Talk:Wadhurst

Town or Village
Having lived in Wadhurst for my entire life I am quite sure it is a village not a town --Machtzu 15:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It has a market charter (which everyone got so excited about in 2003). In my book, that makes it a town - in fact, a market town. Ephialtes 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wadhurst certainly is included in the list of market towns here even though it only has a civil parish setup of local government. I suppose this is what makes trying to categorise things a bit of a pain: it is a town, but it isn't, depending on who you talk to! Peter Shearan 12:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wadhurst Park
Might it be worth mentioning Wadhurst Park and Hans Rausing? Zephyr 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Research source
The Wadhurst History Society website has much info on Wadhurst which can be used to expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

World War One Casualties
I'm highly sceptical of the claiim that 649 men from Wadhurst lost their lives in The Great War. I know it's a factquoted in an article published by the BBC but it's almost certainly wrong. If the population of the village was around 3,500 in 1914 we could reasonably estimate that the male population was just under 1750. Of those perhaps half would have been under 18 years of age or over 41 (the ages for conscription, which until 1916 excluded married men) though the conscription age was raised to 51 by the end of the war. Allowing for that it's highly unlikely that of the eligible male population (say fewer than 900) that 649 should have been killed and yet there be no collective recollection of the slaughter in the village, no mention elsewhere and no roll call of 649 names in the church or on the war memorial. Aubers was a disaster for Wadhurst (commemorated by the twinning arrangement between Wadhurst and Aubers) and that involved 25 men. If that even is remembered why is there no momorial to the other 625 casualties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.24.165 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source given says 149 dead. This seems to be a typo in a good faith edit made by an anonymous user. I have corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out.--Charles (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)