User talk:Manorial

Towneley (family)
Thank you for your interest in the Towneley (family) page and your recognition post. I’ve been meaning to continue adding to it, but have been a bit busy with other things. While I welcome your input to the article, I should point out that your additions are a tiny bit less than ideal. While I think that you are correct to add info about Alice’s family where you have, you appear to have copied the text of the existing Baron O'Hagan pages. This is frowned upon, and some work will need to be done to fix it. The text needs to be edited down to about a paragraph giving the highlights, with links to the existing articles. This can be done with double square brackets see:Help:Wikilinks. If you would like my help in improving the article, post a reply here and I’ll see what I can do. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit. I just felt that Alice's line needed apropriate treatment. There is a quantity of stuff on Wikipedia about the Bowland link and I felt this needed fleshing out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorial (talk • contribs) 11:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

THE "MANOR" OF NEWTON
Would the person who bought the "manor" of Newton in good faith from Manorial Auctioneers kindly check the HM Registry recordss for 1950, 1977, 2003 relating to the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn. They plainly show that the township of Newton is part of the Manor of Slaidburn and thus owned by Thomas Assheton. Lord O'Hagan had no legal right to sell the non-existent "manor" of Newton in February 2011. The purchaser needs to refer back to his solicitor Rollasons on this matter as he has been misled. Manorial (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorial (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Please do not continue to add information about the "manor" or any email addresses to any more user pages. Shell  babelfish 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Newton-in-Bowland‎‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --  Dr Greg   talk  19:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

EDITING WAR ON SLAIDBURN AND NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND PAGES: REQUEST FOR PAGE PROTECTION
Neautone (Dr Martin Cawley) has purchased a bogus lordship of the manor. He is repeatedly attempting to pervert the historical record by asserting he is "Lord of Newton". Legal documentation held by HM Land Registry 1950, 1977, 2003 plainly shows that any manorial rights relating to Newton-in-Bowland (which has not been a manor since 1399) are in the possession of Thomas Assheton, nephew of the second Baron Clitheroe, and held as part and parcel of the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn, West Bradford and Grindleton. I have attempted to assist Dr Cawley but he is not interested in meaningful engagement. I am therefore requesting protection for the two pages for SLAIDBURN and NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND.

Manorial (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I saw you've been having some difficulties with Wikipedia and I know how confusing this site can be, so I thought I'd give you a few ideas that might help.  I understand you have some concerns over the articles, but if you'd like to see some changes made, it's important that you follow this site's rules.  The first thing that's important to know is that articles are only based on other published sources, so for example if you have sources that specifically say that the manor is no longer a manor and that manorial rights no longer exist, you should list those along with how you'd like to see that reflected in the article on it's talk page and discuss with other editors how to handle it.  If you have any sources that specifically refute Dr. Cawley's assertion of lordship, those would likely be even better.  So, in short, the first part is that it all comes down to the references. The second bit is that this site is based on collaboration, so even when you disagree, you need to work with other editors.  This means not edit warring, not fighting and remaining calm and civil at all times.  Use the article talk page when you disagree and work out a solution.  If you can't find a solution with a few editors, use some of the methods described at the dispute resolution page to get more editors involved - keep going until you solve the problem.  Solving the disagreement won't always mean getting your way; sometimes you may need to compromise or sometimes you may find that most other editors disagree with your position - it's okay to let things go and come back later when you have more or better sources or some new information.

I have constantly sought to reference the Land Registry records which demonstrate the Assheton ownership. Neautone simply deletes them. The pages need protecting for this reason. This fellow paid £10,000 for a bogus title and is more interested in justifying his foolish investment than the historical facts. If you want to suggest an editor, then I would be happy to cooperate/collabborate.

Manorial (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've warned Neautone about blindly removing information and sources from articles and advised him to use discussion as well. I've tried to watchlist the articles involved, but if he continues, feel free to drop me a note if I don't notice immediately.  Rather than protect the articles so that noone can edit them, when a single editor is the problem, it's easier to block their use of the site. Shell   babelfish 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephen Jolly, Fellow, Clare College, Cambridge I presume?
 * I’ve also been watching this disagreement for a while, with a small amount of intrigue, given the local factor. The pressing question I must ask is: do these manorial titles (legitimate or otherwise) carry any value in the modern world? Correct me if I’m wrong (preferably with an explanation), but I’m pretty sure the answer is no. So that would mean that this essentially an argument over whether this chap bought a worthless fake title or just a worthless one?
 * If this is the case, then just about all of the content relating to it, is actually non-notable and is just clogging up the articles that it has been put on. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

MANORIAL LORDSHIPS
Greetings from Cambridge!

Manorial titles are incorporeal hereditaments, a species of property right. They are lawful if supported by proper documentation and are analogous to mineral rights which can also be manorial in origin. Manorial lordships are not titles of nobility and in consequence, can be bought and sold. They are heritable like other forms of property. They do not entitle the owner to style himself "Lord ..." but can used as a descriptor, "Mr Jones, Lord of XXX" should the owner wish to adopt such a title. Most would judge such an adoption to be in poor taste.

The issue with poor Dr Cawley is that he has been sold someone else's property. There is absolutely no question that Thomas Assheton is Lord of the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn, West Bradford and Grindleton and that this manor has included Newton(-in-Bowland) since at least the late C14th. The Land Registry holds all the documentation. Copies of these title deeds have been made available to me courtesy of Ingham & Yorke, the Assheton family agent. CJ Spencer, the foremost authority on Bowland and its archival records, has also been consulted. He has confirmed to me and to Ingham & Yorke in writing that Newton has not been a manor in its own right since at least 1399. In his words, the "manor of Newton is a fiction".

In short, the answer to your question is lordships of the manor can be both historically and commercially significant. However, they are NOT significant if you assess them as titles of nobility. In that sense, as they do not denote nobility, they are no more meaningful than a person styling himself "Landlord of the Dog and Duck". Trust this clarifies matters?

In answer to your final question, I think we should retain the detail on the manorial history on these pages but only if is properly researched, accurate and referenced.

Manorial (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

LORDOFNEWTON
Neautone has adopted a new identity - LordofNewton - to continue his assault on the Slaidburn and Newton-in-Bowland pages. Can we please protect these pages?

Manorial (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BARON CLITHEROE PAGE
I see LordofNewton (aka Neautone) has now begun an edit war on the page relating to the Barons Clitheroe. Can we please protect this page?

Manorial (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GRINDLETON AND WEST BRADFORD
Thank you, Shell, for your swift action against Neautione/LordofNewton. I note that he has also defaced the pages for Grindleton and West Bradford, constituent parts - along with Newton-in-Bowland - of the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn owned by Thomas Assheton. I have rectified the text and reinstated references to HM Land Registry documentation.

Manorial (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

LORDSHIP OF PENDLE: AUCTIONED WITHOUT THE OWNERS' CONSENT
This is another manorial title belonging to the Barons Clitheroe auctioned without their consent by Manorial Auctioneers. Further details can be found on the Lord Greaves of Pendle page.

Manorial (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Manors
Sorry that you been having a nightmare with Dr. Crawley, hopefully Shell’s actions will be and end of it (I don’t have the required privileges to do that sort of thing). It’s a strange co-incidence that I have real world contact with several persons of interest in this case, and I’ll look forward to discussing it with them. Out of interest, what is being done about it?

Back to Wikipedia – I problem I’ve got, and I don’t think it’s particularly urgent (given that virtually nobody looks that those articles), is that they are currently quite unbalanced in terms of content. EG XXX is a village. It has a pub. Manor. Manor. Manor. Manor. Manor. Manor. Manor. Manor. I think it is wise, to wait and make sure that peace has actually broken out, before making further changes. But at some point I intend re-visit this. I assume you have seen Lord of the Manor, could it be improved?

Also, as I may of mentioned, I would like to get an article created about the Honor of Clitheroe. Any info you could provide would be much appreciated. I think that the manors held in demesne, that I put in Blackburnshire, would of been part of the honor? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Trappedinburnley's observation of balance. There seem to be a lot of articles about places in the Forest of Bowland which all carry more-or-less the same detailed discussion of the history of the Forest and its Manors. This is unnecessary duplication. I think we probably need a detailed discussion within just one article and then each other article can carry a summary of how the material relates to that article, with a link to the main article. The template at the top of a subsection is one way of doing this. --   Dr Greg   talk  15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

REVISING THE FOREST OF BOWLAND PAGES
The manorial content on most of these pages has been drawn from the study I published with CJ Spencer in 2010. I would be reluctant to see that content removed entirely but I absolutely agree that there needs to be more varied/broader-based content. Perhaps section headings on these pages might improve matters for starters? I am happy to have a look at all the Forest of Bowland pages over the next ten days to see what improvements can be made. I'm probably better placed than anyone to do this given my detailed knowledge of the area. Are you happy for me to undertake this review?

On the Honor of Clitheroe, a page is long overdue. I can certainly provide information for this. Trappediinburnley, if you create the page I'll populate it over the next ten days. Does that work?

As for Dr Cawley, he has to take up matters with his lawyers. I know the Clitheroes' land agent has been in communication with him.

Manorial (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It would make sense for you to look at this. I'm not suggesting any of this material should be removed from Wikipedia entirely, just that it needn't be repeated in detail within many different articles. Go into detail in one or two relevant articles, and then in other articles give summaries and links. --  Dr Greg   talk  20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. it's not a good idea to use ALL CAPITALS as people interpret that as "shouting"! :) --  Dr Greg   talk  20:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest choosing a single article to begin with. Between us it shouldn’t take long to bring it to a reasonable standard. I then expect that you would have no problems sorting out the rest.


 * I’ve put a basic article in place of the Honor of Clitheroe redirect – contribute at your leisure. I’m watching it, and will help where I can. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note: I'm meeting the current Steward of the Honor next week.

Manorial (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Honor of Clitheroe
An extract from Farrer's Court Rolls, that you pointed me toward:


 * The Court Leet with View of Frankpledge of the Fee of Slaidburn, held twice yearly at Slaidburn.


 * The Head Court Baron of the Manor of Slaidburn, held after Easter and Michaelmas at Slaidburn.


 * The Court Leet with View of Frankpledge of the Forest of Bowland, held twice yearly at Whitewell.


 * The Woodmote and Swainmote Court, held on the same day as the last-named, at Whitewell, but with a different Jury, the Head Keeper being always appointed Foreman of the Woodmote Jury.

This raises some questions. Also wasn't Whitewell part of the manor of Slaidburn? I admit that I might be making assumptions based on similarities to Ightenhill (Deer Park on the edge of the forest, courts moved to other locations when the manor house was no longer suitable).

The Hoddlesden and Ramsgreave stuff obviously came from the VCH (Vol 6), pages 252, 273 and 280, to be precise. On the manors and forest list, I'm wondering if it would be better to arrange things under the lordships they where part of?

Also, am I right to think that the honor would of been originally granted to fund the construction, maintenance and garrison of the castle? I'm still looking to better explain what the honor was?

Finally (for now) - I don't think (but I'm not sure) that Cliviger (and Towneley and Worsthorne) where part of the manor of Ightenhill.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

PS I've also done a quick article for Browsholme Hall, after I noticed that User:Charles Matthews (someone you may know?) has created articles on Thomas Dunham Whitaker and Thomas Lister Parker as part of the WP:DNB project.

BOWLAND AND SLAIDBURN
Trappedinburnley, the Lord of Bowland was lord paramount of the Forest and Liberty of Bowland until 1660 and the Lordship has therefore always taken precedence over the Lordship of the Manor of Slaidburn (which was merely part of the Liberty of Bowland). If you look at the monograph I co-authored, there is a whole section on this explaining the complex interrelationship between the two Lordships: http://www.forestofbowland.com/files/uploads/MartinsBlog/ESC%20SPEC%20WITH%20CORRECTIONS.pdf It is a common mistake to think Slaidburn and Bowland are one and the same thing simply because through much of their existence they were held in common by the Lord King of Bowland.

I'll take a look at the Browsholme page over the next few days and review your excellent work on the Honor of Clitheroe. It's a pleasure working with you!

Manorial (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I’m going to have a look at the Easington article now, in return I would like at least some of the following or the honor article:


 * In history – a sentence or two that begins along the lines of "The Tenures Abolition Act 1660 affected the honor in the following way..."


 * In governance – an improvement of your recent bowland additions (or any of the rest of it), so that they don’t contradict the list given in the court rolls.


 * And an answer to the question: Is or was the honor, a collection of lordships? I’m thinking about paramountcy? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, I'll put something in for you on the 1660 Act and paramountcy. An honor was primarily a collection of lands which were then assigned to mesne lords. In principle, it was not a collection of lordships. As for the governance section, I think it is rather confused and I intend to work on it. You need to draw a clearer distinction between manorial and forest courts. I am slightly bemused by your references to disafforestation and will work on this aspect too.

Thanks for the Easington, Lancashire page!

Manorial (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I’ve now put the article in place and merged your slightly premature additions into it. In the article, could you explain why this photo of a farm near Newton-in-Bowland is titled Manor House, Easington?


 * I'll respond to the disafforestation question on my talkpage shortly --Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lower Easington abuts Newton-in-Bowland. The manor in the picture is that of Lower Easington. Upper Easington never had a manor, only a grange. Can you add it to the page please? Sorry I jumped in - do you wanht me to start contrubuting or have you more work to do?

Manorial (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you adding the same information to numerous articles?
Why are you adding the same information to numerous articles when there is an article linked to the Lordship of Bowland? This is totally unneccessary. Please stop. Thank you. --109.145.69.250 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not need to identify myself. The link Lordship of Bowland is sufficient for wikipedia. You appear to be point of view pushing by adding the same paragraph to so many articles.--109.145.69.250 (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at previous comments this is not the first time you have been told not to do this.--109.145.69.250 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I ask you again to identify yourself. It is a mere courtesy. Your tone seems to me aggressive. If you are LordofNewton or Neutone1, then I will ask my colleagues to investigate your postings.

Manorial (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no links with any other author, I was a visitor to Clitheroe who used wikipedia as a means of discovering the history of the area I have just visited and got fed up with reading the same edit. Please don't spoil wikipedia with your own personal preferences it is supposed to be neutral. I have actually discovered very little about the places I visited other than getting fed up with rereading something I wasn't interested in.--109.145.69.250 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this. We are all volunteers and we try our best!

Manorial (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I found more information here http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=445 --109.145.69.250 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm well aware of the sources. Grateful to you for pointing this out, nonetheless.

Manorial (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted with thanks!

Manorial (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bowland
I've spent a lot of today in the mind numbing world of photo categorization of the Commons site. So far I've completed the the parishes of:


 * Bashall Eaves
 * Bowland Forest High including Dunsop Bridge
 * Bowland Forest Low including Whitewell
 * Easington
 * Great Mitton inc Little Mitton
 * Grindleton
 * Newton
 * Slaidburn
 * Waddington
 * West Bradford

The collections can be accessed from the Commons link at the bottom of the article. It is a simple matter to swap any of the images in the image galleries for others in the Commons. If modern history isn't your thing, maybe you could have a look at them and for ideas on what you could contribute. For instance, Eaves Hall in West Bradford?

Any others I should take a look at?

While we are on the subject, the two Bowland forest parish articles still need work. I while ago a removed a big chunk of the Low article, leaving as much as I felt was (even slightly) relevant to it. A similar axe needs to be taken to the High one, before we continue with them. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm relaxed - your amendments seem good to me.

Manorial (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

HARROP
Trappedinburnley, there is one omission to date in the account of the Forest of Bowland. That is the area known as Harrop. Harrop (Fold) is a piece islanded between Newton, Slaudburn, Grindleton. We need a page for it. I've yet to do any research on this forest annex. I've referenced it on the Lordship of Bowland page.

Manorial (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Harrop Fold is in Grindleton CP, intriguingly Harrop Hall seems to be the landmark that defines to boundary between the three. Although its main access road comes from the Slaidburn side, the building is just inside Grindleton. For now I would put info about it on Grindleton, it could be moved to its own article (if needed) later.
 * I also think that Newton should be the primary article for info on Dunnow, with a mention in Slaidburn.
 * You might have also noticed that I’ve started a section for the ancient parishes on Great Mitton and Slaidburn. I’ve also started a new article for the ancient parish of Whalley which can be accessed here: User:Trappedinburnley/Whalley (ancient parish) I hope it will shed further light on the honor article, given the close geographical relationship.
 * On the subject of the honor, I’ve found this, which on page 7 nicely answers the disafforestation issue, and seems to sort-out the Accrington question as well. That being Accrington New Hold was not a manor, it was a township created in 1507 from the forests of Accrington and Rossendale. The Old Hold being a township that mirrored the original boundaries of the manor of Accrington, when it was expanded to cover the forest area. Have a look at it and let me know your thoughts. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Newton is within Slaidburn - Dunnow ought to be in both or Slaidburn only in my view. Will take a look at the commons register. The parishes need coverage but surely these ought to hang off the core pages, not be separate and distinct? Manorial (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It can be mentioned on both, just not a copy of the same info on both. Obviously Slaidburn should contain the core of the info about the liberty, including its extent, and a list of the dependant manors (linked to the CP articles that their lands now relate to).


 * It should also contain info on the manor of Slaidburn (purely because it is called Slaidburn) and its extent. And its relationship to the honor.


 * Any dependant manors that now lie in Slaidburn CP could also be detailed here.


 * All manors that relate to the history of a CP need to be covered in them, so may as well contain any detail about those manors, with a mention (and link) about Slaidburn. This would put the detail about Knowlmere, Dunnow, and Easington in Newton (with links from the other articles).


 * I’m not sure what you mean on the ancient parishes? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Futher to Harrop: I've discovered that 2 detatched parts of Bowland Forest Low CP (township previously) where transfered to other CPs in 1938. 1014 Acres that appear to be Harrop when to Grindleton. Also a seeming seperate area of 32 Acres (possibly around Pain Hill) went to Slaidburn. Hope this is usfull. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very useful. What is your source please? Harrop was Forest until 1938. Manorial (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This comes from the Vision of Britain website. I’ll add a governance section to each article with refs in a while. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In my studies I found noticed a few maps that have left the area of Harrop unlabelled. It was a mystery indeed! Then on a map "Parishes as they were before 1882" at genuki the area was labelled Whitewell. But in the user talk on Whitewell, user Trappedinburnley put me right and recommended this usertalk. I will try and contact Genuki to tell them to fix their map, but I've lately found the Yorkshire department unresponsive. have you ever dealt with Genuki ?

Newton
It would seem that our American friend has changed his mind again on the legitimacy of his claim to the manor of Newton-in-Bowland. I’m really not looking to continue this battle, and at the moment do not intend to remove the latest addition. I propose that we work around it, developing the domesday mention, and when and why it ceased to be a manor. This needs to be a toughly referenced as possible, which might be tricky as the west riding of Yorkshire seems to be a black hole in terms of history accessible from the internet. I’m going to put something on the article’s talk page, a hopefully someone else will remove it for us. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, can we get him banned again? He has absolutely no grounds for his claim and I have now seen his disgraceful abusive correspondence with the Asshetons' agent. CJ Spencer, the leading authority on Slaidburn and Newton, has sent him incontrovertible evidence that Newton is a part of Slaidburn and in consequence, there is no "manor" of Newton but he refuses to face the facts. He has spent money on this bogus title and will pay no heed. He undermines all our good, serious work.

Manorial (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue this time is that the edit was made by an IP address belonging to a College (User talk:165.196.0.13) and a suspect that at best we are only going to a able to obtain a short term block. I doubt this is worth the effort that is likely required to achieve. Another possibility is that we could get the article semi-protected (See:Rough guide to semi-protection), that would mean only autoconfirmed users could edit it. However I’m not sure if that would affect your access to it, you can check by looking at the “My preferences” section (top right). There may be other options, I will enquire. If you want to send me an e-mail try: trappedinburnley@hotmail.co.uk --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think semi-protection may be the best option because I can't see this person stopping. I'll send you some material relating to Slaidburn and Newton.

Manorial (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, my status is as follows:

Username:	Manorial User ID:	XXXXXXXX (ID protected) Member of groups:	Autoconfirmed users, Users Number of edits:	581 Registration time:	17:57, 11 November 2009

Manorial (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the e-mails, while they make an interesting read they are of little use for the development of the Newton article. They have made me think that the Assheton stuff should also be removed. It is inappropriate to involve this site in the disagreement, and seems to have been counterproductive. I still can see no real reason why the current ownership of the manorial rights is notable enough to warrant its inclusion on an article about a Civil Parish. The faketitles doc could be used to improve The Lord of the Manor though. I would consider warning people of the dangers of purchasing these lordships, of much more importance. If documents exist that prove the extent of the manor of Slaidburn, maybe you could ask Chris about putting pdf copies of them on his website. That way we’d have something we can use on Wikipedia, and it might promote his site a little too. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, I feel very strongly about this and must say I think you are overreacting. We should not allow one errant individual to destroy months of work. The history of any civil parish is incomplete without this sort of historical information. The Asshetons are highly active - for example, they were recently involved in the grant of common land to allow the expansion of the village hall in Slaidburn. There is no disagreement involved in this matter, just one disruptive, ill-informed individual who has bought a bogus title and is vandalising one Wikipedia page. The page needs protection from his predations. We should not be deleting published information based on credible seciondary sources in order to accommodate his delusions of grandeur.

Manorial (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just visited the Newton-in-Bowland page and to my surprise, see the offending paragraph has been removed. Did you do this?

Manorial (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No that was done from an IP address in Cambridge. Whoever it was seems to know about the case as they mention sock puppets, they might be unaware that making difficult edits from an IP when they have a username is another form of sock-puppetry.
 * Don’t get me wrong I don’t doubt your version of the story. However this chap obviously feels that edits to this article are being used as part of the argument against him.  Read WP:TRUTH and WP:WINWAR for a humorous look at the issues we are facing.
 * The importance of the current ownership of the manor, or what it still includes, how it affects life in the village or surrounding area, has not been established in the article. Neither has when or why Newton ceased to be a manor, or if it actually ever was one.
 * Removing the Assheton paragraph on the grounds that notability has not been established and that the current references are not suitable for Wikipedia would not imply any victory on his part, or that it isn’t true. It could easily re-added at a later date, with some more explanation and better refs. Without it there he might feel less inclined to get involved with the article, and it would give added justification for our semi-protection request, should he continue.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason that the Assheton ownership is important is because the family still owns significant landholdings as well as the mineral rights within the Newton township. The terrier plan held by Ingham & Yorke plainly shows this.

Newton was certainly a manor - it is in Domesday - but the precise reason why it was absorbed into the Manor of Slaidburn remains open to debate. The Black Death almost certainly precipitated the wholesale manorial reorganisation that took place in Bowland in the second half of the fourteenth century but the other key factor was the absorption of Bowland into the Duchy of Lancaster. After 1399, Slaidburn became a demesme of the Sovereign - the Lord King of Bowland - and as Newton was contiguous with Slaidburn, the demesne was enlarged to include it. Grindleton and West Bradford (also Domesday manors) were also absorbed but because they lay outside Slaidburn parish, they became part of the Liberty of Slaidburn, not the Manor. I can add this to the page if you wish but you absolutely cannot claim the historical drivers are unknown.

The problem is that lordofnewton/neutone has no grasp of the history of Newton, feudal practice or English law. He is painfully uneducated. He has been fed a line, paid his money and is now desperate to prove ownership of the "manor" of Newton at any cost. He is a menace.

You talk about referencing. What more referencing can be offered? You have the legal documentation held by the Land Registry all properly recorded, you have the Cambridge University monograph. There is no further secondary literature on this which is why I've been working for the past two years on this research. Incidentally, I have been invited to give a lecture in the autumn and may well choose to talk about Newton; it is a case study in how statutory declarations can be abused for commercial gain. I've already been talking about the case with colleagues in the University Heraldic & Genealogical Society (which may in itself suggest a source for the recent deletion).

I do take your point about removing the Assheton references as they seem like a provocation. It makes me unhappy to think we have to sacrifice historical fact in this way. Let's see if our American friend puts in a fresh appearance. If he does so, then I suggest we delete the Assheton reference and then semi-protect the article.

Hope this helps.

Manorial (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - In the meantime we should continue to develop the rest of the article.


 * This terrier plan – Is it a single sheet? How big is it? Do you think we might be able to publish a scanned copy on the web?
 * What do you know about the survey of the Honor of Clitheroe undertaken in 1804–10 by Thomas Barclay? On a side note does this mean that Slaidburn is part of the honor again?
 * It was very late when I read the escution again, but I believe you call domesday newton a vill. Annoyingly Domesday Online haven’t gotten around to this area yet!
 * What does the VCH for Yorkshire have to say? Unfortunately it isn’t available on the web.
 * The Lancashire Historic Town Survey Programme report for Slaidburn offers a number of published sources, but doesn’t mention Newton anywhere. There isn’t one for Newton.
 * I previously mentioned the note on page x on the Chetam Society Great de Lacy Inquisition, it is not much, but it is relevant.

Trappedinburnley, the terrier plans are huge leatherbound bound volumes that map the territory holding-by-holding - they are much too big for reproduction. To my knowledge, the only copies are held by Ingham & Yorke. I did send you CJ Spencer's tithe map of Newton but this isn't helpful in terms of ownership (other than to show Newton to be part of Slaidburn parish).

Yes, I think we can safely say the 1950 sale reunited Slaidburn with the Honor of Clitheroe under the ownership of the Asshetons.

Yes, the monograph describes Newton as a vill but this is merely a generic term for a settlement. Domesday records the acreage of Neutone which suggests it was a mesne manor of Grindleton. I will dig out the references and amend the page accordingly.

Manorial (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(in the ancient parish of Slaidburn)???--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, I'm currently working on this. You have got slightly mixed up. Bowland Forest Low is not in Slaidburn but Whalley. I'm sending you an email with maps.


 * I think you are correct, the GENUKI ref contains the error, Vision of Britian agrees with you. However you removed this from Newton --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did so because you already reference the parish under the History. I'll flesh out the the fact that Grindleton and West Bradford sit in Mitton while Newton sits in Slaidburn to make this absolutely clear.

Incidentally, if you look at the parochial map I sent you Waddington is included under Mitton. This is because Waddington became a parish in its own right rather late, around 1400. Manorial (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While it says the lordship spans several townships and ancient parishes, it doesn't mention which one Newton was part of --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a good reason. Between 1092-1360, Newton was a manor within the Liberty of Bowland. After 1360, it became part of the demesne of the Manor of Slaidburn that lay within the Liberty of Bowland. As the map I emailed you shows, the Lordship of Bowland comprised both the Forest and the Liberty. Does that make sense?? It is like Russian dolls ...

Manorial (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Manorial (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Manorial (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, I have referenced the Newton page to the Slaidburn Court Roll of 1392/33. This clearly shows that property in Newton is part of the manor of Slaidburn as early as the late C14th. This early roll is now so fragile that it is falling to pieces and can no longer be produced in the search room at the LRO. Fortunately, Farrer made a manuscript transcript (still in Latin) c1900 and this is now in the Manchester City Archives. CJ Spencer obtained a photocopy and has made a start at translating some of it, but hasn't finished. Youlstonewood and Chapel Croft, mentioned in the roll, were/are in the township of Newton.

Manorial (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at them now. Did you ever look at the external link I put at the bottom of Newton? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, it seems very interesting but I can't get it to function!

Have a look at the edits I've made to the Newton history section. I think they are a great improvement and go a long way to answering your very reasonable concerns.

Manorial (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The map is a bit of a pig to use. First thing, change to the “Zoom to point” tool on the toolbar above the map. It then operates more like other maps, click and drag to move and scroll wheel to zoom. Also in the options list on the left, change to the “Map Layers” tab in “Local Government Information”. Two things of use here, the Transparency slider will control how green things are, and the Parish Boundaries tick box will turn the overlay on or off.


 * The Slaidburn Court Roll you mention, I presume it isn’t one of the ones in Chris’ current publication? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris has not published this yet because he hasn't finished the transcription. The Farrer is in Latin only. I will reference the Farrer, however, to prevent confusion. Manorial (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

NEWTON AND THE LIBERTY OF BOWLAND
Trappedinburnley, you wrote:


 * While it says the lordship spans several townships and ancient parishes, it doesn't mention which one Newton was part of --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a good reason for this. Between 1092-1360, Newton was a manor within the Liberty of Bowland. After 1360, it became part of the demesne of the Manor of Slaidburn that lay within the Liberty of Bowland. As the map I emailed you shows, the Lordship of Bowland comprised both the Forest and the Liberty. Does that make sense?? It is like Russian dolls ...

Manorial (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes sense, but I'm talking about townships as a subdivision of ancient parishes. From all available evidence, the township of Newton (a division of the parish of Slaidburn) contained part of the manor of Slaidburn and all of the manors of Dunnow and Knowlmere? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, the Manor of Slaidburn absorbed the manor and township of Newton. Newton had no existence independent of Slaidburn after the late C14th. However, both Knowlmere and Battersby (Dunnow) were mesne manors of the Lord of Bowland (ie they did not form part of the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn). The fact they sit geographically within the township of Newton or the parish of Slaidburn is of no consequence.

The Lord of Bowland was lord paramount of the Forest and Liberty of Bowland. This Liberty included the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn but it also included all the mesne manors, including Knowlmere and Battersby (Dunnow). The Lord of Bowland (who also happened to be Lord of the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn for five centuries) administered manorial law from Slaidburn; however, he administered Forest law from Whitewell.

The parish boundaries mean that the manors of Knowlmere and Battersby (Dunnow) lay within Slaidburn parish but not within the demesne of Slaidburn. The Liberty of Slaidburn (Grindleton and West Bradford) lay outside Slaidburn parish (in Mitton) which was why these two manors were absorbed into the Liberty. Does that make sense to you?

What happened in 1950 was that the Lordships of Bowland and Slaidburn were split from each other. Before 1360, the Lord of Bowland held Slaidburn as a mesne manor as part of his Liberty of Bowland; between 1360-1885, the two lordships were held jointly to permit parallel administration of the Forest of Bowland and the demesne Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn; after 1885, both lordships were in abeyance. In 1950, the Lordship of Slaidburn was sold to the Asshetons; in 2008, Charles O'Hagan claimed the Lordship of Bowland from an extinct Towneley family trust. Today that is why we have a Lord of the Forest of Bowland and a separate Lord of the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn. Paramountcy was of course abolished in 1660. Manorial (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I’ve got to go out now, but read township (England) and take a look at Manchester (ancient parish), and maybe you will see where I’m coming from. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, I perfectly understand the notion of a township being a sub-division of a parish but I don't believe it materially effects what I have written above. If you are suggesting that we move the manors of Knowlmere and Battersby (Dunnow) to the Newton page, we can do this but since they were mesne manors of the Lord of Bowland who was also Lord of Slaidburn, it could get very confusing. Newton was merely a township within the parish of Slaidburn and had no manor from the C14th. It was much less important than Slaidburn to which it was subordinate on all counts. I'll have another look at these paragraphs and see if I clarify further. Manorial (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While you say Newton was merely a township, it is important because the township is the direct predecessor to the civil parish (in this part of the world at least), these articles are about civil parishes and so everything in them needs to relate to history of the geographic area that the CP covers. I’m going to move some stuff around and we’ll see how it looks. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely, the emphasis you suggest doesn't mean overriding the history. I'm perfectly happy to see the modern-day component updated but please if you intend to make wholesale deletions on the manorial history, talk to me first.  I've put in a huge amount of work into the Slaidburn and Newton pages.  Please respect that work.

Perhaps you tell me more about your concerns?Manorial (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a case of overriding the history, just arranging it neat little piles according to which CP it occurred in. As the manor of Slaidburn and the ancient parishes spanned a few CPs, some replication is unavoidable, however it needs to be as limited as possible. As parishes and townships, and manors and vills are two different systems related only geographically, the distinction needs to be clear.


 * I don’t think that much needs to be removed, just moved. The stuff about Dunnow and Konolmere should without question be in Newton because geographically that is where they are. Hammerton is still situated in Easington, meaning in was in the higher township. The manor of Easington (Lower?) is a bit tricky, the detail goes on one article with a mention on the other. As it is now in Newton I feel the detail should be in Newton, but don’t really mind.


 * This is the super abridged version of the history of Newton, in my opinion:
 * Domesday manor (although you definitely call it a vill on page 2), part of liberty of Gindleton, in the parish of Slaidburn. Normans – Lordship of Bowland, still manor. Reorganisation – manor subsumed into manor of Slaidburn, however Knowlmere and Dunnow granted out. Hodder was township boundary, separating from the manor of Easington in the township of Easington, but merged in 1938.

--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, you have got your facts muddled. This is what worries me.

I pointed out the word vill was being used generically in the monograph. The rest of your account seems to me jumbled. Whenever did Grindleton have a liberty? Where did you get that from? Yes, Newton was a mesne manor up until the second half of the fourteenth century. But Knowlmere and Battersby (later known as Dunnow) were subinfeudated almost certainly earlier than the C14th. Hammerton you fail to mention. You are getting confused too about Easington. Easington is complex - it is likely that Upper Easington was originally a township of Slaidburn but gained some degree of autonomy following the de Lacy grants of the C13th. At some point, the manor of Lower Easington appears to have acquired rights over the lands which then became known as Upper Easington. We are still researching that transition.

Can I suggest you put a draft on this page to allow me to comment and not disrupt the text on the actual Slaidburn page? As for the location of the paras on Knowlmere, Battersby and Hammerton. I would have no objection to copy being on the Newton page but you ought not to remove the wording from the Slaidburn page. The relative importance of the two means that Slaidburn ought to and must take precedence. Otherwise, you risk skewing the historical record.

Thanks for sharing your ideas with me. I'm sure we can work this out together. It is always a challenge and a pleasure to work with you! Manorial (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

BROWSHOLME HALL
Trappedinburnley, I've added Bowbearer material to the Browsholme Hall page. Manorial (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

EASINGTON, NEWTON & SLAIDBURN
Trappedinburnley, on reflection, decided to make the changes you suggested. Easington needs some more work, I think Manorial (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! I think that is certainly an improvement, in fact who is this and what have you done with Manorial?? I was going to complain that your Bowbearer additions to Browsholme looked a bit familiar, but you seem to have sorted that out as well! I would like to know when the townships were created, to see how the township boundaries relate to those of the manors, I’ll have a look around.
 * With regard to the Grindleton liberty, 2 things:
 * I’ve found a different Domesday website that does cover Bowland. It seems to show a grouping around Grindleton.
 * Before the caput shifted to Slaidburn, what was the liberty known as?


 * It also mentions the hundred of Craven??
 * One other issue it creates is that it associates Battersby with Battersby Barn, which is across Dunnow Syke in Slaidburn township --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, yes Battersby Barn - both Dunnow and the Barn are very, very close to Slaidburn village, less than a quarter of a mile from the church. Hence, my initial focus on Slaidburn rather than Newton.

A liberty is a very specific thing, an area in which regalian rights have been revoked. There is no evidence that this ever happened in the case of Grindleton. You are getting ahead of yourself on that one. Grindleton may been caput. However, the manors it oversaw were mesne manors. There was never a liberty of Grindleton (only a much larger Liberty of Bowland that included Grindleton itself).

Made some progress on Easington tonight. It looks like the Bannister family acquired a property in Upper Easington at the end of the C17th and in consequence, renamed the area after the manor they held further south. I'll look into this .... Manorial (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

EASINGTON
Trappedinburnley, gave another hour to tidying up Easington. I think it is much improved as a result. Manorial (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking good. I've just discovered that the nice people at Skipton Castle, have posted a copy of The history and antiquities of the deanery of Craven. Should contain some good reference material.


 * Am I correct in my assertion that manors and parishes are separate, it’s just that while I’ve been looking into the history of the parish, I’m seeing mentions of townships being granted out??

Trappedinburnley, manor, parish, civil parish (township) and forest are the big four, all separate one from the other. A manor is secular and civil; if monastic, it is known as a grange. Parish is ecclesiastical but oftentimes you'll find townships - civil divisions - founded around ancient parish boundaries. Feudal lords, like the lords of Bowland, could grant whole townships. In fact, this happened in the case of Upper Easington in the C12-13th in three tranches. A forest is only a forest if it is royal and governed by forest law; an aristocratic hunting ground is simply a chase (a distinction many historians fail to observe).

Great online resource. Of course, once you get to Sawley, you are in the "Percy fee" as it is known. The hundredal court was traditionally held at Grindleton and you'll see reference to this in my monograph. Manorial (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bowland etc.
Hello there - thank you for contacting me before. Having noticed material in the past relating to the Lordship of Bowland getting a bit diffuse, I have wanted to impose some sort of more standard structure and organisation. I'm sure you're on the side of the angels as far as that's concerned. If you notice me doing things about moving material around, it is all in aid of trying to get summary style more in operation. No implied criticism, naturally, and if there are specific issues please bring them up on my User Talk page. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles, Trappedinburnley and I have spent the last month updating all of the pages relating to the manors of Bowland, plus related pages (eg Honor of Clitheroe). Which pages did you have in mind? It would be rather dispiriting to see all our hard work undone. I'm happy to help where I can and offer advice as I'm sure would be Trappedinburnley. The pages we've worked on: Newton-in-Bowland, Easington, Slaidburn, Great Mitton, Bashall, Leagram, Waddington, Grindleton, West Bradford, Honor of Clitheroe,  Whitewell, Dunsop Bridge, plus Browsholme Hall. We had a major problem on the Newton-in-Bowland page with a sock puppet (now, we hope, resolved). Please keep us in the picture. Manorial (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I welcome Charles’ involvement, I assume any concerns he has are largely related to copies of the same info appearing in multiple articles. As far as I am aware we have more or less dealt with that issue. Although I haven’t worked with him before I’m confident his involvement will be a positive thing. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I’ve replied to a couple of things on my talk page.

Charles, we are happy to help.Manorial (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. When you recently edited William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montagu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Stephen Jolly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stephen Jolly.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I am puzzled by your comments. I am happy to make the image freely available to all Wikipedia users and have it placed within the Creative Commons. Does this meet your concerns? Manorial (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's really your own, then yes, of course, and thank you. The issue is just that up to now you have it described as "non-free" and have not put a free license on it. If you are willing to release it, could you please add cc-by-sa tag or some other similar license on it? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Stephen Jolly.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Stephen Jolly.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

==Copyright request==

I commissioned the photo from Bo Lutowslawski and in consequence, own the copyright on this image. I have amended the record accordingly. Manorial (talk)

Lordship of Bowland and William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland
Dear Manorial, Since you are the creator of / principal contributor to the above two articles, I thought I would draw to your attention the discussion which I have started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, for want of a better location. Regards, 45ossington (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ossington, I think you underestimate the importance of this lordship on three counts. Firstly, if you visit www.forestofbowland.com/lordship you can see that Lancashire County Council and their officers in the Forest of Bowland promote the lordship as a plank in their promotional/management strategy for the Forest. The Lord of Bowland has appointed a high-profile local landowner as his Bowbearer and the former steward to Lord Clitheroe and Sir Simon Towneley as his chief steward of the Forest. Monies are being raised for good causes and there are strong links to the local Slaidburn Archive. This Lordship is anchored firmly in its local community. Secondly, a scholarly monograph on the Lordship was published by the Cambridge University Heraldic & Genealogical Society in 2010. This piece of research was co-authored by a Cambridge don and a local Bowland historian and sets out in detail the long and fascinating history of this lordship. A PDF version of the monograph can be found at www.forestofbowland.com/lordship. Thirdly, you question whether or not the Buccleuchs cared about the lordship of Bowland. The answer is a definitive YES. The Dukes needed to appoint Bowbearers, Chief Stewards and officers in their Forest Courts (swainmote and woodmote) to effect the day-to-day business in their Forest. There is documentary evidence - again cited in the monograph - showing how up until the early C19th the Buccleuchs played an active, inded personal role in such appointments. After the acquisition of the Forest by the Towneley family, the Forest courts did fall into disuse but there was a Bowbearer right up until the late C19th. These two articles whose validity you query make no claim to this Lordship being anything other than feudal/manorial but I think it would be misguided to make assumptions about this historic lordship because it is not a peerage and therefore in some sense not "real". It is very real and I would argue important. If you have any doubt, talk to Jenny Bradley at the Slaidburn Archive or Tony Kitto at Towneley Hall and see how they respond to your suggestion that this Lordship is not "real"! Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Manorial Manorial (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Stephen Jolly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stephen Jolly.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Whitewell page
It would probably be worth adding to the Whitewell page that in the poll tax of 1377 Whitewell is not listed as a township but Radholme was. Hence Radholme Laund was then considered the name of this township.. Also Radholme Laund as a place name does still exist, see OS maps, although it is now only a farmhouse with 3 large barns, about 1km SSW of Whitewell. Should I add words to that effect ? Kildwyke (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing two different places and not consiodering the impact of the Black Death! Radholme and Whitewell still exist as separate entities. Visit the Forest of Bowland!Manorial (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black and White Club concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black and White Club, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Parker, Baron Parker of Waddington
Greetings, I just noticed this edit of yours, which was caused by this edit. While life peerages were introduced in 1958, Law life peerages were introduced in 1876, so I reverted both edits. Thank you.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Noted - with thanks.

Your article submission Black and White Club


Hello Manorial. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Black and White Club.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, I have embedded the link within the 15 (UK) Psychological Operations page.Manorial (talk)

Nomination of William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

I refer you to Cambridge history of the Lordship of Bowland (http://cuhags.soc.srcf.net/escutcheon/15.4.pdf) where you will see there is no hoax here! Manorial (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amounderness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ribble. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Barony of Stobo (December 5)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheMagnificentist was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Barony of Stobo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- TheMagnificentist (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Barony of Stobo has been accepted
 Barony of Stobo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Smmurphy(Talk) 18:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Nomination of Stephen Jolly (academic) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen Jolly (academic), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Stephen Jolly (academic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stephen Jolly (academic)


A tag has been placed on Stephen Jolly (academic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Stephen Jolly (academic)
Hello, Manorial. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stephen Jolly (academic), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stephen Jolly (academic)


Hello, Manorial. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stephen Jolly".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barons in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balmain. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)