Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership!

Your User Name:
Your Password:	Forget your password? \| Register
Subject:
Message: Emoticon Listing HTML Help	[quote]Ok, this ones is a bit complicated so I recomend that anyone wanting the full acedemic arguement go to the libray and ask for Derbyshire Archaeological Journal volume 29 (1907) available from the archive, the article is Burton, R.J., Henovere and the Church of Heanor; notes on the chartulary of Burton Abbey and the chronicle of Dale Abbey. - Unless you want me to post the full article RMee? The arguement basicaly boils down to that at the time of Burton Abbey and Dale abbey there were two Heanors within Derbyshire. One is current Heanor we all know and love and the other was within the area (or at the time, Manor) of present day Mickleover. The 2nd Heanor now having been wiped away and only being remembered by the road (and field?) of "Rough Heanor" To keep the next part simple I will refer to our Heanor as "Heanor" and the Heanor of Mickleover as "Rough Heanor". The Church called either St. Marys or dedicated to "the blessed virgin Mary" was in Derby itself and had the "church" of Rough Heanor as a chapel of ease to it. J R Burton quite succinctly argues this point to great sucess using a number of early sources. Both the Church of St Mary and the Rough Heanor church were then given to the abbey of Burton by William the conqueror and seem to disapear from records somewhere during around the thirteenth century. This is as far as J R Burton went with his arguement as his main interest was in acedemicly proving that the Church under St Mary's and Burton was in Rough Heanor and not in Heanor. However, it is conceivable that if Burton is right, and Cox (and earlier, White) worked on a mistaken assumption that the documents refered to (Rough) Heanor as being under St Mary's were not actually refering to our Heanor Church, then Cox may also have used the name he found in one of those documents refering to St Michaels in Heanor mistakingly. I.e. that the now long lost Church in Rough Heanor may have been the one that was actually dedicated to St Michael. Sadly until I either get into Matlock or they finally send me the forms to request photocopies I can't check some of the churches early records. In theory the Churchwarden account books may verify Rev. Cofield's claim that the church has always celebrated the Wakes festival. Even if they do not refer to the Churches dedication by name they should show some indication of festivals either in August (St Lawrences day) or September (St Michaels day) to show which saint they were refering to. Will give more info as I find it.[/quote]
Options:	Check here to include your profile signature. Check here to stay logged in. Convert smiles. Preview your post. (This feature will still post your message, but you can edit it from there if you need to make changes)

Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership!

Author

Message / Information

tempus275

This message was updated on 11/26/2006 9:34:09 PM by tempus275

St Michael vs St Lawrence
replied on: 11/26/2006 9:28:44 PM

Ok, this ones is a bit complicated so I recomend that anyone wanting the full acedemic arguement go to the libray and ask for Derbyshire Archaeological Journal volume 29 (1907) available from the archive, the article is Burton, R.J., Henovere and the Church of Heanor; notes on the chartulary of Burton Abbey and the chronicle of Dale Abbey. - Unless you want me to post the full article RMee?

The arguement basicaly boils down to that at the time of Burton Abbey and Dale abbey there were two Heanors within Derbyshire. One is current Heanor we all know and love and the other was within the area (or at the time, Manor) of present day Mickleover. The 2nd Heanor now having been wiped away and only being remembered by the road (and field?) of "Rough Heanor"

To keep the next part simple I will refer to our Heanor as "Heanor" and the Heanor of Mickleover as "Rough Heanor".

The Church called either St. Marys or dedicated to "the blessed virgin Mary" was in Derby itself and had the "church" of Rough Heanor as a chapel of ease to it. J R Burton quite succinctly argues this point to great sucess using a number of early sources. Both the Church of St Mary and the Rough Heanor church were then given to the abbey of Burton by William the conqueror and seem to disapear from records somewhere during around the thirteenth century.

This is as far as J R Burton went with his arguement as his main interest was in acedemicly proving that the Church under St Mary's and Burton was in Rough Heanor and not in Heanor.

However, it is conceivable that if Burton is right, and Cox (and earlier, White) worked on a mistaken assumption that the documents refered to (Rough) Heanor as being under St Mary's were not actually refering to our Heanor Church, then Cox may also have used the name he found in one of those documents refering to St Michaels in Heanor mistakingly. I.e. that the now long lost Church in Rough Heanor may have been the one that was actually dedicated to St Michael.

Sadly until I either get into Matlock or they finally send me the forms to request photocopies I can't check some of the churches early records. In theory the Churchwarden account books may verify Rev. Cofield's claim that the church has always celebrated the Wakes festival. Even if they do not refer to the Churches dedication by name they should show some indication of festivals either in August (St Lawrences day) or September (St Michaels day) to show which saint they were refering to.

Will give more info as I find it.

Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership!

ChatArea.com Help & News Forums | Terms of Use | Contact ChatArea.com | Advertising