties and rulers any longer (and this seems to be as true of the USA as it does of the UK). The thought behind this appears to be that learning about rulers is elitist and irrelevant compared to understanding the lot of the average citizen at any period in time.

This seems nonsensical. Rulers and their impact on national and international events is what makes history. In the form of kings and emperors, etc, they led the creation and evolution of most states throughout written history, so how can one begin to understand the lot of the common man without knowing about the essential construction of his society? History without the skeletal framework of events that centre around rulers is meaningless. So works of this nature, which lay out the framework of states and nations through their rulers, are essential before more intimate studies of individuals who lived in those societies can be made."

68.110.9.62 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Kessler stuff is a fair point, and I don't disagree with you if we were discussing the history of England/United Kingdom. But I think most people will have that background already when they come to this page.   I think JeremyA expressed it well when he said that this needs to be in the context of events that shaped Yorkshire history.   Since the civil war, the major impact on Yorkshire has come from economic forces and parliament, rather than who sits on the throne.  Likewise, the Oxford History of Britain uses dynastic chapter headings for the Tudors and Stuarts, then drops them as they are less useful after this point.  An alternative might be to have headings for 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
 * Anyway, the Bulmers stuff should provide some useful info for the article, so I'm going to concentrate on filling out some of the blanks in the article for now. I'm off to party like it's 1892 ;-) --OlderBrother 10:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a drop-off point in dynastic affairs; by the end of Jacobitism it is sure to have been a diluted influence. Prime Ministers became nearly the only force left of the government, although why leave out such national affairs as the Colonies and Napoleonic Wars when they have a LOT of ties to Yorkshire? I'd say the Georgian era(especially George IV) was the last strong point of the monarchy in Yorkshire, but that including later monarchs within paragraphs shouldn't be a problem for later eras. One should say: "During the reign of King William IV, Prime Minister Robert Peel's government reforms cleaned up rotten boroughs..." I do not think that the Victorian era had much monarchical connection to Yorkshire, or that any succeeding monarch contributed anything to local character. From Victoria on out, British monarchs have always been internationalist in relation to their domains. It seems that Victoria was first of the Modern Era and the Royal Standard has been the same since, while all the monarchs born before the American War of Independence have had an internal influence upon Yorkshire. So many catalysts such as the War of 1812, end of Jacobitism, defeat of Napoleon I, collapse of the 1st Mexican Empire and the loss of Hanover all paved the way for what we have now. I really count the turning point for the old and new as beginning with Victoria and Albert, Napoleon III, 2nd Mexican Empire, Canadian Confederation, German Empire and the Confederate States of America. So please, let's keep the dynasties going up until the House of Hanover. We fizzle out with Victoria, because the most solid piece of change upon the face of British monarchy, was influence from Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Nobody touched Yorkshire since the British Empire.

Don't you think that historians will bump the dynasty to Hanover after Stuart, when Windsors are through? Hanovers did rule(not just reign). I revised the titling and sections, to reflect the ethnic and dynastic makeup of Yorkshire as well as included more historical events. 68.110.9.62 15:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How can we improve this page? Comments please
I think this article needs a lot of work. 68.110.9.62 has added a lot of material, but has also changed the headings without anyone else's agreement. I'm not interested in an edit war so I am leaving the article as it is fro now, and I don't wish to remove any material consensus decides to be pertinent. But on reading, the article has weaknesses, such as:


 * The (Anglian) Northumbrian kingdom in a different section to the Anglo-Saxons
 * No reference in the headings to Danish rule
 * A period (The Tudors, Stuarts and Hanoverians) covering 1485-1837, which is unwieldy.
 * No dates for any events between 1066 and 1910 - surely this is going to confuse any reader as to the chronology of events.
 * Some peripheral information,
 * POV statements with no references e.g. Although Yorkshire was traditionally almost ultraconservative by English standards, most of the people became liberal in dissent from the heirs to Sophia of Hanover because of their stance on the Americans and Irish. It may well be true, but I think statements which are not just purely factual need to be supported by reference for the integrity of the article.

I know I can add dates, remove info etc, but I would prefer there to be consensus.

I would like anyones comments - but please try not to make this a political point scoring opportunity. I'm not coming at this from a political angle, I would just like to see a readable, informative article about my home county's history, written from a neutral point of view and in line with Wikipedia style and format. There is no reason why a History of Yorkshire entry can not be a featured article one day! --OlderBrother 23:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate and welcome your criticism:


 * Northumbria was a separate entity from the succeeding united England and this is conveniently categorised in threes.
 * Danish contributions are subsumed within the general Anglo-Saxon designation...RE: Alfred & 1066--I don't like it either but that's the fact of our national history as portrayed by officials.
 * The Tudor-Stuart-Hanover period is a single one of imperial colonialism, especially in terms of the "White Commonwealth" and its Yankee predecessor...There are placenames for all three dynasties in North America.[Virginia and New England, Carolina and Nova Scotia, Georgia and New Brunswick...plus lots more!]
 * Chronology IS lacking; please be generous!
 * Peripheral gives outsiders a clue as to the atmosphere and ambience of this obscure culture, since the world knows much more about Southern England due to its colonial-secretarial administration.
 * Surely we can do without the "touchy parts", being described with words like "ultra".

Let's do more meeting of minds! 68.110.9.62 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to take issue with some of the previous comments; I agree with much that has been written and can empathise with both sides in some of the discussions but if the article is to be taken seriously then it needs to be accurate; it needs to be written without emotion or from a judgemental point of view placing values of the early Twenty-first century into earlier eras, even with the benefit of hindsight; it needs also needs to be comprehensive. There are some parts of the story that appear to have been omitted, for example, someone mentioned about Histories of England being largely London-centric, and this may be the case for perhaps often understandable reasons, but here is an opportunity to provide evidence of the difference and as a southerner I can say with alacrity that one major difference is that it is a very complicated story indeed. There was, for instance, the Kingdom of Elmet, it does not get a mention, yet there is good written evidence that it existed, and it did so when it really should not have done! This, if ever there was one, is a true Arthurian tale; after the withdrawal of the legions the local tribal group in and around the old West Riding (not that it had become so at that point!)founded a new dynasty of Brythonic people - I am from Wessex, it did not happen there!

I would take issue also with the idea of an homogeniety of the period from Henry VII to William IV; how can that claim be justified? A single period of Imperial colonialism is certainly not what was happening during the period of the Tudors, indeed true Imperialism was not really demonstrated until the middle to late nineteenth century - after the period in question. I accept that William IV did like having his image as a Roman Emperor, as did Charles II, but that was vanity of self rather than political reality. Image rather than substance. It is true that England became an international trading country and it is also true that it began colonizing activity often on the back of that, but it was not the dynasty, nor yet even the government it was usually because of the monopoly traders, such as Hon. East India Company and the Dutch VoC.

This is supposed to be about Yorkshire, a place with many faces and vastly differing histories due to its topography and its differing geology - it is a very big place by English standards.That does not seem to be addressed in these discussions although some effort has been put into some of the sections to set that idea in train. I have to question whether there was a trend from conservatism (Toryism in truth) towards liberalism (Whigism in reality, because if you spend any amount looking at the electoral returns then you must clearly see that the winds of change occurred then as much as they do today. I have never made a comparison between the politics by election of the Ridings or the Wapentakes, but I would be surprised to find much different from my previous comment, I have made the comparison in the Wapentakes of Osgoldcross and Staincross and it holds true there. Which brings me to another point.

Many pupils in the past have been taught that the Harrying of the North was rigorous in the extreme and that the Norman dynasty stamped its mark and kicked out the Anglo-Saxon landowners. I was certainly told this but I find that other than a change in status, from superior landlord to a a rung down the landholding food chain that there are notable examples of pre-Conquest landholders retaining their landholdings and even acquiring new ones. It is true that they now held of a Norman noble who held from the King, rather than in their own right as a gift from the king as before, but they were still the landlords of vast swathes and great numbers of people. These are really interesting things that need to be told clearly to obtain better clarity of that distant time and its changing legal system.SouthernFrog (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire ruled by the House of Munsö?
I had removed mention of the House of Munsö from History of Yorkshire. User:Drieakko reverted me. No doubt he has a number of good sources handy, but could he please provide one, so that we can be educated about this? /Pieter Kuiper 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Section titles
The section titles by royal house need to be changed. The paragraph including the London bombers currently appears under the title "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, The House of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor". MRSC • Talk 11:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would anyone mind if I altered the section titles to the ones first suggested by -OlderBrother @ 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC), please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You've beaten me to it as I was planning to change these today, although I wasn't going to be as courteous as you and post on here. They definitely need changing although my personal preference is to divide by periods rather then mix periods and events.  What do you think of the following?
 * Prehistoric settlement
 * Roman
 * Sub-Roman and early Middle Ages
 * Middle Ages
 * Early Modern
 * Modern
 * It's a similar structure to History of York if anyone wants to have a look at how it works. --Kaly99 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow!I've just written those very headings except I wrote Post-Roman then Early Middle Ages. Please, go ahead with the change.The text is very mixed up and badly needs sorting. It's quite inaccurate as well in places.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sub-Roman tends to be used by historians now but its still a really hard period to define and write about due to the absence of sources and confusing archaeological evidence which is why I put the sections together. I've started editing the text, removing inaccuracies and expanding the parts which are relevant.  There seems to be big sections missing which I'll add once I've gone through the information that's already in the article.  --Kaly99 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've just looked up Sub-Roman Britain. Interesting article.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of historical periods
Definitions of historical periods, which I inserted in the text, follow those used for Somerset classed as a GA.--Harkey (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Prehistory
See Vale of Pickering. I'll get better refs tomorrow.✅

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Great Wold Valley--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Action plan
Because of the great diversities in the development of the county, I am planning to tackle this article by time period and areas of Yorkshire. A paragraph (more or less) on each area at each period as far as possible. :-

For each area there are several aspects to be covered eg settlement, industry, transport. Then there are the major events eg Pilgrimage of Grace, Dissolution of the Monasteries, etc.. I shall be adding to sections as they are researched. Comments (and help) welcome.--Harkey (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Post 1974
This text has been cut as it refers to a time when Yorkshire was no longer a functioning administrative county;

John Sentamu is currently Archbishop of York, the first non-European to hold that position. Prince Andrew, Duke of York from the House of Windsor is presently one of the most active royals in the realm of international business affairs. Sarah, Duchess of York is somewhat popular with media outlets, although often poked fun of by them. Charles Gordon-Lennox, 10th Duke of Richmond, has been on the World Council of Churches and his son Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara, holds several racing activities at Goodwood House as an enthusiastic participant.

The perpetrators of the 7 July 2005 London bombings were all at one time from Yorkshire: Mohammad Sidique Khan was from Dewsbury, Hasib Hussain and Shehzad Tanweer were from Leeds and Germaine Lindsay was from Huddersfield.

By Act of Parliament and Royal Proclamation Prince Andrew is of the House of Windsor-MountbattenSouthernFrog (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Yorkshire history?
Who would be willing to help me create the article Timeline of Yorkshire History? IJA (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages
Some division of this section would be a good idea as it is very long at present. These subsections are not ideal but would I think be a move in the right direction.
 * ==Middle Ages==

This is the period from 1066 to the start of the Tudor dynasty in 1485.

Harold II and William I
In 1066, after the death of King Edward the Confessor, Yorkshire became the stage for two major battles that would help decide who would succeed to the throne. Harold Godwinson was declared King by the English but this was disputed by Harold Hardrada King of Norway and William Duke of Normandy. In the late summer of 1066 Harold Hardrada, accompanied by Tostig Godwinson, took a large Norwegian fleet and army up the Humber towards York. They were met by the army of the northern earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria who they defeated at the Battle of Fulford. Harold Hardrada occupied York and the Norwegian Army encamped at Stamford Bridge. Harold Godwinson had to travel from London gathering his army as he went to face the invasion. Within five days, on the 25 September 1066, Harold Godwinson had reached Stamford Bridge and defeated the Norwegian Army in a battle in which both Harold Hardrada and Tostig Godwinson were killed. The battle at Stamford Bridge can be seen as one of the pivotal battles in English history, it was the last time a Scandinavian army was able to seriously threaten England. On the 28 September William Duke of Normandy landed on the south coast of England forcing Harold Godwinson to rush south from Yorkshire with his army. They met at the Battle of Hastings where the English army was defeated and Harold Godwinson killed, allowing William to become King of England.

King William I and the Normans did not immediately gain control over the whole of the country and rebellions in the north of England, including Yorkshire led to the Harrying of the North. During the winter of 1069-70 the Normans conducted a scorched earth campaign. Those who escaped initially hid in Yorkshire's woodland but many then died of famine or exposure. By 1071 the last native led rebellion against Norman authority in Yorkshire had been suppressed. The severity of the Norman campaign is shown by the fall of land values in Yorkshire by two-thirds between 1069 and 1086. Domesday book records that 25 continental magnates introduced into Yorkshire by the Conqueror held over 90% of the county's manors. The families who had previously held land were either deprived of their holdings or reduced to subtenants.

In the early years of Norman rule the new rulers built ringwork castles. These were circular defensive enclosures formed by the construction of a bank and a ditch. Examples of which are Kippax, near Leeds and Castleton on the North York Moors. Yorkshire at this time was frontier country. It was vulnerable to attack from the north by the Scots and from across the North Sea by the Danes. Soon more complex motte and bailey castles were being built as the ruthless and ambitious barons appointed by King William to rule Yorkshire gained a hold on their territories. The parcels of land bestowed by William to his followers in Yorkshire were fewer and much larger than in more southern counties. Each was able to support a sizeable garrison in a strong castle. Large castles were established at Conisbrough, Tickhill, Pontefract, Richmond, Middleham and Skipsea and two in York. At this time also was established the chain of castles across the southern edge of the North York Moors which included Scarborough, Pickering and Helmsley. When the Normans arrived in Yorkshire there were no monastic foundations.The old Northumbrian clifftop abbey of Whitby lay in ruins. In the centuries following the Conquest splendid abbeys and priories were built in Yorkshire. The first of these was Selby Abbey, founded in 1069 and the birthplace of Henry I of England. There followed the abbeys of St Mary’s, York, Rievaulx, Fountains, Whitby, Byland, Jervaulx, Kirkstall, Roche, Meaux and many other smaller establishments. During the succeeding 70 years religious orders flourished, particularly after the promotion of Thurstan of Bayeux to the archbishopric of York in 1114. Between 1114 and 1135 at least 14 were established.

Later Normans
The Norman landowners were keen to increase their revenues by establishing new towns and planned villages. Among others, the boroughs of Richmond, Pontefract, Sheffield, Doncaster, Helmsley and Scarborough were established in this way as were the villages of Levisham and Appleton-le-Moors on the North York Moors and Wheldrake in the Vale of York. York was the pre-eminent centre of population before the conquest and was one of only four pre existing towns. The others included Bridlington and Pocklington.

The Danish invasions ceased at this time but the Scots continued their invasions throughout the medieval period. The Battle of the Standard was fought against the Scots near Northallerton in 1138.

During this period the majority of the Yorkshire population was engaged in small scale farming. A growing number of families were living on the margin of subsistence and some of these families turned to crafts and trade or industrial occupations. By 1300 Yorkshire farmers had reached the present day limits of cultivation on the Pennines. Both lay and monastic landowners exploited the minerals on their estates. There were forges producing iron, and lead was being mined and smelted in the northern dales. In the West Riding there were numerous small coal workings. Until the late twelfth century the cloth industry was mostly urban, focussed on York and Beverley. By 1300 the towns of Hedon, Masham, Northallerton, Ripon, Selby, Whitby and Yarm were also involved in cloth manufacture. Around this time the balance of cloth manufacturing was changing in favour of the West Riding rural communities where it was a cottage industry and free of the restrictions of town guilds.

Fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
Sheffield, situated amongst a number of fast-flowing rivers and streams surrounded by hills containing raw materials such as coal, iron ore, ganister, and millstone grit for grindstones, made it an ideal place for water-powered industries to develop. Water wheels were often initially built for the milling of corn, but many were converted to the manufacture of blades. As early as the 14th century Sheffield was noted for the production of knives, as noted in Geoffrey Chaucer's The Reeve’s Tale from The Canterbury Tales

In the early decades of the fourteenth century Yorkshire suffered from a series of poor harvests, cattle disease and plundering Scottish armies. The Black Death reached Yorkshire in the spring of 1349. The population was reduced drastically by these misfortunes and consequently more land became available for the survivors. The following decades saw the rise of relatively wealthy farming families who founded dynasties of yeomen and minor gentlemen. The large Honours that were created in Yorkshire and the North of England by William I after the Conquest made them attractive for succeeding monarchs to give to their sons to support a royal lifestyle. These honours were, in some cases, combined to form Duchies, the most notable of which were the duchies of York and Lancaster.

When conflict arose between the two Dukes during the Wars of the Roses much of the fighting took place in Yorkshire, where their estates were interlocked and woven together. The leading families in the East and West Ridings supported the House of Lancaster overwhelmingly, but in the North Riding loyalty was divided. The Nevilles of Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, the Scropes of Bolton, the Latimers of Danby and Snape, and the Mowbrays of Thirsk and Burton in Lonsdale supported the House of York. The Nevilles’ great rivals, the Percies, together with the Cliffords of Skipton, Ros of Helmsley, Greystock of Hinderskelfe, Stafford of Holderness and Talbot of Sheffield fought for the Lancastrians.
 * Wars of the Roses

John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster had senior influence over many people in the North of England and consequently, Yorkshiremen fought under his command in the Hundred Years' War. King Richard III of England in the House of York held early office in the Council of the North, at Middleham Castle where Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales was born. The last vestiges of feudal order remain to-date in the Duchy of Lancaster, founded by the House of Lancaster.
 * Duchy of Lancaster, links to Scotland and France

Both Yorkshire and Richmondshire had significant connections with Scotland and France through the personal connections of their feudal and titular Peers which may have been connected to the Auld Alliance. One must consider the historically Norse origins of Yorkshire's population, the local ties of Balliol, Bruce and Stewart monarchs of Scotland, including Scottish royal fiefdom of Northumbria at several times.(See Earl of Huntingdon)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When did Yorkshire become a shire?
Came to this page to find out. Isn't clear. Say's Jorvik was the immediate predecessor to it, so... is "Yorkshire" an administrative unit put in place by the Normans? When did people start using "Yorkshire" to refer to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.229.89 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Yorkshire. 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/20070222041300/http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-2878-f6.cfm to http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-2878-f6.cfm

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) 09:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Yorkshire. 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://archive.is/20050313234955/http://www.northernearth.co.uk/permgypsey.htm to http://www.northernearth.co.uk/permgypsey.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10134640&c_id=10001043

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) 00:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)