Talk:Runnymede

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames

Picture.svg

The picture cannot load without the proper plugin.24.14.171.9 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical question

Let's say that a pregnant British woman was visiting the Kennedy memorial and went into sudden labor and gave birth to the child there. Since the US gives citizenship to anyone born in its territory, would that child have a legitimate claim to American citizenship? Thanks in advance for humoring me. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy Memorial is part of the United States of America that exists on the "island" of Great Britain (not a real island since being physically joined to France by the Channel Tunnel). That child would be just as much an American citizen as if it had been born anywhere else in the United States. Similiary, if a pregnant woman was visiting the James Cook Memorial which is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that exists in the islands of Hawaii and gave birth there (and incidently one of two British enclaves in North America surrounded by the United States the other of which is a small territory completely surrounded by Massachusettes(sp?)) then that child would be just as British as if it was born in any other part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland OR one of its overseas territories. British Hawaii proudly flies the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (one of 6 territories that do so: Great Britain (& associated islands), Ulster (& associated islands), Akrotiri, Dhekelia, Ascension Island (& Botswann(sp?) Bird Island), British Massachusettes(sp?) & said British Hawaii) and a British warship pays periodic visits (every 2 years or so) to this remote outpost of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Empire for maintenance purposes. I think we need a similar labelling setup as the virgin islands which are also divided between the two nations, the principal difference here is that in the virgin islands the two territories are dependent territories of the USA and UK where as in Hawaii the two Hawaiian territorites form part of the two nations! YourPTR! 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that the above contribution was made by a no longer active editor with an alleged history of attempting to cause controversy on sovereignty issues. In the absence of any cites, it should be treated with respect but not too much confidence. -- Starbois (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cite for 'US territory'

It is of course perfectly possible for one country (or strictly the government of one country) to own land in another country's territory without any sovereignty implications, so the statement that the land was given to the United States is ambiguous. I can find lots of cites for the fact that land was given to the United States, but none that explicitly says that this was done in such a way as to make the monument US sovereign territory. Can anybody supply a clarifying cite, and remove the fact tag I've added?. -- Starbois (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's possible to give something as a gift to someone, but that someone does not necessarily need to legally incorporate themselves as the true owner. This is likely the case here. Britain gave it as a gift which America accepted, and in essence America owns it in the same way they own a military aircraft (let's say). However, for it to be American sovereign territory then it would need to be legally incorporated in the U.S. (which does happen with Embassies no doubt through some standard law). If there is no record of this incorporation its likely that the land is not actually sovereign territory (like the aforementioned aircraft) but is owned. It would be interesting to find out exactly the case though. In short, ownership does not necessarily imply sovereignty. 203.196.81.139 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is the "The John F Kennedy Memorial Act, 1964" which clearly gifts the site to the USA in perpetuity. WyrdLight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdlight (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument leaning towards ownership rather than sovereignty may be helped by the fact that the JFK Memorial Act 1965 is described as an "Act to vest in the United States of America a site at Runnymede forming part of the Crown Estate.." One definition of "vest in" is action "to devolve upon a person as possessor; pass into possession or ownership". Whether that ownership was intended by Parliament to extend to sovereignty needs to be examined, but seems unlikely. WyrdLight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdlight (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Act of Parliament under which the land was given to the United States, as a private act, was not printed with the general statutes and is as far as I can tell not available online, but a summary from the debate in Hansard is available [1]here. It is quite clear that sovereignty was in no way transferred from the United Kingdom to another state; the Crown merely gave over its ownership of the land. As Lord Carrington remarked, statutory authority was required only because "the Crown Estate Commissioners are normally obliged to get the best price for any alienation of Crown Estate land". I thus think the comment about the Memoral being "United States territory" should be deleted as simply erroneous. Alix Cavanaugh (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of cleanup with a solid reference supplied by another editor. -- Beland (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Carta Island

Can we have some source for this created as an an artificial island? WP:REF specifies that title of work, page number etc are required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, but I can't find anything. Deleting, again, as per WP:PROVEIT policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - not particularly skilled in entering citations. I was surprised at this assertion by the National Trust in their A3 fold out guide to Runnymede which I came across a few weeks ago. The NT state "Contrary to popular belief, the Magna Carta was not sealed on this island, which is artificial. In 1834.. .. the Harcourt family.. ..dug out the narrow channel behind it Magna Carta Island". This does seem at odds with other texts which refer to the islands existence centuries before. Maybe its best to leave it out until additional corroboration is made. WyrdLight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdlight (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the National Trust leaflet seems very definite, but I'm still looking. The Burkes (of Burkes' Peerage), writing in 1847, assert that George Simon Harcourt bought the estate in 1829, and describe his island and its "fisherman's hut" as being famous as the place where the deed was signed.[2] No mention of digging the channel or charging, though: perhaps the deception had not yet been uncovered? This 1847 book mentions the building being put up in 1834, but asserts that the island was in existence since at least the time of John Aubrey, and by his account since 1215.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was called Magna Carta Island in the 18th century as there is a drawing from then called "A Fishing Party Near Magna Carta Island, from Runnymede" in the Egham Museum: see here Perhaps the channel had silted up and they dug it out again in 1834. On a different point, there are far too many pictures in this article and it just looks untidy - shouldn't they be pruned down? For instance - do we really need a picture of every place the Magna Carta may have been signed? They're just odd bits of rather similar looking countryside - what do the pictures tell you about the historical event? Also, what does "Runnymede... is associated popularly with Magna Carta Island" mean? I've changed the rating of this article to C class as it clearly doesn't meet the first criterion for B class as most of it is unreferenced. Richerman (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runnymede is more than its association with Magna Carta, as I tried to draw out in showing a range of information about the area, although of course it was that association that led to other monuments being placed there. A key historical issue which seems to be debated regularly is however the exact place where Magna Carta was sealed and this confusion in modern times is exacerbated because the word Runnymede is used popularly now to refer to areas that for many centuries were known by other names. The article was designed originally to address this issue and the images placed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrdlight (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text makes it clear that there is more to Runnymede than Magna Carta and I can't see how having all the images of the possible places it was signed does anything to dispel that, however, if you're determined to have them in I'm not going to get into an an edit war. I've put the gallery back in and would suggest that they go there, although galleries are not really recommended. If anyone wants to see lots of images they should use the commons link to other media at the bottom. One thing that is definitely not considered good practice is to squeeze the text between two images, so I've moved one of the Lutyens kiosk images to the gallery. Could I suggest that the places infobox (like the one used in Chat Moss) is used at the beginning of the article and one good quality image of the area (like the one from the island) is used as the static image? Richerman (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref for Alan Collins

I was looking at a print source for this (from the Design Council magazine): the current one is a Wiki hosted by The National Archives, rather than written by them, and as such may not meet the WP:RS standard. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wondered why it looked a bit wiki-ish - I'll replace it with this one Richerman (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix: it's not as though there's any doubt or controversy about the material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diggers 2012

Anyone want to mention the new Diggers who are camped near this area? Information: http://diggers2012.wordpress.com/ http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/08/499235.html http://ecobrooklyn.com/diggers-2012-making-waste-land/ http://theoccupiedtimes.co.uk/?p=5492 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/diggers-2012/4282262 41.204.74.44 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Runnymede. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namesakes section

Is this really needed? Shouldn't it be merged with the Runnymede disambiguation page? WSGB11 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Runnymede. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120053742/http://millicentlibrary.org/cara2.htm to http://www.millicentlibrary.org/cara2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial tree plantings

The "Ceremonial tree plantings" section needs attention. It currently either states or implies that four different trees were all planted in 1987 - except that the plaque for one of them (pictured and quoted) explicitly dates from 1994. No sources given, so who knows how much of the rest is bullshit. GrindtXX (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]