Talk:Slaidburn

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please note that Newton has not been a manor in its own right since the C13th. The sale of the "manor" by Manorial Auctioneers in 2011 was illicit. Since the late C13th, the township of Newton, like those of Grindleton and West Bradford, has fallen within the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn. Since 1950, the Assheton family of Downham have owned the Lordship of the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn, West Bradford and Grindleton. Lord O'Hagan has no right to claim or sell the property of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorial (talk • contribs) 11:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE "MANOR" OF NEWTON[edit]

Would the person who bought the "manor" of Newton in good faith from Manorial Auctioneers kindly check the HM Registry recordss for 1950, 1977, 2003 relating to the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn. They plainly show that the township of Newton is part of the Manor of Slaidburn and thus owned by Thomas Assheton. Lord O'Hagan had no legal right to sell the non-existent "manor" of Newton in February 2011. The purchaser needs to refer back to his solicitor Rollasons on this matter as he has been misled. Manorial (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorial (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I've done my own research here, this seems to be contradictory to what all current sources are saying - this includes newspapers and even a journal published by Cambridge University. I'm removing the material since basing this claim solely on land records appears to be original research; if you have any secondary sources which support your claim, please provide those. Shell ^babelfish 19:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, please email me at swjolly@btinternet.com I don't know what sort of research you've undertaken but the monograph published by Cambridge which I co-authored is the most authoritative current study. What is contradictory? I fear you may be misinterpreting the data.

Manorial (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, I've emailed you an explanation of the complex interrelationship between the lordships of Bowland, Slaidburn and Newton. Let me know if you have any questions please.

Manorial (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct - somewhere in reading the convoluted history I managed to confuse Newton, Newton-in-Bowland and Bowland. Thank you for fixing my error. Shell ^babelfish 20:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MANORIAL COMPLEXITY WITHIN SLAIDBURN PARISH[edit]

Shell, I have worked hard to clarify the complex interrelations between Slaidburn, Newton, Knowlmere, Hammerton, Battersby(Dunnow)and Lower Easington in the history section. This was at the request of Trappedinburnley. Manorial (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trappedinburnley, I've redrafted the Easington para as follows:

Lying within the parish of Slaidburn, the manor of Lower Easington had been subinfeuded in early times and as a mesne manor of the Lords of Bowland, did not fall within the demesne of Slaidburn - the Banastre/Bannister family holding the manor from the early sixteenth century.[9] The lands of Upper Easington may originally have been a Slaidburn township but grants by the de Lacys in the thirteenth century, most notably to Kirkstall Abbey, gave the area its own grange at Rushton.[10] At some later point, presumably at or after the Reformation, the manor of Lower Easington took control of the lands that subsequently became Upper Easington.[verification needed]

This whole area needs research! Manorial (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Slaidburn. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]