Talk:Alden Valley

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Area of the deer park

Bobf according to [1] the area of Musbury Park was 904½ acres. 1,713 acres was the area of the entire township of Musbury, which also included to other parts called Musden Head and the (strangely named) Trippet of Ogden. The C.1850 OS map marks the boundary's of the three parts, with the park a broadly circular area centred on the Tor and only including parts of the valleys and a bit of the Heights around Hill End. Does Simpson explicitly state the other parts were also part of the park? TiB chat 23:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trappedinburnley Simpson says on page 1 of 'Musbury & Alden'...'As befits a park belonging to one of the most powerful and richest men in the land, Musbury park extended to about 1,713 acres'. His own reference is to Oliver Rackham's 'The Illustrated History of the Countryside', 1994. I would agree with him that Rackham was a reliable source. In his book Simpson marks out the park boundary on a OS map of 1840, which is just below Holden reservoir in the north; present day Holcombe Rd and Station Rd in the east; Alden Brook to the south, and close to Causeway Head in the west. I've no way of knowing the acreage and I take Simpson's word for it...it would be good to know why your source differs! My guess would be that the entire township of Musbury would be considerably larger that the 1,713 acres but it does beg the question as to what exactly constitutes the boundary of Musbury township? Is it roughly what we now call Helmshore, or is it the 'whole land of Musbury' which was granted to John de Lacy (before 1241) by Lewis de Bernavill, and once extended as far as Tottington. Best wishes. Bob (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again at your source [2] and agree; yes, it's a puzzle. I wonder if the original manor gifted (or inherited) by Henry de Lacy was known as Musbury park, but this was distinct from the area he later fenced as a deer park? I know John Simpson a little, and I'll ask him if he can clear up this confusion here. Best. Bob (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I compared another of the de Lacy parks: Ightenhill at 760 acres [3] using the OS First Edition 1:10,000 map at MARIO. The area identified as Musbury park (which seems to match the description Simpson gives) doesn't seem to be a vast amount larger than Ightenhill. IMO this would fit the 904½ acre measurement given in the Victoria County History. It could well be that either before or after the lifetime of park these areas became separated from it, but my I feeling is that although both books do qualify as reliable, they both contain the same error. And I do like it when our unreliable articles are the more accurate!

Tottington was a pretty significant place in the medieval period, our article contains errors (some might be mine!) and confuses the township with the considerably bigger lordship. I was already thinking about adding a governance section to this article to explain the various boundaries. As far I know only a small part of Helmshore is inside what was Musbury, with the river forming the boundary between Musbury and Haslingden. I'm not quite 100% sure about that though. TiB chat 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trappedinburnley I hope you are keeping well and safe. I used the extra time on my hands at the moment to write to John Simpson about this issue. He has replied "I think the acreage I put for the deer park may have been an over estimation. If at 1507 eight people received 60 acres each, that would amount to 480 acres. These were customary acres. The statute acreage equivalent would have been about 1,015 acres. However, if we accept that the boundaries of ‘Musbury Park’ as shown on the first edition 6” OS map are the original boundaries, then the acreage is only about 904 statue acres. I don’t know of any documents contemporary with the creation of the park that give the original acreage. Given the uncertainty, perhaps the article could be re-written to omit the acreage."

This seems to be reasonable summary and it hints at the additional potential confusions engendered by the issues of customary v. statuary acreage, and the fact that there are no contemporary documents quoting the acreage of Musbury Park. I'm inclined to modify the entry to flag that the exact acreage of the park is still unclear, but it was probably between 900 and 1100 acres, while still referencing Simpson and BHO. What do you think? Bob (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobf I haven't found the extra time yet but expect to soon. The most important thing is that the content of the article conforms to the sources we reference. As we want to ignore the figure in one source and the other doesn't give a vast amount of info, what we really need is more sources. I've been having a look. I had never noticed before, but the OS map does have the areas marked on it, and there is a 904 below the Musbury Park label. Central Rossendale: The Evolution of an Upland Vegetation: I. The Clearance of Woodland has figure of 904 acres, but without further explanation. Economic History of Rossendale has useful info, but not an area. It does give a length of fencing at 8048 yards, which if this was the circumference of a circle would give an area of 1065 acres. And it also mentions the 60 acre parcels bit. I also looked at History of the Forest of Rossendale and Haslingden, a topographical history, which don't appear to help with this question but should be useful nonetheless.

We have enough to say with confidence that in the 19th century the area was recorded as 904 acres. I think we also have just about enough to explain that in the medieval period it may have been larger, using the 60 customary acre parcels as an example. However there is another issue with this. We have three articles with relevance to the park, and ideally don't want to be repeating the details across them all. I think the best way forward is to concentrate the detail about the park itself in Musbury Tor and focus on describing the boundary fence (construction, route and especially visible remains of the ditch) in the two valley articles. What do you think? TiB chat 11:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trappedinburnley Very much appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. I agree with you on all of this. I think the issue of there being three articles each with reference to the park is something to be looked at too. Do you expect to have the time to look at these entries shortly? It might be valuable to apply your knowledge and cross-referencing of these new sources to this. If not, I'll happily look at it in the future.Bob (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now stay-at-home Easter is here, I have a little time. I've been doing a little more research and the one part I'm struggling with is the conversion of customary to statute acres. You probably already know that Lancashire is particularly complicated in this regard. Is the 480 customary acres = 1,015 statute from a source, or just Simpson's reply to you? TiB chat 10:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]