Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many "parks" north
of the river?

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Nov 19, 2:28*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many "parks" north
of the river?

*insert obvious 'common' jibe here*

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
On Nov 19, 2:28 pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many
"parks" north of the river?

*insert obvious 'common' jibe here*

North London has a blue plaque on every wall telling you someone lived
there... South London has a yellow sign on every corner telling you someone
died there.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:28:26 -0000
"Basil Jet" wrote:
Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many "parks" north
of the river?

Probably because london where the king and his retinue lived offically used to
be north of the Thames only and I think the parks used to be the kings hunting
parks. I'm guessing that the commons were simply common ground people could
graze animals on. Of course richmond park is an exception and it still has
the decendents of the deer various kings used to hunt.

B2003

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:28:26 -0000, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many "parks" north
of the river?


Because the common people mostly live south of the river?

g

In message , writes

Probably because london where the king and his retinue lived offically used to
be north of the Thames only and I think the parks used to be the kings hunting
parks. I'm guessing that the commons were simply common ground people could
graze animals on. Of course richmond park is an exception and it still has
the decendents of the deer various kings used to hunt.

And Richmond Palace, of course.

And then there's Greenwich Palace ...

And isn't Windsor on the south side of the Thames?

--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many
"parks" north of the river?

Common as muck us Sarf Londoners!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Basil Jet
writes

Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many "parks" north
of the river?

Probably because better soils south of the river meant that South London
supplied the bulk of produce to the city until the 19th century. While a
lot of this was market gardening, most parishes also had common land for
grazing of animals that went to London markets.

Poorer soils north of the river meant that common land was less valuable
and, before the various late-19th century acts to preserve commons, was
more easily enclosed and built over. For example, the original extent of
Canons Park, laid out by the Duke of Chandos, included the enclosure of
Stanmore Common. Much of Old Oak Common was purchased for railway use,
and so on.

However, I doubt that there are significantly more parks north of the
river. Names can be deceptive: Richmond Park was originally common land
before it was enclosed, while Hampstead Heath, Hackney Marshes and
Epping Forest are all, in effect, commons.
--
Paul Terry

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:28:26 -0000, Basil Jet
wrote:
Why are there so many "commons" south of the river and so many "parks"
north of the river?

Ealing, Acton Green, Drayton Green, Old Oak ....

I suspect what you call north of the river was built up before the 19th
century, and the commons were enclosed and built on in the 18th century.
Then they created parks in the 19th century to have some open space.

Further out, the commons survived to be built round instead of over, in
the 19th century and later.

Is that answer too boring?

Colin McKenzie



--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.