Cookham Discussion Board
August 21, 2018, 09:14:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
23 August 2018 - Cookham - Flood Response Training

27 August 2018 - Garden Open - St Timothee, Maidenhead

1 September 2018 - Cookham Regatta

1 September 2018 -  Pop Up Sri Lanken Restaurant at the Old Butchers

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: From Spencers to White Oak  (Read 22434 times)
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2305


« on: September 24, 2008, 01:35:40 AM »

Here I give my full support to David Ricardo the the name should only revert to the original name of "THE WHITE HART".   A name that is the historical name of the building. Lets preserve as much of the village as possible.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 01:38:37 AM by James Hatch » Logged
Blackbird
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2008, 11:21:17 AM »

What is David doing about this and how can we give our support?
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2305


« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2008, 02:56:40 PM »

Welcome on board Blackbird. Why not contact him and see. I am sure that a letter from the council to the Green Man Brewery management would do the trick. You see, they would listen to local feelings. It would be good business on their part, as I am sure they would want to attract customers and not drive them away.
Logged
Roger
Full Member
***
Posts: 200


« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2008, 04:19:36 PM »

I like the name the White Oak. Just because it was called the White Hart once upon a time, one could argue we should call it Spencers if it comes to that. Do you want the Bel and the Dragon to be called the Bell again or the Kings Arms to revert to the Kings Head?
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2305


« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2008, 06:21:16 PM »

Sorry to see Roger that you are not a preserver of things historical. Bel is the correct spelling. It does not refer to a ding dong Bell, as so many people think.
Logged
Roger
Full Member
***
Posts: 200


« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2008, 06:49:35 PM »

James, Bel and the Dragon was once called the Bell, the ding dong kind.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2305


« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2008, 07:13:08 PM »

Sorry the Ding Dong is only for those who are not aware of the true meaning which I now post:

The tale of Bel and the Dragon incorporated as chapter 14 of the extended Book of Daniel was written in Aramaic around the late second century BC and translated into Greek in the Septuagint. This chapter, along with chapter 13, is referred to as deuterocanonical, in that it is not universally accepted among Christians as belonging to the canonical works accepted as the Bible. The text is viewed as apocryphal by Protestants and typically not found in modern Protestant Bibles, though it was in the original 1611 edition of the King James Version. It's listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England
Logged
Roger
Full Member
***
Posts: 200


« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2008, 07:23:59 PM »

James, you did not read my post, Bel and the Dragon was originally called the Bell or the Olde Bell to be absolutely correct. Bel and the Dragon is a more recent name, (presumably someone being pretentious), just like the White Oak will be a new name.
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2305


« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2008, 09:33:50 PM »

I don't how much evidence you require Roger but here the facts as written in the "Bucks Free Press" in 1867:

But the wedding festivities were not confined to the bridal party, but in various parts of the village substantial dinners were provided. At the “Bel and Dragon,” under the able catering of Host Ford, two were served – one for the drivers, and a second for the committee and their friends; while Host Hatch, of the “King’s Arms,” with equal efficiency provided a repast for the employés of Mr. Venables and some of their friends.

This is part of an account that will be published in Historical Cookham, when I have finished my research. Sometimes I have seen Bell written with two "LL's" which is a common mistake. Also Host Hatch in this account happens to be my Great grandfather. Plus my mother worked at the Bel & the Dragon, this is where she met my father.
Logged
CH
Full Member
***
Posts: 227


« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2008, 11:33:54 PM »

I'm beginning to lose the will to live ... Roll Eyes
Logged
Richard
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2008, 10:10:53 AM »

If things didn't change, there would be no history. The very nature of history is that things change and evolve. The name 'Spencers' is now part of that establishment's recorded history, as is the 'White Hart', as is (or will be) the 'White Oak'.

Sometimes the reasons why a place changes its name are, historically at least, more interesting than why it retains the same name for centuries.
Logged
Pam
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2008, 11:14:48 AM »

This would be true, Richard, if there was a reason for the pub to be called the White Oak but, as there appear to be no white oaks visible near the pub, it seems to be just an invention of the brewery.

It is recorded that the pub was called The White Hart from at least the late C18,  probably reflecting the fact that Cookham was on the edge of Windsor Forest, so why not revert to this traditional and long-established name rather than change to something quite meaningless?
Logged
Roger
Full Member
***
Posts: 200


« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2008, 12:13:14 PM »

James, I will try just one more time. In 1759 when the pub was sold by Sir Kenrick Clayton to Martha Dodson of White Place, it was called The Olde Bell Inn and is mentioned by Darby in his book on Cookham. By 1791 the Cookham Rental shows that the name had changed to the Bell and Dragon.  By 1867 it was Bel and the Dragon. Names change.
Logged
Richard
Guest
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2008, 12:42:41 PM »

Thanks Roger, my point entirely. Names change...
Logged
James Hatch
Golden Hatch
******
Posts: 2305


« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2008, 02:36:38 PM »

Roger & Richard it seems to me that you are both in favour of change for the sake of change. As Pam has stated where is your closest "White Oak?". As for the word Bel, Bell or even Belle, they all sound the same, but have different meanings. Back in the late seventeen hundreds and even right up until it became mandatory, to have education, very few people could read or write. The gentry of the day had schooling of sorts, but spelling, grammar, and phrasing were local. That is how, even in the early nineteen hundreds we had so many different dialects in Great Britain. Even today, the phrase "Where are you going?" In parts of Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, you will hear the phrase, "Where be too?" I grant you, we live with change at an ever increasing pace, and a constant learning curve, and I am one who is learning new things and ideas every day. I still maintain that we preserve things that have historical value. Over the past 50 years Cookham has changed, and like many other villages, have lost their identity. That is why we have preservation orders placed on certain buildings, thank goodness. The name "Spencers" was a folly, put up as an attraction, and trading sad to say on a famous mans name. I am glad to see that is going. To me it was a form of stealing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!