Talk:Netley Abbey

older comments

I've added quite a lot of material on the abbey buildings and the history of the site before and after the Dissolution. I'm new to writing for Wiki and the style probably needs a serious clean up to meet Wiki standards. At some point the article could do with a more detailed description of the remains, which are architecturally and archaeologically important. A section on the role of Netley in Romantic literature and as an inspiration for artists is also needed. I may attempt this myself if no one else wants to try it. Some better images would be good.

The section on folklore is IMO problematic. I've tried to put the treasure and secret passage stories in context (they are common to almost every ruined abbey in Britain). The story of Taylor's dream is an old one with a history stretching back almost to the period, but the ghosts are more difficult. I'm a native of the area and I've heard the stories myself via oral tradition but I can't find any good cites for them outside of modern times and I'm starting to suspect they have modern origin.

I hope I haven't upset anyone by the extensive rewrite I've done and I'd like to say thanks to everyone who as contributed to the article. Netley is a place I love deeply and it deserves a proper treatment on Wiki. I look forward to hearing what people think.

Soph

Opening times

It seems there is a problem with the opening times - User:Mathguin has discovered that not only have English Heritage recently tightly restricted access on a temporary basis due to vandalism of the buildings, but also the current (temporary) times don't match those given on the abbey's official site. As the situation is in a state of flux I am going to amend the article to say merely that the abbey is open to the public but not when. Soph (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Youll get fed up soon, I expect ...

You'll get fed up with my suggestions soon I expect, but chancing my arm once again I have another. The article ought to be consistsent in its naming of centuries; sometimes it's fifteenth century, sometimes it's 15th century, for instance. I prefer to use the numbers—15th century—but whatever you choose you ought to stick with it all through the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you say you're not fed up, so here's another one:

• "Robinson, David; Janet Burton, Nicola Coldstream, Glyn Coppack & Richard Fawcett (1998). The Cistercian Abbeys of Britain. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 978-0713483925." All of the author names should be consistently last/first, including the coauthors. I find the {{citation}} template easiest to use, particularly with the {{Harvnb}} template, which makes it easier to cross-reference notes

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the article again, and it's looking pretty good. Just a few final points:

• From the lead: "The abbey is preserved as an Ancient Monument and the extensive remains, consisting of the church, cloister buildings and abbot's house, are among the finest surviving medieval Cistercian abbeys in England."Doesn't sound quite right. The "remains ... are among the finest surviving medieval ... abbeys"?

• The lead is a little on the short side, and I think could do a better job of summarising the main points of the article. I'd be looking for something about twice the size of the current lead.

• I rationalised the citations, to avoid the book details being repeated, which has revealed that there are some page numbers missing. I've flagged them as "p. ???" in the References.

• I'm not comfortable about using another encyclopedia—albeit the Encyclopaedia Britannica—as a source.

• Several of the image captions say things like: "The nave at Netley Abbey". Where else would it be the nave of?

• There are more redlinks than some reviewers might be prepared to tolerate. I'd suggest either creating stubs, or removing the links.

I think that if these are fixed then the article would stand a very good chance at GAN now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing this extra review and for all the other help you've given. In order on your points:

• (i) yep, you are right, that sentence is rubbish and ungrammatical. Now fixed

• (ii) Quite so, I have revised and extended the intro. I hope it will be better now.

• (iii) Thank you so much for doing that onerous task for me. It's very helpful, not just for Netley, having seen how you did and comparing to my saved version I can see how you did it and now understand how the templates work. re page numbers: Pink's excavation report in Collectanea Archaeologica is the excavation report for the abbey (it's never been properly excavated in modern times). Unfortunately, it's a very rare book, I've read it, but I don't have access to the copy I used at the moment and my University library doesn't have it. The British Library does have a copy, but until I can get back there again I've resolved the problem by deleting the one direct reference and redirecting the other to the excavation history on Pastscape (National Monuments Record). I've left it in the bibliography because it is important. The other two cites missing page numbers aren't mine. I'll try to contact the original editors if I can work out who they are and see if they'll help with putting them in (I've never read either book), if there's no response, after 10 days I suggest deleting the facts and cites as they aren't particularly relevant to the main thrust of the article, they are just minor detail.

• (iv) That wasn't the Britannica. I've fixed it by moving it to the external links as the picture of the folly made of the north transept might be useful to readers

• (v) Done now.

• (vi) Done as well.

Soph (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks very nice now. I don't think you'll have too much trouble when you submit this at GAN, but good luck anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Netley Castle

Not worth a mention? It is just across the way from the abbey and had a similar history in that it underwent decline, became a romantic ruin, etc. [2]. 86.137.138.235 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps as a link in a see also section, but while it was also abandoned and became a romantic ruin it was abandoned for different reasons and I don't see any mention of a link with the abbey in the pastscape page. Nev1 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Netley Castle 'was probably commenced in 1544 or 1545 by Lord St John, later 1st Marquess of Winchester.' Netley Abbey: 'Following the dissolution of Netley, on 3 August 1536,[1] King Henry granted the abbey buildings and some of its estates to Sir William Paulet,[40] his Lord Treasurer and subsequently Marquess of Winchester.' (ref: taken from the Wiki page) ie two buildings were part of the same estate held by the Marquess of Winchester. So it seems the Marquess got the abbey estate and shortly afterwards started building the fort (Netley Castle) on some of its land.86.159.192.118 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Misericords

re: Martinevans123's query about the misericord at Netley. It's not a mistake, as well as the more well-known choir seat, misericord was also the term used in the later middle ages for the room where monks could dine on meat dishes not allowed in the main refectory under the usual interpretations of monastic rules. While meat dishes had always been allowed to the elderly, children, guests and the sick, the monks' communal meals were supposed to be sparse and mostly vegetarian, but from the 14th century, the privelege of eating meat dishes was gradually extended until virtually everyone was eating the forbidden food in a room set aside for it, served by a seperate kitchen from the main one (usually connected to the infirmary), thus keeping the letter, but not the spirit of the rules. Use of the word makes sense, both were allievations of the burden of the rules, whether the duty of standing for long hours in a freezing church, or of eating a mostly vegetarian diet.

I used the word in the Netley article because it's used for the room in the discussion of that part of the building in the cited source (the official government publication on the ruins) and there isn't a better modern term. Soph (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info, Soph. I suspected as much, honest! Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent article

Lots of good information and images. The first part still has an odd query sentence.

Looks like faeriesoph and malleus have done the heavy lifting.

I've linked it on a blogpost: http://tudorblog.com/2011/05/05/come-on-over-to-my-place/

Thanks. Shtove (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Name

The infobox gives the Full name as: "The Abbey Church of St Mary of Edwardstow (Sanctae Mariae de Loco Sancti Edwardi)". What is the source for this? It's not mentioned in the text at all in the text. I can find no trace anywhere of " St Mary of Edwardstow". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are three from a VERY quick Google search:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5] WaggersTALK 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Waggers. I have no idea why I didn't find any of those, after repeated searches. Perhaps that second source, in the Gerard Manley Hopkins by Higgins book looks best. I think the infobox is meant to summarise the article, so could this be mentioned in the text, with one or more sources? I'm still left wondering as to the location of "Edwardstow". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem Martinevans123 - I've added a sentence to the Foundation section already. I used the third of those references in the end as it makes it explains where the name is sourced from (the founder's charter) and how the name "Netley" was derived.

"Edwardstow" is both a building in Shaftesbury and a previous name for Stow-on-the-Wold, although I'm not sure whether these relate to Netley or not (yet). WaggersTALK 11:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

One question - Peter des Roches (died 9 June 1238) founded the Abbey in 1239, after his own death? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Des Roches began to purchase the lands for Netley's initial endowment in about 1236, but he died before the project was finished and the foundation was completed by his executors." WaggersTALK 15:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, makes perfect sense. But the section opens with the bald statement: "Netley was founded in 1239 by Peter des Roches." Sorry if this is nitpicking - the reader should understand fully anyway, by the end of the section. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's not very clear - how about something like this?

Netley was conceived by Peter des Roches, a powerful politician, government official, and Bishop of Winchester from 1205 until his death in 1238; the abbey was founded shortly after his death, in 1239.

WaggersTALK 09:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That looks just fine to me. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The name of the abbey reflects a dual dedication both to the Virgin Mary (common to Cistercian abbeys) and Edward the Confessor. A convenient citation for it would be the government handbook to the ruins by A Hamilton Thompson (page 3) which is already listed in the bibliography and goes into detail about the various names of the site on that page. I do feel that des Roches should be described as the founder. He had already begun collecting the endowment and opened negotiations for provision of a community from Beaulieu (often a protracted process when founding a new abbey) when death intervened, however, 'conceived' is a nice way of putting it and covering what was a very complex situation. Soph (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see, I had imagined that "St Mary of Edwardstow" was a single person. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure Martin Evans. I pretty much wrote the article and I know loads about the abbey, it's my pet archaeological site and I've been studying it for 25 years. Please don't hesitate to drop me a message for any questions about it. Soph (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Netley Abbey. 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/20090225130834/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Scheduled%20Monuments%20in%20Southampton_tcm46-161791.pdf to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Scheduled%20Monuments%20in%20Southampton_tcm46-161791.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727165839/http://www.pastscape.org/events.aspx?a=0&hob_id=229633&criteria=netley%20abbey&search=all to http://www.pastscape.org/events.aspx?a=0&hob_id=229633&criteria=netley%20abbey&search=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225130834/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Scheduled%20Monuments%20in%20Southampton_tcm46-161791.pdf to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Scheduled%20Monuments%20in%20Southampton_tcm46-161791.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727165919/http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=229633&search=all&criteria=netley%20abbey to http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=229633&search=all&criteria=netley%20abbey
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726123513/http://www.mspong.org/picturesque/netley_abbey.html to http://www.mspong.org/picturesque/netley_abbey.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Netley Abbey. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://pastscape.english-heritage.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=229633
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118213319/http://www.viewpoint.soton.ac.uk/Arts/view376/arts376.html to http://www.viewpoint.soton.ac.uk/Arts/view376/arts376.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711042143/http://angelawardbrown.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/sam-daz-gorgeous-outdoor-flashmob-wedding/ to http://angelawardbrown.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/sam-daz-gorgeous-outdoor-flashmob-wedding/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links

Sometimes things just "creep in" and 8 External links would be considered excessive even for a lesser classed article so could someone take the time to look at this? Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Netley's fresh water was supplied by two aqueducts which ran for several miles east and west of the abbey, up into the areas of modern Southampton and Eastleigh.

Southampton seems reasonable given that tickleford gully is basically the modern city boarder. I'm less clear on how they got to Eastleigh since that would involve crossing the itchen.©Geni (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess it means the Borough instead of the town - but if so it's kind of meaningless since the Abbey is already in Eastleigh. WaggersTALK 09:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)