Talk:Surrey Institution

Date of dissolution
Although a couple of source point to an 1820 dissolution, other sources indicate Goldsworth Gurney was employed some time from 1820 onwards ... A source I;ve lost, but which I included in the GG article says he was employed in 1822. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thornbury ref
The link is now broken. The work is of six volumes, and is the same as that in the reference to Edward Walford below. Our article says Thornbury wrote vols 1 and 2 out of the six. To clarify: text may be online. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the link - it's on the Internet Archive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The building, which ended up called the "Surrey Rotunda", seems to have survived in some form to WWII. Do you think it should have an article of its own? I'm now getting obsessed with its history after the Surrey Institution folded. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rotundanists
I've just learned that "Rotundanists" are treated as a definite faction of the left, in the 1830s anyway. So there seems a clear enough case for not having all that on this page. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; they appear notable per this sort of thing. (full copy here ... p266ish. Very interesting. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this: Radical Spaces: Venues of popular politics in London, 1790–c. 1845 by Christina Parolin, from chapter 6. Rotunda radicals would be another title to consider. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To do at some point then. This PDF from Parolin has the explanation of the latter years, to 1958 when the Rotunda was finally demolished. I was exploring at the end of Blackfriars Bridge yesterday, and it isn't that obvious where it was located. They didn't know in the local church. There is a large hole in the ground, and I suspect the site is being redeveloped therefore. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

V marks the spot:. Pleased with myself for finding that. The letter V is explained as "Leverian Museum" in the key at the bottom of the map. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, very good. In my head, it was on the other side of the road ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mind, you probably don't want to see Fig. 6.1 in Radical Spaces: Venues of popular politics in London, 1790–c. 1845. There are a few fine images in that book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On which score, a full PDF of that book is available from its publishers here. Kudos to them. Three chapters on the Rotunda and its uses; lots of photos. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I have been mentally maligning Parolin. There is certainly some confusion around, looking at the Holophusicon main image (unless the new Leverian Museum was deliberately made to look like the old one from the front)? The cover image from Radical Spaces was confusing to me, at least. Perhaps if you know that 3 Blackfriars was the right address it makes more sense.

The floor plan would be good if it were reproduced better. It is attributed to Richard Cuming who is himself a significant museum person. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Holophusicon is undoubtedly showing 3 Blackfriars. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

New articles
We must be getting near launching a couple of new articles: one for the building, and one for the rotundanists (sp?). Not least we could do with allotting images to more than one article since this article is getting a bit over-illustrated. Parolin refers to the building as the Blackfriars Road Rotunda. Do you have preferences for titles? Rotunda radicals, Rotundanists? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I had decided Rotunda radicals would be quite good. Logically, to apply summary style, the Rotunda building article would be the main one, and the other two developed via details links from it. My information is that Great Surrey Street only became Blackfriars Road in the 1820s, so I have a marginal preference for Surrey Rotunda as the main article; though given the building was there in some form to 1958, you might think this a bit fussy. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm content to go with those two: Rotunda radicals and Surrey Rotunda. I'll read Parolin first, and then chip in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually on second thoughts Blackfriars Rotunda is fine - just doesn't need the "Road". Charles Matthews (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Surrey Institution. 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/20120708113203/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Thomas_Hartwell_Horne to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Thomas_Hartwell_Horne

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) 13:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)