# Talk:St Mary's Church, Chesham

Unfortunately it would appear that the information for the Diocese of Lincoln is not yet complete, but the Clergy of the Church of England database may be a useful additional reference to show the split appointments (a most unusual occurrence, many advowsons are shared, but normally what happens is that each patron appoints in turn).  See http://www.theclergydatabase.org.uk/jsp/locations/DisplayLocation.jsp?locKey=7109 and the links to Chesham Leicester and Chesham Woburn from there

I have the full list of post-1221 appointments; I can put them in if you think it's warranted. I deliberately left them out on the assumption that few, if any, people would be looking for them—AFAIK the only one who's notable in their own right was Robin Jonathan Norman Smith (and that's stretching 'notable' to the limit). – iridescent 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No I don't think the full list is needed, just thought CCDE is a more readily verifiable source for most people than Foxell is (just in case anyone quibbles about the self-published status).  David Underdown (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave them as sourced to print for the moment - I have a preference towards citing to print sources wherever possible, as websites have an annoying habit of changing - but will keep the CoE listing in mind should anyone challenge it. To my mind, what's significant here isn't who the incumbents were (reading between the lines, they seem by and large to have been nonentities who farmed the parish out to curates), but the oddity of a single parish having two completely independent rival sets of clergy. I've come across this kind of setup in places where multiple languages are spoken (churches in, say, Singapore may have separate sets of English, Malay and Chinese-speaking clergy), but in rural Buckinghamshire it's very incongruous, and makes one wonder how decisions were ever made. – iridescent 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course print sources are good, but CCEd has impeccable academic credentials, with a team of researchers beavering away on the priamry sources, it's not going to be going anywhere in a hurry, and is also part of the [Connected Histories project]
You've convinced me - but I now notice that neither of the two vicars named in the article (Aylward and Woodcock) are listed yet… Typical. – iridescent (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting article about an area of interest to me... but what makes Foxell and Foxell a reliable source? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Although technically a self-published source, we're not talking a "guy in a basement" operation. Although this particular book is self-published, Clive Foxell is a CBE and FREng, and a bona fide architectural historian (best known for books on railways, but thanks to Scott the railway/church crossover is quite strong – "broad airy shed with as few obstructing columns as possible" is the same design whether it's used to house trains or pews; he lives in Chesham, so I assume wrote this as a personal favour). Traditionally, transport history books in Britain are self-published or published by small joint ventures, as they're almost all distributed through the Ian Allan network, mail order and specialist bookstores, rather than the mainstream distribution networks; a strict application of WP:SELFPUB would wipe out virtually all our transport articles in Britain, as the two leading publishers in the field – Middleton Press and Connor & Butler – are owned by their authors. I've no reason at all to doubt Foxell's reliability; among other things, he's cited extensively as a source by The Subterranean Railway, which is the standard history used on Wikipedia for London Transport articles. – iridescent 09:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks iridescent, I suspected this was the case. I'm going to take your word for it, but one of the broader dilemmas we face lies in some of those links. For example, when i go to the Wolmar entry in WP (which of course is not a reliable source :-)), there are actually no citations there that might establish his notability or reliability. The sole cite is his own webpage - yet another unreliable source. As long as this isn't going to FAC it won't be an issue, but if you had that in mind, i expect editors would need some third party source links showing Foxell's general reliability (not necessarily for this specific book).  Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wolmar's Wikipedia article may be terrible, but if you tried challenging him as a reliable source you'd be laughed out (as well as torpedoing a huge swathe of articles); he's pretty much beyond question the pre-eminent living historian on transport in Britain.
This is unlikely to reach FA, unless the people from Chesham Museum (who are fairly active on Wikipedia) take it over; at the very least, Pevsner needs to be incorporated into it (I try to avoid using Pevsner as a source, as he's far too prone to present his personal opinions as facts, but an English architecture article without him is pretty much unthinkable), as well as more on the monuments in the church and churchyard. – iridescent 19:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with all this, but "presenting personal opinions as facts" is what art historians do for a living much of the time. There are no facts when it comes to style.  The alternative is to present someone else's personal opinions as facts, & of course there's lots of that, but it's better to go to the horse's mouth imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I do see what you're saying, but I think Pevsner's an unusual case. Most historians will, when there's some doubt about something, make it clear that dating, attribution, original purpose etc are in question ("It is believed that…", "there is some doubt…"). Pevsner generally didn't; he would either state his own personal views as established fact without mentioning the alternatives, or say "it is a matter of great mystery" if there was a broad consensus among historians that he didn't personally agree with. Since Bridget Cherry et al took over the Pevsner series this is gradually being cleared up, but so much of Pevsner's original writing remains in the books that I regard them with suspicion other than as a secondary source for something already cited elsewhere. It's a particular problem with historic buildings; Pevsner is famous enough that people expect to see him used as a source for every article, but outside of his north London area of expertise he's quite frequently just plain wrong and thus everything needs to be hedged round with "although Pevsner states…" disclaimers. – iridescent 15:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The Victoria County History might be useful too, online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=42547&strquery=chesham%20st%20mary for the parish of Chesham, quite a good chunk onthe church, and the peculiarities of the advowson.  David Underdown (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm an archaeologist and the photograph does not show a stone circle by any stretch of the imagination.  If there have been no archaeological investigations at the church, who has decided it is a stone circle?  Can we have some reliable cited evidence please, from, say the county SMR (sites and monuments record)/HER (historic environment record), or a reference in a reliable, archaeological source?  I won't take a self-published book as authority for such a claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.134.215 (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 

Physical reality is not subject to personal opinion. The fact that the church is built on a circle of puddingstones is beyond dispute – one only has to visit the place to see for yourself, as the stones are clearly visible. (I agree the photo isn't a great one to use, as that particular stone has been "capped" with rubble so it's not immediately obvious that it's a monolith, but I don't intend to traipse out to Buckinghamshire just to photograph one of the other stones.) The only point that's open to question is the date of the circle. If you don't like Foxell as a reference for the fact that it's built on a circle of puddingstones, ten seconds on Google Books will find you plenty of alternatives, and if you don't like any of those the Proceedings of the Geologists' Association may serve. Even if you don't personally believe any of the sources, Verifiability not truth would apply; as a tertiary source, we only cover what's reported in literature elsewhere. I can provide at least half a dozen sources for the fact that it's built on a puddingstone circle; if you can find a source saying it isn't (you won't), feel free to add it. – iridescent 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That unsigned comment sums up my concerns about the standard of referencing. I'm an enthusiastic visitor to historical sites, but I'm not an archaeologist, and I can assure you iridescent that I could go and stand on them and i wouldn't have a clue as to whether they were a circle of puddingstones or indeed horsdoeuvrestones. Ten seconds on google books followed by adding to the WP article a reliable source found there is indeed all that is needed - it just hadn't been done, hence, i suppose, the unsigned comment. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've started to look at these references, and none of them, on my initial scan, apprar to have any scholarly background. So i tried google scholar as well. Refs mentioning these pudding stones appear to be thin on the ground, old, and do not cite any archaeological data. This highlights the need to establish the reliability of Foxell - unless Foxell too is just repeating the well-established belief that this is an ancient stone circle, without any evidence? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This is getting silly. "some of the buttresses resting on unhewn pudding-stone" is a citable fact. That said stones form a circle is a simple statement of fact even if you reject every source. Thus, it is built on a stone circle of puddingstones. (Puddingstone has one of the most distinctive appearances of any rock; it's not like you could mistake it for something else.) The only point that's at issue is the age of the circle. Given that the Bronze Age puddingstone circles of Buckinghamshire are a demonstrable fact—even if they don't have the glamour of their megalithic cousins in the West Country—I've no reason to doubt the sources that say this is one of them.
Time magazine: "The Rudges believe that the ancient Tardenoisians laid out the pudding stone trail to guide them to their flint mines. The center of their culture may have been the ring of pudding stones now in the foundation of the Chesham church.";
Chesham Council: "Pudding stones were used in the Chilterns by Neolithic man to mark routes and important meeting places. They also form the foundations of the nearby 12th Century parish church of St. Mary."
Papers of Mrs R. Pilcher relating to puddingstones in the Chilterns and their connection with prehistoric trackways (National Archives): "the ring of puddingstones on which Chesham Church is built was in fact a pre-historic centre of pagan worship"
Who built it is debatable, and feel free to take "Bronze Age" out if it's bothering you that much. That it is (a) built on puddingstones, and (b) said puddingstones form a circle, is not in doubt and I'm not going to get into an argument about it. – iridescent 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry iridescent, i'm quite happy with those points - i thought the only thing that was at issue was who built it / what it was. I hadn't meant to doubt that several of a certain type of rock arranged in a circle were physically present. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm very late to this discussion, but having studied puddingstone at some length, and specifically with regard to Chesham, I feel that I must join in. The first mentions of puddingstone being included in the church foundations occur in 1912, in both 'An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Bucks' Vol.1, p.92, and A. Morley Davies: 'Buckinghamshire' p.47 & 197 But the first person (at least in print) to suggest that the stones formed a stone circle was Dr. Ernest Rudge, in 'Essex Naturalist' Vol.29, p.21 (1952.) Dr. Rudge was not an archaeologist, but a teacher of chemistry, and suggested that Chesham was the 'cultural hub' of the prehistoric people who created a (mythical) trackway from Grimes Graves to Stonehenge, marked at intervals by puddingstone boulders. Every subsequent mention of a 'stone circle' at Chesham (including the sources mentioned above) has derived from Dr. Rudge's assertions in the local press in the 1950's.
Where the suggestion of a Bronze Age date has come from, I do not know. Rudge felt that the trackway at least was Mesolithic or Neolithic in origin. I have a copy of Foxell & Foxell, and the words 'Bronze Age' do not appear anywhere. There are no reliable archaeological sources whatsoever for this being a genuine 'stone circle'. I also have to question the statements above: "The fact that the church is built on a circle of puddingstones is beyond dispute..." and "That said stones form a circle is a simple statement of fact even if you reject every source." This is factually incorrect. Given the size and shape of the church, and the positioning of the puddingstones, they in fact form a highly eccentric ellipse, roughly 42m x 25m. This gives a ratio of 1.68:1, a ratio unknown in any genuine stone circle.
The fact that puddingstones are placed beneath the buttresses of the aisles, which were added in the 13th century, and beneath the buttresses of the south porch, which was added in the 15th century, is the only reliable dating available. If, as deemed likely, there was a timber structure on the site in the early Saxon period, such boulders would be unnecessary as foundation supports. There is nothing in any archaeological or historical record to put the placement of the stones prior to the early medieval.
I also have to take issue with the statement "Given that the Bronze Age puddingstone circles of Buckinghamshire are a demonstrable fact....I've no reason to doubt the sources that say this is one of them." I certainly do have reason to doubt, by the simple fact that there are no ancient stone circles known in Buckinghamshire at all, let alone ones of the Bronze Age, or made of puddingstone. Indeed, the only known genuine circle in England made entirely of conglomerate is the reconstructed Devil's Quoit in Oxfordshire.
Of Chesham church, the only thing that can be said with any authority and truth is that "some of the buttresses rest on unhewn puddingstone blocks." I feel that the article should be changed to reflect this, perhaps adding that some have suggested that the stones might be the remains of a prehistoric ring. As this is my first post in Wikipedia, I have no intention of editing the article myself. I just thought I'd place this here in case further discussion is in order.Willowman1 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole section is about St Mary's Church - the building, and it never mentions St Mary's Church - the congregation.  The building would not exist but for a congregation.  What about the Sunday School, youth groups, vicars etc?  If this is just about the Church Building can we change the title to "Church Building"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.93.40 (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 

Well then why not contribute something yourself and allow other editors to consider your suggested additions. Text does not appear out of thin air, it is the result of editors like yourself contributing to the article. The article title is accurate and consistent with Wikipedia approach so does not need to be changed. Tmol42 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

<<Near the memorial to Harding by the chancel door is a worn gravestone depicting a teacher and a group of children, believed to be the grave of Daniel King, teacher in Chesham's first Sunday School.>>
This seems doubtful. In 1787 Mr James Sleap, minister of the Lower Baptist Church, informed the committee of the Particular Baptist Fund: “the Sunday Schools have a pleasing prospect in our town and once in 3 weeks we have about 70 Dissenters’ Children to hear at our place.”  The gravestone for Daniel King says "In memory of Daniel King, yeoman of Whelpley Hill who died May ye 19th 1768 aged 32 years".  So this gravestone for Daniel King who died in 1768 seems unlikley to be the Daniel King who was running a Sunday School in 1787. ChilternGiant (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

<< erected in 1907 by the Protestant Alliance.>>
The Thomas Harding memorial was not erected the Protestant Alliance, but by a campaign started by the vicar of Chesham.