View allAll Photos Tagged positioning
Looking out from the walls of Nottingham Castle in Nottingham, Nottinghamshire. The castle is located in a commanding position on a natural promontory known as "Castle Rock", with cliffs 130 feet (40 m) high to the south and west.
There is some uncertainty whether a castle existed on the site before the Norman Conquest. If there was it would have been smaller and far less elaborate in design than the one that stood there afterwards.
The first Norman castle of a motte-and-bailey design, and was built in 1067, on the orders of William the Conqueror. This wooden structure was replaced by a far more defensible stone castle during the reign of Henry II, and was imposing and of a complex architectural design.
For centuries the castle served as one of the most important in England for nobles and royalty alike. It was in a strategic position due to its location near a crossing of the River Trent; and it was also known as a place of leisure being close to the royal hunting grounds at Tideswell and also the royal forests of Barnsdale and Sherwood Forest.
In 1194, a historic battle took place at Nottingham castle when the supporters of Prince John captured it. The castle was the site of a decisive siege when King Richard I, returned to England and besieged the castle with the siege machines he had used at Jerusalem.
The castle ceased to be a royal residence by 1600 and was largely rendered obsolete. At the start of the English Civil War, in August 1642, Charles I chose Nottingham as the rallying point for his armies, but soon after he departed, the castle rock was made defensible and held by the parliamentarians. Commanded by John Hutchinson, they repulsed several Royalist attacks, and they were the last group to hold the castle. After the execution of Charles I in 1649, the castle was razed to prevent its re-use.
After the restoration of Charles II in 1660, the present 'Ducal Mansion' was built by Henry Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Newcastle on the foundations of the previous structure. Despite the destruction of the keep and fortifications of the upper bailey, some rock cut cellars and medieval pointed arches survive beneath the mansion, together with a long passage to the bottom of the rock, commonly known as Mortimer's Hole.
After a time the mansion became a derelict shell until it was restored in 1875 by Thomas Chambers Hine, and opened in 1878 by the Prince of Wales, (later King Edward VII) as Nottingham Castle Museum, the first municipal art gallery in the UK outside London. The gatehouse of the medieval castle and much of the walling of the outer bailey was retained as a garden wall for the Ducal mansion.
The ducal mansion is still in use as a museum and art gallery. It houses most of the City of Nottingham's fine and decorative art collections, galleries on the history and archaeology of Nottingham and the surrounding areas, and the regimental museum of the Sherwood Foresters.
Belle and the Beast are both fully deboxed. They are placed back on the display stand, with the Beast's doll stand is turned 90 degrees counterclockwise from the original position, so he is facing the same direction as Belle. I also place his hand on Belle's waist. They look much better now as a couple.
First look at my Belle and the Beast Doll Set, part of the Disney Fairytale Designer Collection. Purchased from my local Disney Store through the raffle process on release day, October 1, 2013. There were 28 doll sets available, and easily three times that many people who entered. I was very lucky in that I was the next to last person to be chosen.
Disney Fairytale Designer Collection
US Disney Store Product Page
Released in stores October 1, 2013
Released online October 2, 2013
Purchased in store October 1, 2013
#4754 of 6000
Product information:
Belle and the Beast Doll Set - Disney Fairytale Designer Collection
$129.95
Item No. 6070040900889P
True Beauty
The tale may be as old as time, but those involved have been given a glamorous new makeover. Belle has never been more deserving of the name Beauty as she's joined by Beast in this elegant pair of Disney Fairytale Designer Collection dolls.
Magic in the details...
Please Note: Each Guest will be limited to ordering a maximum of one of this item per order.
As part of the Disney Fairytale Designer Collection this pair of Belle and the Beast collectible dolls were carefully crafted by artists inspired by Disney's beloved movie Beauty and the Beast. The Disney Princess and the cursed Prince have been reimagined in exquisite detail with these limited-edition dolls. Brought to life with thoughtful attention, they uniquely capture the essence of the fairytale couple, creating a one of a kind set that will be a treasured keepsake of collectors, Disney fans, and every princess at heart!
• Global Limited Editon of 6000
• Includes Certificate of Authenticity
• Belle's romantic curls cover gemstone earrings
• Rooted eyelashes
• Off the shoulder bodice features embroidered detailing and rhinestone accents
• Opera-length gloves
• Satin gown with subtle ornate print, embroidered detailing and rhinestone accents, with luxe-shirring and gathering
• Lace underskirt
• The Beast's velvet coat features gold embroidery, piped trim and golden buttons
• Matching printed satin waistcoat
• Dolls sold in a special keepsake display case with intricate details on the base, including a golden plate with the name of Belle and the Beast
• Includes special Disney Fairytale Designer Collection Gift Bag
• Part of the Disney Fairytale Designer Collection
* Intended for adult collectors -- Not a child's toy.
The bare necessities
• Plastic / polyester
• Belle: 12'' H
• Beast: 13'' H
• Imported
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Flakpanzer Coelian comprised a family of self-propelled anti-aircraft gun tanks, designed by Rheinmetall during World War II for the German armed forces. In the first years of the war, the Wehrmacht had only little interest in developing self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, but as the Allies developed air superiority, the need for more mobile and better-armed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns increased.
As a stopgap solution the Wehrmacht had adapted a variety of wheeled, half-track and tracked vehicles to serve as mobile forward air defense positions to protect armor and infantry units in the field as well as for temporary forward area positions such as mobile headquarters and logistic points. As Allied fighter bombers and other ground attack aircraft moved from machine gun armament and bombing to air-to-ground rockets, the air defense positions were even more vulnerable. The answer was to adapt a tank chassis with a specialized turret that would protect the gun crews while they fired upon approaching Allied aircraft.
Initial AA-tank designs were the ‘Möbelwagen’ and the ‘Wirbelwind’, effectively both conversions of refurbished Panzer IV combat tank chassis’ with open platforms or open turrets with four 20mm cannon. Alternatively, a single 37mm AA gun was mounted, too, resulting in the more effective ‘Ostwind’ tank – but all these vehicles were just compromises and suffered from light armor and lack of crew protection.
Further developments led to the ‘Kugelblitz’, another Panzer IV variant, but this time the ball-shaped turret was effectively integrated into the hull, resulting in a low silhouette and a fully protected crew. Another new feature was the use of the Mauser MK 103 machine cannon – a lightweight, belt-fed aircraft gun with a gas-powered action mechanism, first employed on board of the Hs 129 attack aircraft against ground targets, including tanks. The Mk 103 had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) (with muzzle brake). Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 calibres).
Anyway, the Kugelblitz could only mount two of these guns in its very cramped and complicated tilting turret. Venting and ammunition feed problems could also not be solved, so that the innovative vehicle never made it beyond the prototype and evaluation stage, even though the integration of the Kugelblitz turret into the hull of the Jagdpanzer ‘Hetzer’ was considered for some time.
In parallel, the promising MK 103 was also tested in the four-gun carriage of the Wirlbelwind’s 20 mm Flakvierling 38 mount, resulting in the ‘3 cm Flakvierling 103/38’ and the respective ‘Zerstörer 45’ tank prototype. But this was, effectively, only a juiced up version of the obsolete ‘Wirbelwind’, again with only a roofless and vulnerable turret and the obsolete Panzer IV as base. The ‘Zerstörer 45’ was consequently rejected, but the firepower of the four guns was immense: Rate of fire of a single MK 103 was 400 - 450 RPM, and the rounds carried three times as much explosive charge as a Soviet 37 mm round. Both HE/M and APCR rounds were available for the MK 103. Muzzle velocity was 860-940 m/sec, paired with a high degree of accuracy. The armor penetration for APCR was 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in) / 60° / 300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in) / 90° / 300 m (980 ft) – more than enough for aircraft, and even dangerous for many combat tanks when hitting more lightly armored areas. Anyway, it was not possible to combine four of these 30mm guns with a favorably shaped, completely enclosed turret for an effective front line anti-aircraft tank that could stand its own among the armored combat units.
The solution to this problem eventually materialized in 1943 with the decision to completely abandon the limiting Panzer IV chassis and build a new generation of anti-aircraft tanks on the basis of the larger (and heavier) Panzer V medium battle tank, the ‘Panther’. Its chassis had in the meantime become available in considerably numbers from damaged and/or recovered combat tanks, and updated details like new turrets or different wheels were gradually introduced into production and during refurbishments.
The Panther could mount a considerably larger and heavier turret than the previous standard tank chassis like the Panzer III and IV, and this potential was full exploited – as well as the possibility to increase the weapon system’s weight, thanks to the sturdier chassis. Rheinmetall’s new, fully enclosed, 360° rotating turret could carry a wide array of weapons and ammunition (all were belt-fed), a crew of three and also offered a good protection through a sloped, frontal armor of 70mm thickness. Traverse and elevation of the turret was hydraulic, allowing a full elevation in just over four seconds, and a 360° traverse in 15.5 seconds. The initial version was armed with two 3.7 cm FlaK 43 guns, as a compromise between range, firepower and rate of fire. Beyond this initial variant, Rheinmetall developed the ‘Coelian’ turret in various versions, too, including fully enclosed turrets with a single 55 mm gun and with four 20mm MG 151/20 guns.
Eventually, in May 1944, a complete family of turrets with different armament options was cleared for production: the standard Coelian I, with a revised mount for the twin 3.7 cm FlaK 43 guns, a heavier variant with twin 55 mm guns against larger, high-flying targets (Coelian II; the guns were based on another aircraft weapon, the MK 214), and finally the Coelian III with four Mk 103 cannon against low-flying attack aircraft and soft/lightly armored ground targets. The variant with four 20 mm guns had been dropped, since it did not offer and added value compared to the Coelian III. All these vehicles ran under the SdKfz. 171/3 designation, with suffixes (A-C) to distinguish their armament in a more or less standardized turret.
Even though ground-based, mobile radar systems were under development at that time, all these turrets had to rely only on optical sensors, even though very effective optical rangefinders were introduced. All the turrets of the Coelian family were to be mounted on revamped Panzer V chassis, simply replacing the former combat tank turrets (either the original production turret from the A, D and G variant or the newly introduced Schmalturm from the F version). Theoretically, they could have also been mounted onto the Panzer VI ‘Tiger’ chassis, but due to this type’s weight and complexity, this was not carried out.
However, the SdKfz. 171/3 Panther/Coelian family designation had in the meantime also just become an interim solution: Plans had been made to start the production of a completely new, simplified tank vehicle family, the so-called ‘Einheitspanzer’. The resulting standard combat tanks (called E-50 and E-75, based on their weight class in tonnes) and their respective hulls would be based on the large Königstiger battle tank, and potentially accept even bigger turrets and weapons. Consequentially, while production of the Coelian turrets and the conversion of 2nd hand and by the time also new Panther hulls of all variants was just gaining momentum in late 1944, work for the new Einheitspanzer tanks and their weaponry had already started.
Roundabout 300 Coelian tanks reached frontline units, two third of them were factory-built, and in the course of early 1945 the Coelian family had gradually replaced most of the outdated Panzer IV AA variants and SPAAGs with open turrets. The Coelian tanks were soon joined by the newly produced, dedicated Flakpanzer variants of the Einheitspanzer family, including a twin 55 mm gun on the E-50 chassis and also a monstrous 140 ton anti-aircraft variant of the heavy E-100 chassis, equipped with an automatic twin 8.8cm Flak in a fully enclosed and heavily armored turret.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader/2nd gunner, driver, radio-operator/hull machine gunner)
Weight: 44.8 tonnes (44.1 long tons; 49.4 short tons)
Length: 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)
Width: 3.42 m (11 ft 3 in) with side skirts
Height: 3.13 m (10 ft 3 in)
Suspension: Double torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
15–80 mm (0.6 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 46 km/h (29 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (160 mi)
Power/weight: 15.39 PS (11.5 kW)/tonne (13.77 hp/ton)
Engine:
Maybach HL230 P30 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
ZF AK 7-200 gear; 7 forward 1 reverse
Armament:
4× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 103 machine cannon with 3.600 rounds
1× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun in the front glacis plate with 2.500 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This was a spontaneous build, in the wake of other recent whif tanks and using some leftover parts from the kit pile(s). Things started with a KORA 1:72 resin conversion kit with a 2x 37mm FlaK Coelian turret for a Panther chassis – but with broken and bent gun barrels. I had actually stashed the parts away for a potential mecha build/conversion, long ago, but while doing legwork for late German WWII tanks I recently came again across the various anti-aircraft tank designs. And I wondered if mounting the Coelian turret on a Panzer IV chassis would be possible and lead to a compact (and whiffy) new vehicle?
Well, it would not work, because the Coelian turret needs a considerably bigger turret bearing diameter than anything the Panzer IV hull could realistically handle (even the Panther’s Schmalturm is actually a little too wide…), and so I folded the idea up again and put it onto the “vague ideas” pile.
…until I stumbled upon the leftover hull from a Hasegawa Panther Ausf. F in the donor kits pile, which had originally given both of its OOB turrets (a Schmalturm and a standard model) to other conversions. While mating the Coelian turret with its originally intended hull was not a sexy project, I eventually did so, because I could effectively use two leftovers for something sound and well-balanced.
Concerning the assembly phase, there’s not much to tell about the Hasegawa Panther Ausf. F. Fit is good, a simple kit, and it comes, as a benefit, with optional all-steel wheels which I used for my conversion, changing the overall look to a true late war model. Only the opening for the turret had to be widened in order to accept the new resin turret.
The latter only consists of two parts: the massive core section and a separate weapon mount. The latter was in so far modified that I added a simple metal peg which can be switched between two holes in the turret hull, for two gun positions.
Since the original gun barrels had to be replaced, anyway, I did a thorough (and fictional) modification: I used four 1:48 20 mm brass barrels for a Flak 38 Flakvierling (from RB Models) and mounted them in two staggered pairs onto the original cannon fairing. The resulting gun array looks impressive and even realistic, and, thanks to the scale-o-rama effect, the 1:48 parts have the perfect size for 30 mm cannon barrels in 1:72!
Painting and markings:
Something “German”, but nothing spectacular, so I ended up with another variant of the Hinterhalt scheme, found on a Jagdpanther from the Ardennenoffensive period. In this case, the prominent colors are Dunkelgelb and Olivgrün in broad stripes, separated by blurred, thin lines made of Rotbraun.
As a little twist I wanted to modify the scheme in so far that this vehicle was to show its conversion heritage in a workshop, so hull and turret received different basic tones as an initial step.
The hull and all wheels were painted with matt RAL 7028 (a modern equivalent to the WWII Dunkelgelb), while the turret received a red primer coat with Oxidrot (RAL 3009). On top of these, wide green bands (RAL 6003 from Modelmaster) and separating russet (Humbrol 113) stripes were painted with brushes. In order to brighten up the relatively dark turret, some yellow mottles were added on the Oxidrot areas (using Revell 16).
Once dry, the whole surface received a sand paper treatment, so that the RAL 7028 would shine through here and there, as if worn out. After a dark brown wash, details were emphasized with dry-brushing in light grey and beige. Decals were puzzled together from various German tank sheets, and the kit finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
The black vinyl tracks were also painted/weathered, with a wet-in-wet mix of black, iron and red brown (all acrylics). Once they were mounted into place, mud and dust around the running gear and the lower hull was simulated with a greyish-brown mix of artist mineral pigments.
A bit of recycling and less exotic than originally hoped for – but it’s still a whiffy tank model, and its proximity to the real but unrealized Coelian project makes this one even more subtle. Pile reduction, one by one…
LOGIE-BUCHAN, a parish, in the district of Ellon, county of Aberdeen, 2 miles (E. by S.) from Ellon; containing 713 inhabitants.
The word Logie, expressive of a low-lying spot, was given to this place on account of its applicability to the tract in which the church is situated; while the affix is descriptive of the position of the parish in that part of the county called Buchan.
Logie-Buchan Parish Church is located on the southern slope of the River Ythan valley, in gently rolling countryside with small fields, rough grazing and enclosures of trees. There is a narrow trackway and footbridge across the river a short distance to the north. The church stands in a sloping graveyard, bounded by a rubble wall. The large former manse is positioned to the south and the church itself closed recently and a new use had not been found when it was visited (2012).
A church here was granted to Aberdeen Cathedral by David II in 1361, while the current church was built in the late 18th century with later additions and alterations.
Description (exterior)
The church is a small, simple building with little architectural detailing. It is aligned roughly east-west and has harled, rubble walls and a slate roof. There are narrow strips of granite stone around the windows and doors. The church is rectangular on plan, with a small, gabled porch and a lean-to vestry at the west end.
The east elevation has a hipped or piended roof rather than a gable. There are two rectangular windows with simple timber tracery and small panes of leaded glass. There has clearly been alterations carried out at this end of the church, shown by two blocked openings, a doorway and window, in the centre of the east elevation.
The north elevation of the church has four equally-spaced rectangular windows, each with simple tracery and latticed glazing. The opposite south elevation has two larger rectangular windows, towards the centre, again with tracery and latticed glazing.
The west end of the church has a small, gabled porch with a rectangular doorway on the south side, which is the main entrance into the church. There is a rectangular window in the west gable of this porch and a tall chimney rises from the apex, serving a fireplace in the small lean-to vestry extension to the north of the porch. The church has a tall gable at the west end, topped by an ashlar-built bellcote, which has a stone ball finial.
Description (interior)
Some of the fittings remain in the church but are likely to be removed if and when a new use is found for the church, which is no longer in use.
People / Organisations:
Name RoleDates Notes
William RuxtonRecast the interior 1912
Robert MaxwellMade the church bell1728
Events:
Church built on site of older church (1787)
Porch and vestry added to west (1891)
Interior recast (1912)
Logie-Buchan is separated on the east from the German Ocean by the parish of Slains, and is intersected by the river Ythan.
The river abounds with various kinds of trout, also with salmon, eels, lounders, and mussels; and pearls are still occasionally found.
It has a ferry opposite the parish church, where its breadth at low water is about sixty yards; and two boats are kept, one for general passengers, and the other, a larger boat, for the conveyance of the parishioners to church from the northern side.
A tradition has long prevailed that the largest pearl in the crown of Scotland was obtained in the Ythan; and it appears that, about the middle of the last century, £100 were paid by a London jeweller to gentleman in Aberdeen, for pearls found in the river.
Most of the inhabitants of the district are employed in agricultural pursuits, a small brick-work recently established being the only exception.
The great north road from Aberdeen passes through the parish, and the mail and other public coaches travel to and fro daily. On another road, leading to the shipping-port of Newburgh, the tenantry have a considerable traffic in grain, lime, and coal, the last procured from England, and being the chief fuel.
The river Ythan is navigable for lighters often or twelve tons' burthen at high water. The marketable produce of the parish is sent to Aberdeen. Logie- Buchan is ecclesiastically in the presbytery of Ellon, synod of Aberdeen, and in the patronage of Mr. Buchan.
The church was built in 1787, and contains 400 sittings.
Cemeteries - Presbyterian / Unitarian
Logie Buchan Parish Church, Logie-Buchan, Church of Scotland
The church of Logie-Buchan was dedicated to St Andrew.
St Andrew's Church was built in 1787 and has been much altered. It contains a 1728 bell.
Logie-Buchan (Aberdeen, Buchan). Also known as Logie Talargy, the church was granted by David II in 1361 to the common fund of the canons of Aberdeen cathedral, and this was confirmed to the uses of the canons by Alexander, bishop of Aberdeen in 1362, both parsonage and vicarage fruits being annexed while the cure was to become a vicarage pensionary.
Although possession was obtained by the dean and chapter, this was subsequently lost, and the church had to be re-annexed in 1437, the previous arrangement being adhered to, with both parsonage and vicarage remaining annexed.
St Andrew's Kirk, 1787. Undistinguished externally, porch 1891, inside original ceiling with Adam-like centrepiece and two-light Gothic windows, part of 1912 recasting, William Buxton. Pulpit was originally in the centre of the N wall with a horseshoe gallery bearing the Buchan coat of arms (George Reid, Peterhead, carver). Monuments to Thomas (d. 1819) and Robert (d. 1825) Buchan.
Bell, 1728, Robert Maxwell. Church bought by Captain David Buchan to ensure access and survival.
Kirkyard: plain ashlar gatepiers and rubble walls; some table tombs.
Highest position on Explore:
#420 on Saturday, July 7, 2007
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
Interested in purchasing this photograph? Check it out at FAA.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
At the train station the sun was directly on top of a minaret in the distance. Heavily cropped in phone and processed to death but I quite like it.
A good panoramic view of China’s recent development and its current rejection of the democracy model for its own governance, by former Singapore ambassador to the UN, Kishore Mahbubani:
Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs on the Covid vaccines, New World Order, global leadership and multilateralism:
Former U.S. Ambassador Max Baucus on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan trip:
----------
The Foreign Affairs article below is typical American, full of obligatory and unsubstantiated propaganda spread by the West even though it's not all complimentary about the U.S. The fact is China has alleviated extreme poverty; millions of Chinese tourists have visited overseas with hundreds of thousands of students attended various universities in the West without a single individual seeking political asylum. If China were as repressive as the West describes, wouldn't these tourists and students seek political asylum while abroad? There have been no proven evidence of any mistreatment of Uyghurs inside China. If as many as 2 million Uyghurs were incarcerated, surely, the West can show us satellite photos of these humongous prison camps, right? The fact is an overwhelming majority of the people in China believe their country is heading the right direction.
worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-...
In this 2022 freedom Index, Hong Kong ranks #30, ahead of South Korea (31) France (34) and Singapore (48).
When President Jimmy Carter established diplomatic relationship with China in 1978, he agreed to the Shanghai Communiqué which reads, among others, "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."
The author fails to disclose that Taiwan's Tsai Ing-wen unwillingness to accept the 1992 Consensus is one of main reasons for Mainland China's treatment of her.
www.foreignaffairs.com/china/china-trap-us-foreign-policy...
The China Trap
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Perilous Logic of Zero-Sum Competition
By Jessica Chen Weiss
Competition with China has begun to consume U.S. foreign policy. Seized with the challenge of a near-peer rival whose interests and values diverge sharply from those of the United States, U.S. politicians and policymakers are becoming so focused on countering China that they risk losing sight of the affirmative interests and values that should underpin U.S. strategy. The current course will not just bring indefinite deterioration of the U.S.-Chinese relationship and a growing danger of catastrophic conflict; it also threatens to undermine the sustainability of American leadership in the world and the vitality of American society and democracy at home.
There is, of course, good reason why a more powerful China has become the central concern of policymakers and strategists in Washington (and plenty of other capitals). Under President Xi Jinping especially, Beijing has grown more authoritarian at home and more coercive abroad. It has brutally repressed Uyghurs in Xinjiang, crushed democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, rapidly expanded its conventional and nuclear arsenals, aggressively intercepted foreign military aircraft in the East and South China Seas, condoned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and amplified Russian disinformation, exported censorship and surveillance technology, denigrated democracies, worked to reshape international norms—the list could go on and will likely only get longer, especially if Xi secures a third five-year term and further solidifies his control later this year.
Yet well-warranted alarm risks morphing into a reflexive fear that could reshape American policy and society in counterproductive and ultimately harmful ways. In attempting to craft a national strategy suited to a more assertive and more powerful China, Washington has struggled to define success, or even a steady state, short of total victory or total defeat, that both governments could eventually accept and at a cost that citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders would be willing to bear. Without a clear sense of what it seeks or any semblance of a domestic consensus on how the United States should relate to the world, U.S. foreign policy has become reactive, spinning in circles rather than steering toward a desired destination.
To its credit, the Biden administration has acknowledged that the United States and its partners must provide an attractive alternative to what China is offering, and it has taken some steps in the right direction, such as multilateral initiatives on climate and hunger. Yet the instinct to counter every Chinese initiative, project, and provocation remains predominant, crowding out efforts to revitalize an inclusive international system that would protect U.S. interests and values even as global power shifts and evolves. Even with the war in Ukraine claiming considerable U.S. attention and resources, the conflict’s broader effect has been to intensify focus on geopolitical competition, reinforced by Chinese-Russian convergence.
Leaders in both Washington and Beijing claim to want to avoid a new Cold War. The fact is that their countries are already engaged in a global struggle. The United States seeks to perpetuate its preeminence and an international system that privileges its interests and values; China sees U.S. leadership as weakened by hypocrisy and neglect, providing an opening to force others to accept its influence and legitimacy. On both sides, there is growing fatalism that a crisis is unavoidable and perhaps even necessary: that mutually accepted rules of fair play and coexistence will come only after the kind of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation that characterized the early years of the Cold War—survival of which was not guaranteed then and would be even less assured now.
Even in the absence of a crisis, a reactive posture has begun to drive a range of U.S. policies. Washington frequently falls into the trap of trying to counter Chinese efforts around the world without appreciating what local governments and populations want. Lacking a forward-looking vision aligned with a realistic assessment of the resources at its disposal, it struggles to prioritize across domains and regions. It too often compromises its own broader interests as fractious geopolitics make necessary progress on global challenges all but impossible. The long-term risk is that the United States will be unable to manage a decades-long competition without falling into habits of intolerance at home and overextension abroad. In attempting to out-China China, the United States could undermine the strengths and obscure the vision that should be the basis for sustained American leadership.
The lodestar for a better approach must be the world that the United States seeks: what it wants, rather than what it fears. Whether sanctions or tariffs or military moves, policies should be judged on the basis of whether they further progress toward that world rather than whether they undermine some Chinese interest or provide some advantage over Beijing. They should represent U.S. power at its best rather than mirroring the behavior it aims to avert. And rather than looking back nostalgically at its past preeminence, Washington must commit, with actions as well as words, to a positive-sum vision of a reformed international system that includes China and meets the existential need to tackle shared challenges.
That does not mean giving up well-calibrated efforts to deter Chinese aggression, enhance resilience against Chinese coercion, and reinforce U.S. alliances. But these must be paired with meaningful discussions with Beijing, not only about crisis communications and risk reduction but also about plausible terms of coexistence and the future of the international system—a future that Beijing will necessarily have some role in shaping. An inclusive and affirmative global vision would both discipline competition and make clear what Beijing has to lose. Otherwise, as the relationship deteriorates and the sense of threat grows, the logic of zero-sum competition will become even more overwhelming, and the resulting escalatory spiral will undermine both American interests and American values. That logic will warp global priorities and erode the international system. It will fuel pervasive insecurity and reinforce a tendency toward groupthink, damaging the pluralism and civic inclusion that are the bedrock of liberal democracy. And if not altered, it will perpetuate a vicious cycle that will eventually bring catastrophe.
THE INEVITABLE RIVALRY?
In Washington, the standard account for why the relationship has gotten so bad is that China changed: in the past decade or two, Beijing has stopped “biding its time,” becoming more repressive at home and assertive abroad even while continuing to take advantage of the relationships and institutions that have enabled China’s economic growth.
That change is certainly part of the story, and it is as much a product of China’s growing clout as of Xi’s way of using that clout. But a complete account must also acknowledge corresponding changes in U.S. politics and policy as the United States has reacted to developments in China. Washington has met Beijing’s actions with an array of punitive actions and protective policies, from tariffs and sanctions to restrictions on commercial and scientific exchanges. In the process, the United States has drifted further from the principles of openness and nondiscrimination that have long been a comparative advantage while reinforcing Beijing’s conviction that the United States will never tolerate a more powerful China. Meanwhile, the United States has wavered in its support for the international institutions and agreements that have long structured global interdependence, driven in part by consternation over China’s growing influence within the international system.
The more combative approach, on both sides, has produced a mirroring dynamic. While Beijing believes that only through protracted struggle will Americans be persuaded to coexist with a strong China, Washington believes that it must check Chinese power and influence to defend U.S. primacy. The result is a downward spiral, with each side’s efforts to enhance its security prompting the other to take further steps to enhance its own.
In explaining growing U.S.-Chinese tensions, some scholars point to structural shifts in the balance of power. Graham Allison has written of “the Thucydides trap”: the notion that when a rising state challenges an established power, a war for hegemony frequently results. Yet a focus on capabilities alone has trouble accounting for the twists and turns in U.S.-Chinese relations, which are also driven by shifting perceptions of threat, opportunity, and purpose. Following President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to Beijing, Washington came to view China as a strategic partner in containing the Soviet Union. And as the post–Cold War era dawned, U.S. policymakers began hedging against growing Chinese military power even while seeking to encourage the country’s economic and political liberalization through greater integration.
Throughout this period, Chinese leaders saw a strategic opportunity to prioritize China’s development in a stable international environment. They opened the country’s doors to foreign investment and capitalist practices, seeking to learn from foreign expertise while periodically campaigning against “spiritual pollution” and “bourgeois liberalization.” Despite occasional attempts to signal resolve, including during the 1995–96 Taiwan Strait crisis and after the 1999 NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, Chinese leaders largely adhered to the former leader Deng Xiaoping’s lying-low strategy to avoid triggering the sense of threat that could precipitate efforts to strangle China’s rise.
If there is a year that marked an inflection point in China’s approach to the world, it is not 2012, when Xi came to power, but 2008. The global financial crisis prompted Beijing to discard any notion that China was the student and the United States the teacher when it came to economic governance. And the Beijing Olympics that year were meant to mark China’s arrival on the world stage, but much of the world was focused instead on riots in Tibet, which Chinese officials chalked up to outside meddling, and on China’s subsequent crackdown. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) became increasingly fixated on the idea that foreign forces were intent on thwarting China’s rise.
In the years that followed, the halting movement toward liberalization went into reverse: the party cracked down on the teaching of liberal ideas and the activities of foreign nongovernmental organizations, crushed pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, and built a sprawling surveillance state and system of internment camps in Xinjiang—all manifestations of a broader conception of “national security,” animated by fears of unrest. Internationally, China gave up any semblance of strategic humility. It became more assertive in defending its territorial and maritime claims (along the Indian border, in the East and South China Seas, and with regard to Taiwan). Having surpassed Japan as the world’s second-largest economy in 2010, it began wielding its economic power to compel deference to CCP interests. It ramped up development of military capabilities that could counter U.S. intervention in the region, including expanding its once limited nuclear arsenal. The decision to develop many of these capabilities predated Xi, but it was under his leadership that Beijing embraced a more coercive and intolerant approach.
As it registered China’s growing capabilities and willingness to use them, Washington increased its hedging. The Obama administration announced that it would “pivot” to Asia, and even as Washington sought a constructive role for China in the international system, the pace of China’s rise quickly outstripped U.S. willingness to grant it a correspondingly significant voice. With Donald Trump’s election as president, Washington’s assessment became especially extreme: a Marxist-Leninist regime was, in Trump’s telling, out to “rape” the United States, dominate the world, and subvert democracy. In response, the Trump administration started a trade war, began to talk of “decoupling” the U.S. and Chinese economies, and launched a series of initiatives aimed at countering Chinese influence and undermining the CCP. In speeches, senior U.S. officials hinted at regime change, calling for steps to “empower the Chinese people” to seek a different form of government and stressing that “Chinese history contains another path for China’s people.”
The Biden administration has stopped any talk of regime change in China and coordinated its approach closely with allies and partners, a contrast with Trump’s unilateralism. But it has at the same time continued many of its predecessor’s policies and endorsed the assessment that China’s growing influence must be checked. Some lines of effort, such as the Justice Department’s China Initiative, which sought to prosecute intellectual property theft and economic espionage, have been modified. But others have been sustained, including tariffs, export controls, and visa restrictions, or expanded, such as sanctions against Chinese officials and companies. In Congress, meanwhile, ever more vehement opposition to China may be the sole thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, though even this shared concern has produced only limited agreement (such as recent legislation on domestic semiconductor investments) on how the United States should compete.
Over five decades, the United States tried a combination of engagement and deterrence to bring China into an international system that broadly sustains U.S. interests and values. American policymakers knew well that their Chinese counterparts were committed to defending CCP rule, but Washington calculated that the world would be less dangerous with China inside rather than outside the system. That bet largely succeeded—and is still better than the alternative. Yet many in Washington always hoped for, and to varying degrees sought to promote, China’s liberal evolution as well. China’s growing authoritarianism has thus fed the narrative of a comprehensive U.S. policy failure, and the focus on correcting that failure has entrenched Beijing’s insecurity and belief that the United States and its allies will not accept China as a superpower.
Now, both countries are intent on doing whatever is necessary to demonstrate that any move by the other will not go unmet. Both U.S. and Chinese decision-makers believe that the other side respects only strength and interprets restraint as weakness. At this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in June, China’s defense minister, General Wei Fenghe, pledged to “fight to the very end” over Taiwan a day after meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
TELL ME HOW THIS ENDS
Where the current trajectory leads is clear: a more dangerous and less habitable world defined by an ever-present risk of confrontation and crisis, with preparation for conflict taking precedence over tackling common challenges.
Most policymakers, at least those in Washington, are not seeking a crisis between the United States and China. But there is growing acceptance that a crisis is more or less inevitable. Its consequences would be enormous. Even if both sides want to avoid war, crises by definition offer little time for response amid intense public scrutiny, making it difficult to find pathways to deescalation. Even the limited application of force or coercion could set in motion an unpredictable set of responses across multiple domains—military, economic, diplomatic, informational. As leaders maneuver to show resolve and protect their domestic reputations, a crisis could prove very difficult to contain.
Taiwan is the most likely flash point, as changes in both Taipei and Beijing have increasingly put the island at the center of U.S.-Chinese tensions. Demographic and generational shifts in Taiwan, combined with China’s crackdown in Hong Kong, have heightened Taiwan’s resistance to the idea of Beijing’s control and made peaceful unification seem increasingly fanciful. After Taiwan’s traditionally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidency in 2016, Beijing took a hard line against the new president, Tsai Ing-wen, despite her careful efforts to avoid moves toward formal independence. Cross strait channels of communication shut down, and Beijing relied on increasingly coercive measures to punish and deter what it perceived as incremental moves toward Taiwan’s permanent separation.
In response, the United States increased military patrols in and around the Taiwan Strait, loosened guidelines for interacting with Taiwanese officials, broadened U.S. declaratory policy to emphasize support for Taiwan, and continued to advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations, including the United Nations. Yet many well-intentioned U.S. efforts to support the island and deter China have instead fueled Beijing’s sense of urgency about the need to send a shot across the bow to deter steadily growing U.S.-Taiwanese ties.
Even with an official U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” on whether the United States would intervene in the event of an attack on Taiwan, Chinese military planners expect U.S. involvement. Indeed, the anticipated difficulty of seizing Taiwan while also holding the United States at bay has long underpinned deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. But many U.S. actions intended to bolster the island’s ability to resist coercion have been symbolic rather than substantive, doing more to provoke than deter Beijing. For example, the Trump administration’s efforts to upend norms around U.S. engagement with Taiwan—in August 2020, Secretary for Health and Human Services Alex Azar became the highest-ranking cabinet member to visit Taiwan since full normalization of U.S.-Chinese relations in 1979—prompted China to send combat aircraft across the center line of the Taiwan Strait, ignoring an unofficial guardrail that had long served to facilitate safe operations in the waterway. Intrusions into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) have become a frequent means for Beijing to register displeasure with growing U.S. support. In October 2021, Chinese intrusions into Taiwan’s ADIZ hit a new high—93 aircraft over three days—in response to nearby U.S.-led military exercises.
This action-reaction cycle, driven by mutually reinforcing developments in Beijing, Taipei, and Washington, is accelerating the deterioration of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. In recent months, Chinese official rhetoric has become increasingly threatening, using phrases that have historically signaled China’s intent to escalate. “Whoever plays with fire will get burnt,” Xi has repeatedly told U.S. President Joe Biden. In May, after Biden implied an unconditional commitment to defend Taiwan, rather than simply expressing the longstanding U.S. obligation to provide the island with the military means to defend itself and to maintain the U.S. capacity to resist any use of force, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed that Beijing “will take firm actions to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests.”
Although Beijing continues to prefer peaceful unification, it is coming to believe that coercive measures may be necessary to halt moves toward Taiwan’s permanent separation and compel steps toward unification, particularly given the Chinese perception that Washington’s support for Taiwan is a means to contain China. Even if confidence in China’s military and economic trajectory leads Beijing to believe that “time and momentum” remain on its side, political trends in Taiwan and in the United States make officials increasingly pessimistic about prospects for peaceful unification. Beijing has not set a timetable for seizing Taiwan and does not appear to be looking for an excuse to do so. Still, as the political scientist Taylor Fravel has shown, China has used force when it thinks its claims of sovereignty are being challenged. High-profile symbolic gestures of U.S. support for Taiwan are especially likely to be construed as an affront that must be answered. (As of this writing, Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, the first trip by a U.S. speaker of the house since 1997, has prompted Chinese warnings that “the Chinese military will never sit idly by,” followed by unprecedently threatening military exercises and missile tests around Taiwan.)
As both the United States and Taiwan head into presidential elections in 2024, party politics could prompt more efforts to push the envelope on Taiwan’s political status and de jure independence. It is far from clear whether Tsai’s successor as president will be as steadfast as she has been in resisting pressure from strident advocates of independence. Even under Tsai, there have been troubling signs that DPP leaders are not content with the status quo despite its popularity with voters. DPP leaders have lobbied Washington to refrain from making statements that the United States does not support Taiwan independence. In March, Taipei’s representative office in Washington gave former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a hefty honorarium to visit Taiwan, where he called on the United States to offer the island “diplomatic recognition as a free and sovereign country.”
The risk of a fatal collision in the air or at sea is also rising outside the Taiwan Strait. With the Chinese and U.S. militaries operating in proximity in the East and South China Seas, both intent on demonstrating their willingness to fight, pilots and operators are employing dangerous tactics that raise the risk of an inadvertent clash. In 2001, a Chinese fighter jet collided with a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea, killing the Chinese pilot and leading to the 11-day detention of the U.S. crew. After initial grandstanding, the Chinese worked to head off a full-blown crisis, even cracking down on displays of anti-Americanism in the streets. It is much harder to imagine such a resolution today: the desire to display resolve and avoid showing weakness would make it exceedingly difficult to defuse a standoff.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
Even if the two sides can avoid a crisis, continuation of the current course will reinforce geopolitical divisions while inhibiting cooperation on global problems. The United States is increasingly focused on rallying countries around the world to stand against China. But to the extent that a coalition to counter China forms, especially given the ideological framing that both the Trump and Biden administrations have adopted, that coalition is unlikely to include the range of partners that might stand to defend universal laws and institutions. “Asian countries do not want to be forced to choose between the two,” Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote of China and the United States in these pages in 2020. “And if either attempts to force such a choice—if Washington tries to contain China’s rise or Beijing seeks to build an exclusive sphere of influence in Asia—they will begin a course of confrontation that will last decades and put the long-heralded Asian century in jeopardy.”
The current approach to competition is also likely to strengthen the alignment between China and Russia. The Biden administration has managed to deter Chinese military assistance to Russia in Ukraine, and China has mostly complied with sanctions, demonstrating that there are in fact limits to Beijing and Moscow’s “no limits” partnership. But so long as the two governments share a belief that they cannot be secure in a U.S.-led system, they will continue to deepen their cooperation. In the months since the invasion of Ukraine, they have carried out joint military patrols in the Pacific Ocean and worked to develop alternatives to the U.S.-controlled financial system.
Ultimately, Chinese-Russian relations will be shaped by how Beijing weighs its need to resist the United States against its need to preserve ties to international capital and technology that foster growth. China’s alignment with Russia is not historically determined: there is an ongoing high-level debate within Beijing over how close to get to Moscow, with the costs of full-fledged alignment producing consternation among some Chinese analysts. Yet unless Washington can credibly suggest that Beijing will see strategic benefits, not only strategic risks, from distancing itself from Moscow, advocates of closer Chinese-Russian cooperation will continue to win the argument.
Growing geopolitical tension also crowds out progress on common challenges, regardless of the Biden administration’s desire to compartmentalize certain issues. Although U.S. climate envoy John Kerry has made some headway on climate cooperation with China, including a joint declaration at last year’s climate summit in Glasgow, progress has been outweighed by acrimony in areas where previous joint efforts had borne fruit, including counternarcotics, nonproliferation, and North Korea. On both sides, too many policymakers fear that willingness to cooperate will be interpreted as a lack of resolve.
Such tensions are further eroding the already weak foundations of global governance. It is not clear how much longer the center of the international rules-based order can hold without a broad-based effort at its renewal. But as Beijing has grown more concerned that the United States seeks to contain or roll back its influence—by, for example, denying it a greater say in international economic governance—the more it has invested in alternative institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Meanwhile, China’s engagement with the multilateral system is increasingly aimed at discrediting U.S. leadership within it. Even though Beijing has not exactly demonstrated fealty to many of the principles it claims to support, the divide between the haves and have-nots has allowed it to cast the United States as protecting the privileges of a minority of powerful states. At the United Nations, Beijing and Washington too often strive to undercut each other’s initiatives, launching symbolic battles that require third countries to choose between the two.
Last but far from least, a fixation on competition brings costs and dangers in the United States. Aggressive U.S. efforts to protect research security, combined with increased attacks against Asian Americans, are having a chilling effect on scientific research and international collaboration and are jeopardizing the appeal of the United States as a magnet for international talent. A 2021 survey by the American Physical Society found that 43 percent of international physics graduate students and early career scientists in the United States considered the country unwelcoming; around half of international early career scientists in the United States thought the government’s approach to research security made them less likely to stay there over the long term. These effects are particularly pronounced among scientists of Chinese descent. A recent study by the Asian American Scholar Forum found that 67 percent of faculty of Chinese origin (including naturalized citizens and permanent residents) reported having considered leaving the United States.
As the United States has sought to shield itself from Chinese espionage, theft, and unfair trading practices, it has often insisted on reciprocity as a precondition for commercial, educational, and diplomatic exchanges with Beijing. But strict reciprocity with an increasingly closed system like China’s comes at a cost to the United States’ comparative advantage: the traditional openness, transparency, and equal opportunity of its society and economy, which drive innovation, productivity, and scientific progress.
The climate of insecurity and fear is also having pernicious effects on democracy and the quality of public debate about China and U.S. policy. The desire to avoid appearing “soft” on China permeates private and public policy discussions. The result is an echo chamber that encourages analysts, bureaucrats, and officials to be politically rather than analytically correct. When individuals feel the need to out-hawk one another to protect themselves and advance professionally, the result is groupthink. A policy environment that incentivizes self-censorship and reflexive positioning forecloses pluralistic debate and a vibrant marketplace for ideas, ingredients critical to the United States’ national competitiveness.
From the World War II internment of Japanese Americans to the McCarthyism of the 1950s to hate crimes against Muslim and Sikh Americans after September 11, U.S. history is replete with examples of innocent Americans caught in the crossfire of exaggerated fears of the “enemy within.” In each case, overreaction did as much as or more than the adversary to undermine U.S. democracy and unity. Although the Biden administration has condemned anti-Asian hate and stressed that policy must target behavior rather than ethnicity, some government agencies and U.S. politicians have continued to imply that an individual’s ethnicity and ties to family abroad are grounds for heightened scrutiny.
BEFORE CATASTROPHE
If the United States and Soviet Union could arrive at détente, there is no reason that Washington and Beijing cannot do so as well. Early in the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy, hailing the need to “make the world safe for diversity,” stressed that “our attitude is as essential as theirs.” He warned Americans “not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.”
Even while making clear that Beijing will pay a high price if it resorts to force or other forms of coercion, Washington must present China with a real choice. Deterrence requires that threats be paired with assurances. To that end, U.S. policymakers should not be afraid of engaging directly with their Chinese counterparts to discuss terms on which the United States and China could coexist, including mutual bounds on competition. It was relatively easy for Americans to imagine coexistence with a China thought to be on a one-way path of liberalization. The United States and its partners now have the harder task of imagining coexistence with an authoritarian superpower, finding a new basis for bilateral interaction that focuses on shaping outward behavior rather than changing China’s domestic system.
The most pressing need relates to Taiwan, where the United States must bolster deterrence while also clarifying that its “one China” policy has not changed. This means ensuring that Beijing knows how costly a crisis over Taiwan would be, putting at risk its broader development and modernization objectives—but also that if it refrains from coercive action, neither Washington nor Taipei will exploit the opportunity to push the envelope further. While Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other senior officials have affirmed that the United States does not support Taiwan’s independence, other actions by the administration (especially Biden’s repeated statements suggesting an end to “strategic ambiguity”) have sown doubt.
While helping bolster Taiwan’s resilience to Chinese coercion, Washington should avoid characterizing Taiwan as a vital asset for U.S. interests. Such statements feed Beijing’s belief that the United States seeks to “use Taiwan to contain China,” as China’s ambassador to Washington put it in May. The United States should instead make clear its abiding interest in a peaceful process for resolving cross-strait differences rather than in a particular outcome. And as they highlight the costs Beijing can expect if it escalates its coercive campaign against Taiwan, U.S. policymakers should also stress to Taipei that unilateral efforts to change Taiwan’s political status, including calls for de jure independence, U.S. diplomatic recognition, or other symbolic steps to signal Taiwan’s permanent separation from China, are counterproductive.
These steps will be necessary but not sufficient to pierce the growing fatalism regarding a crisis, given Beijing’s hardening belief that the United States seeks to contain China and will use Taiwan to that end. To put a floor beneath the collapsing U.S.-China relationship will require a stronger effort to establish bounds of fair competition and a willingness to discuss terms of coexistence. Despite recent meetings and calls, senior U.S. officials do not yet have regular engagements with their counterparts that would facilitate such discussions. These discussions should be coordinated with U.S. allies and partners to prevent Beijing from trying to drive a wedge between the United States and others in Europe and Asia. But Washington should also forge a common understanding with its allies and partners around potential forms of coexistence with China.
Skeptics may say that there is no reason for the leadership in Beijing to play along, given its triumphalism and distrust. These are significant obstacles, but it is worth testing the proposition that Washington can take steps to stabilize escalating tensions without first experiencing multiple crises with a nuclear-armed competitor. There is reason to believe that Beijing cares enough about stabilizing relations to reciprocate. Despite its claim that the “East is rising and the West is declining,” China remains the weaker party, especially given its uncertain economic trajectory. Domestic challenges have typically tended to restrain China’s behavior rather than, as some Western commentators have speculated, prompting risky gambles. The political scientist Andrew Chubb has shown that when Chinese leaders have faced challenges to their legitimacy, they have acted less assertively in areas such as the South China Sea.
Because Beijing and Washington are loath to make unilateral concessions, fearing that they will be interpreted as a sign of weakness at home and by the other side, détente will require reciprocity. Both sides will have to take coordinated but unilateral steps to head off a militarized crisis. For example, a tacit understanding could produce a reduction in Chinese and U.S. operations in and around the Taiwan Strait, lowering the temperature without signaling weakness. Military operations are necessary to demonstrate that the United States will continue to fly and sail wherever international law allows, including the Taiwan Strait. But ultimately, the United States’ ability to deter and Taiwan’s ability to defend against an attempt at armed unification by Beijing have little to do with whether the U.S. military transits the Taiwan Strait four, eight, 12, or 24 times a year.
In the current atmosphere of distrust, words must be matched by actions. In his November 2021 virtual meeting with Biden, Xi said, “We have patience and will strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and efforts.” But Beijing’s actions since have undercut its credibility in Taipei and in Washington. Biden likewise told Xi that the United States does not seek a new Cold War or want to change Beijing’s system. Yet subsequent U.S. actions (including efforts to diversify supply chains away from China and new visa restrictions on CCP officials) have undermined Washington’s credibility among not just leaders in Beijing but also others in the region. It does not help that some administration officials continue to invoke Cold War parallels.
To bolster its own credibility, the Biden administration should also do more to preempt charges of hypocrisy and double standards. Consider U.S. policy to combat digital authoritarianism: Washington has targeted Chinese surveillance technology firms more harshly than similar companies based in the United States, Israel, and other Western democracies.
THE WORLD THAT OUGHT TO BE
So far, the Biden administration’s order-building efforts have centered on arrangements that exclude China, such as the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Although officials have been careful to insist that these initiatives are not targeted at any one country, there is little sign of any corresponding effort to negotiate Beijing’s role in the international or regional order. At the margins, there have been some signs that inclusive groupings can still deliver. (The World Trade Organization has struck agreements on fishing subsidies and COVID-19 vaccines.) But if investments in narrower, fit-for-purpose coalitions continue to take priority over broader, inclusive agreements and institutions, including those in which China and the United States both have major roles to play, geopolitical tensions will break rather than reinvigorate the international system.
Renewing U.S. leadership will also require doing more to address criticism that a U.S.-led order means “rules for thee but not for me.” Clear and humble acknowledgment of instances where the United States has violated the UN Charter, such as the invasion of Iraq, would be an important step to overcoming that resentment. And Washington must deliver value for citizens in developing countries, whether on COVID-19, climate, hunger, or technology, rather than simply urging them not to work with China. At home, Washington must work to rebuild bipartisan support for U.S. engagement with the international system.
As the United States reimagines its domestic and international purpose, it should do so on its own terms, not for the sake of besting China. Yet fleshing out an inclusive, affirmative vision of the world it seeks would also be a first step toward clarifying the conditions under which the United States would welcome or accept Chinese initiatives rather than reflexively opposing them. The countries’ divergent interests and values would still result in the United States opposing many of Beijing’s activities, but that opposition would be accompanied by a clear willingness to negotiate the terms of China’s growing influence. The United States cannot cede so much influence to Beijing that international rules and institutions no longer reflect U.S. interests and values. But the greater risk today is that overzealous efforts to counter China’s influence will undermine the system itself through a combination of paralysis and the promotion of alternate arrangements by major powers.
Finally, the United States must do much more to invest in the power of its example and to ensure that steps taken to counter China do not undermine that example by falling into the trap of trying to out-China China. Protective or punitive actions, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, should be assessed not just on the basis of whether they counter China but also on how they affect the broader system and whether they reflect fidelity to U.S. principles.
Competition cannot become an end in itself. So long as outcompeting China defines the United States’ sense of purpose, Washington will continue to measure success on terms other than on its own. Rankings are a symbolic construct, not an objective condition. If the pursuit of human progress, peace, and prosperity is the ultimate objective, as Blinken has stated, then the United States does not need to beat China in order to win.
JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor of China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University. She served as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow on the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State from August 2021 to July 2022. The views expressed here are her own.
I've improved sitting position of the 2012 Pocahontas doll (to the left in these photos), by shaving a bit more off her right hip joint. I photograph her next to the 2011 doll. Both are in sitting positions, with their legs straight, then with their legs bent at the knees.
Photos of the 2011 and 2012 Disney Store Classic Pocahontas 12'' dolls, undressed to show their differing leg joints. The new 2012 doll is on left , the old 2011 is on right. The old doll has rubber legs, and more freedom of movement in the hip joints, as well as deeper cut in the ball joint part of the leg to allow the leg to bend closer to the hip when in a sitting position. She also has internal 3-click knee joints. The new doll has hard, smooth plastic legs, hinge knee joints and hinge and pivot ankle joints. She is a bit bow legged due to her knee joints not being precisely made.
I've just experimented by cutting into the leg of the new doll, to extend the ball portion of the joint further around. This is to enable her to sit up with her knees closer together. It has greatly reduced the angle between her legs in the sitting position, from about 45 degrees to less than half that. There seems to be some internal resistence in the hip joints to reducing the angle any further.
Since this is my first experience in grinding plastic using a rotary tool (Dremel 3000 Variable-Speed AC Power Tool), my work is rather crude. I improved the smoothness of my work considerably between the left hip (to the right in the photos) and the right. I used the #953 Aluminum Oxide Grinding Stone at the medium speed setting of 6, as recommended in the instruction manual.
A View Around The No.2 End Drivers Seat Of Network Rails 97302 While Stabled In Bescot Yard.
Saturday 18th April 2015
Location map for the Arctic Ocean
Image: Public Domain
We have used this photo in this article:
The Largest Oceans In The World
Up until recently there were four official oceans in the World - the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean and Arctic Ocean - but this changed in 1990, when the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) designated the Antarctic Ocean (also know as the Southern Ocean) as an independent ocean. It encircles Antarctica, below the 60° Southern line of latitude, but before this declaration, many geographers believed that this part of the World Ocean was just the bottom part of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans combined. Many still believe this to be the case, but the IHO have based their decision on the water of the Antarctic Ocean being very different to the waters of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans in that general area.
The largest ocean on the planet is the Pacific Ocean, which covers about 28% of the surface of our planet. It's total size is greater than the size of all the World's land mass added together, and it is the source of over half of the sea food which we humans consume. The deepest point under all of the oceans is the Mariana Trench in the north-west Pacific, which drops to a depth of 10,911 metres (35,800 ft), and the planet's oceans cover over 70% of it's surface area in total, an estimated 360,000,000 sq km (140,000,000 sq miles)……..
Strobist LIGHTING 102 - Lesson 1 (position, angle)
This is the first exercise in from the Lighting 102 course at Strobist
Con este ejercicio tan sencillo se puede ver lo plano que queda el sujeto con el flash encima de la cámara y el volumen que se le puede dar tan solo cambiando su posición alrededor del modelo.
Mongolian Wrestling, known as Bökh (Mongolian: Бөх or Үндэсний бөх). It is the folk wrestling style of Mongols in Mongolia, Inner Mongolia and other regions. Bökh means "durability".
For more of my wrestling pictures, click here.
This very short slide show illustrates the effect of varying the angle of a key light on a subject. I made this video for the Strobist 102 (2012) assignment "light position, angle."
The video is a sequence of shots of my little Degas bronze statuette, each taken from a fixed camera position as I rotated a single flash around the compass headings. The flash was fired through a DIY (black straw) grid from about 35 degrees above the subject. The flash was set to give me an f/6.3 incident light reading at the subject position. I held the flash power and flash-subject distance constant throughout the exercise.
I've started a photography blog. You can check it out at
66722 is perfectly positioned for this shot as it heads west to an unknown destination. It carries the short lived livery of Metronet Renewing the Tube where at the time GBRf had the contract for move materials for London Underground.
Crawling up the relief line is DBs 60018 with 6G77 1145 Burton on Trent to Bescot with a nice consist of 10 SPAs and 6 IHAs.
My notes say Bescot but unless its running via New Street its going the wrong way.
60018 has been sold by DB and was acquired by GBRf as a source of spares. It still resides at Toton depot.
Washwood Heath yard is full of car carrier wagons with the elevated M6 full of HGVs. The former Dunlop Building is just visible in the far right background.
Submission for L2 Strobist 102. I found this harder then I thought it was going to be. Judging the exposure was not as easy as I thought. I was also surprised at the similarity between 4' and 10' but the rapid fall off after that. All shot with 1/250 Nikon D200 SB600 on ebay trigger
AdamAndEve.com Satisfy your every position with Adam and Eve’s Best Sex Furniture for Couples - Inflatable Position Pillow. Get this with 50% OFF (or any 1 item), FREE Mystery Gift, FREE Hot DVDs and FREE Shipping. Just use promo code HOME24 at the checkout!
Be experimental and be comfortable with this sex toy furniture that can give partners an added thrusting support for all amazing sex positions that is worth discovering and playing.
This inflatable sex toy is imperative for couples who are looking for perfect angle for love making which is easy to carry and is convenient for couples to be used anytime and anywhere as it can just be deflated easily.
For deeper penetration, this furniture for sex can never go wrong in place as it is secure because of its material that would not slip and has an easy grip handle at the side.
Adult sex furniture is a total must have for sex explorers to add more thrill when trying out new acrobatic sex positions that certainly can give proper scaffolding leading to a snuggling steamy love sessions.
www.adameve.com/adult-sex-toys/kinky-bondage/bondage-sex-...
Adam and Eve Triple Guarantee
No Hassle 90 Days Return
Discreet Billing and Shipping
Money Back Guarantee
The Postcard
A postcard bearing no publisher's name that was posted using a 2d. stamp in Weymouth, Dorset on Thursday the 4th. July 1957 to:
Miss Doswell,
77 Ryedale,
East Dulwich,
London SE.
The message on the divided back of the card was as follows:
"Dear Miss Doswell,
We are having a nice
holiday. We had a bad
storm on Tuesday night -
thunder and lightning
all night.
Nice yesterday and
today again.
We hope you are keeping
well.
We have just had a boat
trip around Portland
Harbour.
Best wishes,
Mr. & Mrs. Voak."
Weymouth
Weymouth is a seaside town in Dorset, England, situated on a sheltered bay at the mouth of the River Wey on the English Channel coast. The town is 11 kilometres (7 mi) south of Dorchester and 8 kilometres (5 mi) north of the Isle of Portland. The town's population in 2011 was 52,300.
Weymouth is a tourist resort, and its economy depends on its harbour and visitor attractions; the town is a gateway situated halfway along the Jurassic Coast, a World Heritage Site on the Dorset and east Devon coast, important for its geology and landforms.
Weymouth Harbour has provided a berth for cross-channel ferries, and is home to pleasure boats and private yachts, and nearby Portland Harbour is home to the Weymouth and Portland National Sailing Academy, where the sailing events of the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games were held.
The history of the borough stretches back to the 12th century; including involvement in the spread of the Black Death, the settlement of the Americas, the development of Georgian architecture, and a major departure point for the Normandy Landings.
Greenhill Gardens
Greenhill Gardens in the Greenhill suburb of Weymouth is a public garden positioned at the edge of the town centre, sloping up from the beach and promenade.
The Gardens were originally part of the Wilton Estate and were handed over as a gift to the local council in 1902 for 'the benefit of the inhabitants of Weymouth.'
Bennett's Shelter
Within the gardens, Bennett's Shelter, a benevolent donation made by Mayor V. H. Bennett, was constructed in 1919. The original shelter had lower wooden sections that have since been replaced by Portland stone walling, whilst the upper timber structure and tiled roof are essentially in their original form. The shelter continues to provide shelter to today's visitors.
The Schneider Trophy Weathervane
The Schneider Trophy weathervane is a memorial to the former Weymouth College student, Lieutenant George Stainforth, who set a world record air speed in a Schneider Supermarine S6B seaplane in 1931. The weather vane was originally presented to Weymouth College in 1932 as a memorial to Stainforth. Made of hardwood and covered in a copper sheath, the vane was erected above Weymouth College chapel in 1932, but moved for safety at the start of World War II.
The weathervane was later presented to the Borough Council and placed in the gardens in May 1952. In 1996, the vane had to be taken down after the effects of years of sea spray and coastal winds had taken their toll; however it was restored in 1999 by a local marine engineer.
The Floral Clock
In 1936, a floral clock with a cuckoo type chime was built by Ritchie & Sons of Edinburgh. The Company also designed the famous floral clock in Princes Street Garden in Edinburgh.
It features an adjacent clock house, holding the original mechanism that keeps the clock ticking. The clock house has two holes in the side where the noise of a cuckoo comes out.
Since its creation, it has become one of the most popular features of the gardens.
The Wishing Well
In the late 1980's, a wishing well, donated by Melcombe Regis Rotary Club, was introduced into the lower gardens, and any monies thrown into the well are collected and presented to a local charity.
The Tennis Courts
In 2006, the council were considering plans to erect a large restaurant on the tennis courts in the Gardens. This plan was received with almost universal dismay, and was subsequently shelved.
The Floral Bedding Design
Each year a large crescent shaped bed is given over to a charity or organisation which is celebrating a significant anniversary. The Gardeners painstakingly plant out thousands of tiny bedding plants, and where necessary, use coloured gravel to replicate the selected organisation's logo.
Eleanor Boucher
The gardens were highlighted on national news in the summer of 2009 when pensioner Eleanor Boucher from Glastonbury, Somerset, found a postcard from Weymouth on her doormat of the gardens.
After looking at it for a few moments she realised she was there - sunning herself in the picture taken 17 years before as a photographer snapped the shot for the postcard as Boucher and her two daughters enjoyed a family day trip to Weymouth in 1992.
Seventeen years later, her brother-in-law and his wife, who were visiting the resort, picked out the postcard by chance without noticing her in the picture.
Jenny Seagrove
So what else happened on the day that the card was posted?
Well, the 4th. July 1957 marked the birth of the English actress Jenny Seagrove.
She trained at the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, and first came to attention in the film Local Hero (1983), as well as playing the lead in a television dramatisation of Barbara Taylor Bradford's A Woman of Substance (1984).
Jenny starred in the thriller Appointment with Death (1988) and William Friedkin's horror film The Guardian (1990). She later played Louisa Gould in Another Mother's Son (2017).
Jenny is known for her role as the character of Jo Mills in the long-running BBC drama series Judge John Deed (2001–07). Her credits as a voiceover artist include a series of Waitrose television advertisements.
-- Jenny Seagrove - The Early Years
Jenny was born in Kuala Lumpur, Malaya (now Malaysia) to British parents, Pauline and Derek Seagrove. Her father ran an import-export firm, which afforded the family a privileged lifestyle.
When Seagrove was less than a year old, her mother suffered a stroke, and was unable to care for her. Seagrove attended St. Hilary's School in Godalming, Surrey, from the age of nine.
After leaving school, Seagrove attended the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School, in spite of her parents' wishes for her to have a career as a professional cook.
Seagrove developed bulimia in her early adulthood, but recovered:
"I could feel myself tearing my stomach,
and I kind of pulled out of it. It was a
very slow process."
-- Jenny Seagrove's Career
(a) Theatre
Seagrove's theatre work includes the title role in Jane Eyre at the Chichester Festival Theatre (1986); Ilona in The Guardsman at Theatr Clwyd (1992); and Bett in King Lear in New York, again at Chichester (1992).
Jenny played opposite Tom Conti in Present Laughter at the Globe Theatre (1993); Annie Sullivan in The Miracle Worker at the Comedy Theatre (1994); and Dead Guilty with Hayley Mills at the Apollo Theatre (1995).
She played in Hurlyburly for the Peter Hall Company when the production transferred from the London Old Vic to the Queen's Theatre (1997); co-starred with Martin Shaw in the Parisian thriller Vertigo (Theatre Royal Windsor October 1998) and then with Anthony Andrews (also Windsor, 1998).
In 2000 she appeared in Brief Encounter at the Lyric Theatre; followed by Neil Simon's The Female Odd Couple at the Apollo (2001). Again at the Lyric Theatre in 2002 she played the title role in Somerset Maugham's The Constant Wife, followed by a revival of David Hare's The Secret Rapture in 2003, and The Night of the Iguana two years later in 2005.
Coming to the West End from a UK tour, she played Leslie Crosbie in Maugham's The Letter at Wyndham's Theatre (2007), co-starring with Anthony Andrews.
In December 2007, Jenny played Marion Brewster-Wright in the Garrick Theatre revival of Alan Ayckbourn's dark, three-act comedy Absurd Person Singular.
In 2008, she and Martin Shaw starred in Murder on Air, at the Theatre Royal, Windsor.
In 2011, Jenny once again starred alongside Martin Shaw in The Country Girl at the Apollo Theatre, playing the part of Georgie Elgin.
In early 2014, she appeared as Julia in a revival of Noël Coward's Fallen Angels. The production was produced by her partner Bill Kenwright, and also starred Sara Crowe.
In 2015, she and Martin Shaw starred in an adaptation of Brief Encounter, using an original radio script from 1947 and staged as "A live broadcast from a BBC radio studio", at the Theatre Royal Windsor.
Returning to the West End in October 2017, Seagrove played Chris MacNeil in The Exorcist at the Phoenix Theatre.
(b) Film
Jenny Seagrove starred alongside Rupert Everett in the Academy Award-winning short film A Shocking Accident (1982), directed by James Scott. Her first major film appearance was in Local Hero (1983) in which she played a mysterious environmentalist with webbed feet.
Roles in a number of films including Savage Islands (1983) opposite Tommy Lee Jones, and Appointment with Death (1988) followed.
One of her lead starring roles was in The Guardian (1990), directed by William Friedkin, in which she played an evil babysitter.
In 2017, she played the lead role in Another Mother's Son, starring as Louisa Gould, a member of the Channel Islands resistance movement during World War II, who famously sheltered an escaped Russian slave worker in Jersey and was later gassed to death in 1945 at Ravensbrück concentration camp.
(c) Television
Seagrove first came to mass public attention in the 10-episode series of the BBC production Diana (1984) adapted from an R. F. Delderfield novel, in which she played the title role as the adult Diana Gaylord-Sutton (the child having been played in the first two episodes by Patsy Kensit).
Seagrove starred in two American-produced television miniseries based upon the first novels of Barbara Taylor Bradford: as Emma Harte in A Woman of Substance (1984) and Paula Fairley in Hold the Dream (1986).
Jenny portrayed stage actress Lillie Langtry in Incident at Victoria Falls (1992), a UK made-for-television film. As the female lead, Melanie James in the film Magic Moments (1989), she starred with John Shea, who played the magician Troy Gardner with whom she falls in love.
Seagrove, along with Simon Cowell, presented Wildlife SOS (1997), a documentary series about the work of dedicated animal lovers who save injured and orphaned wild animals brought into their sanctuary.
Most of Seagrove's filmed work since 1990 has been for television. Between 2001 and 2007, she appeared as QC Jo Mills in the series Judge John Deed. She was the subject of This Is Your Life in 2003 when she was surprised by Michael Aspel.
With John Thaw she guest starred in the episode "The Sign of Four" (1987) of the series Sherlock Holmes. She also guest starred in episodes of Lewis ("The Point of Vanishing", 2009) and Identity ("Somewhere They Can't Find Me", 2010).
A few years later, she appeared in the series Endeavour (the prequel to the Inspector Morse series), in the episode "Rocket" (2013).
-- Jenny Seagrove's Personal Life
Seagrove is an animal rights activist and an advocate for deregulation of the herbal remedy industry in the United Kingdom, and promotes a vegetarian diet.
Since 1994, her partner has been the theatrical producer Bill Kenwright, chairman of Everton F.C. The couple appeared together as contestants on a charity edition of ITV1's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, winning £1,000. They also appeared together on a celebrity edition of the BBC's Pointless which aired on 3 January 2014.
Seagrove was previously married to British and Indian actor Madhav Sharma from 1984 to 1988, and then dated film director Michael Winner from 1989 until 1993.
-- Mane Chance Sanctuary
Mane Chance Sanctuary is a registered charity that provides care for rescued horses, based in Compton, Guildford. The charity aims:
"To provide sanctuary and relief from suffering
for horses, while promoting humane behaviour
to all animals and mutually beneficial relationships
with people who need them".
Mane Chance Sanctuary was established in 2011 by Seagrove, who stepped in to support a friend facing financial difficulties. Seagrove was able to secure land on Monkshatch Garden Farm, and has since grown the charity which today cares for over 30 horses using a unique system of equine welfare.
The charity's trustees include the actor Sir Timothy Ackroyd and the philanthropist Simrin Choudhrie. The chairman is James McCarthy.
In 2014, she performed a duet alongside singer Peter Howarth called The Main Chance, as part of a promotion for the Mane Chance Sanctuary.
Lonnie Donegan
Also on that day, the Number One chart hit record in the UK was 'Gambling Man' by Lonnie Donegan.
Lonnie Donegan
Also on that day, the Number One chart hit record in the UK was 'Gambling Man' by Lonnie Donegan.
Anthony James Donegan MBE, who was born in Bridgeton, Glasgow, on the 29th. April 1931, was known as Lonnie Donegan. He was a British skiffle singer, songwriter and musician, referred to as the "King of Skiffle", who influenced 1960's British pop and rock musicians.
Born in Scotland and brought up in England, Donegan began his career in the British trad jazz revival, but transitioned to skiffle in the mid-1950's, rising to prominence with a hit recording of the American folk song "Rock Island Line" which helped spur the broader UK skiffle movement.
Donegan had 31 UK top 30 hit singles, 24 were successive hits and three were number one. He was the first British male singer with two US top 10 hits.
Donegan received an Ivor Novello lifetime achievement award in 1995, and in 2000 he was awarded an MBE. Donegan was a pivotal figure in the British Invasion due to his influence in the US in the late 1950's.
-- Lonnie Donegan and Traditional Jazz
As a child growing up in the early 1940's, Donegan listened mostly to swing jazz and vocal acts, and became interested in the guitar.
Country & western and blues records, particularly by Frank Crumit and Josh White, attracted his interest, and he bought his first guitar at 14 in 1945.
He learned songs such as "Frankie and Johnny", "Puttin' on the Style", and "The House of the Rising Sun" by listening to BBC radio broadcasts. By the end of the 1940's he was playing guitar around London and visiting small jazz clubs.
Donegan first played in a major band after Chris Barber heard that he was a good banjo player and, on a train, asked him to audition. Donegan had never played the banjo, but he bought one for the audition, and succeeded more on personality than talent.
Lonnie's stint with Barber's trad jazz band was interrupted when he was called up for National Service in 1949, but while in the army at Southampton, he was the drummer in Ken Grinyer's Wolverines Jazz Band at a local pub.
A posting to Vienna brought him into contact with American troops, and access to US records and the American Forces Network radio station.
In 1952, he formed the Tony Donegan Jazzband, which played around London. On the 28th. June 1952 at the Royal Festival Hall they opened for the blues musician Lonnie Johnson.
Donegan adopted Lonnie's first name as a tribute. He used the name at a concert at the Royal Albert Hall on the 2nd. June 1952.
In 1953, after cornetist Ken Colyer was imprisoned in New Orleans over a visa problem, he returned to Great Britain and joined Chris Barber's band. The band's name was changed to Ken Colyer's Jazzmen before making their first public appearance on the 11th. April 1953 in Copenhagen.
The following day, Chris Albertson recorded Ken Colyer's Jazzmen and the Monty Sunshine Trio—Sunshine, Barber, and Donegan—for Storyville Records. These were amongst Donegan's first commercial recordings.
-- Lonnie Donegan and Skiffle
While in Ken Colyer's Jazzmen with Chris Barber, Donegan sang and played guitar and banjo in their Dixieland set.
He began playing with two other band members during the intervals, to provide what posters called a "skiffle" break, a name suggested by Ken Colyer's brother, Bill, after the Dan Burley Skiffle Group of the 1930's. In 1954 Colyer left, and the band became Chris Barber's Jazz Band.
With a washboard, tea-chest bass, and a cheap Spanish guitar, Donegan played folk and blues songs by artists such as Lead Belly and Woody Guthrie.
This proved popular, and in July 1954 he recorded a fast version of Lead Belly's "Rock Island Line", featuring a washboard but not a tea-chest bass, with "John Henry" on the B-side.
The record was a hit in 1956, but because it was a band recording, Donegan made no money beyond his session fee. It was the first debut record to go gold in the UK, and it reached the Top Ten in the United States. It also later inspired the creation of a full album, An Englishman Sings American Folk Songs, released in America on the Mercury label in the early 1960's.
The Acoustic Music organisation made this comment about Donegan's "Rock Island Line":
"It flew up the English charts. Donegan had
synthesized American southern blues with simple
acoustic instruments: acoustic guitar, washtub bass,
and washboard rhythm. The new style was called
'Skiffle'.... and referred to music from people with
little money for instruments. The new style captivated
an entire generation of post-war youth in England."
Lonnie's next single for Decca, "Diggin' My Potatoes", was recorded at a concert at the Royal Festival Hall on the 30th. October 1954.
Decca dropped Donegan thereafter, but within a month he was at the Abbey Road Studios in London recording for EMI's Columbia label. He had left the Barber band, and by the spring of 1955, had signed a recording contract with Pye.
Lonnie's next single "Lost John" reached No. 2 in the UK Singles Chart.
He appeared on television in the United States on the Perry Como Show and the Paul Winchell Show.
Returning to the UK, he recorded his debut album, Lonnie Donegan Showcase, in summer 1956, with songs by Lead Belly and Leroy Carr, plus "Ramblin' Man" and "Wabash Cannonball". The LP sold hundreds of thousands of copies.
The skiffle style encouraged amateurs, and one of many groups that followed was the Quarrymen, formed in March 1957 by John Lennon. Donegan's "Gamblin' Man"/"Puttin' On the Style" single was number one in the UK in July 1957, when Lennon first met Paul McCartney.
Lonnie's Skiffle rendition of Hank Snow's Country song "Nobody's Child" was also the inspiration for Tony Sheridan's blues version which he recorded with the Beatles as his backing band.
Donegan went on to successes such as "Cumberland Gap" and "Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavour on the Bedpost Overnight?", which was his biggest hit in the US.
Lonnie turned to music hall style with "My Old Man's a Dustman" in 1960. This was not well received by skiffle fans, and unsuccessful in America, but it reached number one in the UK.
Donegan's group had a flexible line-up, but was generally Denny Wright or Les Bennetts playing lead guitar and singing harmony, Micky Ashman or Pete Huggett—later Steve Jones—on upright bass, Nick Nichols—later Pete Appleby, Mark Goodwin, and Ken Rodway on drums or percussion, and Donegan playing acoustic guitar or banjo and singing the lead.
His last hit single on the UK chart was his cover version of "Pick a Bale of Cotton." Ironically, or perhaps appropriately, his fall from the chart coincided with the rise of The Beatles and the other beat music performers whom he inspired.
-- Lonnie Donegan's Later Career
Donegan recorded sporadically throughout the 1960's, including sessions at Hickory Records in Nashville with Charlie McCoy, Floyd Cramer, and the Jordanaires. After 1964 he was a record producer at Pye Records. Justin Hayward was one of the artists with whom he worked.
Donegan was not popular through the late 1960's and 1970's (although his "I'll Never Fall in Love Again" was recorded by Tom Jones in 1967 and Elvis Presley in 1976), and he began to play the American cabaret circuit.
A departure from his normal style was a cappella recording of "The Party's Over". Capella means a purely vocal recording with no musical backing.
Donegan reunited with the original Chris Barber band for a concert in Croydon in June 1975. A bomb scare meant that the recording had to be finished in the studio, after an impromptu concert in the car park. The release was titled The Great Re-Union Album.
He collaborated with Rory Gallagher on several songs, notably "Rock Island Line" with Gallagher performing most of the elaborate guitar work.
Lonnie had his first heart attack in 1976 while in the United States, necessitating quadruple bypass surgery. He returned to prominence in 1978 when he recorded his early songs with Rory Gallagher, Ringo Starr, Elton John, and Brian May. The album was called Putting on the Style.
A follow-up featuring Albert Lee saw Donegan in less familiar country and western vein.
By 1980, he was making regular concert appearances again, and another album with Barber followed. In 1983, Donegan toured with Billie Jo Spears, and in 1984 he made his theatrical debut in a revival of the 1920 musical Mr Cinders.
More concert tours followed, with a move from Florida to Spain. In 1992 Lonnie had further bypass surgery following another heart attack.
In 1994, the Chris Barber band celebrated 40 years with a tour with both bands. Pat Halcox was still on trumpet (a position he retained until July 2008).
Donegan had a late renaissance when in 2000 he appeared on Van Morrison's album The Skiffle Sessions – Live in Belfast 1998, an acclaimed album featuring him singing with Morrison and Chris Barber, with a guest appearance by Dr John.
Donegan also played at the Glastonbury Festival in 1999, and was made an MBE in 2000.
Donegan also appeared at Fairport Convention's annual music festival on the 9th. August 2001. His final CD was This Yere de Story.
-- Peter Donegan
Peter Donegan started touring as his father's pianist when he was aged 18. In 2019, Peter appeared on the show The Voice as a contestant, and dueted with Tom Jones with a song Lonnie had written for Tom, "I'll Never Fall in Love Again". Anthony Donegan also performs under the name, Lonnie Donegan Jr.
-- Lonnie Donegan's Private Life and Death
Donegan was the son of an Irish mother (Mary Josephine Deighan) and a Scots father (Peter John Donegan), a professional violinist who had played with the Scottish National Orchestra.
In 1933, when Donegan was aged 2, the family moved to East Ham in Essex. Donegan was evacuated to Cheshire to escape the Blitz in the Second World War, and attended St. Ambrose College in Hale Barns. He lived for a while on Chiswick Mall in Middlesex.
Donegan married three times. He had two daughters (Fiona and Corrina) with his first wife, Maureen Tyler (divorced 1962), a son and a daughter (Anthony and Juanita) with his second wife, Jill Westlake (divorced 1971), and three sons (Peter, David and Andrew) with his third wife, Sharon whom he married in 1977.
Lonnie Donegan died on the 3rd. November 2002, aged 71, after having a heart attack in Market Deeping, Lincolnshire mid-way through a UK tour. He died before he was due to perform at a memorial concert for George Harrison with the Rolling Stones.
-- The Legacy of Lonnie Donegan
Mark Knopfler released a tribute to Lonnie Donegan titled "Donegan's Gone" on his 2004 album, Shangri-La, and said that Lonnie was one of his greatest influences.
Donegan's music formed a musical starring his two sons. It was called Lonnie D – the musical took its name from the Chas & Dave tribute song which started the show.
Subsequently, Peter Donegan formed a band to perform his father's material, and has since linked with his father's band from the last 30 years with newcomer Eddie Masters on bass.
They made an album together in 2009 titled Here We Go Again. Lonnie Donegan's eldest son, Anthony, also formed his own band, as Lonnie Donegan Junior, who also performed "World Cup Willie" for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa.
On his album A Beach Full of Shells, Al Stewart paid tribute to Donegan in the song "Katherine of Oregon". In "Class of '58" he describes a British entertainer who is either Donegan or a composite including him.
In a 2023 video interview with Steve Houk, Al Stewart stated:
"'Rock Island Line' is a record that completely
changed the complexion of English society,
and changed my life and everybody else's".
Peter Sellers recorded Puttin' on the Smile featuring "Lenny Goonagain", who travels to the "Deep South" of Brighton and finds an "obscure folk song hidden at the top of the American hit parade", re-records it and reaches number one in the UK.
David Letterman pretended to try to remember Jimmy Fallon's name during the Tonight Show conflict between Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien, calling Fallon "Lonnie Donegan."
In the 2019 movie Judy, the actor John Dagleish portrays Lonnie Donegan, who replaces an ill Judy Garland. He is shown in the (entirely fictional) final scene generously allowing her to make one last appearance on stage.
-- Quotations Relating to Lonnie Donegan
"He was the first person we had heard of from
Britain to get to the coveted No. 1 in the charts,
and we studied his records avidly. We all bought
guitars to be in a skiffle group. He was the man."
– Paul McCartney
"He really was at the very cornerstone of English
blues and rock."
– Brian May.
"I wanted to be Elvis Presley when I grew up,
I knew that. But the man who really made me
feel like I could actually go out and do it was
a chap by the name of Lonnie Donegan."
– Roger Daltrey
"Remember, Lonnie Donegan started it
for you."
– Jack White's acceptance speech at
the Brit Awards.
-- Final Thoughts From Lonnie Donegan
"I'm trying to sing acceptable folk music. I want to
widen the audience beyond the artsy-craftsy crowd
and the pseudo intellectuals–but without distorting
the music itself." NME – June 1956
"You know in my little span of life I've come across
such a sea of bigotries and prejudices. I get so fed
up with it now. I feel I have to do something about it."
- BBC Panorama
"In Britain, we were separated from our folk music
tradition centuries ago, and were imbued with the
idea that music was for the upper classes. You had
to be very clever to play music. When I came along
with the old three chords, people began to think
that if I could do it, so could they. It was the
reintroduction of the folk music bridge which did
that." – Interview, 2002.
The famous Dendera Zodiac ceiling, or rather a cast of the original (now in the Egyptian collection at the Louvre, Paris) set in its former position in one of the roof chapels at Dendera Temple.
The Temple of Hathor at Dendera is one of Egypt's best preserved and most beautiful ancient shrines. This magnificent edifice dates to the Ptolemaic period, late in Egyptian history, though the site long had been the cult centre for the goddess Hathor for centuries before (the earliest extant remains date to c360BC but a temple is recorded here as far back as c2250BC). Most of the main building dates to the reigns of the last Cleopatras and further decoration and building work within the complex continued in the Roman period up to the reign of Trajan.
The dominant structure in the complex is the Temple of Hathor, an enormous structure with a rectangular facade punctuated by the Hathor-headed columns of the hypostyle hall within. This hall is an architectural wonder, a masterpiece of ancient Egyptian design and decoration, which covers every surface and has been recently cleaned, revealing a superb astrological ceiling in all its original vibrant colours.
Sadly there was much iconoclasm here during the early Christian period and most of the reliefs of the walls and pillars have been defaced. Worse still is the damage to the 24 Hathor-head capitals: not one of the nearly a hundred huge faces of the goddess that once smiled down on this hall has been left unblemished, most with their features cruelly chiselled away.
The main temple building is otherwise structurally intact, and extends into further halls and chapels beyond, again with much relief decoration (much of which is again defaced). In one corner is an entrance to a crypt below, an unusual feature in Egyptian temple architecture consisting of several narrow passages adorned with carved relief decoration in good condition.
There are further sanctuaries and chapels above on the roof of the temple, accessed by a decorated staircase and including the room where the famous Dendera Zodiac was formerly located (today its place in the ceiling taken by a cast of the original, now displayed in Paris). The highest part of the roof complex is no longer accessible to tourists, but I can still recall making the ascent there on our first visit in 1992.
Several other buildings surround the main temple, the most impressive of which is the mammisi or 'birth-house'. This consists of a large rectangluar hall surrounded by a colonnade near the entrance to the site and has some well preserved relief decoration on its exterior. Most of this structure dates to the Roman period, but the ruins of its predecessor built under Nectanebo II (Egypt's last native pharoah) stand nearby.
Dendera temple is one of the most rewarding in Egypt and shouldn't be missed. It is one of the most complete and evocative ancient monuments in the country and its recent restoration has revealed a surprisingly extensive amount of colour surviving within (we were amazed by the dramatic contrast with the soot-blackened ceiling we'd beheld on our previous visit in the 1990s). Despite its relative youth (in Egyptian terms at least!) it is easily one of my favourite sites in Egypt.
There are three Ashfords, really. The modern newtown, Swindonesque newbuilds stretching into the countryside; the Victorian railway town, all neat rows of brick buit houses and the station, and then there is the old town, timber-framed houses along narrow lanes, with St Mary standing towering above all but the modern office blocks.
The west end church was given over to a Christmas Fayre, but is also used now as a concert venue, while under the tower westwards is still in use as a church, with many of its ancient features left alone by the Victorians.
-------------------------------------------
A stately church in a good position set away from the hustle and bustle of this cosmopolitan town. The very narrow tower of 1475 is not visually satisfactory when viewed from a distance but its odd proportions are hardly noticed when standing at its base. The church is very much the product of the families who have been associated with it over the centuries and who are commemorated by monuments within. They include the Fogges and the Smythes. The former is supposed to have wanted to create a college of priests here, but by the late fifteenth century such foundations were going out of fashion and the remodelling of the church undertaken by Sir John Fogge may have just been a philanthropic cause. Unusually, when the church was restored in 1860 the architect Ewan Christian kept the galleries (he usually swept them away), but Christ Church had yet to be built and the population of this growing town would have needed all the accommodation it could get. Even in 1851 1000 people had attended the church in a single sitting. The pulpit, designed by Pearson, was made in 1897.
www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Ashford+1
------------------------------------------
THE TOWN AND PARISH OF ASHFORD
LIES the next adjoining to Hothfield eastward. It is called in Domesday both Estefort and Essetesford, and in other antient records, Eshetisford, taking its name from the river, which runs close to it, which, Lambarde says, ought not to be called the Stour, till it has passed this town, but Eshe or Eschet, a name which has been for a great length of time wholly forgotten; this river being known, even from its first rise at Lenham hither, by the name of the Stour only.
A small part only of this parish, on the east, south and west sides of it, containing the borough of Henwood, alias Hewit, lying on the eastern or further side of the river from the town, part of which extends into the parish of Wilsborough, and the whole of it within the liberty of the manor of Wye, and the borough of Rudlow, which adjoins to Kingsnoth and Great Chart, are in this hundred of Chart and Longbridge; such part of the borough of Rudlow as lies adjoining to Kingsnoth, is said to lie in in jugo de Beavor, or the yoke of Beavor, and is divided from the town and liberty by the river, near a place called Pollbay; in which yoke there is both a hamlet and a green or common, of the name of Beavor; the remainder of the parish having been long separated from it, and made a distinct liberty, or jurisdiction of itself, having a constable of its own, and distinguished by the name of the liberty of the town of Ashford.
ASHFORD, at the time of taking the general survey of Domesday, was part of the possessions of Hugo de Montfort, who had accompanied the Conqueror hither, and was afterwards rewarded with this estate, among many others in different counties; in which record it is thus entered, under the general title of his lands:
¶Maigno holds of Hugo (de Montfort) Estefort. Turgisus held it of earl Godwin, and it is taxed at one suling. The arable land is half a carucate. There is nevertheless in demesne one carucate, and two villeins having one carucate. There are two servants, and eight acres of meadow. In the time of king Edward the Confessor, it was worth twenty five shillings; when he received it, twenty shillings; now thirty shilling.
The same Hugo holds Essela. Three tenants held it of king Edward, and could go whither they would with their lands. It was taxed at three yokes. The arable land is one carucate and an half. There are now four villeins, with two borderers having one carucate, and six acres of meadow. The whole, in the reign of king Edward the Confessor, was worth twenty shillings, and afterwards fifteen shillings, now twenty shillings.
Maigno held another Essetisford of the same Hugo. Wirelm held it of king Edward. It was taxed at one suling. The arable land is four carucates. In demesne there are two, and two villeins, with fifteen borderers having three carucates. There is a church, and a priest, and three servants, and two mills of ten shillings and two pence. In the time of king Edward the Confessor it was worth seventy shillings, and afterwards sixty shillings, now one hundred shillings.
Robert de Montfort, grandson of Hugh abovementioned, favouring the title of Robert Curthose, in opposition to king Henry I. to avoid being called in question upon that account, obtained leave to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, leaving his possessions to the king; by which means this manor came into the hands of the crown. Soon after which it seems to have come into the possession of a family, who took their name from it. William de Asshetesford appears by the register of Horton priory to have been lord of it, and to have been succeeded by another of the same name. After which the family of Criol became owners of it, by whom it was held by knight's service of the king, in capite, by ward to Dover castle, and the repair of a tower in that castle, called the Ashford tower. (fn. 1) Simon de Criol, in the 27th and 28th year of Henry III. obtained a charter of free warren for this manor, whose son William de Criol passed it away to Roger de Leyborne, for Stocton, in Huntingdonshire, and Rumford, in Essex. William de Leyborne his son, in the 7th year of king Edward I. claimed and was allowed the privilege of a market here, before the justices itinerant. He died possessed of this manor in the 3d year of Edward II. leaving his grand-daughter Juliana, daughter of Thomas de Leyborne, who died in his father's life-time, heir both to her grandfather and father's possessions, from the greatness of which she was stiled the Infanta of Kent, (fn. 2) though thrice married, yet she died s. p. by either of her husbands, all of whom she survived, and died in the 41st year of Edward III. Upon which this manor, among the rest of her estates, escheated to the crown, and continued there till king Richard II. vested it, among others, in feoffees, for the performance of certain religious bequests by the will of king Edward III. then lately deceased; and they, in compliance with it, soon afterwards, with the king's licence, purchased this manor, with those of Wall, and Esture, of the crown, towards the endowment of St. Stephen's chapel, in the king's palace of Westminster, all which was confirmed by king Henry IV. and VI. and by king Edward IV. in their first years; the latter of whom, in his 7th year, granted to them a fair in this town yearly, on the feast of St. John Port Latin, together with all liberties, and to have a steward to hold the court of it, &c. In which situation they continued till the 1st year of Edward VI. when this collegiate chapel was, with all its possessions, surrendered into the king's hands, where these manors did not continue long; for that king, in his 3d year, granted the manor of Esshetford, with that of Wall, and the manor of Esture, to Sir Anthony Aucher, of Otterden, to hold in capite; and he, in the 2d and 3d of Philip and Mary, sold them to Sir Andrew Judde, of London, whose daughter and at length heir Alice, afterwards carried them in marriage to Thomas Smith, esq. of Westenhanger, commonly called the Customer, who died possessed of them in 1591, and lies buried in the south cross of this church, having had several sons and daughters, of, whom Sir John Smythe, of Ostenhanger, the eldest, succeeded him here, and was sheriff anno 42 Elizabeth. Sir Thomas Smith, the second son, was of Bidborough and Sutton at Hone, and ambassador to Russia, of whom and his descendants, notice has been taken in the former volumes of this history; (fn. 3) and Henry, the third son, was of Corsham, in Wiltshire, whence this family originally descended, and Sir Richard Smith, the fourth, was of Leeds castle. Sir John Smythe, above-mentioned, died in 1609, and lies buried in the same vault as his father in this church, leaving one son Sir Thomas Smythe, of Westenhanger, K. B. who was in 1628 created Viscount Strangford, of Ireland, whose grandson Philip, viscount Strangford, dying about 1709, Henry Roper, lord Teynham, who had married Catherine his eldest daughter, by his will, became possessed of the manors of Ashford, Wall, and Esture. By her, who died in 1711, he had two sons, Philip and Henry, successively lords Teynham; notwithstanding which, having the uncontrolled power in these manors vested in him, he, on his marriage with Anne, second daughter and coheir of Thomas Lennard, earl of Sussex, and widow of Richard Barrett Lennard, esq. afterwards baroness Dacre, settled them on her and her issue by him in tail male. He died in 1623, and left her surviving, and possessed of these manors for her life. She afterwards married the hon. Robert Moore, and died in 1755. She had by lord Teynham two sons, Charles and Richard-Henry, (fn. 4) Charles Roper, the eldest son, died in 1754 intestate, leaving two sons, Trevor-Charles and Henry, who on their mother's death became entitled to these manors, as coheirs in gavelkind, a recovery having been suffered of them, limiting them after her death to Charles Roper their father, in tail male; but being infants, and there being many incumbrances on these estates, a bill was exhibited in chancery, and an act procured anno 29 George II. for the sale of them; and accordingly these manors were sold, under the direction of that court, in 1765, to the Rev. Francis Hender Foote, of Bishopsborne, who in 1768 parted with the manor of Wall, alias Court at Wall, to John Toke, esq. of Great Chart, whose son Nicholas Roundell Toke, is the present possessor of it; but he died possessed of the manors of Ashford and Esture in 1773, and was succeeded in them by his eldest son John Foote, esq. now of Bishopsborne, the present owner of them. There are several copyhold lands held of the manor of Ashford. A court leet and court baron is regularly held for it.
THE TOWN OF ASHFORD stands most pleasant and healthy, on the knoll of a hill, of a gentle ascent on every side, the high road from Hythe to Maidstone passing through it, from which, in the middle of the town, the high road branches off through a pleasant country towards Canterbury. The houses are mostly modern and well-built, and the high-street, which has been lately new paved, is of considerable width. The markethouse stands in the centre of it, and the church and school on the south side of it, the beautiful tower of the former being a conspicuous object to the adjoining country. It is a small, but neat and chearful town, and many of the inhabitants of a genteel rank in life. Near the market place, is the house of the late Dr. Isaac Rutton, a physician of long and extensive practice in these parts, being the eldest son of Matthias Rutton, gent of this town, by Sarah his wife, daughter of Sir N. Toke, of Godinton. He died in 1792, bearing for his arms, Parted per fess, azure, and or, three unicorns heads, couped at the neck, counterchanged; since which, his eldest son, Isaac Rutton, esq. now of Ospringeplace, has sold this house to Mr. John Basil Duckworth, in whom it is now vested. In the midst of it is a large handsome house, built in 1759, by John Mascall, gent. who resided in it, and died possessed of it in 1769, and was buried in Boughton Aluph church, bearing for his arms, Barry of two, or, and azure, three inescutcheons, ermine; and his only son, Robert Mascall, esq. now of Ashford, who married the daughter of Jeremiah Curteis, esq. is the present owner, and resides in it. At the east end of the town is a seat, called Brooke-place, formerly possessed by the family of Woodward, who were always stiled, in antient deeds, gentlemen, and bore for their arms, Argent, a chevron, sable, between three grasshoppers, or; the last of them, Mr. John Woodward, gent. rebuilt this seat, and died possessed of it in 1757; of whose heirs it was purchased by Martha, widow of Moyle Breton, esq. of Kennington, whose two sons, the Rev. Moyle Breton, and Mr. Whitfield Breton, gent. alienated it to Josias Pattenson, esq. the second son of Mr. Josias Pattenson, of Biddenden, by Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Felix Kadwell, esq. of Rolvenden; he married Mary, daughter of Mr. Henry Dering, gent. of this parish, and widow of Mr. John Mascall above-mentioned, by whom he has no issue, and he is the present owner of this seat, and resides in it. There have been barracks erected lately here, which at present contain 4000 soldiers. The market is held on a Saturday weekly, for the sale of corn, which is now but little used; and a market for the sale of all sorts of fat and lean stock on the first and third Tuesday in every month, which has been of great use to prevent monopolies. Two fairs are annually held now, by the alteration of the stile, on May 17, and Sept. 9, and another on Oct. 24; besides which, there is an annual fair for wool on August 2, not many years since instituted and encouraged by the principal gentry and landholders, which promises to prove of the greatest utility and benefit to the fair sale of it. That branch of the river Stour which rises at Lenham, runs along the southern part of this parish, and having turned a corn mill belonging to the lord of this manor, continues its course close at the east end of the town, where there is a stone bridge of four arches, repaired at the expence of the county, and so on northwards towards Wye and Canterbury. On the south side of the river in this parish, next to Kingsnoth, within the borough of Rudlow, is the yoke of Beavor, with the hamlet and farm of that name, possessed in very early times, as appears by the register of Horton priory, by a family of that name, one of whom, John Beavor, was possessed of it in the reign of Henry II. and was descended from one of the same furname, who attended the Conqueror in his expedition hither. The parish contains about 2000 acres of land, and three hundred and twenty houses, the whole rental of it being 4000l. per annum; the inhabitants are 2000, of which about one hundred are diffenters. The highways throughout it, which not many years ago were exceeding bad, have been by the unanimity of the inhabitants, which has shewn itself remarkable in all their public improvements, a rare instance in parochial undertakings, and by the great attention to the repairs of them, especially in such parts as were near their own houses, are now excellent. The lands round it are much upon a gravelly soil, though towards the east and south there are some rich fertile pastures, intermixed with arable land, and several plantations of hops; but toward the west, the soil is in general sand, having much quarrystone mixed with it, where there is a great deal of coppice wood, quite to Potter's corner, at the boundary of this parish.
The church, which is dedicated to St. Mary, is a large handsome building, consisting of three isles, with a transept, and three chancels, with the tower in the middle, which is losty and well proportioned, having four pinnacles at the top of it. There are eight bells in it, a set of chimes, and a clock. In the high chancel, on the north side, is the college John Fogge, the founder of the college here, who died in 1490, and his two wives, the brasses of their figures gone; but part of the inscription remains. And formerly, in Weever's time, there hung up in this chancel six atchievements, of those of this family whose burials had been attended by the heralds at arms, and with other ceremonies suitable to their degrees. Underneath the chancel is a large vault, full of the remains of the family. On the pavement in the middle, is a very antient curious gravestone, having on it the figure in brass of a woman, holding in her left hand a banner, with the arms of Ferrers, Six masctes, three and three, in pale; which, with a small part of the inscription round the edge, is all that is remaining; but there was formerly in brass, in her right hand, another banner, with the arms of Valoyns; over her head those of France and England quarterly; and under her feet a shield, being a cross, impaling three chevronels, the whole within a bordure, guttee de sang, and round the edge this inscription, Ici gift Elizabeth Comite D' athels la file sign de Ferrers . . . dieu asoil, qe morust le 22 jour d'octob. can de grace MCCCLXXV. Weever says, she was wife to David de Strabolgie, the fourth of that name, earl of Athol, in Scotland, and daughter of Henry, lord Ferrers, of Groby; and being secondly married to John Malmayns, of this county, died here in this town. Though by a pedigree of the family of Brograve, she is said to marry T. Fogge, esq. of Ashford; if so, he might perhaps have been her third husband. Near her is a memorial for William Whitfield, gent. obt. 1739. The north chancel belonged to Repton manor. In the vault underneath lay three of the family of Tuston, sometime since removed to Rainham, and it has been granted to the Husseys; Thomas Hussey, esq. of this town, died in 1779, and was buried in it. In the south chancel are memorials for the Pattensons, Whitfields, and Apsleys, of this place; and one for Henry Dering, gent. of Shelve, obt. 1752, and Hester his wife; arms, A saltier, a crescent for difference, impaling, on a chevron, between three persons, three crosses, formee; and another memorial for Thomasine, wife of John Handfield, obt. 1704. In the north cross are several antient stones, their brasses all gone, excepting a shield, with the arms of Fogge on one. At the end is a monument for John Norwood, gent. and Mary his wife, of this town, who lie with their children in the vault underneath. The south cross is parted off lengthways, for the family of Smith, lords of Ashford manor, who lie in a vault underneath. In it are three superb monuments, which, not many years since, were beautified and restored to their original state, by the late chief baron Smythe, a descendant of this family. One is for Thomas Smith, esq. of Westenhanger, in 1591; the second for Sir John Smythe, of Ostenhanger, his son, and Elizabeth his wife; and the third for Sir Richard Smyth, of Leeds castle, in 1628: all which have been already mentioned before. Their figures, at full length and proportion, are lying on, each of them, with their several coats of arms and quarterings blazoned. In the other part of this cross, is a memorial for Baptist Pigott, A. M. son of Baptist Pigott, of Dartford, and schoolmaster here, obt. 1657, and at the end of it, is the archbishop's consistory court. In the south isle is a memorial for Thomas Curteis, gent. obt. 1718, and Elizabeth his wife; arms, Curteis impaling Carter. Under the tower is one for Samuel Warren, vicar here forty-eight years, obt. 1720. The three isles were new pewed and handsomely paved in 1745. There are five galleries, and an handsome branch for candles in the middled isle; the whole kept in an excellent state of repair and neatness. There was formerly much curtious painted glass in the windows, particularly the figures of one of the family of Valoyns, his two wives and children, with their arms. In the south window of the cross isle, and in other windows, the figures, kneeling, of king Edward III. the black prince, Richard, duke of Gloucester, the lord Hastings. Sir William Haute, the lord Scales, Richard, earl Rivers, and the dutchess of Bedford his wife, Sir John Fogge, Sir John Peche, Richard Horne, Roger Manstone, and—Guildford, most of which were in the great west window, each habited in their surcoats of arms, not the least traces of which, or of any other coloured glass, are remaining throughout this church. Sir John Goldstone, parson of Ivechurch, as appears by his will in 1503, was buried in the choir of this church, and gave several costly ornaments and vestments for the use of it.
handstand position - A Caucasian woman in her handstand position. To Download this image without watermarks for Free, visit: www.sourcepics.com/free-stock-photography/24740288-handst...
Jennifer and Janet competing in the Judo section at the Australiasian Masters Games held in Adelaide October 6th 2007. They won the Gold Medal.
St Helen is probably my favourite Kent church. At least from the outside. Alternating bands of flints and local stone give it a Christmas Cake effect, but in bright sunshine it looks stunning.
Inside, its no less impressive. Part of the wall paintings survive, as do geometric patterns on some of the supporting columns.
And it is huge, with a fine wooden roof, a replacement after a fire, but still works well, and the fabric of the church seems good.
Everywhere there are fabulous things to find; Aumbries, memorials, and so much more.
And I reeived a warm welcome from the warden who was waiting for visitors. Last time I was here, there was a display of how the estuary airport-cum-Boris Johnson vanity project seemed a real possibility. Now he is back insulting foreigners, and the airport is dead. But a new Thames crossing is being mooted, and it might run across Grain, which would be a shame to have the peace and quiet shattered.
--------------------------------------------------
An absolute knockout of a church. From the first glimpse of the exterior, with its zebra-like stripes of flint and stone, you know that here is a church of great interest. In plan it consists of an aisled nave, transepts, chancel and west tower - all built on a prodigious scale. Although the church was heavily restored on two occasions in the nineteenth century there is still a great deal of interest and a visit here should not be rushed. The pillars of the nave have distinctive 'V' paintings contemporary with their fourteenth-century construction. The pulpit is of 1636 and shows some excellent carved arcading. Attached to it is a contemporary hourglass stand. The north transept has wall paintings depicting the martyrdom of St Edmund, but these were over-touched-up by Professor Tristram in 1932. Further paintings exist in the south transept and probably show the martyrdom of St Margaret. The base of the rood screen is fifteenth century while the rather insubstantial traceried top is an early twentieth-century addition. There is an elaborate tie-beam high in the roof with little quatrefoil piercings in the spandrels, but this could not have supported the rood as the remains of the rood loft staircase may be seen in its usual position. Outside the north chancel wall can be found a piscina and holy water stoup - all that remains of a medieval chantry chapel or anchorite's cell which has been demolished. The blocked-up doorway that originally gave access to it may be seen both inside and out. On the inside south wall of the chancel is one of the finest sedilia in Kent which together with its double piscina dates from the early years of the fourteenth century.
www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Cliffe
----------------------------------------------
THE Church at Cliffe is dedicated to St. Helen and bears the distinction of being the only church in Kent dedicated to that Saint. It stands in a prominent position at the edge of the Hoo peninsula overlooking the extensive marshes which at this point stretch some two miles to the Thames.
The village seems at one time to have been of greater importance than it is to-day. Lambarde describes it as a large town in his day in spite of a disastrous fire which had destroyed many of the houses about 1520, a fire from the effects of which it appears never to have recovered.
The Manor of Cliffe belonged from very early times to the Prior and Convent of Christ Church, Canterbury, who were also the owners of the advowson, and thus became concerned with the upkeep of the church. At the Dissolution the Manor passed to George Brooke, Lord Cobham, though the Archbishop of Canterbury is still the patron of the living. Among the Rectors of Cliffe were several men of distinction, some of whom probably never visited the parish. From an early date there seems to have been a perpetual vicarage attached to the church, but when it became merged in the Rectory is uncertain.
Of the first church at Cliffe there is no definite record. It is sometimes said to have been founded by Offa, king of Mercia, in the latter part of the eighth century, though the only evidence for this appears to be the presumed identification of the place with the Cloveshoo of the Saxon Chronicle, where various synods of the Saxon Church were held in the eighth and ninth centuries. Without attempting to suggest a solution of this very debatable point, it can only be said that the evidence in favour of Cliffe appears to rest on at least as good authority as that of the rival claimants—Abingdon in Berkshire, and Clifton Hoo in Bedfordshire. There is moreover good reason to think that Cliffe was less inaccessible than might be supposed in mediaeval times. There still remain traces of a causeway across Higham Marsh, which must at one time have led to a ferry, thus affording an easy means of approach from Essex and the Midlands.
The earliest undisputed documentary reference to a church at Cliffe is in the Domesday Survey. It was evidently a building of more than usual importance for it is expressly stated that two ministers were in charge. Of this building, however, not a vestige remains, though there can be little doubt that from it the present plan has, on more or less recognised lines, been developed.
The plan as it exists to-day is complete, and consists of a nave with wide aisles, north and south transepts, chancel, western tower and south porch. The church is one of the largest in Kent, and is a striking example of a parish church whose size and splendour could have borne but little relation to the actual needs of the locality. It was the product of an age whose zeal for church building was limited only by the funds available. The total internal length from east to west is 182 feet, while the width across the transept is 82 feet. The exterior has been the subject of somewhat extensive restoration, which has robbed it of much of its ancient appearance. The south aisle differs from that on the north in having an embattled parapet, similar to that of the porch. The walls of the tower and transepts are faced with flint rubble with little attempt at regular coursing. The later work of the nave and chancel, though extensively refaced, is composed of alternate courses of dressed flints and stone ; the latter, a soft ragstone from the lower green sand formation which, quarried probably from the outcrop a few miles to the south, has weathered badly in many places. A variety of other materials is noticeable, some of which appear to have been reused from the earlier church. A block of Caen stone in the east wall of the chancel, and several pieces in the north wall, have obviously been reused, while a single piece of calcareous tufa can be seen in the north wall of the transept; Reigate stone is also fairly abundant.
It is not till one enters the church, that its size is fully realised. The absence of pews over a large part of the nave, with the fact that the nave arcade is carried past the crossing without a break, and the absence of a chancel arch, all combine to emphasise its spaciousness. The impression
gathered from a superficial survey of the interior is that of a thirteenth century church with considerable additions in the fourteenth century, but a more careful inspection shows at least one trace of an earlier building. The arch from the north aisle into the transept, which has been partially cut away when the thirteenth century nave arcade was constructed, is certainly of late twelfth century date and must therefore have survived from an earlier church. Before, however, considering the development of the ground plan, it is necessary to refer briefly to the chief features of architectural interest which call for notice.
The porch is of a fairly common type, with an upper room, approached by a stair turret from the south aisle. It measures internally 11 feet 5 inches from east to west by 16 feet from north to south, and is apparently of late fifteenth century date. On the right of the inner doorway are the remains of a holy water stoup. The room above has been considerably modernised, and there is nothing to indicate its original use. Occasionally an altar is found in the porch chamber, which, however, in this case would seem more likely to have been used for storing the church goods.
The north and south aisles of the nave are 19 feet 10 inches and 18 feet wide respectively, and are thus considerably wider than the nave itself. They contain a fine series of Decorated windows, those at the end of either aisle being particularly interesting examples of three lights. The church as a whole is very rich in windows of this period, which form in themselves an interesting study in design. The south aisle has a stone bench running along its south and west walls.
The tower is entered from the nave by a plain thirteenth century arch, and measures approximately 15 feet 6 inches from east to west by 17 feet 6 inches from north to south (interior measurements). The lower stage, which is shut off from the church by a screen, and is now used as a vestry, is lit by three narrow lancets, one in each of the disengaged walls. The roof is a simple quadripartite vault, without any boss at the intersection of the ribs, which are carried on shafts supported on corbels set in the four angles. The lower part of the tower is apparently thirteenth century work, and somewhat earlier than the transepts. The flat, clasping buttresses appear to be original, though now entirely re-faced, and might in themselves suggest a transitional date for the base of the tower. The upper part has been rebuilt at a much later date, and contains a Perpendicular window. Like most towers of the period, it is probable that there was originally no structural stairway leading to the upper stages, access to which had to be obtained by means of a ladder, though the existing doorway to the modern stair turret appears to be of fairly early date.
The transepts deserve special consideration on account of the very interesting work which they contain. Their date cannot be later than about 1260 and there are some grounds for thinking that the south transept may be slightly the earlier of the two. The east wall of the south transept is
divided into two bays by blind arches, supported on slender banded shafts, with a narrow lancet window in the centre of each arch. A somewhat similar arrangement exists on the east wall of the north transept, though in this case the central shaft is not carried to the ground, but rests midway on a moulded bracket, below which is a piscina with a trefoil head of the same date. The treatment of the west wall of the north transept is very similar to that of the east, but the arches are much narrower, and the arrangement has been somewhat interfered with by a later widening of the nave aisle. In the south transept the arcading on the west wall is somewhat plainer, and the banded shafts have been dispensed with. Although similar in general design, certain details point to the south transept being slightly the earlier. The string course below the windows, which is continued round the shafts of the mural arcading, is a plain scroll moulding, while in the north transept a fillet is substituted, and the central bands on the shafts of the arcading are of a more elaborate character. The triple lancet windows at the ends of either transept are modern, and replaced two large fifteenth-century windows, which are shown in several early views.
The north transept was formerly shut off from the rest of the church by a screen, and used for holding the Rector's Court. In mediaeval times, and down to 1845, the Rector of Cliffe had a peculiar jurisdiction within his parish. He was exempt from all ecclesiastical authority other than personal visitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The wills of parishioners were proved in the local court, and the official seal of the Peculiar is still preserved in the Rochester Museum.
The chancel, which appears to have been rebuilt entirely in the middle of the fourteenth century, is complete, save for the insertion of a modern east window, which replaced an extraordinarily ugly eighteenth-century aperture of brick. The remaining windows are all fine examples of Decorated work, the tracery of which shows a distinctly Flamboyant tendency. The eastern pair affords interesting examples of Kentish tracery. All have good hood-mouldings with
grotesques at the ends. Beneath the windows is a stringcourse, which terminates at the altar rails with a grotesque head on either side. That on the north has been renewed, but the southern one represents the battered head of a monk.
The chief interest in the chancel, however, is its fittings. In the south wall is a series of three very beautiful fourteenth century sedilia, with a piscina of uniform character, recessed in the wall and ascending eastward. They are divided by slender buttressed shafts, supporting elaborately carved ogee canopies, and surmounted by crockets and finials. Beneath the canopies are trefoiled arches, and behind these the roof is carved in imitation of sexpartite vaulting.
Opposite in the north wall is a fine late-fourteenth century tomb of early Perpendicular character, which is often referred to as an Easter sepulchre, for which purpose it may well have been used. The wide cinquefoil arch is surmounted by an elaborate embattled cornice, supported on narrow
buttressed shafts, and terminating with a carved head at either end ; circles with internal cuspings fill the spandrils of the arch.
Immediately west of this tomb is a blocked doorway which led to an adjoining building, now demolished. The exterior wall at this point is of a different character from the rest of the chancel walls, and apparently of earlier date. It is composed of a variety of material, including pieces of Caen stone, which probably came from the earlier church, and suggests that this section of wall and the chapel, of which it formed part, survived the re-building of the chancel in the fourteenth century. The two adjoining buttresses have been constructed out of sections of the eastern and western walls of the chapel, and serve to indicate its approximate size. The position of its low roof is clearly shown by the stone corbels which remain at a height of 7 feet 8 inches from the ground. The floor must have been somewhat lower than the present ground level, as the small piscina in the exterior of the chancel wall is now only two feet from the ground. In the base of the westernmost of the two buttresses is a niche, now scarcely eighteen inches from the ground, which may originally have been used as a holy water stoup, since it was close to the entrance to the chapel. This small building probably served the joint purpose of a Sacristy and Chapel. That it contained an altar there can be no doubt from the piscina already noted.
It may possibly be referred to in the will of Richard Elys, who in 1468 left 12 pence to the light of the Blessed Mary in the chapel and 4 pence to the light of the Blessed Mary near the pulpit, though one of the transepts may of course have been here intended. Such evidence as there is on the other hand seems to point to the chapel having been pulled down at the time of the rebuilding of the chancel or soon afterwards. The blocked doorway in the chancel wall was originally carried down to the present ground level on the exterior, so that there must have been some steps in the thickness of the wall leading down into the chapel. The date of this doorway, which was probably contemporary with the building to which, it led, is uncertain. It is certainly earlier than the adjoining late-fourteenth-century tomb, as parts have been cut away when the latter was inserted, and the use of somewhat small stones points to an earlier rather than a later date. Its details on the other hand include the wave moulding which is usually taken to be characteristic of the Decorated period, or one might otherwise be inclined to think that it formed part of the thirteenth century chancel. The filling on the exterior is certainly not modern, and the fact that a plinth has been inserted when the doorway was blocked up, to match that round the rest of the chancel evidently with the intention, which was never carried out, of continuing it along the section of earlier walling where the chapel stood, seems to suggest that this work was undertaken about the same time as the rebuilding of the chancel.
We are now in a position to consider the probable development of the ground plan, which, though somewhat conjectural for the earlier period, has left some interesting and unmistakable traces of its later history. In the entire absence of remains of the early Norman church, one is forced to rely for the identification of its position on analogy with other buildings of similar type. The first church of which we have any record in all probability consisted of a simple nave and square- ended chancel. The three easternmost bays of the existing nave arcade would preserve the line of
the north and south walls of the church, while the chancel would occupy the interior of the present crossing. There is nothing to show the position of the west wall, but it would have been approximately in a line with the present north and south doors. Towards the close of the twelfth century north and south aisles, about half the width of the present ones, were probably added by piercing the original walls with arches, and about the same time a small chapel or aisle appears to have been built to the north of the original chancel, and the existing arch constructed so as to give access into it. This arch, which cannot be later than about 1200, is obviously much earlier than the present transept and must therefore have communicated with an earlier building on its site. Some evidence in support of this came to light during the restoration of the north transept in 1864. The foundations of an early wall four feet thick were found beneath the present floor running parallel and close to its eastern wall. At a distance of 15 feet from the chancel wall it appears to have been met by another wall at right angles to it. Unfortunately no further record was made of this discovery, but it establishes beyond doubt the existence of a building in this position, to which the arch in question opened. It is possible that this was the chancel arch of a late twelfth century church, and that the foundations were those of the former chancel, though such a theory would be more difficult to reconcile with the later development of the plan. Moreover on the assumption that there already existed a building on the north of the original chancel when the thirteenth-century builders decided to remodel the church, it is possible to account for the hitherto unexplained fact that the north transept is wider than the south by some three feet. The normal development of the thirteenth century produced a cruciform church. A new and longer chancel, and north and south transepts, were built around the small twelfth century chancel, while the nave and aisles were lengthened by the removal of the west wall some 20 feet further west, and a tower erected to the west of this. These extensive works could not of course have been simultaneous.
The tower appears to be somewhat earlier than the transepts, so that presumably the lengthening of the west end was undertaken first, and at the same time an Early English arcade, extending an additional bay westward, was inserted in place of the twelfth century arches. Contrary to what was frequently the case in churches of this type, there was clearly never any intention to erect a central tower over the crossing, since the abutments are far too weak to have supported the weight. This weakness would account for the presence of the strainer arch of oak, which must
have been inserted sometime in the fifteenth century.
With the completion of this work the early builders grew more ambitious. Almost immediately the work on the new chancel and transepts must have begun. A temporary hoarding was probably erected, shutting off the nave and the altar, transferred there until the new works were finished. The chancel and the south transept were probably first erected, as the sites were free of buildings ; the width of the latter being determined by the size of the former chancel and the chapel on the north. When the work was completed attention was directed towards the north transept, which, according to the usual practice, would have been rebuilt round the earlier building, the foundations of which were discovered in 1864, thus accounting for its slight extra width. Probably towards the end of the century the small chapel, the remains of which have already been mentioned, was built on the north of the new chancel.
Considerable alterations were undertaken in the fourteenth century, the principal of which were the rebuilding of the thirteenth century chancel, and the widening of the nave aisles. The latter was a very frequent form of improvement at this period, and was usually occasioned by the desire
for extra space to set up additional altars so as to meet the enormous increase in the popularity of Chantry bequests. At Cliffe the effect of this widening is clearly shown on the already completed design of the transepts. In the north transept one of the lancets was cut away, and a short pointed arch springing from shafts, which do not reach the ground, inserted in its place. The apex of the original lancet still remains in the wall above. In the south transept a similar alteration in plan is treated somewhat differently. A segmental arch, here reaching to the ground, and opening into the extended aisle, was inserted within the earlier bund arch in the west wall of the transept. This also necessitated the removal of an original lancet, the head of which can be seen occupying the space between the original arch and the later insertion. The windows in the nave all appear to be of this date. Probably contemporary with this extension of the aisles, was the heightening of the nave to allow for the clerestory with its row of single splayed lancets. The junction of this work with the old can be clearly seen immediately above the arcading. The thirteenth century roof of the nave was about on a level with those of the aisles, as the small window in the east face of the tower, which now looks into the church, must originally have looked out over the roof. The line of the fourteenth roof, which was erected at the time that the clerestory was added, can be seen on the wall of the tower, passing across the window opening. Below this the position of the third roof, erected 1732, can also be seen. This roof, which was almost flat, was replaced by the present one about forty years ago.
The rebuilding of the chancel would appear to have been undertaken at the same time as extension of the aisles, to judge from the similarity of the external stonework. This would again have necessitated the use of the nave for services, and it is probable that either at this time, or during the earlier work on the interior of the transepts, the round headed arch, which can be seen on the exterior of the north wall of the north transept, was constructed for the convenience of the masons while the ordinary entrances were not available. That this arch or doorway, which has sometimes been said to be of Norman origin, was really of a much later date, and of a purely temporary character, seems to be shown by a close inspection of its construction. The position is not in the centre of the wall while the arch itself is made up of a variety of material including large flints, pieces of Beigate stone and a single block of calcareous tufa, the latter doubtless coming from the early church. Further, the fact that the filling of the arch' seems to be of much the same character as the adjoining walls points to it only having been used for a comparatively short time. Everything in fact indicates that it was a purely temporary arrangement used during the construction of the transepts, or the later chancel, and filled up as soon as the work was completed. A somewhat similar, though smaller, arch in the exterior of the south wall of the tower was probably of a similar nature, though its purpose is conjectural, and it may have had some connection with original stairs to the upper floors. By the end of the fourteenth century the church was practically complete. The porch was added early in the following century, and the large Perpendicular windows, which formerly existed at the ends of the transepts, inserted. At the same time the upper part of the west tower was rebuilt. Certain work also seems to have been in progress about this time in the chancel, for in the will of the Rector in 1413 a sum of money was left towards that object. Exactly what resulted from the bequest one cannot say.
The subsequent additions were chiefly in the nature of modern insertions. The eighteenth century saw many acts of destruction which are duly entered in the parish registers. In 1730, during the Rectorship of George Green, the old high-gabled roofs were taken down, the lead recast, and an
almost flat roof substituted. Two years later the east window was demolished and a hideous brick opening substituted, and at the same time the old timber roof of the chancel, which, since it bore his arms, had probably been erected during the time of Archbishop Arundel, who occupied the See from 1396 to 1414, was pulled down, and both the nave and chancel ceiled. During this period also the two enormous brick buttresses, which are shown in some early views, were erected on the north and south sides of the tower. The church was in this condition when Sir Stephen Glynne visited it in 1857. Subsequent restorations have been extensive, though for the most part necessary. The brick buttresses to the Tower were removed shortly after Sir Stephen Glynne's visit, and the present circular stair turret erected in the place of the southern one. The chancel was restored in 1875, when traces of the original reredos were discovered, and the jambs of the original east window, which were of Reigate stone and about 15 feet apart, were found in situ. The present window was erected in place of the eighteenth century one in 1884, and at the same time the flat lead roofs of the nave and chancel were removed, and the present high-pitched tiled roofs substituted. Finally a small building, without any communication with the church, has been erected in recent years to the east of the north transept. During these successive restorations much of the external walls has been refaced from time to time, and the whole of the upper part of the east wall of the chancel which was pulled down in 1732, was rebuilt when the present window was inserted.
It is somewhat difficult now to picture the appearance of the interior of the church in mediaeval times. A brilliant colour scheme evidently played an important part in the general effect. Many of the piers of the nave arcades, which are apparently constructed of hard chalk, still show traces of a bold chevron pattern in red and yellow, and, together with the extensive wall paintings, slight traces of which still remain in the transepts, and the brilliance of the mediaeval glass, must have combined to give a very rich effect to the interior. Of the ancient glass very little remains. Dr.
Grayling mentions some fourteenth century borders in the chancel windows, which seem to have disappeared. In the central window of the north aisle is a small piece of ancient glass representing a ship with fish in the water beneath, which is said to have been found many years ago in a shed in the churchyard. In the top of the adjoining window is a fifteenth century figure of the Virgin and Child. A coat of arms in another window is mentioned by Thorpe, but this also seems to have disappeared. The wall paintings, though now very indistinct, were evidently much clearer until
comparatively recent times. On the east wall of the north transept, in the space between the southernmost of the two lancets and the arch in which it is placed, is one of these paintings, divided into five panels, depicting the Martyrdom of St. Edmund. Very little of it can now be made out, though the whole of this transept showed traces of colour at the time of the restoration of 1864. Some remains of a painting in a similar position in the south transept can still be seen, and are said to represent the Last Judgment.
Several bequests for the provision and upkeep of lights before the various altars add a little to our knowledge of the interior in mediaeval times. Of the various saints to whom lights were dedicated in the church Our Lady was of course the most popular. We have already seen that two altars
were dedicated to her. One of these is again mentioned in 1483, when Robert Qwikerell left 20 pence "to the Parish Church of Cleue and to the ligth of Our Lady besyde the pulpett there" and also a similar amount to the lights of St. Laurence and St. George. Richard Elys in 1469 also
mentions lights of St. Christopher, St. John and St. James, while in 1509 Steven Tudor bequeathed to the high altar of St. Elyn 20 pence, and to the light of St. Elyn 12 pence.
Of the position of these various lights one cannot speak with any certainty. That to St. Christopher would have been near the main entrance to the church, while the light of the patron saint, St. Helen, would have been in the Chancel, probably over the high altar. Remains of a piscina in four other places in the church prove the former existence of altars in these positions. That in the Sacristy has already been mentioned. At least one altar stood in each of the transepts, while a small piscina, apparently constructed of broken window tracery at the east end of the south aisle, testifies to another. An altar probably stood in a corresponding position in the north aisle. This disposition would exactly account for the number of lights mentioned in early wills. Besides the lights burning before the altars, there would also be a light before the great Rood over the entrance to the chancel. Some of the lower panels of the original rood screen survive. Above, and partly supported by, the screen was the rood loft, which was already in existence as early as 1413, when it is mentioned in conjunction with the great rood itself and its attendant figures in the will of Nicholas de Ryssheton, Canon of Sarum and Rector of Cliffe. The small fifteenth century doorway with a fourcentred arch, which gave access to it, can still be seen high up in the north wall just east of the entrance of the chancel, and the original stairs remain in good condition, though the entrance from the church has been blocked up and covered over with plaster.
The furniture in the church has suffered much from “restoration" and other causes. Six of the ancient stalls remain, three on each side of the chancel, though panelling at the backs and all the seats except two are modern. The sides terminate in carved heads, some of which have been
renewed, while the two original miserecords are carved with grotesques. The Communion rails are Jacobean, though somewhat repaired. They are of the fairly common baluster type with a central bulge. The pulpit is a very fine piece of Renaissance carving, and retains the original stand for the hour glass, though the glass itself is modern; on it is the date 1636.
Besides the fragments of the original rood screen there is another screen shutting off the vestry under the tower.
The font, which has been moved from its original position, is 3 feet 4£ inches in height, and apparently of late-fourteenth century date. The perfectly plain octagonal bowl has concave sides, around the lower edge of which is a hollow chamfer. The bowl is supported by an octagonal, buttressed stem on a plain base. On the westernmost pillar of the south arcade can still be seen the bracket and chain by which the font cover was raised, indicating its original position.
The monuments in the church are few, and call for little comment. In the floor at the west end of the north aisle are two flat coffin-shaped stones with early fourteenth century French inscriptions in Lombardic capitals. The one on the north is probably the earlier, judging from the very rough
characters which are now scarcely legible. It commemorated Eleanor de Olive, of whom nothing is known. The other stone shows traces of brass, and is inscribed in memory of Joan, wife of John Earn. These stones are described in the Gentleman's Magazine, and old rubbings of them exist among the collection of the Society of Antiquaries. There are three brasses of seventeenth century date, one of which is thought to have been engraved locally.
Two wills are of interest in connection with early burials in the church. In 1376 Robert de Walton, Rector of Cliffe, desired to be buried in the church of Olyve at the entrance to the quire. Some years later, in 1387, Thomas de Lynton, a subsequent rector, directed that he should be buried in the chancel near the entrance, and between the entrance to the quire and the tomb of Master Robert Walton, late Rector, and he ordered that a handsome marble monument should be placed over his body at the discretion of his executors. It seems not unlikely however that his executors favoured a brass monument. In the chancel is the stone matrix of what must once have been a very fine brass of about this period, representing a priest under a canopy. Another smaller matrix of an ecclesiastic is close to the pulpit.
Of the church plate the most important piece is a very beautiful paten of silver gilt of the early part of the sixteenth century. In the centre, worked in coloured enamels, is a seated figure of God the Father holding before Him a figure of the crucifixion. The extreme rarity of pre-reformation
plate is not generally recognised, and the example at Cliffe is one of the finest English patens in existence. At some period or other the paten at Cliffe served as a chalice cover, and it is even said to have been used as an alms dish, which would account for its numerous signs of wear. The other plate is of seventeenth century and later date, and of no particular interest.
It remains for me to acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. F. O. Blliston Erwood for several suggestions and for the photographs which illustrate this paper. The present account is intended to supplement, but not to supplant altogether, an article on Cliffe Church, by the Rev. I. Gr. Lloyd, a former Rector, which appeared in Vol. XI. of Arch. Cant., where reference should be made for further particulars.
www.cliffehistory.co.uk/martin.html
-------------------------------------------------
CLIFFE (St. Helen), a parish, in the union of North Aylesford, hundred of Shamwell, lathe of Aylesford, W. division of Kent, 5 miles (N. by W.) from Rochester; containing 842 inhabitants. The parish is bounded on the north by the Thames, and comprises 5660 acres, whereof 180 are woodland, about 2000 arable, and the remainder pasture, including a considerable portion of marshy land. The village, which is supposed to take its name from the cliff or rock on which it stands, was formerly of much greater extent, a great part of it having been destroyed by fire in 1520: it was the scene of several provincial councils. A pleasurefair is held on September 28th. The living is a rectory, valued in the king's books at £50; net income, £1297; patron, the Archbishop of Canterbury: the glebe contains 20 acres. The church is considered one of the finest in the county, being a large handsome cruciform structure in the early English style, with an embattled central tower, and containing several curious monuments and remains of antiquity, together with six stalls that belonged to a dean and five prebendaries, it having been formerly collegiate.
www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-dict/england/pp63...
Kuala Lumpur (/ˈkwɑːləˈlʊmpʊər/ or /-pər/; Malaysian pronunciation: [ˈkwalə ˈlumpʊr]) is the national capital and most populous global city in Malaysia. The city covers an area of 243 km2 and has an estimated population of 1.6 million as of 2010. Greater Kuala Lumpur, covering similar area as the Klang Valley, is an urban agglomeration of 7.5 million people as of 2012. It is among the fastest growing metropolitan regions in South-East Asia, in terms of population and economy.
Kuala Lumpur is the seat of the Parliament of Malaysia. The city was once home to the executive and judicial branches of the federal government, but they were moved to Putrajaya in early 1999. Some sections of the judiciary still remain in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur. The official residence of the Malaysian King, the Istana Negara, is also situated in Kuala Lumpur. Rated as an alpha world city, Kuala Lumpur is the cultural, financial and economic centre of Malaysia due to its position as the capital as well as being a key city. Kuala Lumpur was ranked 48th among global cities by Foreign Policy's 2010 Global Cities Index and was ranked 67th among global cities for economic and social innovation by the 2thinknow Innovation Cities Index in 2010.
Kuala Lumpur is defined within the borders of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and is one of three Malaysian Federal Territories. It is an enclave within the state of Selangor, on the central west coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
Since the 1990s, the city has played host to many international sporting, political and cultural events including the 1998 Commonwealth Games and the Formula One Grand Prix. In addition, Kuala Lumpur is home to the tallest twin buildings in the world, the Petronas Twin Towers, which have become an iconic symbol of Malaysia's futuristic development.
In May 2015, Kuala Lumpur was officially recognized as one of the New7Wonders Cities together with Vigan City, Doha, Durban, Havana, Beirut, and La Paz.
HISTORY
Kuala Lumpur means "muddy confluence", although it is also possible that the name is a corrupted form of an earlier but now unidentifiable forgotten name. It was originally a small settlement of just a few houses at the confluence of Sungai Gombak (previously known as Sungai Lumpur) and Sungai Klang (Klang River). The town of Kuala Lumpur was established circa 1857, when the Malay Chief of Klang, Raja Abdullah bin Raja Jaafar, aided by his brother Raja Juma'at of Lukut, raised funds to hire some Chinese miners from Lukut to open new tin mines here. The miners landed at Kuala Lumpur and continued their journey on foot to Ampang where the first mine was opened. Kuala Lumpur was the furthest point up the Klang River to which supplies could conveniently be brought by boat; it therefore became a collection and dispersal point serving the tin mines. The identity of the founder of Kuala Lumpur has however not been confirmed: Raja Abdullah bin Raja Jaafar and his role in founding the city do not appear in the earliest account of the history of Selangor. On the other hand, the Sumatrans Abdullah Hukum and Sutan Puasa, arrived in Kuala Lumpur at least in 1850. Raja Abdullah only came around 1857 and Yap Ah Loy, also regarded as the founding father of Kuala Lumpur, arrived in 1862. In addition, the Chinese men employed under Raja Abdullah worked in Ampang, 64 kilometres away from the main land. Meanwhile, efficient drainage and irrigation systems (bondar saba) were introduced in Kuala Lumpur by the technologically advanced Mandailing, improving the mining industry.
In the early history of Kuala Lumpur, the Minangkabaus of Sumatra were considered to be one of the most important groups of people who involved in trading. Utsman bin Abdullah and Haji Mohamed Taib were influenced tycoon in Kuala Lumpur and surrounding area. Haji Taib, one of the wealthiest figure at that time, was an important person in the early development centre of city: Kampung Baru. Beside as merchants, the Minangkabaus also overwhelmingly on socio-religious figures, such as Utsman bin Abdullah was the first kadi of Kuala Lumpur as well as Muhammad Nur bin Ismail.
Although the early miners suffered a high death toll due to the malarial conditions of the jungle, the Ampang mines were successful, and the first tin was exported in 1859. The tin-mining spurred the growth of the town, and miners later also settled in Pudu and Batu. The miners formed gangs among themselves; there were the Hakka-dominated Hai San in Kuala Lumpur, and the Cantonese-dominated Ghee Hin based in Kanching in Ulu Selangor. These two gangs frequently fought to gain control of best tin mines. The leaders of the Chinese community were conferred the title of Kapitan Cina (Chinese headman) by the Malay chief, and Hiu Siew, the owner of a mine in Lukut, was chosen as the first Kapitan of Kuala Lumpur. As one of the first traders to arrive in Ampang (along with Yap Ah Sze), he sold provisions to the miners in exchange for tin.
In 1868, Yap Ah Loy was appointed the third Chinese Kapitan of Kuala Lumpur. Yap, together with Frank Swettenham, were the two most important figures in the development of Kuala Lumpur in the early days of Kuala Lumpur. In 1880, the state capital of Selangor was moved from Klang to the more strategically advantageous Kuala Lumpur by the colonial administration, and Swettenham was appointed the Resident in 1882. Kuala Lumpur was a small town with buildings made of wood and atap (thatching) that were prone to burn. It suffered from many problems, including the Selangor Civil War which devastated the town; it was also plagued by diseases and constant fires and floods. The war and other setbacks led to a slump which lasted until 1879, when a rise in the price of tin allowed the town to recover.
In 1881, a flood swept through the town, following a fire that had engulfed it earlier. As a response, Frank Swettenham, the British Resident of Selangor, required that buildings be constructed of brick and tile.[33] Hence, Kapitan Yap Ah Loy bought a sprawling piece of real estate to set up a brick industry, which spurred the rebuilding of Kuala Lumpur. This place is the eponymous Brickfields. Hence, destroyed atap buildings were replaced with brick and tiled ones. He restructured the building layout of the city. Many of the new brick buildings mirrored those of shop houses in southern China, characterised by "five foot ways" as well as skilled Chinese carpentry work. This resulted in a distinct eclectic shop house architecture typical to this region. Kapitan Yap Ah Loy expand road access in the city significantly, linking up tin mines with the city, these roads include the main arterial roads of the present Ampang Road, Pudu Road and Petaling Street. As Chinese Kapitan, he was vested with wide powers on par with Malay community leaders. He implemented law reforms and introduced new legal measures. He also presided over a small claims court. With a police force of six, he was able to uphold the rule of law. He built a prison that could accommodate 60 prisoners at any time. Kapitan Yap Ah Loy also built Kuala Lumpur's first school and a major tapioca mill in Petaling Street of which the Selangor's Sultan Abdul Samad had an interest.
A railway line between Kuala Lumpur and Klang, initiated by Swettenham and completed in 1886, increased accessibility which resulted in the rapid growth of the town. The population grew from 4,500 in 1884 to 20,000 in 1890. As development intensified in the 1880s, it also put pressure on sanitation, waste disposal and other health issues. A Sanitary Board was created on 14 May 1890 which was responsible for sanitation, upkeep of roads, lighting of street and other functions. This would eventually became the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council. Kuala Lumpur was only 0.65 km2 in 1895, but it expanded to 20 km2 in 1903, and by the time it became a municipality in 1948 it had expanded to 93 km2, and then to 243 km2 in 1974 as a Federal Territory. In 1896, Kuala Lumpur was chosen as the capital of the newly formed Federated Malay States. A mixture of different communities settled in various sections of Kuala Lumpur. The Chinese mainly settled around the commercial centre of Market Square, east of the Klang River, and towards Chinatown. The Malays, Indian Chettiars, and Indian Muslims resided along Java Street (now Jalan Tun Perak). The Padang, now known as Merdeka Square, was the centre of the British administrative offices.
During World War II, Kuala Lumpur was captured by the Imperial Japanese Army on 11 January 1942. They occupied the city until 15 August 1945, when the commander in chief of the Japanese Seventh Area Army in Singapore and Malaysia, Seishirō Itagaki, surrendered to the British administration following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kuala Lumpur grew through the war, the rubber and tin commodity crashes and the Malayan Emergency, during which Malaya was preoccupied with the communist insurgency. In 1957, the Federation of Malaya gained its independence from British rule. Kuala Lumpur remained the capital through the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963.
On 13 May 1969, the worst race riots on record in Malaysia took place in Kuala Lumpur. The so-called 13 May Incident refers to the occurrence of violence between members of the Malay and the Chinese communities. The violence was the result of Malaysian Malays being dissatisfied with their socio-political status. The riots resulted in the deaths of 196 people, and led to major changes in the country's economic policy to promote and prioritise Malay economic development over that of the other ethnicities.
Kuala Lumpur later achieved city status in 1972, becoming the first settlement in Malaysia to be granted the status after independence. Later, on 1 February 1974, Kuala Lumpur became a Federal Territory. Kuala Lumpur ceased to be the capital of Selangor in 1978 after the city of Shah Alam was declared the new state capital. On 14 May 1990, Kuala Lumpur celebrated 100 years of local council. The new federal territory Kuala Lumpur flag and anthem were introduced. On 1 February 2001, Putrajaya was declared a Federal Territory, as well as the seat of the federal government. The administrative and judicial functions of the government were shifted from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya. Kuala Lumpur however still retained its legislative function, and remained the home of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Constitutional King).
GEOGRAPHY
The geography of Kuala Lumpur is characterised by the huge Klang Valley. The valley is bordered by the Titiwangsa Mountains in the east, several minor ranges in the north and the south and the Strait of Malacca in the west. Kuala Lumpur is a Malay term that translates to "muddy confluence" as it is located at the confluence of the Klang and Gombak rivers.
Located in the centre of Selangor state, Kuala Lumpur was previously under the rule of Selangor State Government. In 1974, Kuala Lumpur was separated from Selangor to form the first Federal Territory governed directly by the Malaysian Federal Government. Its location on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, which has wider flat land than the east coast, has contributed to its faster development relative to other cities in Malaysia. The municipality of the city covers an area of 243 km2, with an average elevation of 21.95 m.
CLOMATE AND WEATHER
Protected by the Titiwangsa Mountains in the east and Indonesia's Sumatra Island in the west, Kuala Lumpur has a tropical rainforest climate (Köppen climate classification Af), which is warm and sunny, along with abundant rainfall, especially during the northeast monsoon season from October to March. Temperatures tend to remain constant. Maximums hover between 32 and 33 °C and have never exceeded 38.5 °C, while minimums hover between 23.4 and 24.6 °C and have never fallen below 14.4 °C. Kuala Lumpur typically receives minimum 2,600 mm of rain annually; June and July are relatively dry, but even then rainfall typically exceeds 131 millimetres per month.
Flooding is a frequent occurrence in Kuala Lumpur whenever there is a heavy downpour, especially in the city centre and downstream areas. Smoke from forest fires of nearby Sumatra sometimes cast a haze over the region. It is a major source of pollution in the city together with open burning, emission from motor vehicles and construction work.
POLITICS
Kuala Lumpur is home to the Parliament of Malaysia. The hierarchy of authority in Malaysia, in accordance with the Federal Constitution, has stipulated the three branches, of the Malaysian government as consisting of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches. The Parliament consists of the Dewan Negara (Upper House / House of Senate) and Dewan Rakyat (Lower House / House of Representatives).
ECONOMY
Kuala Lumpur and its surrounding urban areas form the most industrialised and economically, the fastest growing region in Malaysia. Despite the relocation of federal government administration to Putrajaya, certain government institutions such as Bank Negara Malaysia (National Bank of Malaysia), Companies Commission of Malaysia and Securities Commission as well as most embassies and diplomatic missions have remained in the city.
The city remains as the economic and business centre of the country. Kuala Lumpur is a centre for finance, insurance, real estate, media and the arts of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur is rated as an alpha world city, and is the only global city in Malaysia, according to the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC). The infrastructure development in the surrounding areas such as the Kuala Lumpur International Airport at Sepang, the creation of the Multimedia Super Corridor and the expansion of Port Klang further reinforce the economic significance of the city.
Bursa Malaysia or the Malaysia Exchange is based in the city and forms one of its core economic activities. As of 5 July 2013, the market capitalisation stood at US$505.67 billion.
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for Kuala Lumpur is estimated at RM73,536 million in 2008 with an average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent.[66] The per capita GDP for Kuala Lumpur in 2013 is RM79,752 with an average annual growth rate of 5.6 percent. The total employment in Kuala Lumpur is estimated at around 838,400. The service sector comprising finance, insurance, real estate, business services, wholesale and retail trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, storage and communication, utilities, personal services and government services form the largest component of employment representing about 83.0 percent of the total. The remaining 17 percent comes from manufacturing and construction.
The average monthly household income for Kuala Lumpur was RM4,105 (USD 1,324) in 1999, up from RM3,371 (USD 1,087) four years prior, making it 66% higher than the national average. In terms of household income distribution, 23.5% of households in the city earned more than RM5,000 (USD 1,613) per month compared to 9.8% for the entire country, while 8.1% earned less than RM1,000 (USD 323) a month.
The large service sector is evident in the number of local and foreign banks and insurance companies operating in the city. Kuala Lumpur is poised to become the global Islamic Financing hub with an increasing number of financial institutions providing Islamic Financing and the strong presence of Gulf's financial institutions such as the world's largest Islamic bank, Al-Rajhi Bank and Kuwait Finance House. Apart from that, the Dow Jones & Company is keen to work with Bursa Malaysia to set up Islamic Exchange Trade Funds (ETFs), which would help raise Malaysia's profile in the Gulf. The city has a large number of foreign corporations and is also host to many multi national companies' regional offices or support centres, particularly for finance and accounting, and information technology functions. Most of the countries' largest companies have their headquarters based here and as of December 2007 and excluding Petronas, there are 14 companies that are listed in Forbes 2000 based in Kuala Lumpur.
Other important economic activities in the city are education and health services. Kuala Lumpur also has advantages stemming from the high concentration of educational institutions that provide a wide-ranging of courses. Numerous public and private medical specialist centres and hospitals in the city offer general health services, and a wide range of specialist surgery and treatment that caters to locals and tourists.
There has been growing emphasis to expand the economic scope of the city into other service activities, such as research and development, which supports the rest of the economy of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur has been home for years to important research centres such as the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia, the Forest Research Institute Malaysia and the Institute of Medical Research and more research centres are expected to be established in the coming years.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Kuala Lumpur is the most populous city in Malaysia, with a population of 1.6 million in the city proper as of 2010. It has a population density of 6,696 inhabitants per square kilometre , and is the most densely populated administrative district in Malaysia. Residents of the city are colloquially known as KLites. Kuala Lumpur is also the centre of the wider Klang Valley conurbation (covering Petaling Jaya, Klang, Subang Jaya, Shah Alam, Gombak and others) which has an estimated metropolitan population of 7.2–7.5 million as of 2012.
Kuala Lumpur's heterogeneous populace includes the country's three major ethnic groups: the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians, although the city also has a mix of different cultures including Eurasians, as well as Kadazans, Ibans and other indigenous races from East Malaysia and Peninsula Malaysia.
Historically Kuala Lumpur was a predominantly Chinese, but recently the Bumiputra component of the city has increased substantially and they are now the dominant group. Most of Malays who considered as Bumiputra came from Sumatra and other parts of Indonesia archipelago. The majority of them Javanese, Minangkabaus and Buginese began arriving in Kuala Lumpur in the mid 19th century, in addition to Acehnese who arrived in the late 20th century. The population of Kuala Lumpur was estimated to be around three thousand in 1880 when it was made the capital of Selangor. In the following decade which saw the rebuilding of the town it showed considerable increase, due in large part to the construction of a railway line in 1886 connecting Kuala Lumpur and Klang.
A census in 1891 of uncertain accuracy gave a figure of 43,796 inhabitants, 79% of whom were Chinese (71% of the Chinese were Hakka), 14% Malay, and 6% Indian. Another estimate put the population of Kuala Lumpur in 1890 at 20,000. In 1931, 61% of Kuala Lumpur's 111,418 inhabitants were Chinese, and in 1947 63.5%. The Malays however began to settle in the Kuala Lumpur in significant numbers, in part due to government employment, as well as the expansion of the city that absorbed the surrounding rural areas where many Malays lived. between 1947 and 1957 the population of Bumiputras in Kuala Lumpur doubled, increasing from 12.5 to 15%, while the proportion of Chinese dropped. The process continued after Malayan independence with the growth of a largely Malay civil service, and later the implementation of the New Economic Policy which encouraged Malay participation in urban industries and business. In 1980 the population of Kuala Lumpur had reached over a million, with 52% Chinese, 33% Malay, and 15% Indian. From 1980 to 2000 the number of Bumiputras increased by 77%, but the Chinese still outnumbered the Bumiputras in Kuala Lumpur in the 2000 census at 43% compared to Bumiputras at 38%. By the 2010 census, according to the Department of Statistics and excluding non-citizens, the percentage of the Bumiputera population in Kuala Lumpur has reached around 45.9%, with the Chinese population at 43.2% and Indians 10.3%.A notable phenomenon in recent times has been the increase of foreign residents in Kuala Lumpur, which rose from 1% of the city's population in 1980 to about 8% in the 2000 census, and 9.4% in the 2010 census. These figures also do not include a significant number of illegal immigrants. Kuala Lumpur's rapid development has triggered a huge influx of low-skilled foreign workers from Indonesia, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Philippines, and Vietnam into Malaysia, many of whom enter the country illegally or without proper permits.Birth rates in Kuala Lumpur have declined and resulted in the lower proportion of young people falling below 15 years old category from 33% in 1980 to slightly less than 27% in 2000.[69] On the other hand, the working age group of 15–59 increased from 63% in 1980 to 67% in 2000. The elderly age group, 60 years old and above has increased from 4% in 1980 and 1991 to 6% in 2000.
Kuala Lumpur is pluralistic and religiously diverse. The city has many places of worship catering to the multi-religious population. Islam is practised primarily by the Malays and the Indian Muslim communities. Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism are practised mainly among the Chinese. Indians traditionally adhere to Hinduism. Some Chinese and Indians also subscribe to Christianity.
As of 2010 Census the population of Kuala Lumpur is 46.4% Muslim, 35.7% Buddhist, 8.5% Hindu, 5.8% Christian, 1.1% Taoist or Chinese religion adherent, 2.0% follower of other religions, and 0.5% non-religious.
Bahasa Malaysia is the principal language in Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur residents are generally literate in English, with a large proportion adopting it as their first language. It has a strong presence, especially in business and is a compulsory language taught in schools. Cantonese and Mandarin are prominent as they are spoken by the local majority Chinese population. Another major dialect spoken is Hakka. While Tamil is dominant amongst the local Indian population, other Indian languages spoken include Telugu, Malayalam, Punjabi and Hindi. Beside the Malay language, there are a variety of languages spoken by Indonesian descent, such as Minangkabau and Javanese.
EDUCATION
According to government statistics, Kuala Lumpur has a literacy rate of 97.5% in 2000, the highest rate in any state or territory in Malaysia. In Malaysia, Malay is the language of instruction for most subjects while English is a compulsory subject, but as of 2012, English is still the language of instruction for mathematics and the natural sciences for certain schools. Some schools provide Mandarin and Tamil as languages of instruction for certain subjects. Each level of education demands different skills of teaching and learning ability.Kuala Lumpur contains 13 tertiary education institutions, 79 high schools, 155 elementary schools and 136 kindergartens.
WIKIPEDIA
There are three Ashfords, really. The modern newtown, Swindonesque newbuilds stretching into the countryside; the Victorian railway town, all neat rows of brick buit houses and the station, and then there is the old town, timber-framed houses along narrow lanes, with St Mary standing towering above all but the modern office blocks.
The west end church was given over to a Christmas Fayre, but is also used now as a concert venue, while under the tower westwards is still in use as a church, with many of its ancient features left alone by the Victorians.
-------------------------------------------
A stately church in a good position set away from the hustle and bustle of this cosmopolitan town. The very narrow tower of 1475 is not visually satisfactory when viewed from a distance but its odd proportions are hardly noticed when standing at its base. The church is very much the product of the families who have been associated with it over the centuries and who are commemorated by monuments within. They include the Fogges and the Smythes. The former is supposed to have wanted to create a college of priests here, but by the late fifteenth century such foundations were going out of fashion and the remodelling of the church undertaken by Sir John Fogge may have just been a philanthropic cause. Unusually, when the church was restored in 1860 the architect Ewan Christian kept the galleries (he usually swept them away), but Christ Church had yet to be built and the population of this growing town would have needed all the accommodation it could get. Even in 1851 1000 people had attended the church in a single sitting. The pulpit, designed by Pearson, was made in 1897.
www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Ashford+1
------------------------------------------
THE TOWN AND PARISH OF ASHFORD
LIES the next adjoining to Hothfield eastward. It is called in Domesday both Estefort and Essetesford, and in other antient records, Eshetisford, taking its name from the river, which runs close to it, which, Lambarde says, ought not to be called the Stour, till it has passed this town, but Eshe or Eschet, a name which has been for a great length of time wholly forgotten; this river being known, even from its first rise at Lenham hither, by the name of the Stour only.
A small part only of this parish, on the east, south and west sides of it, containing the borough of Henwood, alias Hewit, lying on the eastern or further side of the river from the town, part of which extends into the parish of Wilsborough, and the whole of it within the liberty of the manor of Wye, and the borough of Rudlow, which adjoins to Kingsnoth and Great Chart, are in this hundred of Chart and Longbridge; such part of the borough of Rudlow as lies adjoining to Kingsnoth, is said to lie in in jugo de Beavor, or the yoke of Beavor, and is divided from the town and liberty by the river, near a place called Pollbay; in which yoke there is both a hamlet and a green or common, of the name of Beavor; the remainder of the parish having been long separated from it, and made a distinct liberty, or jurisdiction of itself, having a constable of its own, and distinguished by the name of the liberty of the town of Ashford.
ASHFORD, at the time of taking the general survey of Domesday, was part of the possessions of Hugo de Montfort, who had accompanied the Conqueror hither, and was afterwards rewarded with this estate, among many others in different counties; in which record it is thus entered, under the general title of his lands:
¶Maigno holds of Hugo (de Montfort) Estefort. Turgisus held it of earl Godwin, and it is taxed at one suling. The arable land is half a carucate. There is nevertheless in demesne one carucate, and two villeins having one carucate. There are two servants, and eight acres of meadow. In the time of king Edward the Confessor, it was worth twenty five shillings; when he received it, twenty shillings; now thirty shilling.
The same Hugo holds Essela. Three tenants held it of king Edward, and could go whither they would with their lands. It was taxed at three yokes. The arable land is one carucate and an half. There are now four villeins, with two borderers having one carucate, and six acres of meadow. The whole, in the reign of king Edward the Confessor, was worth twenty shillings, and afterwards fifteen shillings, now twenty shillings.
Maigno held another Essetisford of the same Hugo. Wirelm held it of king Edward. It was taxed at one suling. The arable land is four carucates. In demesne there are two, and two villeins, with fifteen borderers having three carucates. There is a church, and a priest, and three servants, and two mills of ten shillings and two pence. In the time of king Edward the Confessor it was worth seventy shillings, and afterwards sixty shillings, now one hundred shillings.
Robert de Montfort, grandson of Hugh abovementioned, favouring the title of Robert Curthose, in opposition to king Henry I. to avoid being called in question upon that account, obtained leave to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, leaving his possessions to the king; by which means this manor came into the hands of the crown. Soon after which it seems to have come into the possession of a family, who took their name from it. William de Asshetesford appears by the register of Horton priory to have been lord of it, and to have been succeeded by another of the same name. After which the family of Criol became owners of it, by whom it was held by knight's service of the king, in capite, by ward to Dover castle, and the repair of a tower in that castle, called the Ashford tower. (fn. 1) Simon de Criol, in the 27th and 28th year of Henry III. obtained a charter of free warren for this manor, whose son William de Criol passed it away to Roger de Leyborne, for Stocton, in Huntingdonshire, and Rumford, in Essex. William de Leyborne his son, in the 7th year of king Edward I. claimed and was allowed the privilege of a market here, before the justices itinerant. He died possessed of this manor in the 3d year of Edward II. leaving his grand-daughter Juliana, daughter of Thomas de Leyborne, who died in his father's life-time, heir both to her grandfather and father's possessions, from the greatness of which she was stiled the Infanta of Kent, (fn. 2) though thrice married, yet she died s. p. by either of her husbands, all of whom she survived, and died in the 41st year of Edward III. Upon which this manor, among the rest of her estates, escheated to the crown, and continued there till king Richard II. vested it, among others, in feoffees, for the performance of certain religious bequests by the will of king Edward III. then lately deceased; and they, in compliance with it, soon afterwards, with the king's licence, purchased this manor, with those of Wall, and Esture, of the crown, towards the endowment of St. Stephen's chapel, in the king's palace of Westminster, all which was confirmed by king Henry IV. and VI. and by king Edward IV. in their first years; the latter of whom, in his 7th year, granted to them a fair in this town yearly, on the feast of St. John Port Latin, together with all liberties, and to have a steward to hold the court of it, &c. In which situation they continued till the 1st year of Edward VI. when this collegiate chapel was, with all its possessions, surrendered into the king's hands, where these manors did not continue long; for that king, in his 3d year, granted the manor of Esshetford, with that of Wall, and the manor of Esture, to Sir Anthony Aucher, of Otterden, to hold in capite; and he, in the 2d and 3d of Philip and Mary, sold them to Sir Andrew Judde, of London, whose daughter and at length heir Alice, afterwards carried them in marriage to Thomas Smith, esq. of Westenhanger, commonly called the Customer, who died possessed of them in 1591, and lies buried in the south cross of this church, having had several sons and daughters, of, whom Sir John Smythe, of Ostenhanger, the eldest, succeeded him here, and was sheriff anno 42 Elizabeth. Sir Thomas Smith, the second son, was of Bidborough and Sutton at Hone, and ambassador to Russia, of whom and his descendants, notice has been taken in the former volumes of this history; (fn. 3) and Henry, the third son, was of Corsham, in Wiltshire, whence this family originally descended, and Sir Richard Smith, the fourth, was of Leeds castle. Sir John Smythe, above-mentioned, died in 1609, and lies buried in the same vault as his father in this church, leaving one son Sir Thomas Smythe, of Westenhanger, K. B. who was in 1628 created Viscount Strangford, of Ireland, whose grandson Philip, viscount Strangford, dying about 1709, Henry Roper, lord Teynham, who had married Catherine his eldest daughter, by his will, became possessed of the manors of Ashford, Wall, and Esture. By her, who died in 1711, he had two sons, Philip and Henry, successively lords Teynham; notwithstanding which, having the uncontrolled power in these manors vested in him, he, on his marriage with Anne, second daughter and coheir of Thomas Lennard, earl of Sussex, and widow of Richard Barrett Lennard, esq. afterwards baroness Dacre, settled them on her and her issue by him in tail male. He died in 1623, and left her surviving, and possessed of these manors for her life. She afterwards married the hon. Robert Moore, and died in 1755. She had by lord Teynham two sons, Charles and Richard-Henry, (fn. 4) Charles Roper, the eldest son, died in 1754 intestate, leaving two sons, Trevor-Charles and Henry, who on their mother's death became entitled to these manors, as coheirs in gavelkind, a recovery having been suffered of them, limiting them after her death to Charles Roper their father, in tail male; but being infants, and there being many incumbrances on these estates, a bill was exhibited in chancery, and an act procured anno 29 George II. for the sale of them; and accordingly these manors were sold, under the direction of that court, in 1765, to the Rev. Francis Hender Foote, of Bishopsborne, who in 1768 parted with the manor of Wall, alias Court at Wall, to John Toke, esq. of Great Chart, whose son Nicholas Roundell Toke, is the present possessor of it; but he died possessed of the manors of Ashford and Esture in 1773, and was succeeded in them by his eldest son John Foote, esq. now of Bishopsborne, the present owner of them. There are several copyhold lands held of the manor of Ashford. A court leet and court baron is regularly held for it.
THE TOWN OF ASHFORD stands most pleasant and healthy, on the knoll of a hill, of a gentle ascent on every side, the high road from Hythe to Maidstone passing through it, from which, in the middle of the town, the high road branches off through a pleasant country towards Canterbury. The houses are mostly modern and well-built, and the high-street, which has been lately new paved, is of considerable width. The markethouse stands in the centre of it, and the church and school on the south side of it, the beautiful tower of the former being a conspicuous object to the adjoining country. It is a small, but neat and chearful town, and many of the inhabitants of a genteel rank in life. Near the market place, is the house of the late Dr. Isaac Rutton, a physician of long and extensive practice in these parts, being the eldest son of Matthias Rutton, gent of this town, by Sarah his wife, daughter of Sir N. Toke, of Godinton. He died in 1792, bearing for his arms, Parted per fess, azure, and or, three unicorns heads, couped at the neck, counterchanged; since which, his eldest son, Isaac Rutton, esq. now of Ospringeplace, has sold this house to Mr. John Basil Duckworth, in whom it is now vested. In the midst of it is a large handsome house, built in 1759, by John Mascall, gent. who resided in it, and died possessed of it in 1769, and was buried in Boughton Aluph church, bearing for his arms, Barry of two, or, and azure, three inescutcheons, ermine; and his only son, Robert Mascall, esq. now of Ashford, who married the daughter of Jeremiah Curteis, esq. is the present owner, and resides in it. At the east end of the town is a seat, called Brooke-place, formerly possessed by the family of Woodward, who were always stiled, in antient deeds, gentlemen, and bore for their arms, Argent, a chevron, sable, between three grasshoppers, or; the last of them, Mr. John Woodward, gent. rebuilt this seat, and died possessed of it in 1757; of whose heirs it was purchased by Martha, widow of Moyle Breton, esq. of Kennington, whose two sons, the Rev. Moyle Breton, and Mr. Whitfield Breton, gent. alienated it to Josias Pattenson, esq. the second son of Mr. Josias Pattenson, of Biddenden, by Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of Felix Kadwell, esq. of Rolvenden; he married Mary, daughter of Mr. Henry Dering, gent. of this parish, and widow of Mr. John Mascall above-mentioned, by whom he has no issue, and he is the present owner of this seat, and resides in it. There have been barracks erected lately here, which at present contain 4000 soldiers. The market is held on a Saturday weekly, for the sale of corn, which is now but little used; and a market for the sale of all sorts of fat and lean stock on the first and third Tuesday in every month, which has been of great use to prevent monopolies. Two fairs are annually held now, by the alteration of the stile, on May 17, and Sept. 9, and another on Oct. 24; besides which, there is an annual fair for wool on August 2, not many years since instituted and encouraged by the principal gentry and landholders, which promises to prove of the greatest utility and benefit to the fair sale of it. That branch of the river Stour which rises at Lenham, runs along the southern part of this parish, and having turned a corn mill belonging to the lord of this manor, continues its course close at the east end of the town, where there is a stone bridge of four arches, repaired at the expence of the county, and so on northwards towards Wye and Canterbury. On the south side of the river in this parish, next to Kingsnoth, within the borough of Rudlow, is the yoke of Beavor, with the hamlet and farm of that name, possessed in very early times, as appears by the register of Horton priory, by a family of that name, one of whom, John Beavor, was possessed of it in the reign of Henry II. and was descended from one of the same furname, who attended the Conqueror in his expedition hither. The parish contains about 2000 acres of land, and three hundred and twenty houses, the whole rental of it being 4000l. per annum; the inhabitants are 2000, of which about one hundred are diffenters. The highways throughout it, which not many years ago were exceeding bad, have been by the unanimity of the inhabitants, which has shewn itself remarkable in all their public improvements, a rare instance in parochial undertakings, and by the great attention to the repairs of them, especially in such parts as were near their own houses, are now excellent. The lands round it are much upon a gravelly soil, though towards the east and south there are some rich fertile pastures, intermixed with arable land, and several plantations of hops; but toward the west, the soil is in general sand, having much quarrystone mixed with it, where there is a great deal of coppice wood, quite to Potter's corner, at the boundary of this parish.
The church, which is dedicated to St. Mary, is a large handsome building, consisting of three isles, with a transept, and three chancels, with the tower in the middle, which is losty and well proportioned, having four pinnacles at the top of it. There are eight bells in it, a set of chimes, and a clock. In the high chancel, on the north side, is the college John Fogge, the founder of the college here, who died in 1490, and his two wives, the brasses of their figures gone; but part of the inscription remains. And formerly, in Weever's time, there hung up in this chancel six atchievements, of those of this family whose burials had been attended by the heralds at arms, and with other ceremonies suitable to their degrees. Underneath the chancel is a large vault, full of the remains of the family. On the pavement in the middle, is a very antient curious gravestone, having on it the figure in brass of a woman, holding in her left hand a banner, with the arms of Ferrers, Six masctes, three and three, in pale; which, with a small part of the inscription round the edge, is all that is remaining; but there was formerly in brass, in her right hand, another banner, with the arms of Valoyns; over her head those of France and England quarterly; and under her feet a shield, being a cross, impaling three chevronels, the whole within a bordure, guttee de sang, and round the edge this inscription, Ici gift Elizabeth Comite D' athels la file sign de Ferrers . . . dieu asoil, qe morust le 22 jour d'octob. can de grace MCCCLXXV. Weever says, she was wife to David de Strabolgie, the fourth of that name, earl of Athol, in Scotland, and daughter of Henry, lord Ferrers, of Groby; and being secondly married to John Malmayns, of this county, died here in this town. Though by a pedigree of the family of Brograve, she is said to marry T. Fogge, esq. of Ashford; if so, he might perhaps have been her third husband. Near her is a memorial for William Whitfield, gent. obt. 1739. The north chancel belonged to Repton manor. In the vault underneath lay three of the family of Tuston, sometime since removed to Rainham, and it has been granted to the Husseys; Thomas Hussey, esq. of this town, died in 1779, and was buried in it. In the south chancel are memorials for the Pattensons, Whitfields, and Apsleys, of this place; and one for Henry Dering, gent. of Shelve, obt. 1752, and Hester his wife; arms, A saltier, a crescent for difference, impaling, on a chevron, between three persons, three crosses, formee; and another memorial for Thomasine, wife of John Handfield, obt. 1704. In the north cross are several antient stones, their brasses all gone, excepting a shield, with the arms of Fogge on one. At the end is a monument for John Norwood, gent. and Mary his wife, of this town, who lie with their children in the vault underneath. The south cross is parted off lengthways, for the family of Smith, lords of Ashford manor, who lie in a vault underneath. In it are three superb monuments, which, not many years since, were beautified and restored to their original state, by the late chief baron Smythe, a descendant of this family. One is for Thomas Smith, esq. of Westenhanger, in 1591; the second for Sir John Smythe, of Ostenhanger, his son, and Elizabeth his wife; and the third for Sir Richard Smyth, of Leeds castle, in 1628: all which have been already mentioned before. Their figures, at full length and proportion, are lying on, each of them, with their several coats of arms and quarterings blazoned. In the other part of this cross, is a memorial for Baptist Pigott, A. M. son of Baptist Pigott, of Dartford, and schoolmaster here, obt. 1657, and at the end of it, is the archbishop's consistory court. In the south isle is a memorial for Thomas Curteis, gent. obt. 1718, and Elizabeth his wife; arms, Curteis impaling Carter. Under the tower is one for Samuel Warren, vicar here forty-eight years, obt. 1720. The three isles were new pewed and handsomely paved in 1745. There are five galleries, and an handsome branch for candles in the middled isle; the whole kept in an excellent state of repair and neatness. There was formerly much curtious painted glass in the windows, particularly the figures of one of the family of Valoyns, his two wives and children, with their arms. In the south window of the cross isle, and in other windows, the figures, kneeling, of king Edward III. the black prince, Richard, duke of Gloucester, the lord Hastings. Sir William Haute, the lord Scales, Richard, earl Rivers, and the dutchess of Bedford his wife, Sir John Fogge, Sir John Peche, Richard Horne, Roger Manstone, and—Guildford, most of which were in the great west window, each habited in their surcoats of arms, not the least traces of which, or of any other coloured glass, are remaining throughout this church. Sir John Goldstone, parson of Ivechurch, as appears by his will in 1503, was buried in the choir of this church, and gave several costly ornaments and vestments for the use of it.