Jump to content

Talk:Bromley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frampton

[edit]

I'm pretty sure it was Peter Frampton's dad who was a teacher at Ravenswood school (Bromley Technology Collage). Not 100% though. Jason.
He was an art teacher there

Yes he was, but it was Bromley Technical High School for Boys. The college is nearby on Bromley Common (A21),

Bromley, Bromley

[edit]

Bromley, so great they named it twice? why is it Bromley, Bromley? sounds weird...

Makes sense to me. They probably named the borough after the town. - Hephaestos 03:08, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sort of like Baden-Baden, I guess. Maximus Rex 03:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As a person who was born and grew up in Bromley, I've never heard it called that, i guess thats why it sounds weird to me :-/ ... Steeev 03:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Isn't this just a case of something like New York, New York? Dysprosia 03:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Im pretty darned sure, theres no reason for it to be called "Bromley, Bromley" (speaking as a former resident of the area). -- Steeev 03:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Bromley's already a disambig though, where should we put this? - Hephaestos 03:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As I believe this Bromley is the original Bromley, and all the other Bromleys have an extra identifier, cant this one just be plain Bromley? Steeev 04:07, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It's workable; I'd like to give it a day or so before the move though in case anyone else chimes in. - Hephaestos 04:09, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sounds cool to me:) Steeev 04:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leofric

[edit]

Moved from conversation from article:

Leofric, Earl of Mercia and husband of the Lady Godiva, is said to have died here in 1057.

Note: However, this is not true as Leofric died in Bromley, Staffordshire and not Bromley, Kent. DP

Argh!

[edit]

What's happening to Bromley? Since I went to Uni 3 years ago many of the so-called historic things mentioned on this page are disappearing. It's criminal that the Bell, with all it's history went the way it did, and whose idea was it to paint out H.G. Wells?? --Hobmcd 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The painting out or altering of the H.G. Wells memorial is a crime in my opinion. Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, not Bromley, that's not to say he doesn't deserve a memorial himself in Bromley - just not one which replaces Wells.

Kent

[edit]

Could someone familiar with how this sort of article works please add a mention of Bromley's history as part of Kent? I've written several bios recently of people born in "Bromley, Kent" in the 19th century, and as things stand another editor may turn up here, see no reference to Kent, and decide I was in the wrong. Loganberry (Talk) 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same problem recurs across London - particularly (say) prior to 1880, when nearly everyone was born in Middlesex (now eliminated completely), Kent, Essex, Surrey, etc. It is permissible to note in the historical section that it formed the Municipal Borough of Bromley in the county of Kent - but someone would have to write a suitable history section. Kbthompson (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Comment

[edit]

totally agree with the above added kent to the Bromley page, again I suggest the page shows that Bromley is in Kent, yes its a London Borough, but it is still in kent, we need to show this, again there are other Bromleys!!! by showing kent we can link it onto the kent page. If a wiki reader was doing some research into kent, there would be no links to kent/Bromley. Other such things like Kent cricket ground in the bromley borough would also cause confusion, for the sake of a link to a kent page, I for one think its worth it.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley joined the London Borough of Bromley in 1965. It's certainly in the historic county of Kent, but Bromley is in Greater London to indicate anything else is misleading and is an extreme violation of NPOV. It should perhaps also be noted that the postal address remained Kent until the introduction of the full postcode system - when counties were abolished in postal terms - prior to that the post office didn't modify the system on purely cost grounds. thanks Kbthompson (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that amending the infobox by putting in the wrong county can lead to incorrect maps, police, fire, and political representation being displayed - please don't. Kbthompson (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are we all saying Bromley is not in kent ? so if Bromley is not in kent that must meen Beckenham is not in kent, then the cricketers are going to be lost lol. Maybe there could be come mention about the change from kent to greater london in the history.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! Unfortunately, a number of county cricket grounds are no longer within their original counties - Oval (Surrey), Old Trafford (Lancashire) are two that spring to mind. AFAIAA Kent's primary ground is at Canterbury St Lawrence; Beckenham is their secondary ground.
--ikrip | talk page 09:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to say bromley isnt in Kent is just plain stupid, as a resident, my adress is bromley Kent, br1 etc. it may be a London borough but in my eyes when i write my adress i put Kent. not London. TonyP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.63.244 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find residents have a very bias and extremely narrow-minded view about their local area, they often fail to see what outsiders would see. 'in my eyes' is a very arrogant reason to describe Bromley in the way you do. Also, If you read the Postcode Lottery and PAF articles on Wikipedia you will find that Postcodes are about the most inaccurate way of dividing the country, there are mistakes up and down the UK, It also says that county references were removed in the mid nineties, so your address would just be xxx road, Bromley, BR1 xxx, writing Kent is a waste of ink as it is completely ignored by the sorting machine! Justgravy (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I put anything about Bromley being in Kent, which it is, it is re-eddited back. What is this person's problem? This cannot be written out of Bromley's History. also any local folklore or knowledge that may well be of interest to a tourist is taken out as well.

My problem is that Bromley is HISTORICALLY part of Kent and since 1965 has been a part of London, these articles are supposed to be up to date not almost 50 years out of date! Wikipedia didn't even exist the last time Bromley was in Kent! Also, "which it is" is not an explanation, you need to find modern reliable sources that confirm your reasoning because otherwise it just sounds like a personal opinion which has no place on Wikipedia and therefore you cannot add it onto Wikipedia because not everyone will agree with it i.e. not everyone does "regard Bromley as part of Kent" myself included! Also, if you are going to mention "folklore, knowledge" etc. you need to add references to this knowledge as well, otherwise how else do we know that it isn't just made up by you? For example, mentioning it as "The patio of England", when researching this term most people seem to refer to Surrey as this not Bromley.
Actually the fact that Bromley was a part of Kent is in the opening paragraph: "It was historically a market town, and prior to 1965 was in the county of Kent and formed the administrative centre of the Municipal Borough of Bromley". There is no need to say this a second time. Justgravy (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This tedious debate goes on throughout all the outer boroughs of London. I don't know why people just can't accept they are now part of the extended London. It happened before and it might happen again. It's the same in other major cities which overspill into the surrounding areas. Surrey used to include much of south London, including Lambeth. To TonyP, if you pay your council tax to the London Borough of Bromley, then you cannot be in Kent, even though you would like to be. Bromley is mentioned in the Kent entry and vice versa. That should be sufficient for historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonID (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not only individuals, but also a medical institution situated there still uses the old address style: [1] (a PDF version I found but cannot link to, has a line break between 'Kent' and the postal code). Bever (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that someone who edits this page has a real problem with any Kent or local cultural reference. As a former resident of Bromley, whom lived there for a long time, I have been luck enough to learn much local folklore and cultural knowledge however any references to these are quickly edited out to leave the article as a bare bones boring bullet point account. From reading the above commentary it would appear that many local residents have had the same problem in writing the truth about their own town. Regarding the Kent debate, Bromley is certainly in Historic Kent, also people must remember that if an adminastrive border is moved that doesnt mean that the identity of the redidents or town is automatically changed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.34.1.14 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no correct Bromley address contains the word Kent. This can be checked on the Royal Mail address finder website. Secondly, according to Wikipedia, historic counties are also known as former counties meaning they no longer exist. They can't be used as a present day geographic reference, only as a historical reference. Some people may not like this, but their feelings aren't facts. Riteinit (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since King Ethelbert of Kent granted the land for the original Manor of Bromley, are people born there considered to be Kentish Men (or Maids)? NRPanikker (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

notable people

[edit]

Some work needs doing on the notable persons section, I have now sourced the Darren M Jackson page about living Bromley and also another editor has added another source. Any more problems on the above notable person please feel free to get in touch.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s Orpington is not next to Bromley, so its not a nearest place--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add the 'Darren M Jackson' citation here, please. It is normal to include the citation to support the 'fact' as used in each article. Tricky, I know, but if the DMJ article were to be deleted (not saying it's going to be), then the supporting evidence would no longer be available - and it will prevent any future problems. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coles Child

[edit]

Wow. Occasionally Wikipedia comes up with a fact that blows you away. I used to own a house that was on former Bromley manorial land, built in 1929. As of 2002 the deeds still had restrictive covenants from a conveyancing a couple years before the house was built where a certain Coles Child (as mentioned in the article by another contributor) was the vendor of the land. So although it's definitely original research, I can vouch that Coles Child did own the little parcel of land that became my former house! BaseTurnComplete (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"Destroyed by enemy action"?

[edit]

From the article: "The parish church of St Peter and St Paul stands on Church Road. It was largely destroyed by enemy action".

When and what was the "enemy action"? I am assuming World War 2 bombing by planes but this should be clarified. --mgaved (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

being bold

[edit]

I removed the sections on what shops Bromley has had and does have, as that doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I also removed the table of "bits of tv filmed in Bromley" for much the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.9.40 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary schools

[edit]

I have added {{merge-school}} templates to the following non-notable primaries:

This is where any discussion relating to such a merge should take place. In general, by WP:OUTCOMES, primaries will be deleted or redirected unless the is significant coverage in decent non-local sources. None of these seem to have such coverage. Atlas-maker (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bromley. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bromley. 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) 09:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bromley. 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) 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Some people (mostly IP users) keep on changing the location from London to Kent which is wrong. Bromley has been part of London since 1965 - 55 years ago.

Some have said that Bromley is administratively in London but geographically in Kent and / or referred to the London Government Act 1963. That articles says that creating Greater London "absorbed parts of Kent, Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire plus the whole of the City of London", plus all of Middlesex and the old county of London.

Also in 1965 the Ceremonial counties of England were updated so that Bromley is no longer in the area of the Lord-Lieutenant of Kent but of the Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London.

Bromley used to be part of Kent but there is no sense in which it is part of Kent now.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being from the other side of the sea, I have no prejudice or preference about in which region or county Bromley should considered to belong. I would like a few things:
  • The reluctance by suburbs swallowed by the neighbouring city to recognize that they are now part of that city, is well-known elsewhere.
  • Often, formal and informal names can coexist, although the government can try to impose the official ones. In my opinion, a non-governmental reference work (like Wikipedia) should give both, provided that the informal ('folk') names or divisions are not invented by a few individuals of course (or, in other words, there are sources for their use).
  • Kbthompson and others above are right that it would be confusing to say that Bromley is in the present county of Kent. Evidently a county is an official division the country, so it is the government's prerogative to decide about that. But I wonder if Kent could also considered an informal region, with perhaps slightly different borders. After all, there are many informal regions elsewhere with a name also in use for one or more administrative divisions, without claims that one of the meanings is better than the others.
  • In the Kent Comment section above, I noted that "a medical institution situated there still uses the old address style" and apparently it still does, six years later. (In fact the mention of that address in another publication was the reason that I came to this article in the first place.) So it may be justified (and helpful for readers from elsewhere) to mention in the article that regardless of the introduction of postal codes and border changes, the old name is still in use. Bever (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional counties were never abolished. The government recognised this fact in 2013. WisDom-UK (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since a county is a man-made jurisdictional area it can be changed. Counties have changed over the centuries. Bromley was removed from Kent by Act of Parliament in 1965. To say it's in the historic county of Kent is nonsensical. According to Wikipedia, historic counties are also known as former counties. Makes sense, they no longer exist. Historic counties can be used as a historical reference, but not as a present day geographic reference. Riteinit (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has, yet again, been a lot of to-and-fro in recent days about where Bromley is. Clearly it used to be in Kent but is now in London. Both pieces of information need to be included but with substantially more emphasis on what is true now than what was true more than half a century ago.

I have rolled the first two paras back to before people starting putting Kent into the first line as that is not appropriate. I made the link to the historic county of Kent clearer in the second para.

The recent made it seem that Bromley only became part of London for ceremonial purposes in 1965 which is not true.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FF, I am somewhat surprised at your reasoning. It makes no sense. Take a look at SYNTHESIS Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what point you are trying to make. Please explain. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In short - Bromley was in Kent; in 1965 Bromley became part of GL; therefore Bromley is not in Kent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you. Before I changed it, the article said "Bromley is a large town in south-east London, England, located in the historic county of Kent" which give too much prominence to the historic information.
I can't see anything that we are disagreeing about. FerdinandFrog (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was your illogical reasoning. Did you read the link that spelles out why that sort of reasoning is illogical? Please read it again. Here's another example which, based on your reasoning, makes perfect sense - 'In 1974 London was in the UK; in 1975 the UK became part of the EEC; therefore in 1976 London was not in the UK.' Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no flaw in my reasoning nor any synthesis. Rather than giving an example that, as far as I can see, is totally irrelevant, why don't you actually say what you actually think is wrong with what I said. FerdinandFrog (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 1964 Bromley local govt was under the Municipal Borough of Bromley, which was within the then area of then administrative area called Kent. In 1965 the MBOB was abolished, the area of the admin area called Kent was changed. A new Bromley local govt area was created (London borough of Bromley) which was within the newly created GL which covered an area that used to be within the area of the admin county of Kent. Nothing in this process affected the historic county of Kent. Your reasoning is that in 1964 Bromley used to be within the administrative area of Kent. In 1965 Bromley came under the administrative area of Greater London and no longer under the area of the the admin area of Kent; therefore Bromley left the historic county of Kent. I suggest you are very clear about what certain words mean, especially what is meant by Kent. The HC and the admin authority area of both usually called 'Kent', when in reality they are distinctly seperate entities. If you want to scroll through legislation you will find the definition of words such as 'county' are invariably defined, to avoid ambiguity. In common usage the distinction is rarely made, hence confusion. So please, before asserting that 'Bromley is NOT in Kent', be clear about what you are talking. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat at a lose as to how to respond to this, hence the delay in replying.
The current county of Kent and the historic county are, of course, distinct entities. That issue was clearly dealt with in my last version of the article by saying that Bromley is in London and was in the HC of Kent.
You have acknowledged this when you say here that "Bromley left the historic county of Kent" in 1965. So it seems very odd that you have changed the article to say "Bromley is ... located in the historic county of Kent".
All the points about legal definitions are not relevant as this is not a Act of Parliament, nor a legal text but a general encyclopaedia and needs to be written using common language and to be helpful to our readers.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up a long time ago trying to explain what to me is the patently obvious. There is no such thing as the 'current' county of Kent. There is a county called Kent, that does not encompass Bromley, and that is currently used as the default county on WP, but that, of course, is not the same thing because it is not called the 'curent county'. I'll say it again: Bromley IS in GL AND the historic county of Kent. What is so complicated in that? Sorry to sound dismissive but at times exasperation gets the better of me. Reference to the HC of Kent in the lead here does not relate to whether or not Bromley is in GL, it relates to the relevance of the HC of Kent to the settlement called Bromley. If you do not want Kent meantioned then show us that the HC of Kent has no significant relevance to Bromley today. You will have trouble doing that because Kent is relevant to Bromley. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather confused when you say "There is no such thing as the 'current' county of Kent" but then go on to say "There is a county called Kent, that does not encompass Bromley, and that is currently used as the default county on WP". As they are contradictory.
You then go on to say "but that, of course, is not the same thing because it is not called the 'curent county'" You seem to be saying that because Kent does not have the word 'current' in it's name it is not, in some sense Kent. Is that what you mean?
"I'll say it again: Bromley IS in GL AND the historic county of Kent. What is so complicated in that?" Firstly, it is not, in any meaningful sense, true. Bromley was in the historic county of Kent, but that county no longer exists, so it is not possible for Bromley to be in it now. Secondly, the most that can be said is that Bromley's land is in the area that a map of the historic county of Kent would cover. Is that meaningful or helpful to a reader? It clearly isn't to the vast majority and so should not be right at the start.
"If you do not want Kent meantioned then show us that the HC of Kent has no significant relevance to Bromley today" I'm sorry but the boot is on the other foot. The HC of Kent is relevant to Bromley's history and this is where it should be. If you think that the HC of Kent is of sufficient relevant to Bromley today as to be at the start of the lede then you need to provide evidence to support that. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why historic counties are mentioned in the first line of an article. Surely its a footnote, or the beginning of the history section and the current county should be prominently displayed and acknowledged. Garfie489 (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garfie, the town remains in the county of Kent. The counties themselves were not changed when the administrative Greater London area (currently a "ceremonial county") was formed. The terms historic/ancient/traditional counties are used to contrast administrative areas from the counties themselves. Bromley is in Greater London and the traditional/historic county of Kent. Bromley has been in Kent since medieval times, and the Greater London Government Act 1964 certainly did not change this. It simply placed it in a new administrative area designed to govern more of the conurbation of London than the similarly-created County of London. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar and perhaps more detailed debate going on at Romford. It is unfortunate that these talks always take place in seperate articles. Due to their constant recurrence I think it would be halpful to create a specific site, but that seems easier said than done. Ideally they should take place at the WikiProject UK Geography/placenames talk page, but that rarely happens. Whatever, Romford is there for those that have not seen it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bromley&oldid=1250083465"