Talk:London Stone

Info and queries
As of December 5th 2007 a decision has not yet been made about the fate of the London Stone. The Museum of London advises that they have not yet been asked to provide a home for the relocation or temporary location of the artefact. There has been planning approval for the demolition of 111 Canon Street (the building where the stone resides). The planning officer responsible who can answer questions on this is Michael Blamires in the Planning Department of the City of London Corporation. James Frankcom (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The sports shop has now closed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.102.210 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the above hints that the building is to be demolished i would be surprised as i work opposite and the building looks like it is undergoing a refit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.102.210 (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This stone may be the only tangible proof left remaining of the Hero Brutus founding London (New Troy) in about 750BC(about the same time as Rome under Romulus another descendant of Aeneas). A book by L. A. Waddell dates the founding to 1100 BC using the old traditional 1200(incorrect) date of Troy, however David Rohl convincingly dates the destruction of Troy to 860BC. If Brutus was Aeneas's great grandson, it would place his exploits in the mid 8th century BC. Brutus worshiped the Goddess Diana, and the foundations of a temple to Diana was discovered near St Pauls in the 1500s, since lost. By the way, the Roman's did not enter London or mention it in their history of the conquest of Britain due to the Trinovantes(New Trojans) being allies-- against the Catavalauni whose capital was Colchester. This would make the stone crucial in terms of British history. --158.43.39.218 (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? Brutus is total myth, and the idea that he could have traveled to England is more myth piled on top.

Does anyone know what kind of stone it is? :D Abergabe (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oolitic limestone - Clipsham (Lincolnshire) or Bath - both stones first brought to London for constructional use in the Roman period - but also used (or reused) in Saxon and medieval times. For a recent summary of the history of London Stone and the development of 'mystical' beleifs about it see  81.151.75.160 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bell's book
I've added a number of small points from Walter Bell's book, Unknown London -- written in 1920, but what I've added is still valid. And he notes that the nearest source of oolitic limestone was in Kent. Which seems reasonable, whether its origin is Roman or medieval. -- Michael K Smith Talk 19:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Bell is wrong on at least two counts -
 * 1. Geological examination of a sample when the Stone was moved in the 1960s indicated that it was specifically Clipsham limestone, an oolitic limestone from Lincolnshire (see Ralph Merrifield The Roman City of London (1965) 271-2). More recent examination of the same sample (unpublished) suggests it might actually be Bath limestone. Both types of stone were used (and then reused) in both Roman and medieval London.
 * 2. It can't be a stone from Fitz Ailwin's house since the house lay on the other side (north) of St Swithin's church. In any case, it was first mentioned as 'lundene stane' long before the time of Henry Fitz Ailwin (and his father AEthelwine) - the first mention (a reference to land formerly owned by a man called 'Eadwaker aet lundene stane') is in a list of properties in London belonging to Canterbury Cathedral, dated to some time between 1098 and 1108. This is probably the same document referred to by John Stow as being bound 'in the end of a fair written Gospel book given to [Canterbury Cathedral] by Ethelstane, King of the West Saxons' - a claim that has caused all sorts of problems in dating, and led to a belief that it was first mentioned in the time of King AEthelstan of England (924-39). On all this see John Clark 'Jack Cade at London Stone' Transactions of London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 58 (2007) 169-89 (especially pp 170-1).
 * The idea that it came from Fitz Ailwin's house was earlier suggested by Henry Charles Coote in an article in Transactions of London and Middlesex Archaeological Society in 1881, and presumably later picked up by Bell. On this and other (mis)identifications see John Clark 'London Stone: Stone of Brutus or Fetish Stone - Making the Myth' Folklore 121.1 (2010) 38-60.
 * John Ambrose Clark (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of London Stone article
To anyone who has watchlisted this page, or comes across it:

I've been interested in London Stone for a long time. When I first saw the Wikipedia article, back in about 2007, it was very weak and inaccurate. It has improved immensely since then, thanks to the hard work of many contributors. I've added to it myself recently. However, I think it's now reached the stage of deserving a full rewrite and reorganisation - the existing section headings and their content have got a bit incoherent, and some of the writing could be tightened up.

I've drafted a new version, but I'm unsure how one sets about getting a consensus before launching it live. (Be bold (but not too bold?)). So today (2 April 2013) I've put a copy of the draft up on my own talk page (User talk:John O&). I'd be most grateful if you could look at it there.

I've reorganised the sections and their content, to separate off the verifiable history (11th century and later) from the speculations about the Stone's date and original purpose and the mythology that's grown up about it. Among other things, I've deleted the para on Walter George Bell's book - it adds nothing to what is better sourced elsewhere; I've summarised the Spectaclemakers episode - it's a one-off event, not significant.

Please feel free to comment either on my talk page (User talk:John O&) or here.

I'd welcome comments on both the content and the format - I'm still experimenting with Wiki markup, and may have deleted something vital from the original article! The links seem to work (from my sandbox) and I've added a lot more references and citations. Have I missed any?

Thanks for your interest. And apologies if this plea for advice somehow breaches Wiki etiquette! But if there is a consensus (or at least no violent objection) I'll eventually copy and paste the draft onto the main London Stone page to replace the existing version and let it take its chances thereafter. -- John O&#39;London (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rewrite is now live.John O&#39;London (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Intro
Thanks for you work on the intro, Le Deluge. Following comments to justify my changes:

The London Stone – never, never 'the'!

Clipsham – since you've introduced Hayward’s suggestion of Bath in the main text, better not to be specific in the lead, I think.

venerated for many centuries – unsubstantiated claim by modern authors from Gomme and Spence onwards!

Roman origin or older – well, it can’t be older if it's Clipsham or Bath – both first used in London by Romans.

recorded history since 16th century – even if you don’t accept Eadwaker as necessarily referring to 'our' stone, there are sufficient refs from 12th century on (not all in Clark) to suggest continuity – ie there was a "London Stone", it was indeed a stone (not a 'stone building'), it was a landmark, it stood in Candlewick St, and was close to the Fitz Ailwin house.

10th century claims – these claims seem to be a misinterpretation of Stow. They couldn't have bound the list into the book until after (perhaps long after) they received it from the king; on the other hand the list itself could have been old when they bound it into the book – so one can't use the date of the Gospel Book or the gift of it to date the included document. (The Gospel Book given to Canterbury by Aethelstan must be Cotton MS Tiberius A II; it's late 9th century, given to Aethelstan himself by Otto I of Germany - the rebinding history after Stow's time is complex.)

Thanks again for your interest; please continue the good work if you feel so inclined! - John O&#39;London (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Stone. 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/20131224124048/http://www.spectaclemakers.com/company/history.htm to http://www.spectaclemakers.com/company/history.htm

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) 13:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Stone. 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/20120312011833/http://www.vintryanddowgate.org.uk/docs/London%20Stone%20note.pdf to http://www.vintryanddowgate.org.uk/docs/London%20Stone%20note.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) 13:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)