A very old Establishment down the Skulls head yard (Part 2)

[cnosni]

uncle mick wrote: If I have read this correctly the application has been approved for the building known as "The Crown & Fleece"http://tinyurl.com/oowvnos Looks like you're right Mick    

[cnosni]

As i have said in the past i go along with the theory about the skulls coming from an old ecclesiastical building.However it would appear that the religious building on the site of the market excavations, according to current thinking,was the chantry chapel of Thomas Clavell and not a monastry.Thats not to say that there was not an older religious building on the site but we must remember that there is no mention of a monastry in Domesday and if such a monastry had been built in the centuries before the conquest then it would be mentioned in Domesday.Leeds didn't actually suffer that much in the conquest, it is a among a number of villages which were shown to be even more prosperous in 1086 than they were pre conquest.Compared to other places in Yorkshire, which were destroyed in William the Conquerors "Harrying of the North" then Leeds was quite fortunate.It is described in Domesday as being divided into seven manors, held by as many thanes; they possessed six ploughs; there was a priest, and a church, and a mill: its taxable value was six pounds.This tells us that there was only a church with a priest, not a monastry with monks.The ancient Anglian crosses, found in the foundations of the old medieaval parish church when it was demolished to build the current one, indicate that the "church" in Domesday is the church that would have been on the site of the parish church today and is probably the one that is contemporary with the Anglian crosses give or take a few generations.This then would seem to discount the theory of a monastry in Leeds on Kirkgate unless it was the "parish " church itself, which would obviously rule out the market site as one for a monastry.However we could speculate that the monastry could well have fallen out of use pre conquest and was not in existance at the time of the conquest.Yet if this was the case then any stone ( if that is what the monastry was made of as the original and vastly important monastry at Lindisfarne was nothing more than a collection of wooden buildings until post conquest for example) would have been robbed an recycled before the Normans came along let alone before 14th century and the building of St Marys Chantry chapel.

[LS1]

cnosni wrote: Yet if this was the case then any stone ( if that is what the monastry was made of as the original and vastly important monastry at Lindisfarne was nothing more than a collection of wooden buildings until post conquest for example) would have been robbed an recycled before the Normans came along let alone before 14th century and the building of St Marys Chantry chapel. In which case also, it was unlikely to have had any stone embellishments such as the skulls.

[Steve Jones]

LS1 wrote: cnosni wrote: Yet if this was the case then any stone ( if that is what the monastry was made of as the original and vastly important monastry at Lindisfarne was nothing more than a collection of wooden buildings until post conquest for example) would have been robbed an recycled before the Normans came along let alone before 14th century and the building of St Marys Chantry chapel. In which case also, it was unlikely to have had any stone embellishments such as the skulls. There may not have been a monastery on the site as pointed out,but the Radestock article is valuable because he specifically mentions parts of the old building being visible on the site.To date no drawings or pictures of the Clavell chapel have surfaced so we don't know whether it had skulls on it.however as it would have been a catholic one originally and they tended to be highly decorated I still think the Kirkgate site is where they came from and not the parish church during the restoration of it.

[Steve Jones]

I just came across this:
http://leeds-list.com/out-and-about/the ... -of-leeds/
last bit is about the skulls.
I assume the claim they are back in place is wrong?

[Steve Jones]

Given the popularity of this subject I am maazed that nobody has commented on the assertation that the skulls are back near the Crown?

[String o' beads]

I disregarded it as a very poorly researched puff piece.

However, now that the thread is resurrected, I would like to echo our concerns about the plight of the skulls. The 'owners', and I put that in inverted commas since their right to remove them to this anonymous building at Buslingthorpe might be questionable, have always seemed disinterested in engaging with interested parties.

I'm unsure what to suggest - they don't want to part with them, none of the civic bodies are bothered about their fate and it seems only a matter of luck that they remain in situ, unprotected.

I do wish the city would somehow acquire them and return them to their rightful place as a feature of the development.

[Steve Jones]

I disregarded it as a very poorly researched puff piece.

However, now that the thread is resurrected, I would like to echo our concerns about the plight of the skulls. The 'owners', and I put that in inverted commas since their right to remove them to this anonymous building at Buslingthorpe might be questionable, have always seemed disinterested in engaging with interested parties.

I'm unsure what to suggest - they don't want to part with them, none of the civic bodies are bothered about their fate and it seems only a matter of luck that they remain in situ, unprotected.

I do wish the city would somehow acquire them and return them to their rightful place as a feature of the development.

Be nice of the council could compulsory purchase them

[tilly]

Hi Steve The council spend money i dont think so not unless they are making something out of it.

[TABBYCAT]

Nothing questionable about the skulls removal, they bought the building in the 1930's as I seem to recall and and providing there wasn't a "complete with skulls" clause upon its subsequent sale in the 70's it's their property to do with as they see fit.

If you sell your house minus it's period fireplace then providing the new buyer is happy about it who are we to decide that your right to remove it is Questionable?

Over the years I have noticed a sour attitude towards the owners of the skulls,(mostly towards Anthony Dyson) from certain members of the forum intimating things like they are money grubbers holding out for what they can get,suggestions that we bung em a few quid,demands that they hand them over, features in the local rag, posts about what WE will do when we get them which frankly would make anyone not wish to deal with interested parties. Not really the way to go about it especially as they too may browse forums such as this, and before everyone shouts "Link please" I'm not going to trawl through seven years of posts for examples they exist trust me or do your own spadework.

I would offer the following for the forum to think about, disregard, take on board or whatever.

Firstly Mr Dyson is extremely charitable, he is not a money grubber tight wad or which ever turn of phrase suits nor is he in need of a couple a quid and he is certainly not holding out for anything re his property the skulls and yes they are his property.

Secondly doorstepping him at his place of business which happened on more than one occasion is not really conducive to a desired result I would have thought nor are inflammatory remarks about his character in a public forum such as this.

No doubt at this point people will say we have tried being polite reasonable etc well all I can offer is the following, my brother knows Mr Dyson and has given me the reasons, which I for one respect but am not willing to discuss on an open forum, for his shall we say lack of enthusiasm re the skulls and that any approach at this time would not be well received.

It is possible at some future time Mr Dyson may be more amenable re the skulls but I believe a lot will depend on how he is approached and that his decision one way or the other should be respected.

At this point no doubt the cries of "disrespectful? not true guv" will ring out so feel free to scoff disregard shout down etc my observations which I offer in good faith having heard BOTH sides of the tale, but I truly believe that if the past attitudes and opinions plus some might say borderline bullying are continued in any further discussions with Mr Dyson then he may just decide to hell with it and turn them into hardcore and regardless of how much we may want to question it they are his to do with as he wishes.