Tag Archive: Memorial

Kings Cross – A Cross for Kings

In 1830 the area of London formerly known as Battle Bridge acquired a new name, Kings Cross. This is a rare image of the “cross” that led to that controversial renaming.

Elevation of King's Cross 1830

Elevation of King’s Cross 1830 – Architect Stephen Geary

The cross is generally referred to as a monument to George IV and indeed it was topped with a large statue of him but it was originally intended to serve as a monument to several monarchs.

Why is this important? Well the grammar police insist that if it was a monument to one King then an apostrophe should always be used, as in King’s Cross. If, on the other hand, it was a memorial to more than one King, then Kings Cross or even Kings’ Cross would be the appropriate style. An excellent feature on Londonist last year outlined the, still raging, controversy and attracted many passionate comments.

The whole edifice was paid for by public subscription and in the original prospectus the fund-raisers stated their objective of raising a monument to honour “His Most Gracious Majesty William the Fourth, his late Majesty George the Fourth, and the preceding kings of the Royal House of Brunswick.”, lots of monarchs, so Kings it is then?

Well not quite, the waters get a little muddy.

The inscription on the monument certainly reads Kings Cross.

Inscription on Kings Cross

Inscription on Kings Cross

But the dedication is to George IV alone, so back to King’s?

Well despite stating their intention to honour several kings, the fund raisers themselves confusingly use King’s Cross throughout the rest of their subscription prospectus. Or did they?

I found the original subscription “circular” reproduced in full in an 1890 volume Marylebone and St Pancras: Their History, Celebrities, Buildings, and Institutions by George Clinch published by Truslove & Shirley of Oxford Street. I haven’t seen the original, perhaps Mr Clinch “corrected” the original?

Whether it even looked quite as it does in this print is unsure. Clinch states that in a later print of 1836, the four figures of patron saints were not present. He doubts that they were ever erected.

In any case the monument was very unpopular and was removed without complaint between 1843 and 1845, having briefly served as pub and a police station. All that remains of it is the contested name for the station and surrounding area.

To read Clinch’s full account including the subscription circular click here and scroll to page 126.

To argue about apostrophes please feel free to use the comments section.

The author of this blog is a fully qualified and insured City of Westminster Tour Guide who runs unique walking tours and private tours in London.

All Public Walking Tours are bookable here via Eventbrite.

I also offer Private Tours, Private Events and provide Consultancy Services for media and education professionals in London. You can read Reviews of  Walks and see some recent projects here. Please feel free to contact me about any of these services.

If you liked this post, or found it useful, please share it.

The Ugliest Statue in London?

Well, according to George Bernard Shaw, the famous “Wedding Cake” statue, part of the memorial to Queen Victoria, would be a contender.

The Statue of Queen Victoria outside Buckingham Palace, circa 1926.

The Statue of Queen Victoria outside Buckingham Palace, circa 1926.

But then according to Shaw almost any statue of Queen Victoria could claim the title “The Ugliest Statue in London”.

In 1928 Frank Rutter, Art Critic for The Sunday Times, wrote a feature Public Monuments in London – Good & Bad, he quotes Shaw:

SOME years ago when an art periodical incited its readers to state which in their opinion was the ugliest statue in London, Mr. Bernard Shaw seized the opportunity to ask “what crime Queen Victoria committed that she should be so horribly guyed as she has been through the length and breadth of her dominions?

“It was part of her personal quality,” Mr. Shaw continued, “that she was a tiny woman; and our national passion for telling lies on every public subject has led to her being represented as an overgrown monster. The sculptors seem to have assumed that she inspired everything that was ugliest in the feminine fiction of her reign. Take Mrs. Caudle, Mrs. Gamp, Mrs. Prig, Mrs.Proudie, and make a composite statue of them; and you will have a typical memorial of Queen Victoria.

Mrs Caudle, Mrs Gamp, Mrs Prig & Mrs Proudie

Mrs Caudle, Mrs Gamp, Mrs Prig & Mrs Proudie

Now if this were a bold republican realism which disdained courtly sycophancy, it would be at least courageous, if unkind. But it is pure plastic calumny. Queen Victoria was a little woman with great decision of manner and a beautiful speaking voice which she used in public extremely well. She carried herself very well. All young people now believe that she was a huge heap of a woman. . . . How could they think anything else with a statue at every corner shrieking these libels at them? …  I blush for British sculpture, and long for a trip in a bombing aeroplane to remove Victoria’s lying reproaches from the face of her land.”

I think Shaw just might have approved of this modern, 2007, statue of the young Queen Victoria by artist Catherine Laugel.

Queen Victoria by Catherine Laugel, 2007, Victoria Square SW1

Queen Victoria by Catherine Laugel, 2007, Victoria Square SW1

Rutter had his own nomination for a different title “The Ugliest Monument in London”.

Mr. Bernard Shaw is very severe, but his severity is justified, for from the statue in front of the Royal Exchange to the “wedding-cake “- – as it has been called—outside Buckingham Palace there is no rendering in sculpture of Queen Victoria which can hope to escape censure. Lamentable, however, as have been the failures to produce a worthy memorial of the Queen, none of them so grossly offends a fastidious taste as does the monument to her Prince Consort.

The Albert Memorial

The Albert Memorial

Notwithstanding the embarrassing abundance offered to our choice, when it comes to asking what is the ugliest monument in London, the reply; expected and generally obtained is—” The Albert Memorial.” Designed by Sir G. G. Scott, this Gothic canopy terminating in a Gothic spire offends us by its incongruity and hyper-elaborate decoration. Nothing could be less Gothic in style than Foley’s colossal but very commonplace bronze-gilt figure of Prince Albert seated beneath the canopy; equally opposed to the principles of Gothic sculpture are the allegorical marble groups and figures which surround the monument. Given a Renaissance setting these examples of waxwork sculpture might have been rendered just tolerable, but the Gothic shrine only emphasises their triviality, while the profusion of gilding, coloured stones and mosaics adds an appearance of blatant vulgarity to a monument incongruously conceived.

It is pitiful to think that this architectural jumble was erected by the British nation at a cost of 120,000, half of which was defrayed by voluntary contributions. Contrasted with the glaring discordance of the Albert Memorial, the Cobden statue which is the joke of Camden Town is comparatively harmless and inoffensive.

Well tastes change over time. Personally I love Albert Memorial in all its florid glory. For what it is worth my own nomination for the title “London’s Ugliest Statue”, or at least ugliest statuette, would probably be for Eamonn Hughes’ 1998 post-modern creation in Maiden Lane, near Covent Garden. At least it is so little known and well hidden that it seldom causes offence.

Sculpture by Eamonn Hughes in Maiden Lane, 1998

Sculpture by Eamonn Hughes in Maiden Lane, 1998

The miniature maiden can be seen peering out from the columns.

Detail, "The Maiden" within a Sculpture by Eamonn Hughes in Maiden Lane

Detail, "The Maiden" within a Sculpture by Eamonn Hughes in Maiden Lane

Hughes seems to be referencing the street name, Maiden Lane, with  supposed connotations of flower girls and prostitution. In fact the derivation of Maiden Lane probably owes much more to the old English word “Midden” a – dung heap or cess pit. It has been noted, perhaps unkindly, that the artist has managed to faithfully reference both possible derivations in a single work. Anyway, shortly after completing this work Hughes left sculpture behind and became a celebrity hairdresser.

If you have a statue that you particularly dislike in London, do please name and shame it in the comments! I’ll take combined contributions from here, Facebook and Twitter and write a follow up post on the ugliest statues in London in 2012 as voted for by you.

The author of this blog is a qualified and insured City of Westminster Tour Guide who runs unique walking tours and private tours in London. All my public tours are bookable through Eventbrite.

If you liked this post, or found it useful, please share it.

Garden of Remembrance Desecrated in Piccadilly

Yesterday I was really saddened to see that Southwood Garden in Central London, has just been brutally redeveloped.

The tiny Second World War Memorial Garden lies to the West of St James’s Church, sandwiched between Jermyn Street and Piccadilly. Last year it was a lush, green, charming space, a little overgrown but all the more magical because of that.

Excuse the clichés but for once they are merited; this was once a genuine “hidden gem” and a real “oasis of peace”.

This is a view from last year:

Today it looks like this:

Once Alfred Hardiman’s statue of Peace was surrounded by mature shrubs, in a “chapel” of leaves:

Today, stripped of her surrounding foliage, she has lost her aura of tranquillity and her ability to inspire contemplation.

She stands before us now as a mere garden ornament.

Shrubs and bushes have been pruned down to the earth, or removed entirely, and the blandest of  planting schemes has replaced them.

The magic of the space has been utterly destroyed.

There also used to be lots of unique, hand-painted, little marker signs, scattered throughout the garden, here was the grave marker of “Mackerel” the Rectory Cat  for example:

Other signs marked the remains of a (long abandoned) project to grow within the garden every plant mentioned in the Bible:

There was also a sign encouraging people to add a stone to a small prayer Cairn:

Many of these signs were nestled together in one section of the garden.

All of these have been swept away and replaced with hideous picnic benches contained within vile surrounding walls:

Now I’ll happily admit that I am a pretty unsentimental, cynical, atheistic type, but even I am angry and can see that what has been done is just plain wrong and constitutes an act of horticultural, aesthetic and moral vandalism. The destruction seems even more inexplicably insensitive when one considers the purpose of the garden.

The Southwood Garden is a memorial garden, dedicated to “The bravery of ordinary Londoners shown during the Second World War“. It was created as such by Viscount Southwood (whose own ashes lie within the garden) and was opened by Queen Mary in 1946.

Was it really necessary to slash and burn such a special place? If replanting was needed, couldn’t this have been done more gradually? If hard-landscaping work was genuinely required, couldn’t the little markers have been given some consideration, some respect?

Does this look like a distinctive memorial garden to you; or more like a bland, boring lawn, stuck behind some Piccadilly office blocks?

I would be really interested to know why the normally altruistic, effective and truly decent St James’s Church authorities have done this but I could find nobody to ask at the church yesterday.

They do run a market; do they want to rent out more stalls? They do have a High Street coffee concession; do they want/”need” more outside seating for “Flat Latte” drinkers?  Hauser & Wirth, the gallery, have a deal with the church to display art works in the garden; do they “need” more exhibition space? Is it all about cash, or is there another even more bizarre reason?

No doubt we will all learn “Why?” eventually.

But the damage has been done now and cannot be undone for a long time. For the next twenty years or so we will just need to wait patiently whilst the garden regenerates and matures. If I am fortunate enough to survive into my late 60′s, then I hope that I can go back to the Southwood Garden (circa 2032) and enjoy it once again.

There are a few more sad,  “before” and “after”, photos of the garden on my Flickr Photostream.

The author of this blog is a qualified City of Westminster Tour Guide who runs unique walking tours throughout Westminster, see tabs for details

If you liked this post, or found it useful, please share it.