Talk:Peter Labilliere

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original gravestone

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been able to find two images of Labilliere’s 'original' stone. The first is in a printed source - Huxley, AJ. "A curious burial". Country Life. 117 (3049): 1625. The second is a scanned, online image (from the Shutterstock archive) - Curtis, John. "'Interesting England' Major Peter Labellier, who is buried upside down in Box Hill Woods, Surrey, England, Britain. Known as the 'Topsy Turvy Grave'". Shutterstock. Retrieved 28 April 2020.. The stone is much cleaner in the Shutterstock image (number 703542qv) than in the Country Life image and the top right-hand corner of the stone appears to have been eroded a little so that the final 'e' of Labelliere is not visible in the former, (but this may just be a trick of the light).

Incidentally, in the Shutterstock image, "N^o 6" has been marked onto the front of the stone. The Country Life article says that this is a War Department marking. My guess is that this is connected with the Old Fort (built in the late 1890s), as there are boundary stones marked No 1, No 4, No 5 and No 7 on the 1897 OS map (but not on the 1870 map). The "N^o 6" marking appears to be a stamp, which might suggest that the majority (if not all) of the 'stone' is made of concrete. Does anyone know more? Mertbiol (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic