Talk:King's College, Cambridge

In popular culture?
I found the following line "In 1930, a Cambridgeshire Constabulary Detective Sergeant was shot dead by an estranged pupil who also shot his tutor, on the first door on the left of the dorm houses." in the section about King's in popular culture. Seems somewhat out of place. Victor b04 (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, particularly the phrase "dorm houses", as there are no buildings described this way. And the wikilinking for "detective" and then for "sergeant" is absurd. I suspect a hoax. I shall remove it, if no-one objects. Maproom (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be true: see http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Forces/Cambridgeshire/Cambridgeshire_Roll.htm.


 * "While questioning a student at King's College, Cambridge, about his possession of a firearm, the suspect produced a pistol and shot his tutor, the officer attempted to arrest him but was shot twice and died the next day."


 * I wonder if the tutor was anyone notable? Barnabypage (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's true. The Senior Tutor was Sandy Wollaston; the shooting apparently happened in his rooms in Gibbs Building. Colin S (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Schools gatehouse
There's been a dispute over whether the gatehouse of the Old Schools was originally part of King's. The photo has been removed now, but I would like to re-add it. The text still claims that this gatehouse is formerly King's, so it's still a good idea to reach consensus. Fay 1901 writes:

"In 1829, wnen the new buildings had come into use, Old Court was sold to the University, and the buildings thereon demolished, to make way for an extension of the University Library. One piece alone escaped, the old unfinished Gate of Entrance " a venerable and beautiful specimen of architecture " which the University had not the heart to destroy. It was therefore incorporated with the new library building, and stands thus at the present day. The stone of the original gateway, as well as some fragments of the walls to the north and south, is plainly distinguishable from the rest."

This is accompanied with an etching of the Old Schools gate captioned "The Original Gate of Entrance", so its clear to what Fay is referring. Now look at Conybeare 1910:

"But though we have left the College behind us we have not yet quite got clear of its associations. The fine modern Gothic pile to our right embeds, as we see, an ancient gateway. For more than three and a half centuries this was the entrance to the one small Court which alone represented the magnificent design of Henry the Sixth for his Royal Foundation."

This is supported by a picture of the modern gate captioned "The Old Gate of King's College", and the page is headed "OLD GATEWAY OF KING'S".

The two photos to the right clearly show the medieval embedded in the modern gothic.

This photo, linked to by McAnt has in fact always been the Old Schools. Note that this site says that building began in 1430, a decade before King's was founded. Fay 1901 explains: "On the eastern side stood the schools of Theology and Canon Law, against which it was impossible to build at all." The other photo also clearly shows the difference between medieval and modern. The date of 1890 given must refer to the modern stonework surrounding the gate.

Looking forward to hearing/reading any other evidence either way :) Charlie A. (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Fay claims that the whole of the Old Schools had been demolished, but there are

Serious questions of trustworthiness have been raised about the work of Frye, as he claims that “the buildings thereon demolished….one piece alone escaped, the old unfinished Gate of Entrance” but its hard not to notice that the building on the left remained virtually intact http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/King%27s_College%2C_Cambridge_by_Loggan_1690_-_sanders_6177.jpg. I find it hard to trust in someone’s work who failed to notice that a whole building was spared…. It is perhaps true that the University merely extended and redesigned the Old Gatehouse, see http://www.cambridge2000.com/cambridge2000/html/0006/P6261533.html and http://www.cambridge2000.com/cambridge2000/html/0009/P9052374.html or http://www.cambridge2000.com/cambridge2000/html/0009/P9052372.html or http://www.cambridge2000.com/cambridge2000/html/0009/P9052373.html. If such really was the case, one may view it as additional evidence pointing that adding such pics to King’s page is somewhat anachronistic. The very core of the building could be the same which belonged to Kings, but the Gate in it’s current neo gothic form was never been a part of King’s Old Court. Another thing is, they sold the buildings to the University nearly two hundred years ago. Wouldn’t it be weird if I would add pics of Selwyn, the Sidgewick site and King’s bridge to the Corpus Christi page as all those land was in the possession of Corpus till the 19th century, but sold it to Selwyn, the University and Kings, respectively…?

Don’t get me wrong, the Old Schools gate looks very cool, but it’s been sold to the University 180 years ago, and this is not the original gate, used by King’s. User:McAnt (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fay does indeed claim that all of King's Old Court, save the gatehouse, was demolished. However, the Schools to the east weren't a part of the Old Court. Fay writes: "On the eastern side stood the schools of Theology and Canon Law, against which it was impossible to build at all. Hence the old court was three-sided, the north side contracted at the western corner and slightly overlapping the schools on the eastern corner."Austen-Leigh (1899, p. 4) agrees, saying "The eastern side of the Quadrangle being already occupied by the University Schools, the College consisted of three wings, of which the northern was considerably the longest and overlapped the University Schools."  The building to the east of the Old Court (to the left in the drawing) was not a part of King's Old court, it was a University building, so Fay is correct when he says "Old Court was sold to the University, and the buildings thereon demolished".  I think it's a bit of a stretch to say "serious questions of trustworthiness have been raised about him, given how much in agreement he always is with Austen-Leigh and Saltmarsh (1959).


 * I don't think the analogy with Corpus's previously owned land works. If it were just Old Schools land, without the medieval gatehouse, then that's different -- but the above sources are clear that fine stonework on the external gatehouse (not just the core) is the only surviving building of King's original foundation, so I think it is an important feature to note.


 * Not sure where to go from here. If you are not convinced by my sources perhaps we ought to leave the article as it is for now, without the image but with the text as is until another party gives an opinion.  What do you think? Charlie A. (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As an after-thought, perhaps we could ask for input from the Architecture and Cambridge University wikiprojects? Charlie A. (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The plan to the right illustrates nicely how Old Court did not include the eastern range. Charlie A. (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Have to admit, I wasn't aware of this, I thought that the Old Schools was fully part of King's. Be as it may, my basic problem still stands, namely that the university heavily rebuilt the gate and the building itself, therefore adding that pic to King’s page is somewhat anachronistic. I mean the gate looks awesome because Pearson redesigned it in 1891. Perhaps, if you’re around, you could take a pic from the archway, showing the original stonework...?(talk) 00:05, 26 July 2012


 * I think the crux of our disagreement is (was?) on how much of the external (intricate) stonework is original. Happily, I just found a source which elucidates this.  The gist is that the arch and first floor are original while the top floor is a Pearson elaboration.  You can actually see the difference in the stone colour in the images above.  So... I still think it'd be appropriate to include an image of the original stonework.  However, it's not really worth this much of a debate.  We could maybe leave this discussion here for anyone else to have a say, but I'm satisfied the text "only the gateway arch opposite Clare College survives" is justified and the image is kind of secondary to that. Charlie A. (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King's College, Cambridge. 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/20090831153202/http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/admissions/welcome/schoolsLiaison.html to http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/admissions/welcome/schoolsLiaison.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017024258/http://www.kmka.co.uk/Activities.html to http://www.kmka.co.uk/Activities.html

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) 05:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Intake and access profile
Who or what is "Gopal"? This person/thing is not introduced but referenced in this section. This final paragraph comes off as a non-sequitur and probably doesn't belong in this section, perhaps a new one on "Controversies" should be introduced. Gorbag42 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)