Talk:Monks Risborough

The article previously stated that the Domesday Book made no distinction between the two Risboroughs and that the parish was not divided until the 14th century. In fact there are two separate entries although the manor is called Riseberge in each of them. The entries are quite distinct. The reference for Princes Risborough in the book cited is 143c(1,3).Waysider1925 (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also changed the account of Whiteleaf Cross. I have doubts about the whole of the paragrasph commencing "The Risborough estate...." for which no references or authority are cited. I think this should go unless reliable references can be given. Waysider1925 (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

tmo142 has deleted the words "but the ecclesiastical parishes remain distinct. This article relates to the ecclesiastical parish which is the same (more or less) as the ancient manor or estate." saying that the article relates to the village not to the parish. It seems to me that the parish and the ancient estate are relevant to the history and description of the village.

Previously the article stated that there was no distinction between the two Risboroughs until the 14th century. This was wrong and I altered it. This and all the other information now in the article relate to the whole area of the parish, ancient estate or manor, not just the "village" if that is to be taken as meaning the built up area round the Church. 'Village' is a very vague term and I see nothing in the title of the article to limit it in this way. I was trying to define more clearly what should be covered and would prefer to reinstate these words. Waysider1925 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The framework for articles about places has been set out by WikiProject UK geography. This describes the format and content of articles about settlements which should be followed. Having said that I have no problem about referring in an historic context to the ecclesiastical parish which until the mid 19th century would have been the administrative unit. However the article should not have the statement that the article is about the ecclesiastic parish in a contemporary sense. In any case it does not talk about that aspect of the area anyway. What could be done would be to expand the reference to the church saying there that the name MR also refers to the ecclesiastical parish.  I would have no problem about using the words....but the ecclesiastical parishes remain distinct here and agree this could be added back in as part of the refererence to the church and would fit well if it said something like.... despite both Monks and Princes Risborough both being now part of the same civil parish the ecclesiastical parishes remain distinct.


 * The term village is not a vague term it is what those living and to some extent also those visiting would identify as the settlement of Monk Risborough. It is neither just the houses around the church and certainly not what was historically or currently the ecclesiastic parish is.


 * I am with you Waysider on your editing to clarify the distinctive nature of the parishes at the time of Domesday Book. My take on why this was worded was because the Archbishops both held the Monks R lands and the Princes R lands on behalf of the King so no doubt the administration from time to time of tithes and taxes etc was not always distinct


 * Btw it appears from looking back at the history of this document that an editor added some time ago information based on the History-on-line site or another comparable source but they wrongly assumed that this was a contemporarily written account of the history of the village rather than a victorian history. Another example I have just noticed which are a copyvio from the Victorian History are the words The farming lands in the parish of Monks Risborough are fairly extensive, and include the hamlets of Askett, Cadsden, Meadle, Owlswick and Whiteleaf. Again this is incorrect and I will amend having already sorted just now the references in the individual articles about these hamlets. Tmol42 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am obliged to you for referring me to the How to Write about Settlements page. However I still think that 'village' is vague and few people would put the boundaries in the same place. The How To page rather admits this, where it says (on page 1) that country hamlets and villages may mention significant places that might not be considered part of the village but which lie within the parish or ward, and it then suggests both in that paragraph and the next that in appropriate cases the articles should be merged.

I am trying to make an informative, useful and reliable article about Monks Risborough in place of the inaccurate information formerly given. It seems to me that anyone looking up MR in an encyclopedia will expect to find there information not only about the nuclear settlement but about the whole area historically comprised in the description MR and that this includes everything within the ecclesiastical parish and/or the old manor and/or the original estate which formed the basis of the parish. All these can conveniently be merged in a single article under the heading MR, so long as the article takes care to define what it is talking about. I would like to alter the opening para to read (taking in the most relevant portion of your new para):

"Monks Risborough is a village and ecclesiastical parish in Buckinghamshire, England adjacent to the town of Princes Risborough. It is now within the civil parish of Princes Risborough but the ecclesiastical parishes remain distinct.

The parish of MR includes the outlying hamlets of Askett, Cadsden, Meadle, Owlswick and Whiteleaf. Lke all the parishes along that part of the Chiltern scarp it is long and relatively narrow in shape, taking in woods above the hill, the slope of the hill itself and the flat agricultural land beyond the foot of the hill, where the church and the nucleus of the village are situated. The parish was originally an estate or manor belonging to Canterbury Cathedral Priory and a Charter of 903 setting out the boundaries is still extant. [ref to follow]"

I think you have misread my refence to Domesday Book, when you write of the archbishops holding on behalf of the King. MR was held after the Conquest by the Norman Archbishop Lanfranc as tenant in chief, but Princes Risborough was held by King William himself. Before the Conquest it had been held by King Harold.

I have it in mind to add sections on the parish church and on the neolithic barrow on Whiteleaf Hill as soon as I can get around to it.

Waysider1925 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Waysider,
 * My point on the village is that it is for those who live there or visit to interpret as they wish but WP has describe what a village is as precise a way as possible but recognising it is a cultural as well as physical geographical entity. I don't think we are disagreeing here. But take a look at the other more polished Chilterns village articles for Buckinghamshire / Oxfordshire as models for villages in this distinctive region.


 * On your text here are my suggestions, perhaps easier and best practice to do this on the article page itself going forward.


 * "Monks Risborough is a village in Buckinghamshire, England adjacent to the town of Princes Risborough, xx miles southwest of Wendover and yy miles south of Aylesbury. The village is part of the civil parish of Princes Risborough. Additionally, Monks Risborough is an ecclesiastical parish within the Diocese of Oxford having remained distinct from that of Princes Risborough".


 * This next bit is not correct--->"The parish of MR includes the outlying hamlets of Askett, Cadsden, Meadle, Owlswick and Whiteleaf"<--- As per my correction these hamlets have formed part of Princes Pisborough parish since 1934. If it was your intention here to be talking about the contemporary EP then I think you will be creating a muddle.


 * Just some, minor adjustments here, suggest you also take a look at strip parish which I put together a while back---> "Lke all the historic parishes along that part of the Chiltern scarp it is long and relatively narrow in shape, taking in woods above the hill, on the slope of the hill and dipslope beyond itself and the flat fertile agricultural land beyond the foot of the hill, where the church and the nucleus of the village are situated".


 * Suggest this next bit would be an excellent lead in to the previous paragraph but could not understand the use of the word "extant" --->"The parish was originally an estate or manor belonging to Canterbury Cathedral Priory and the boundaries set out in a Charter of 903 can still be traced on the ground setting out the boundaries is still extant  . <There is additional well researched historical info about the 10th century charter as you have mentioned I have some material on the defining the boundary with PR  mentioning the line of a Black Hedge from the charter.


 * On the ownership post 1066. I bow to your greater knowledge on this but I understood from commentators on this (Victorian History - not always a good source I know) that in respect of MR specifically the Archbishop held lands in his ( own/ the church's) right as well as administering land for the King and that the separation of these lands were somewhat unclear Tmol42 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw there is already an article on Whiteleaf Cross included in the page on Whiteleaf, Buckinghamshire and you should add the info on the barrow and the other archeology there. Tmol42 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

t is I think it is important that the article should cover the whole area historically known as Monks Risborough, which is the same as the present ecclesiastical parish, so that anybody reading it will find all the information about the parish grouped there, with links in from the other articles rather than links out to them.Waysider1925 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the ecclesiastical Parish / ancient estate issue, to me, the importance of metioning this early in the article arises from Monks Risborough parish having the earliest (as far as I am aware) written description of its boundaries. From an historical point of view this seems to me more important than the more modern Princes Risborough parish boundary which is (relatively) recent.

Grim's Ditch et all
Regarding the Lower and Upper Icknield way, and Grim's ditch, these are ancient things that cross the ancient parish of Monks Risborough, but do not pass particularly close to the centre of the village. The Upper Icknield way is no further from the village than the Lower Icknield way, and indeed Grim's ditch is I believe further away up on the hill, in the ancient parish but not really in the village.Finereach (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Finereach, If these features were not that close to the village or could not be associated with it in a historic or contemporary way then the correct action would be to remove them. However, in my view I do feel there is a close enough association topographically as well as from a social history/geography perspective to mention but perhaps using more precise language. There are other examples in the Chilterns settlements where a similar relationship is included in this way. I remain unconvinced that it it is of any merit relying on the ecclesiastical parish boundaries to achieve this.Tmol42 (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In defence of the Parish
The removal of references to the ecclesiastical parish of Monks Risborough has destroyed the structure of the article so that the extent of the area to which it refers is no longer clear. I have restored these references and altered the opening words so as to make it clear that the article relates to the area comprised in the ecclesiastical parish for the following reasons:

a) The parish is a definite area of known extent. It will always be possible to know for certain whether anything mentioned in the article is in the parish or not.

b) On the other hand 'village' is a vague term of indeterminate extent. Every inhabitant can have a different view how far the village extends. Indeed many would think that it is not correct to describe Monks Risborough as a village at all. There are no shops in the village and modern housing merges wth that of Princes Risborough. The nucleus of the parish is the collection of older buildings round the church and I suppose that most people, if pressed, would point to this area as the 'village' but they would have different ideas how far it extends.

c) Many things described in the article cannot be said to relate to the village, but they certainly relate to the parish (and to the Manor, but this is now almost entirely an antiquarian conception while the parish is still a meaningful term and generally understood).

d) The five named hamlets are in the parish, not the village.

e) The present boundaries of the parish correspond very closely to the ancient estate which was granted to the first owner of the land in (probably) the 8th century. Later, when the first church had been built and England was divided into parishes, the same area was used for the parish. By the time of the Norman conquest the same area was also the Manor. Both parish and Manor existed together until copyhold tenure was abolished by the Law of Property Act in 1925 and the Manor lost its importance. When civil parishes were invented (about 1893 I think), much the same area again went into the civil parish, but this was merged into a larger parish with Princes Risborough in 1934 and ceased to exist as a separate civil parish.

f) However through all these vicissitudes the ecclesiastical parish has kept its distinct identity and boundaries to the present day. It is the area whose inhabitants, for a thousand years and more, have been baptised, married and buried at St Dunstan's Church

g) The Inclosure Award of 1839 has also been brought into the article. This relates specifically to the parish.

It is important that terms should be clearly defined at the start, which is why I went out of my way to make it clear that all references to the parish are to the ecclesiastical parish. I now say "the area of the ecclesiastical parish". References to the parish are only confusing if this introductory note is removed. 'Locality' is even vaguer than 'village' and would include Princes Risborough.

I welcome the new reference to the Icknield Way but have changed the wording, as the new sentence is not grammatical, 'nearby' being an adverb, not a preposition. Again, the Icknield Way is outside the village, but both Upper and Lower Icknield Ways pass through the parish. I have also moved this to the section on Antiquity. Waysider1925 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Domesday Book
On further consideration I have re-worded the paragraph on Domesday Book and included all the information it gives but without much in the way of comment. There are so many different interpretations of some elements of the entries in Domesday Book that I think it is best just to give the facts. Waysider1925 (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monks Risborough. 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 tag to http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/uploads/documents/Environment/Planning/Monks%20risborough%2001-12-2007%201.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721065009/http://www.bucksfhs.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=451&Itemid= to http://www.bucksfhs.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=451&Itemid=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721065009/http://www.bucksfhs.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=451&Itemid= to http://www.bucksfhs.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=451&Itemid=
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130415004411/http://www.monksprimary.ik.org/home.ikml to http://www.monksprimary.ik.org/home.ikml

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) 08:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)