![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This is cited in the template as the origin of Civil Parishes. Yet the article identifies highway responsibility as deriving from an Act of 1555, and Poor Law responsibility from the Elizabethan period. So what responsibility did parishes ACTUALLY acquire in the 1530s? Certainly I have no reason to believe that the Dissolution directly substituted any liability on Parishes. Should not this be deleted? Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone kindly show me the concensus for the widespread replacement of the B-class Civil parish with the start-class Civil parishes in England that seems to be occuring in many articles at this moment? e.g. here and here. Also if the replacement has to occur, please make correct ES's. Both those changes (and many other articles were changed too) were not disambiguates as the ES says and also other changes not mentioned in the ES were made (such as date to year in references) -- Senra ( Talk) 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have several problems with the content of this section. They are cited from an 1884 book which I do not have, but which I suspect was more concerned with day to do parish administration than with accurate history:
I would like to rewrite this section, but this will mean that I need to find better sources, and I am not suire how quickly I will. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that a civil parish that was genuinely divided between two counties was in fact a rarity: even where the ecclesiastical parsih was divided, the two parts would have to operate as separate poor-law townships, eaCh with their own overseers of the poor, because the authroity to levy a rate had to be signed for the county magistrates, who would not be the same people in each of the counties. For example, Amblecote was that part of the parish of Oldswinford that lies in the county of Stafford. Its rates (and taxes) were dealt with in Staffordshire, whereas the township of Stourbridge and the rest of the parish of Oldswinford were always dealt with in Worcestershire. How the overseers were appointed in practice, I do not know. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
And be it also enacted, That if it shall happen any Parish to extend itself into more Counties than one, or part to lie within the liberties of any City, Town or place corporate, and part without, that then as well the Justices of peace of every County, as also the head Officers of such City, Town or place corporate, shall deal and intermeddle only in so much of the said Parish, as lieth within their liberties, and not any further. And everyone one of them respectively within their several Limits, Wards, and Jurisdictions, to execute the ordinances before mentioned concerning the nomination of Overseers, the consent to binding apprentices, the given warrant to levy Taxations unpaid, the taking account of Churchwardens and Overseers, and the committing to prison such as refuse to account, or deny to pay the arrearages due upon their accounts. And yet nevertheless, the said Churchwardens and Overseers, or the most part of them of the said parishes, that do extend into such several Limits and Jurisdictions, shall without dividing themselves, duely execute their office in all places within the said Parish, in all things to them belonging, and shall duely exhibit and make one account before the said head Officers of the town or place corporate, and one other before the said Justices of Peace, or any such two of them, as is aforesaid.
Lozleader ( talk) 22:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
These statements from the box at the top right hand corner must surely be quite wrong:
Created by
Eddaido ( talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)A volume published by Royal Historical Society is certainly a reliable source. I suspect thsat the 1662 Act was in fact recognising what had already happened. In certain cases locally, of which I know, the "township" was in fact a manor, which had evidently decided to administer its own poor. Where one manor was in a separate hundred or county from the rest of the parish, it was inevitable that there would be a separate constable, so that having a separate surveyor of highways and separate overseers was a simple step. However the situation may have been more complicated in some cases, with a township being part of one larger entity for one purpose and self-governing in another. It is also possible that the position was influenced by the perceptions of the magistrates in Quarter Sessions as to what was a parish or township. Real life often fails to fit comfortable patterns laid down from the centre. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that the current prominence of their history may not 'suit the needs' of the bulk of the many readers of this article? Might the History section be better moved to the foot of the article right out of the way of people concerned with the real world? I've seen blogs by men in shocked disbelief and telling the world about it on learning that their parish was once run by the The Church! Would it be better for its ancient parishes section to be then wiped off and the subject covered by a reference to ecclesiastical parishes in England - that article might be improved where it fails to cover what is deemed necessary. Eddaido ( talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Saladin tithe was a on-off tax. There are (I think) two later records of taxation for church purposes in England. What happened that resulted in tithes being paid to monastries is that the "abbot and convent" or perhaps just the abbot and hsi successors were appointed as rector. As a condition of allowing a monastery to approprate a church, the bishop required provision to be made for the continued pastoral care of the parish, usually by a vicar ("deputy") being appointed and some portion of the endownments assigned for the support of the vicar. typically this was a small part of the glebe (including a house) and the small (or privy) tithes - which were harder to collect. The monastery kept the rest and could use it as they liked. Some monastries has a pitancer, who was responsible for the monastry giving charitable donations to the poor, but (unless specifically appropriated to the pitancer) the income from the rectory impropriate would go into monastic funds held by their treasurer. They money might to some extent be spent on the poor, but this was not a predecessor of Poor Law relief. At the dissolution, Henry VIII pensioned of the monks and took the monastic endownments for himself, creating a special office to administer what he had expropriated. However the monks knew what was coming and I have in several cases seen them granting leases just before the dissolution, almost certainly for a lump sum, which the monks may well have kept for themselves. There was a severe famine in the late 1590s, the Poor Law was (as you say) probably a response to that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Silence, so I have to make this opportunity to tell you of a curious coincidence. My father's family is from (West) Malvern. I like to think we three plus? descend from the one disputatious monk, at the time of the dissolution, tossed out on his ear into the happy arms of an honest hard-working welcoming Worcestershire wench. Eddaido ( talk) 04:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
At least one parish ( Scotforth) has a detached part (created when the Lancaster University area became unparished) - are there others? Were detached parts within a county abolished, with new detached parts created by boundary changes, or have they always existed? Peter James ( talk) 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Wonder whether it is time to mention that the residents of the Queens Park area of Kensington and Chelsea have not only voted for the establishment of a Parish/Community Council, but the K&C Borough Council have now approved it? Looks like it will be up and running by 1 April 2014 at the latest.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 13:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Chrisobeer ( talk) 13:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this correction, you are indeed correct it is Westminster Council not Kensington & Chelsea. I would be surprised if this new Parish remain the only new one in London, but time will tell. Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. SST flyer 10:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Civil parishes in England →
Civil parish – Previous
discussion at RfD (later
revisted here) seems to establish that
Civil parishes in England is the primary topic, on the basis that England is the only place where they still serve any administrative function. Alternatively,
civil parish could be used as the dab page, but I see no advantage in the status quo where it exists only as a redirect to one or the other.
PC78 (
talk) 20:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Civil parish. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Civil parish. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this term is used when most, if not all, parishes were created well after the usually accepted end of this period in British history? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
If anybody is interested please use the UK geography talk page. Thanks to Smalljim for the heads up. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"right reserved not conferred"? Errantius ( talk) 22:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There are several examples of civil parishes being subheaded as human settlements, I would argue that this is incorrect as CPs are areas of land and not necessarily clearly defined settlements (such as towns, villages, hamlets). A good example is the page about "Lakes (human settlement)" this parish comprises of several villages but no-one ever refers to themselves as residing in "Lakes" but would say they live in Ambleside, Grasmere, Rydal etc. 90.249.200.87 ( talk) 17:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
In terms of joint parish councils like Swilland and Witnesham Grouped Parish Council its not clarified in the article if parishes that have a joint parish council still have parish meetings or not, in the pre 1974 times rural parishes it is stated that they did but there is no mention of this post 1974. If you look at Uttlesford District Council's list of councils it lists most like Hatfield Heath as having a separate PC and some like Strethall as having a parish meeting and some like Great Easton and Tilty as having a parish council but does the likes of "Tilty" also have a parish meeting? There is mention of Tilty Parish Meeting here but I can't fine any evidence of Swilland Parish Meeting. I don't think notability would be a problem in terms of WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES since they would at least have had a meeting at some point if someone was to argue they aren't legally recognized but this probably needs clarifying in the article, Stortford do you know? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Can someone change the infobox to reflect the updated figure. The Office for National Statistics link or Planning Data Gov uk pages are suitable sources. Jackiespeel ( talk) 23:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This is cited in the template as the origin of Civil Parishes. Yet the article identifies highway responsibility as deriving from an Act of 1555, and Poor Law responsibility from the Elizabethan period. So what responsibility did parishes ACTUALLY acquire in the 1530s? Certainly I have no reason to believe that the Dissolution directly substituted any liability on Parishes. Should not this be deleted? Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone kindly show me the concensus for the widespread replacement of the B-class Civil parish with the start-class Civil parishes in England that seems to be occuring in many articles at this moment? e.g. here and here. Also if the replacement has to occur, please make correct ES's. Both those changes (and many other articles were changed too) were not disambiguates as the ES says and also other changes not mentioned in the ES were made (such as date to year in references) -- Senra ( Talk) 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have several problems with the content of this section. They are cited from an 1884 book which I do not have, but which I suspect was more concerned with day to do parish administration than with accurate history:
I would like to rewrite this section, but this will mean that I need to find better sources, and I am not suire how quickly I will. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that a civil parish that was genuinely divided between two counties was in fact a rarity: even where the ecclesiastical parsih was divided, the two parts would have to operate as separate poor-law townships, eaCh with their own overseers of the poor, because the authroity to levy a rate had to be signed for the county magistrates, who would not be the same people in each of the counties. For example, Amblecote was that part of the parish of Oldswinford that lies in the county of Stafford. Its rates (and taxes) were dealt with in Staffordshire, whereas the township of Stourbridge and the rest of the parish of Oldswinford were always dealt with in Worcestershire. How the overseers were appointed in practice, I do not know. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
And be it also enacted, That if it shall happen any Parish to extend itself into more Counties than one, or part to lie within the liberties of any City, Town or place corporate, and part without, that then as well the Justices of peace of every County, as also the head Officers of such City, Town or place corporate, shall deal and intermeddle only in so much of the said Parish, as lieth within their liberties, and not any further. And everyone one of them respectively within their several Limits, Wards, and Jurisdictions, to execute the ordinances before mentioned concerning the nomination of Overseers, the consent to binding apprentices, the given warrant to levy Taxations unpaid, the taking account of Churchwardens and Overseers, and the committing to prison such as refuse to account, or deny to pay the arrearages due upon their accounts. And yet nevertheless, the said Churchwardens and Overseers, or the most part of them of the said parishes, that do extend into such several Limits and Jurisdictions, shall without dividing themselves, duely execute their office in all places within the said Parish, in all things to them belonging, and shall duely exhibit and make one account before the said head Officers of the town or place corporate, and one other before the said Justices of Peace, or any such two of them, as is aforesaid.
Lozleader ( talk) 22:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
These statements from the box at the top right hand corner must surely be quite wrong:
Created by
Eddaido ( talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)A volume published by Royal Historical Society is certainly a reliable source. I suspect thsat the 1662 Act was in fact recognising what had already happened. In certain cases locally, of which I know, the "township" was in fact a manor, which had evidently decided to administer its own poor. Where one manor was in a separate hundred or county from the rest of the parish, it was inevitable that there would be a separate constable, so that having a separate surveyor of highways and separate overseers was a simple step. However the situation may have been more complicated in some cases, with a township being part of one larger entity for one purpose and self-governing in another. It is also possible that the position was influenced by the perceptions of the magistrates in Quarter Sessions as to what was a parish or township. Real life often fails to fit comfortable patterns laid down from the centre. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that the current prominence of their history may not 'suit the needs' of the bulk of the many readers of this article? Might the History section be better moved to the foot of the article right out of the way of people concerned with the real world? I've seen blogs by men in shocked disbelief and telling the world about it on learning that their parish was once run by the The Church! Would it be better for its ancient parishes section to be then wiped off and the subject covered by a reference to ecclesiastical parishes in England - that article might be improved where it fails to cover what is deemed necessary. Eddaido ( talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Saladin tithe was a on-off tax. There are (I think) two later records of taxation for church purposes in England. What happened that resulted in tithes being paid to monastries is that the "abbot and convent" or perhaps just the abbot and hsi successors were appointed as rector. As a condition of allowing a monastery to approprate a church, the bishop required provision to be made for the continued pastoral care of the parish, usually by a vicar ("deputy") being appointed and some portion of the endownments assigned for the support of the vicar. typically this was a small part of the glebe (including a house) and the small (or privy) tithes - which were harder to collect. The monastery kept the rest and could use it as they liked. Some monastries has a pitancer, who was responsible for the monastry giving charitable donations to the poor, but (unless specifically appropriated to the pitancer) the income from the rectory impropriate would go into monastic funds held by their treasurer. They money might to some extent be spent on the poor, but this was not a predecessor of Poor Law relief. At the dissolution, Henry VIII pensioned of the monks and took the monastic endownments for himself, creating a special office to administer what he had expropriated. However the monks knew what was coming and I have in several cases seen them granting leases just before the dissolution, almost certainly for a lump sum, which the monks may well have kept for themselves. There was a severe famine in the late 1590s, the Poor Law was (as you say) probably a response to that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Silence, so I have to make this opportunity to tell you of a curious coincidence. My father's family is from (West) Malvern. I like to think we three plus? descend from the one disputatious monk, at the time of the dissolution, tossed out on his ear into the happy arms of an honest hard-working welcoming Worcestershire wench. Eddaido ( talk) 04:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
At least one parish ( Scotforth) has a detached part (created when the Lancaster University area became unparished) - are there others? Were detached parts within a county abolished, with new detached parts created by boundary changes, or have they always existed? Peter James ( talk) 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Wonder whether it is time to mention that the residents of the Queens Park area of Kensington and Chelsea have not only voted for the establishment of a Parish/Community Council, but the K&C Borough Council have now approved it? Looks like it will be up and running by 1 April 2014 at the latest.
Freedom1968 ( talk) 13:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Chrisobeer ( talk) 13:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this correction, you are indeed correct it is Westminster Council not Kensington & Chelsea. I would be surprised if this new Parish remain the only new one in London, but time will tell. Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. SST flyer 10:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Civil parishes in England →
Civil parish – Previous
discussion at RfD (later
revisted here) seems to establish that
Civil parishes in England is the primary topic, on the basis that England is the only place where they still serve any administrative function. Alternatively,
civil parish could be used as the dab page, but I see no advantage in the status quo where it exists only as a redirect to one or the other.
PC78 (
talk) 20:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Civil parish. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Civil parish. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this term is used when most, if not all, parishes were created well after the usually accepted end of this period in British history? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
If anybody is interested please use the UK geography talk page. Thanks to Smalljim for the heads up. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"right reserved not conferred"? Errantius ( talk) 22:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There are several examples of civil parishes being subheaded as human settlements, I would argue that this is incorrect as CPs are areas of land and not necessarily clearly defined settlements (such as towns, villages, hamlets). A good example is the page about "Lakes (human settlement)" this parish comprises of several villages but no-one ever refers to themselves as residing in "Lakes" but would say they live in Ambleside, Grasmere, Rydal etc. 90.249.200.87 ( talk) 17:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
In terms of joint parish councils like Swilland and Witnesham Grouped Parish Council its not clarified in the article if parishes that have a joint parish council still have parish meetings or not, in the pre 1974 times rural parishes it is stated that they did but there is no mention of this post 1974. If you look at Uttlesford District Council's list of councils it lists most like Hatfield Heath as having a separate PC and some like Strethall as having a parish meeting and some like Great Easton and Tilty as having a parish council but does the likes of "Tilty" also have a parish meeting? There is mention of Tilty Parish Meeting here but I can't fine any evidence of Swilland Parish Meeting. I don't think notability would be a problem in terms of WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES since they would at least have had a meeting at some point if someone was to argue they aren't legally recognized but this probably needs clarifying in the article, Stortford do you know? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Can someone change the infobox to reflect the updated figure. The Office for National Statistics link or Planning Data Gov uk pages are suitable sources. Jackiespeel ( talk) 23:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)