Talk:Manor of Rivington/Archive 1

Archived content

Article reworking

The text here has been ported across from the main article Rivington in preparation of a reworking of the that article. This is a start article and will be edited in due course. - Rovington (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Further information sought: Please consult with the page creator Rovington by email to info@rivington.net if you have found any evidence of any other ownership of the manorial rights other than in this article or if you have found evidence in the form of deeds of the sale that specify the 5/8 Manorial rights naming W.H lever, as no proof can been found. - Rovington (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So who owns the manor rights now and what use are they? The estate is owned by United Utilities. Are we to really believe that United Utilities don't have any rights in owning their own land? Are we to expect that one of Cromptons' heirs can still execise those rights and United Utilities can't do anything about it? What are these rights anyhow? The Rivington estate has been sold a number of times. The Pilkingtons sold it to Robert Lever and Thomas Breres. One of Breres's descendents sold his share to John Andrews, one of the Lever descendents, in 1729. The Levers continued to own it until one of their descendents, William Crompton, sold it to William Lever in 1900. Lever then sold it to Liverpool Corporation. It would seem that the estate can be sold but not rights. Seems like a load nonsense. – HLE (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This publication may help explain, http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf

The manor rights were based on copyhold and in 1926 these rights went with an act of parliament in 1922 and copyhold turned into freehold fee simple to give its proper name. The 8 shares of the manor have descended to the heirs of the last owners. When Liverpool took over the Rivington hall estate they did so under the Liverpool Corporation Act 1902 it was a compulsory purchase and could not acquire the manor rights with it, they did however acquire the land and also by act of parliament not by rights of manor they gained the water rights, the subsequent properties act of 1925 gave the Corporation the ability to claim land not bought under compulsory purchase. Manor rights and land ownership are not always one, in fact in most cases these days they are often seperate as a result land being sold off in bits and the 1926 change in law. In this case manor rights and land onwership hae by our lifetime become seperate, the transfer had to specify the rights of the manor are included and the deed must exist to show that, if it does not then the rights have not passed to the new owner of the land. This is a complex area of law. In regard to the heirs excerising rights of the Manor there are few rights. Until 2003 a manorial right could have become registered that would create an overiding interest and would appear on land deeds even today and there are areas within

Lancashire where this has occured, however many manor rights were not registered and the time limit has lapsed for them to become registered now as a result of the 2003 act.

From your sentence I think you may be confusing the Rivington Hall estate as being the full manor, the manor was a much larger area and other families held manor rights for the 3/8, as you can see the Rivington Hall estate held 5/8. There is no record of the 1/4 share being sold after 1683 and the 1/8 did transfer but had not been registered. Liverpool corporation only owned the land from Rivington Hall and other properties they compulsary purchased but they did not acquire all of the area nor did they acquire manor rights, I have spoken to them some years ago about this and they confirmed this statement. Further there is no evidence at all that manor rights were transferred to W.H Lever. Land outside the Rivington Hall estate as an example Rivington Unitarian chapel is owned still by the descendants of Robert Andrews, the chapel has a lease from copyhold. Bradleys is also private and the entire village has always remained in private ownership. Yes it is correct an estate can and often is sold without the rights of the manor in conclusion these rights still exists with the descendants, the only times I have seen the rights in use have been in services and the rights of land where they have retained freehold. The rights of the manor are today mostly valued as mineral rights and to be blunt the rights at Rivington are worthless. I am sorry this is long reply but I hope I have clarified this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rovington (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

I have rewaord the statement that the Manor was sold to Liverpool corporation as it is not fact. Rivington Hall and land was. You could ask United Utilities to send you an office copy of the transfer of sale. It is important in this article not to mix up the descent of the Hall with the entire Manor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rovington (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Unexplained Reference

There is a reference "Liber feodorum - Testa De Nevil mem 5" in the article, but what does it actually mean? Is there a specific website or book to explain more about it. At the moment it is useless and unexplained. – HLE (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

see http://www.medievalhistory.net/feodorum.htm , it is within a published book, I cannot find the online version at present , I am sure it was linked in a citation on the Rivington article but will have to check, I will look again later tonight. The Liber feodorum or Book of Fees is also listed on wikipedia as to what it is. Book can be bought from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eu2gHAAACAAJ&dq=book+of+fees&cd=2 abebooks.com published 1920, 1923 and 1931 in three volumes. The reference is found by year and the membrane for that year.

If you go the Editions section of the Book of Fees article, there are links for volumes 1, 2 and 3. Which volume and page is the grant of land made in 1202 mentioned? If I know that, I may be able to create a citation and reference it correctly. – HLE (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor or Squire?

One of the earlier owners, Alexander Pilkington, used the title Lord of Rivington Manor in a plea of assize in 1202 (see page 4, Rivington, Lancashire by M.D.Smith). The later owners were still Lords of the Manor but went by the title Squire instead. – HLE (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

M.D Smith used Wm Fergusson-Irvines Work as a basis of his own book, I discussed some matters with his many years ago, to be safe on that it would best be to check with the records at the national archive to see if they match the claim as the work used as a basis by M.D Smith was sponsored by W.H Lever and at the time Levers upward movement in social circles often tended to mix him with titled persons, some of whom snubbed him as a commoner, he had become a good friend of the Earl of Derby, he at first opted for a claim to a Lordship of a Manor, it was not however Rivington, he acquired another manor in full and styled himself Lord before his Peerage which alarmed those who had snubbed him, through his polical career when there was a call for a large number of Liberal peerages Lever went forward and was the elevated to the peerage, different times, different attitudes. There is also a second point to note about Lordships of the Manor, only a full ownership can give the title, otherwise it is as you noted Squire, the use of Squire also tells us we need to look elsewhere for other owners.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rovington (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

So, technically, they were/are joint Lords of the Manor? – HLE (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor does not equate to Peer of the Realm. My understanding of the term "Squire" is that in relation to land ownership it came into being in the 17th century. Tyldesley for example had a Squire, he was the largest landowner. Before 1605 I presume the Pilkingtons were Lords of the Manor and gave themself the title Squire when they were minority landowners. Please remember Wikipedia requires facts to be verifiable, not necessarily "true".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by J3Mrs (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Descent of the Manor

Is this what you are saying in the first paragraph? Or was the manor separated before 1605? The text is very difficult to understand. If this paragraph is ok I will insert it into the article. What does in association with rhe Levers of Little Lever actually mean?

"The descent of the Manor of Rivington is recorded after 1212 when the Pilkington family owned six oxgangs of land. Italic (The exact time when the divisions were created are hard to find Lathams and Shaws do occur as joint owners in the early deeds)After 1605 the Pilkingtons 5/8 became further separated in moieties. There were legal disputes relating to the will of Robert Pilkington who died 17 November 1605 and after this the Pilkingtons retained New Hall and lands in the village whilst Rivington Hall was sold to their in-laws the Breres in association with the Levers of Little Lever. The land sold by the Pilkingtons (i.e. the 5/8 share) was bought by William Lever in 1900, and in 1902 compulsorily purchased by Liverpool Corporation. In 1974 the land became property of the North West Water Authority, which after privatisation, became United Utilities. Lever Park was created on part of this land by Lord Lever who was allowed to complete plans for a park despite no longer being the landowner. He did this at his own expense." --J3Mrs (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just read [1] which as far as I can see contains more than enough references (done properly) for this article. I have also realised the above paragraph is incorrect.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost, the first records shows only Pilkington ownership for one period around 1212 but the Lathams and the Shaws also became owners of shares. Eventually land and title became seperated after 1900 or 1902. At the point of sale to W.H Lever no title deeds exists to show his ownership of manor and land. The Liverpool Corporation Act 1902 did not give them powers to acquire the manor, they only got the 5/8 land. I used 'in association with' for the earlier Levers in a business sense, rather like a Mortgage.

I have tried to summarise below:

Summary

The 5/8 1202 to 1605 Pilkington at minimum 5/8 share (a portion reserved to Katherine 1610) the 5/8 further divided between members of Breres and Lever family until 1729 when the 5/8 was reunited under Andrews. 1900 to 1902 Manor seperated from largest portion of land: W.H Lever short ownership has left no evidence he owned the Manor, but it is accepted fact he owned the land if evidence of his manor ownership was found for W.H Levers heirs still own the 5/8 share of manor without land. If not manor rights are retained by last owner Andrews-Crompton heirs who also still own fee simple in village (Chapel). 1902 to present - largest portion of land owned by water company, no ownership of manor due to method of acquisition it is not possible for Liverpool Corporation or its sucessors to have acquired the rights of the Manor.

The 1/4 1347 to 1683 Latham 1/4 1683 to present = Bradley 1/4 with or without out land, likely to be Bradleys Farm and toward Dean Head.

The 1/8 unknown date to 1507 Hultons 1/8 1507 to present Shaw & Roscoe heirs with some fee simple retained(School is one).

I hope this helps. --Rovington (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made small edit to the paragraph discribing 1605 ownership to reflect the Lathoms are recorded earier, in 1337 and the Shaws in 1521 as its a lead paragraph dates are further on, aim was a reword to say 'continued to own' rather than after 1605 ...--Rovington (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the Manor

There is a perfectly good reference for William Lever, Lord of the Manor in 19000. I have removed pov and unreferenced speculation.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a notice on the article page requesting factual detail to show W.H Lever had bought the Manor, not just the land. The document of sale needs to be found. W.H Lever owned another manor, where he had bought its rights, so he was still Lord of that Manor. The book you referenced is not a relaible source on this as W.H Lever sponsored the book. I invite you to try and find evidence anywhere that W. H. Lever bought the Manors rights, extensive searches on the national and local archives had drawn a blank. Further the Liverpool Corporation Act 1902 AND subsequent acts have never given United Utilities the rights to acquire the Manor, they had acquired land with compulsory purchase, no mention of the Manor in the act. The lead also reads incorrect as the legal term existance of the manor is incorporeal property or heridment. Please do not change the article further until you have read land registry guidance and a full understanding of this aspect, you need to find records that are independant of the the 1904 book. --PL.-Snr (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You are completely wrong, there is a verifiable ref stating Lever was Lord of the Manor, it is you who need to prove he wasn't and your waving of Acts and Land Registry documents proves nothing. It is you who should stop this pov pushing and as far as the book goes, you have used it as a reference when it suits your purpose, you can't have it both ways.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets just keep to facts and where a source is wrong then correct it using other sources. Where Irvines work is verifiable in itself it is safe to use, please do as I did and go and check his citations and see if they match his statements as you do with articles here. You will notice a switch of style in his book on pg 51 A Short History of Rivington, 1904, the author states that John Andrews in 1729 became sole Lord of the Manor, a statement that is clearly wrong, the statement was repeated in the section about the Pike Tower, it then follows as this article shows that the 5/8th share remained the same in Levers time, this is not a case of using a source as it suits it a case of not repeating an earlier error in a source. There are lots of other sources that prove that part of Irvines work is wrong, the facts are plain to see as noted in this article. --PL.-Snr (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Rovington/PL.-Snr, you've done your family tree and found out you are related/descended from the Pilkington, Willoughby, and Shaw families. Is this why you keep pushing the living descendants owning tiny propertions of the manor rights? The "Liverpool Corporation Act, 1902" and the "Land Registry Guidance" ref doesn't prove one way or another about the manor rights. Prove by a clear, precise reference that states their descendants own the manor rights. – HLE (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So that is why Rovington is pushing this pov. I agree HLE and I will reinstate my edit which has an easily verifiable reference. After all Rovington uses Irving when it suits.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This statement is not a POV at all, the matter is factual, take a look at the other cited works within this article. There has not been a single Lord of the Manor since the earliest Pilkingtons and to repeat what is clearly an error or a self promotion by a books sponsor is just plain wrong. To state that the Manor became property of the Liverpool Corporation is 100% wrong, the act gave no rights to the corporation to acquire the Manor rights, they acquired land and buildings. I shall push this point because it is factual and for no other reason. The research here is very thorough and I stand by this. Take a close look at the Liverpool Corporation Act 1902, the land registry guidance and forget your personal issues with me for long enough to have an objective viewpoint. From my research Bradleys descendants have an interest of 1/4, a local family (Not mine) has 1/8th and title deeds to prove it, the other 5/8th is either still with the Lever family or with the Andrews-Cromptons descendants, the compulsory purchase of lands did not snuff out the rights of the Manor. I understand you are not familiar with this subject, but the facts remain as stated above. --PL.-Snr (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Prove it! – HLE (talk)

Your edits prove nothing of the sort, I have looked at the refs and they are irrelevant as they don't mention the Rivington Manor. I see no reason as to why Irvine would call Lever Lord of the Manor if he weren't. Your research might be thorough but it is original research aimed at pushing a pov that you have foisted on all the Rivington articles. This article cites a reference to William Lever Lord of the Manor and it is from a source you have used. I don't actually mind who is or isn't Lord of the Manor but I do mind original research. Wikipedia isn't necessarily true, you ought to know that by now, it has to be verifiable. I have found a verifiable reference, it stays.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has already been checked by other editors to ensure it did not comprise of original research, a notice was posted on the board for an opinion and that board agreed the a2a documents for instance are secondary research, all elements of the article draw on secondary research, --PL.-Snr (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow up to above re sources, see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=368614819#British_National_Archives

--PL.-Snr (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read your references, as they stand they prove nothing. I refer to Land Registry ref, it's only a general document, and Liverpool Corporation Act. I also read the thread on OR. You may use A2A summaries only if they specifically mention the point you are trying to reference and you may not make inferences from them. None of what you've come up with so far stands up. I make no inference as to what happened to Lord of the Manor after William Lever.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just explained further on why the land reg doc should be in here, at least so people can find it to read it for themselves. Re 1902 and subsequent acts, no they do not mention rights to Liverpool of Manor, thats the point. Read with land reg doc tells you the current status. he other is not POV, nor is it original research the references show substance to the claim in VCH that the Lathams held 1/4 and it is simply stated that the 1/4 share was sold from A to B at Date, where is the inference? it should not be deleted. In fact the A2A references were edited by a member of the national archives on wikipedia who had read my post. In either case even with the huge amount of secondary evidence provided from Shaws Book and VCH shows Irvines work to be wrong in the section I have noted to you, just read the other books. --PL.-Snr (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea of this article is to give a neutral account using verifiable references in understandable terms. It isn't the idea to make readers read further in order to decipher references that lead nowhere, they should get all they need from the article. I don't dispute the fact that the land was divided but the owner of the largest share apparently took the title and subsequently used the term Squire. I see no reason why Lever should not have acquired the rights. You have shown no evidence that the other shareholders used the term Lord of the manor or anything similar. It's much harder to prove a negative I'm afraid. And as I said it's not up to me to say what bits of Irvines book are true or not.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I quoted VCH "sold their interest in the manor" so what is your problem?--J3Mrs (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

J3Mrs since your edits you have added a complication to the article and a contradiction - at 1611 sale then 1620 James sold the benefits of that rent charge and any claim to the property to Robert Lever and Thomas Breres' widow .[9] The sentence is a contradiction, the earlier sale was not absolute whilst James was entitled by law to the rights of the rent charges from the his manor. The Pilkington rights over the manor obviously had not ended in 1611. Roberts IPM shows he was intermediate lord between Lord of Manor and Duchy of Lancaster. The edits you have made have left readers with no explanation as to how all this occured. If you have time or inclination please put it right --PL.-Snr (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Manor rights

What are the actual manor rights and what use are they today? – HLE (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why I had added the citation to the land registry document as that document explains that, the Manor and land are often not one, the manor itself is the entire area of Rivington on its old boundaries and is far bigger than the hall estate, it was shared in 8ths between a number of families - today the Manor is only an interest in the land, however until 2003 it was an overriding interest but was not subject to compulsory registration. An example of a manor sold recently bye the way was Sharples, Bolton and it went for £15,000. In other cases wastes have led to owners claiming rights over verges etc. Today I would say its more an historic interest than anything of value, at least that is what I think, I dont think buying one would be worth the money, unless it was still with wastes -- ie verges etc. --PL.-Snr (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more clearer with my question. What are the specific manorial rights for the Manor of Rivington and what use are they today? I'm sure there are many manors up and down the country, each with their own particular manorial rights, but what are the ones for Rivington Manor? Does it allow the right to graze sheep on Rivington Moor, fishing the rivers, or collect wood for firewood? They are being mentioned a number times in the article and would like to know what these specific manorial rights are. – HLE (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

References

^ No 15 this article: DDX 121/21 16 & 17 May 1683, No. 20 this article: Sale of 1/8th share of the manor of Rivington DP 458/1/2 31 Jan & 1 Feb 1671/2 No. 24 this article: Shaw 1940, p. 283 (Will of Elizabeth Shaw, 1787)

^ No 15 this article: DDX 121/21 16 & 17 May 1683, No. 20 this article: Sale of 1/8th share of the manor of Rivington DP 458/1/2 31 Jan & 1 Feb 1671/2 No. 24 this article: Shaw 1940, p. 283 (Will of Elizabeth Shaw, 1787)

Just exactly what are these references supposed to be?--J3Mrs (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

First are multiple references as you had requested citations: the references do appear later in article, these need seperating and linking to others at bottom of article, visitations 1613 establish that the Breres were a notable family, not all families were recorded. --PL.-Snr (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, those starting with "No." are three different references from Access to Archives, although their weblinks haven't been included in the ref. The "Shaw 1940" ref is the book The Records of a Lancashire Family from the XIIth to the XXth Century by Ronald Cunliffe Shaw, cited in the Bibliography section, and the specific page "Shaw 1940, p. 283 (Will of Elizabeth Shaw, 1787)" is already listed in the notes section. – HLE (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another references "The Visitation of the County of Lancashire 1613", but doesn't explain clearly what it means. – HLE (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just referenced from VCH quoting directly as requested by Rovington. It says the Cromptons sold their interest in the manor and the land to Lever. I honestly don't get this at all. What is he trying to prove? Rivington is no different from hundreds of other similar manors, usually only the major owners get a mention but this is "something else". You, HLE, by the way, are a saint, I simply don't have the patience.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that much better.

Fractions

Using the figures at the end of the article I think you'll find that your 3/8 share is a lot less. Lever acquired 2100 out of 2768 acres, that's 3/4 and some is water 375 acres, so those other landowners have a lot less than 3/8. By the way, they're not my figures.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hampson (History of Rivington, 1893) has a different figure for the exact size of the Rivington Hall estate, the reason for the variation is the Great House Farm and Barn estate, once owned by the Andertons, that estate seems to have been added to the Rivington Hall purchase somewhere between 1893 and 1904. I dont know if you are aware of this - Andrews descendants are still named as freeholders at the village (Chapel and nearby), some land in village is still owned by the Shaws (School) and the listed farm building still bears the name Bradleys and its in private ownership. I found that out after enquiries to United Utilities about saving the Barn from falling down opposite chapel, they said it has nothing to do with them. Its Black a'Moors head in stone, once on the gable has also vanished. Dean Head is interesting if you get time to read up. --PL.-Snr (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Increased estate between 1893 and 1900

There is a chapter in Hampsons, History of Rivington that quotes the size of the estate during the Andrews period as 1/2 at one point, it then gives the size of the estate in acres for Cromptons c.1893 from memory 1700 acres, hence my edit was to show the estate increased in size just prior to the 1900 sale to W.H Lever. It is not intended as a POV as another editor suggested it is simply information that shows the Rivington Hall estate and the sale to W.H Lever included an additional possible 400 acres of land bought under the Cromptons and shows the land estate was increasing in size from Andrews onwards to 1900. --PL.-Snr (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

[2] says you can't do that. Who says it increased just before the sale? You. You removed they sold their interest in the manor, that is why I reverted.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not a synth at all - the Rivington Hall estate was not 2100 acres (History of Rivington, Hampson, 1893) can you get a copy of the book to check for yourself? The author interviewed the Cromptons and Shaws. His work is a source in the article and that source shows the article is wrong. --PL.-Snr (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

James

Have made a correction for James, he was born 1565 younger brother to Robert, no mention of him being heir though - History of Pilkington family, pg 120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovington (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 August 2010

Having some issues with the signature button, sorry my sig may be elsewhere on the page in earlier edit, when I press it my sig appears on another place on the page rather than my last comment. That aside James is stated as heir on page 251 of the same source. The book seems to have contradictions in part and may be causing some confusion. Maybe it would be worth getting hold of Williams-Ellis, The Pilkington Story, I have a copy here but it would be best J3Mrs if you could also get hold of it we are then reading from same books, its more recent and Elizabeth spent years working on the research for the book, its very good! --PL.-Snr (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New Hall

I don't know where the idea of a New Hall estate came from, I'd be interested to see it named as such in a reference. It was a house and some land reserved for Robert's spinster sister Katharine who had been a tenant there probably since Robert's death. To call it an estate is seriously stretching matters and a decided POV.

To quote History of the Pilkington family 1066 to 1600, "In 1597 Robert found his patrimonial estate somewhat diminished in area and burdened with the debts arising out of litigation which had been going on. His position had been further weakened by determined efforts on his own part to enclose the wastes lands and of the manor and get the estates which had been enfoeffed". If you read the WHOLE quote you will see that in 1597 Robert found the estate was burdened by debts when he inherited it, ie debts from his fathers time. Also read P116 of the book. The situation was made worse by Robert's own efforts. Why is this difficult to understand? There is a reference to his unmarried sister on P116 as well. I really don't make this up. I only write what I read and don't interpret it in any way. As a tenant Katharine had 14 acres, I expect this is the land attached to New Hall, not an estate which is an extremely misleading statement. The closes were just small fields. It strikes me that provision was made for Katharine because she was unmarried otherwise her husband would have been expected to provide.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Roberts management:

"In 1597 Robert found his patrimonial estate somewhat diminished in area and burdened with the debts arising out of litigation which had been going on. His position had been further weakened by determined efforts on his own part to enclose the wastes lands and of the manor and get the estates which had been enfoeffed".<ref name=pilkington1912p117>{{Harvnb|Pilkington|1912|p=117}}</ref>

In 1600 Robert made an agreement to buy up the life leases of the occupants of Rivington Old Hall estates for £4000 <ref name=pilkington1912p117>{{Harvnb|Pilkington|1912|p=247}}</ref>

You had the lot blamed on the father, George.

New Hall:

Within this sale agreement a house called New Hall or Ferneley was retained along with fields, the Barne Flatt, the North Church Hill, South Church Hill, the Riding, the Great Meadow, the Middle Meadow, the Half Acre, the Cow Lane, the Rush Riding, the Ryding lying to the west of the new alehouse, the Mylne Croft, the land to Bullough Moor for the benefit of the unmarried<ref name=pilkington1912p116>{{Harvnb|Pilkington|1912|p=116}}</ref> Katherine Pilkington and her heirs.<ref>Pilkington, John (1912) ''History of the Pilkington Family 1066 to 1600''; p. 255 B. No. 78</ref>.

--PL.-Snr (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We are in disagreement as to what an 'estate' is, the term estate is used in the reference in the following manner: 'estates which had been enfoeffed' <ref name=pilkington1912p117>{{Harvnb|Pilkington|1912|p=117}}</ref> I chose to exclude the term 'enfoeffed' as it is from the old legal system when writing of New Hall as I doubted most casual readers would understand what it meant. --PL.-Snr (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion between the Pilkington Manor Estate and a farm this article doesn't need to use the term estate to describe the New Hall fields. Estate to most readers will mean a large landed property like Chatsworth or a council housing development so I think it is best to be clear, the fields attached to New Hall amounted to a farm. As you have included the list here I will remove it from the Rivington article , as it makes it unbalanced and is merely a repetition. A specific ref to New Hall Estate has still not been found, just a general ref describing the manor in the terminology of the time. This is an encyclopedic article which needs to be written in easily comprehensible, neutral language, not misleading pov.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

James Pilkington, brother of Robert

Source located at http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofpilking00pilk#page/120/mode/2up

The source, History of the Pilkington Family of Lancashire 1066 to 1600, third edition, page 120 reads as follows:

Descent XVIc (2). — James Pilkington, the second son of George, was born about 1565, judging by the statement in the Inquisition taken after his brother's death which gave his age as " 40 years old and more."

In 1575 he was a pupil at the Rivington Grammar School, as shown by the Register. (379)

During the early portion of his life he resided at Rivington, but ultimately settled at Withington, co. Chester, and is invariably styled " gentleman."

Having received certain payments from his brother he, in 1604, agreed to the alienation of the manor for 300 years, (380) and after the death of Robert he consented to the sale of the estates by the executors on the purchasers consenting to make him an annual payment for life. (381) On the 17th November 1620, he sold to Robert Lever, of Darcy Lever, and Ellen the widow of Thomas Breres, of Bolton (joint owners), this rent charge and all and every claim upon the property, granting them the Acquittance of which a facsimile copy is given on the previous page. He signs " James Pilkington " in a good free hand.

> Sections IX, X, XI and XII, which follow, are supplementary to the life of James, Bishop of Durham.

378. Appendix B, Muns. 76, 78.

379. See chapter, " The School Registers ”

380. Appendix B, Mun. 75.

381. Appendix B, Mun. 78.

Clearly the source states James, brother to Robert, sold the rent charge from the 1604 lease in 1620, adding 'he sold the benefit of the rent charge and any claim' on the end of the paragraph about New Hall is clearly wrong and seems to be an attempt to warp the information from the source to create a POV or a synth. The statement is verifiable, whereas adding that line to the section about New Hall is not.

--PL.-Snr (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

J3Mrs, the source is above for all to see and the link is also there for anyone to check the exact wording, let readers decide if the article needs correcting, you don't own it nor do I. Again you reverted my edit where I had specified what was sold in 1620 - tagging it to the end of the sentence about New Hall as you did, implied the 1620 sale included New Hall and as you rightly pointed out New Hall has nothing to do with the 1620 sale, so why insist on advancing your POV in this way, please stop and stay correct to source, pg 120 of the above is fully quoted here for anyone to read. Please stop advancing your POVs and your diatribe is not about improving the article, nor is it constructive and has no place on wikipedia, you should stop.

--PL.-Snr (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Please keep to the chronological order or the article becomes confusing.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misinterpreting p120? It is quite plain.

In 1604 for money he agreed to the alienation In 1605 he agreed to the sale of the estate for a "rent charge" during his lifetime 1620 He sold the rent charge What has New hall got to do with it? I have no idea where your interpretation comes from.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== Look at the above, that is the wording of the source, you have added it to the paragraph about New Hall and it is not in line with the source, your edit is clearly wrong and if its a POV you need to stop.--PL.-Snr (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no paragraph about new Hall except in your imagination. the paragraph is about what happened to the estate! I despair!--J3Mrs (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The section in the article about New Hall should not have the sentence about James 1620 sale of rent charge as it implies that 1620 sale is connected to New Hall, a paragraph break and specifying it was the 1604 agreement in a seperate sentence is correct. --PL.-Snr (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I seriously suggest you read p120 very carefully, "after the death of Robert he consented to the sale of the estates by the executors on the purchasers consenting to make him an annual payment for life". And when you fully understand it, undo your misinterpretation.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The amount of inaccuracy and pov Rovington (and his IPs) have attempted to introduce into this and other Rivington articles is, to me, truly staggering, and yet he constantly attempts to portray me as the villain of the piece. After his shenanigans of the 21st September I am going to revert to what it said before Rovington edited, as it was clear, simple and most importantly, neutral and comprehensible and free from the antique legalese he uses when stuggling. Rovington has frequently demonstrated that he picks out bits of sources and adds his own interpretation. (see talk above) I do not appreciate edit summaries stating I am wrong when I clearly am right but my edit does not support Rovington's pov. I see that Rovington has changed the edit to match the truth, but it is still worth getting rid of the incomprehensible language he introduced.--J3Mrs (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

response to this is diatribe is above with full quote from source, --PL.-Snr (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wrong though.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Manor house

Since when has Rivington Hall not been the manor house? It is rather ridiculous to state it isn't just because that particular terminology wasn't used on that page and use of the term pov, well strange to say the least. The Hall article describes it as a manor house so why can't this article? Perhaps you'll have to change the hall article too. --J3Mrs (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is establishing when he moved into the House, if it was at the same time as building the hall and cross chamber then it is in that year the manor house, however there are questions about where the Lord of the Manor lived before this. If we define a Manor house as the house of the Lord of the Manor then look at where he lived before the Hall? This also relates to your questioning of the build date of Rivington Hall and the adjacent Barn, the buildings have different date, local historians have also raised doubts about the Hall being the home of the Lord of the Manor in this early period prior to 1478. The 1478 build shows it became a Hall in that year, "Hall and cross chamber" that we can be sure of, it was not a hall before this. Were his forebears absentee landlords? A book published around 5 to 10 year ago about the Heatons has more detail. --PL.-Snr (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To follow up, you could cover the bases by stating about the Hall, "becoming his home and the manor house" as long as its verifiable.--PL.-Snr (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A hall was the name of a big room! Another attempt to muddy the waters, local historians need to provide the proof it wasn't not me--J3Mrs (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"He launched out into extravagance largely increasing Rivington Hall by adding...." are we reading the same thing? Your interpretation of these texts once again is flawed.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop undoing sensible edits until you actually understand the source--J3Mrs (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

How dare you tell me I do not understand the source, you really need to read the book, page 99 is followed by guess what, page 100 which I suggest you take a peep at! If you cannot verify information then please do not add it to article. Cite the source that says the hall was his manor house in 1478 and then that settles it, in the meantime leave it out until your can verify, see the pillars of wikipedia - Wikipedia:Verifiability

There is little detail of Rivington Hall until August 1477 when Robert Pilkington arranged for Adam Holden to add a hall and cross chambers and two great windows[7] to his manor house.[citation needed] In 1478 Robert became involved in litigation regarding land at Mellor, Derby and made a feoffment of his lands at Rivington to William Langton, clerk, Hugh Worthington, William Croke and Christopher Pilkington of Whittle. The disputes lasted for many years between 1478 and 1501 and his rivals had taken Robert prisoner at Macclesfield where they made an attempt on his life. In 1504 Robert entrusted a lawyer, William Orrell with his deed boxes, he died at Rivington in 1508, the dispute was settled by his son Richard, the next Lord of the Manor.[8]" --PL.-Snr (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't be the first time you didn't understand the source would it? Look at all that James business above. This [3], as I quoted above, is what I am reading and tells me he extended the hall. What you are reading I have no idea. Irvine refers to[4]. I really don't understand why you don't get it. Is there a reason for you wanting the whole source quoted almost verbatim? I think copyright prevents that As far as page 100 goes are you trying to change the subject? In my book it isn't really related to what I thought I was trying to say. Muddying the waters.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please get over the critisism I made of your edits on the Bolton article - it was not intended to personally offend you, the article improved afterwards. Again here on this article two or more heads are better than one. The grudge you are dragging on has now gone on far to long and life is to short. In the meantime please review the five pillars of wikipedia, especially the fourth when you post messages for my attention, there are processes that can be followed when two editors are in disagreement, do we need to move to the process? --PL.-Snr (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Constructive Discussion

I would welcome contructive discusssion from readers and fellow editors about the article and especially would like to hear from anyone who can add better detail about the Levers and Andrews, from memory Leverhulme was descended from the Pilkingtons, can anyone shed light on that? The next is Lever of Little Lever as there is far to little detail about them.--PL.-Snr (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick thanks to J3Mrs for adding a bit more detail about the Levers of Little Lever, section still seems rather short, hopefully more detail will follow. --PL.-Snr (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Crompton's sold the manor and the estate

According to the VCH reference, (reference 4), this is very clear and very appropriate to an article on the manor of Rivington.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree.. does someone else not? Regarding the 45 acres its in twice, in header and then the section about W.H Lever, does it need to be repeated ? Its the same sentence. Maybe rewording it somehow on one of the two sections could help? Perhaps mentioning the Bungalow and Grounds, dropping in something about the listed buildings there that he created.--PL.-Snr (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Audience

I think the audience for any topic on Wikipedia is the general public and as such articles should be readable and accessible. This article frequently strays into boring unintelligible language that is at times incomprehensible, well certainly to me. I've tried to improve the multiple convert templates by simplifying them. Another editor adding complete summaries from the National Archives doesn't help the articles readability or make it easy for the casual reader to understand.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual

The importance of fact in the article requires the summary of the Lathom sale, it reads as follows following my edit:

In 1683 the 50 acres (20 ha) mentioned as settlement to the Lathoms in 1614 was sold to John Bradley of Rivington for £120, the document reads Bargain and Sale by Lease and Release: (i) Thomas Lathom of Irelom, esq., associated with Thomas Ashurst of Ashurst, esq., and Ralph Egerton of Turton, gent., to (ii)n John Bradley of Rivington, gent., for £120 to T.L. and 5/- apiece to T.A. and R.E. -- messuages, closes and parcels of land in Rivington 50 acres (0.20 km2; 0.08 sq mi) moiety of waste ground in Rivington belonging to T.L., and moiety of messuages, cottages etc., in Rivington where T.L. has freehold.[23].[24] Bradley's Farm is a listed building.

The part otherwise missed is 'Thomas Ashurst of Ashurst, esq., and Ralph Egerton of Turton, gent., to (ii)n John Bradley of Rivington, gent., for £120 to T.L. and 5/- apiece to T.A. and R.E.' and an important mention in the transcription is 'moiety of waste ground' - without adding new research this sale transcription indicates a sale of land but does not state whether they sold the manor and that is an important aspect to the article. There is no way to convey this in the article without giving the transcription.

--PL.-Snr (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Where there's a will....--J3Mrs (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

good edit, thanks.--PL.-Snr (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sales

Glad I spotted that edit error, no idea who cocked up the article with that - now reads ok, good edit j3mrs. --PL.-Snr (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was me trying to decipher the unintelligible from the original which was completely incomprehensible. I wish you would learn to summarise in modern English, you are not supposed to just keep adding huge chunks from elsewhere.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

at least you admin your error. The sentence read as

'Only one lease at Rivington is mentioned being for Sales at a size of 10 acre for 99 years the freehold there being held by Robert Andrews.'

you only needed to have read the source, its at the Library if you do not have access to it. To say it was unintelligible and completely incomprehensible is making an excuse and does you no justice. --PL.-Snr (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether it does me justice or not I find these edits quite incomprehensible. If you wrote in plain English as you have been asked so many times instead of copying text you aren't supposed to everybody could understand, even me.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The text isn't copied, its summarised, the only edit that was not, was a summary of transcription from the national archives regarding the Lathams - that edit was done by a member of the national archives, you chopped it, I reinserted it, you chopped it again, I reinserted it again, we discussed and the final edit stands. Your comment above is unfounded.

Accept my apologies if my message regarding the cock ups offended you. I did not expect it to be you, I assumed you read source material before editing. I have noticed you do hundreds of small concurrent edits on articles, I had wondered if it was humanely possible for you to have read the source in such short time. I have the advantage of a private library with editions of all secondary sources in their original format and I repeat my offer to provide copies of pages, if you need them. I have already pointed you to online editions where available. --PL.-Snr (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not easily offended. However the article would be improved if you stopped copying unintelligible English (like the NA summary) and unnecessary legal terms into the article. Why don't you just write a summary in plain English? You are not supposed to copy the summaries verbatim. I have access to more than enough resources for a wikipedia article. Nobody disputes Elizabeth Shaw owned the land but you insert stuff that is understood by the reader. Without my edits this article would be unreadable.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hall/manor

I refer you to [5]. Ref 4 makes this very clear.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

A number of sources in this article have no base in facts at primary source, hence the secondary sources used are dubious. As an example no evidence exists at primary source to confirm the Cromptons specifically stated they had sold manorial rights. The secondary sources make no reference to any primary sources on this subject. I believe the matter of manorial ownership transferring to W.H Lever is therefore based on an urban myth that has no basis in fact. The earlier records published by Pilkington cite documents that can be traced to archives and are solid facts. The sources used to assert the manorial ownership where no primary source can be found to substantiate those assertions I believe should be taken with a pinch of salt and be dismissed. There no consistency in using a title of Lord of the Manor in referring to W.H Lever whilst referring to prior owners as Mr and Mrs. For the sake of W.H Levers family it is accepted that prior to his purchase of Rivington he had bought an estate elsewhere from which he may have acquired a manorial title, I assert that the title used for him is only relevant to the other article and not to this one. He later became a peer of the realm, I can however see no harm in referring to him in past tense as a noble Lord. --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Victoria County History, referenced in the text, (see answer in section above), is a verifiable reference, not POV. I refer you to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. J3Mrs (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing the VCH reference. J3Mrs (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

To make it absolutely clear, your first comments in this section are somewhat disingenuous as the information in the VCH was evidently garnered from "A short history of the township of Rivington in the county of Lancaster with some account of the church and grammar school" (1904) by William Fergusson Irvine which contains this information on page 52 and in the introduction. This book is already in the bibliography and so I will add the reference from it. J3Mrs (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit dispute

The following are the versions of the page edits at dispute, the edit made by myself is in Good Faith. The word estate occurs throughout the article here in many sections. Should these not therefore also read as Manor for consistency? I see J3Mrs has some strong views on the subject matter, even using a Wikipedia:POV to assert their own view. The consistency of the article is poor as a result.

The edit made by the other editor reads as:

In 1900 Crompton sold sold his interest in the manor and his estate to William Lever, founder of Lever Brothers. Lever's estate was compulsorily purchased by Liverpool Corporation in 1902, excluding the 45 acres used for his Rivington home.

My own edit read as follows:

In 1900 John Crompton sold his estate to William Lever, founder of Lever Brothers. Lever's estate was compulsorily purchased by Liverpool Corporation in 1902, excluding the 45 acres used for his Rivington home.

The addition of the two citations at the start of the last section William Hesketh Lever are superfluous as the same information and facts following are verified by the Rivington Heritage Trust. I therefore state the two citations are not needed. The article could be edited to change the word estate to manor and estate in each prior section as an alternative to be consistent.

A further alternative would be to state in this final section that John Andrews sold all of his interests to as it means the same this cannot be suggested to be a POV or wordy, it will be a verified edit.

I hope the editor accepts there are sufficient citations prior to the recent edit.

Does this need to be resolved by Dispute resolution or Third opinion?

--Pennine rambler (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to avoid Lever being described as Lord of the Manor for reasons known only to yourself, and have been doing this since 2010. The references, the VCH and Irvine, are already used to reference other parts of the article can be used to reference my wording. 'In 1900 Crompton sold sold his interest in the manor and his estate to William Lever, founder of Lever Brothers.' I am reverting. You can take it wherever you like. J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No I don't consider there are sufficient citations, the business of disposing of the manor which is what this article is about, not estate, not "interests" was not dealt with in the reference and badly written sentence you left behind. It is dealt with in the refs I reinstated. J3Mrs (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense, "sold all his interests", you have to say what his interests were. J3Mrs (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have made a edit to change the sentence to John Andrews sold all of his interests to this makes far more sense than the sentence with errors you inserted, Crompton sold sold his interest in the manor and his estate. There are plenty of citations already without you adding more and why on earth insist on adding the words sold sold as for the rest of the comment you make above what on earth are you talking about? Given the logic of you argument for extending the sentence the same would apply to each owner surely? Please calm down. --Pennine rambler (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have made it clearer. J3Mrs (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to make clear, by whatever name you are now using, why you don't want Lever and manor mentioned in the same sentence because that is what the dispute is actually about, not excess citations, odd words. It is about the WP:POV you appear to be pushing as regards who owns the manorJ3Mrs (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And just to be clear, since you started editing again and by by whatever name you are now using, you have removed manor or manor and references five times. J3Mrs (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What makes "Lancashire & North West Magazine, August 2014" a more reliable source?

This "edit dispute" is not settled. I removed this article from my watchlist but look at the WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria watchlist. Pennine Rambler and others don't have carte blanche to remove referenced information from the article to replace it with poorer quality references. Pennine Rambler needed to explain some things before reinstating his pov. Can he explain why he wants to remove "John Andrews sold his interests in the manor and estate to William Lever" which has two reliable references and is willing to edit war, not just with me, about it? What justifies removing the two reliable references (the book by William Fergusson Irvine (1904). A short history of the township of Rivington and the Victoria County History website for Farrer, William; Brownbill, J., eds. (1911). "Rivington". A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 5 (British History Online)) used throughout the article for Lancashire & North West Magazine, August 2014? What makes the magazine a more reliable source than the two sources already used? J3Mrs (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I would usually rate the Victoria Histories far above Lancashire & North West Magazine, unless there was a reliable source backing them up—in which case we would not need the reference in the magazine. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely disingenuous of Pennine Rambler to start removing reliable references because as long ago as October 2010 at Talk:Manor of Rivington/Archive 1#The Crompton's sold the manor and the estate I made this very point about the manor and estate, and Rovington signing as PL.-Snr, who has since changed his name, agreed. That would seem to indicate consensus for my edit with reliable references. Please remember that Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and does not entertain original research. If Pennine Rambler can't give a good reason for removing verifiable references I will reinstate them and the content they verify. J3Mrs (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As Pennine rambler has edited the article since I wrote the above and I'm sure has read the talkpage, I will just say again if he can't explain his use of poorer quality references and need to remove verifiable content then I will reinstate it after he has had time to do so. One week? J3Mrs (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your statement above suggests you intend to restart your edit war despite agreeing to remove from this article from your watch lists. The citations remained present, additional citations were added, your statement above is erroneous and your motives appear disingenuous. --Pennine rambler (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not agree to remove it from my watchlist, I just did it, just as you agreed not to edit for a week but then restarted edit warring. As you have re-added the disputed content among your flurry of edits and reorganisation I would suggest you assume good faith and realise my request was for the accuracy of the article. Yes the citations were present referencing other information, but you might want to take notice of the second opinion in this section and consider this diff in which you added the disputed information. J3Mrs (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)