Ten Useless Facts About...

..Anything, Anyplace, Anyone. My Chosen Subject is Waterford.

1. Waterford is Ireland's oldest city.
   
2. Waterford is the home of the Blaa, a square white bread roll with flour sprinkled on top. A traditional filling is Red Lead. Red Lead is luncheon meat, also known as Ballybeg Ham from one of the more upmarket areas of the city.
   
3. The Irish Tricolour was flown for the first time outside the Wolfe Tone Confederate Club on the Mall in Waterford on March 1st 1848 during a bye-election.
   
4. Pop legends Gilbert O’Sullivan (Dec 1st 1946) and Val Doonican (Feb 3rd 1927) were born in Waterford.
   
5. Football greats John O’Shea and Jim Beglin are from Waterford as is Daryl Murphy who currently plays for Sunderland.
   
6. The first bridge over the River Suir at Waterford was constructed in 1793. Made of wood, it was nicknamed Old Timbertoes. Which is why the pub beside the bridge today is called Timbertoes Bar.
   
7. There are American Waterfords in Connecticut, Wisconsin, Virginia, Michigan, Vermont and Maine and Australian Waterfords in Western Australia and Queensland. South Africa has one too.
   
8. Waterford Railway Station is called Plunkett Station. It’s actually in Co. Kilkenny. In 2006 3,465 Waterford people lived in the suburb of Ferrybank which is also in Co. Kilkenny.
   
9. Aer Arann is the only carrier operating out of Waterford Airport.
   
10. Waterford is twinned with St. John’s Newfoundland, Herblain, France and Rochester, New York.
    

Hmm, I think we can dispute the oldest city claim. I've heard it was founded in 914, when the oldest permanent viking settlement in Dublin is from 841. That's not even considering the claims of Derry and Armagh who could claim city status due to their ecclesiastical origins and episcopal pre-eminence.

riadach wrote:

Hmm, I think we can dispute the oldest city claim. I've heard it was founded in 914, when the oldest permanent viking settlement in Dublin is from 841. That's not even considering the claims of Derry and Armagh who could claim city status due to their ecclesiastical origins and episcopal pre-eminence.

Why do you hate Waterford?  

Freddie Mercury.

Freddie was born Farrokh Bulsara on September 5th 1946 to Bomi and Jer Buldara, in Stone Town on the East African island of Zanzibar.

At the age of 12, Freddie formed his first band - The Hectics

He attended a private school in India from 1955 until 1963,and moved to England with his family in 1964 moved to Middlesex in 1964, due to political unrest in their country

In 1966, he enrolled in Ealing College of Art to study graphic illustration. From there Freddie joined up with a blues band called Wreckage while studying graphic design courses at Ealing College of Art.

He was a hard core smoker.

Freddie was known for his overbite. He refused to have oral surgery on them because he felt it might change his singing voice

He had a vocal range of 3.5 octaves.

He kept a grand piano beside his bed, in case he thought of something during the night.

Freddie's house is at 1 Logan Place in Kensington, London. It is now the home of Mary Austin, to whom he left his estate

On November 24th 1991 (approximately 7pm London time) Freddie's struggle against AIDS ended when he passed away just over 24 hours after he had publicly announced he had the disease. No one knows exactly how long Freddie knew he had the AIDS virus since he didn't tell anyone, even the band, for a long time. Some people have estimated about five years. Musicians and fans from all over the world paid their highest respects as the passing of rock music's most innovative, flamboyant ambassador signified the end of an era.


Long Live Freddie.

riadach wrote:

Hmm, I think we can dispute the oldest city claim. I've heard it was founded in 914, when the oldest permanent viking settlement in Dublin is from 841. That's not even considering the claims of Derry and Armagh who could claim city status due to their ecclesiastical origins and episcopal pre-eminence.

Depends on your definition of city. Armagh was officially granted city status in 1994 and Derry in 1613. Waterford was 1206. When did Dublin become a city as opposed to a settlement, village or town?

They should be happy enough with Val Doonican and Gilbert O'Sullivan

Lestat wrote:

riadach wrote:

Hmm, I think we can dispute the oldest city claim. I've heard it was founded in 914, when the oldest permanent viking settlement in Dublin is from 841. That's not even considering the claims of Derry and Armagh who could claim city status due to their ecclesiastical origins and episcopal pre-eminence.

Depends on your definition of city. Armagh was officially granted city status in 1994 and Derry in 1613. Waterford was 1206. When did Dublin become a city as opposed to a settlement, village or town?

By that definition, I do not think Rome could be considered a city, as it was never given a royal charter.

I'm not sure when exactly Dublin was given a royal charter, but given the patchy sources in relation of Norman Ireland due to the destruction of the Four courts, that wouldn't necessarily surprise me. What I do know, however, is that Dublin was considered the administrative capital of Ireland from the start, not something awarded to a mere settlement village or town. Indeed, given that it was in royal hands, perhaps because of the liberties granted under such a charter, it was deemed unnecessary for the capital.

riadach wrote:

Lestat wrote:

riadach wrote:

Hmm, I think we can dispute the oldest city claim. I've heard it was founded in 914, when the oldest permanent viking settlement in Dublin is from 841. That's not even considering the claims of Derry and Armagh who could claim city status due to their ecclesiastical origins and episcopal pre-eminence.

Depends on your definition of city. Armagh was officially granted city status in 1994 and Derry in 1613. Waterford was 1206. When did Dublin become a city as opposed to a settlement, village or town?

By that definition, I do not think Rome could be considered a city, as it was never given a royal charter.

Rome has something even better, an imperial charter. The presence of dozens of Roman Emperors there over the centuries is vindication enough of its status as a city.

That would imply Rome was not a city before it had an Emperor. The fact it was the head of a collection of city-states would disprove that.

riadach wrote:

I'm not sure when exactly Dublin was given a royal charter, but given the patchy sources in relation of Norman Ireland due to the destruction of the Four courts, that wouldn't necessarily surprise me. What I do know, however, is that Dublin was considered the administrative capital of Ireland from the start, not something awarded to a mere settlement village or town. Indeed, given that it was in royal hands, perhaps because of the liberties granted under such a charter, it was deemed unnecessary for the capital.

Henry II made it a dependency of Bristol in 1172 which doesn't say a lot for his view of Dublin's status. Nor am I sure about Dublin's ancient status as the administrative capital. The Irish Parliament frquently sat outside Dublin, in Kilkenny for instance.

Lestat wrote:

riadach wrote:

I'm not sure when exactly Dublin was given a royal charter, but given the patchy sources in relation of Norman Ireland due to the destruction of the Four courts, that wouldn't necessarily surprise me. What I do know, however, is that Dublin was considered the administrative capital of Ireland from the start, not something awarded to a mere settlement village or town. Indeed, given that it was in royal hands, perhaps because of the liberties granted under such a charter, it was deemed unnecessary for the capital.

Henry II made it a dependency of Bristol in 1172 which doesn't say a lot for his view of Dublin's status. Nor am I sure about Dublin's ancient status as the administrative capital. The Irish Parliament frquently sat outside Dublin, in Kilkenny for instance.

The City of Waterford used to own a pub in Bristol.

riadach wrote:

That would imply Rome was not a city before it had an Emperor. The fact it was the head of a collection of city-states would disprove that.

I would say that is was a city before it had an Emperor, but that essential city-hood was changed by the fact that it became the seat of an Empire.

cactus flower wrote:

The City of Waterford used to own a pub in Bristol.

Parts of Waterford are paved with ballast stones from Bristol ships, while parts of Bristol were paved with headstones the Cromwellians nicked from Waterford graveyards.

Waterford also owns one of Henry VIII's old velvet hats. One of the City Council overseers used to wear it when heading up the St Patrick's Day parade, until not that long ago.

Henry's letter to Waterford of 1536 states: ...'And now at this tyme as a remembrance and evident token of our favours we have sent you by this brynger a Capp of mainteynance to be borne at tymes thought by you necessarie before you the Maior being our officer of that our said Citie and your successors officers of the same. Given under our signet at our Manor of Greenewich the last day of Aprill in the xxviiith year of our reigne. To our right trustie and welbeloved the Maior and Cominalty of our Citie of Waterford in our land of Ireland.'

cactus flower wrote:

Waterford also owns one of Henry VIII's old velvet hats. One of the City Council overseers used to wear it when heading up the St Patrick's Day parade, until not that long ago.

Henry's letter to Waterford of 1536 states: ...'And now at this tyme as a remembrance and evident token of our favours we have sent you by this brynger a Capp of mainteynance to be borne at tymes thought by you necessarie before you the Maior being our officer of that our said Citie and your successors officers of the same. Given under our signet at our Manor of Greenewich the last day of Aprill in the xxviiith year of our reigne. To our right trustie and welbeloved the Maior and Cominalty of our Citie of Waterford in our land of Ireland.'

Henry VIII, the Last of the Big Spenders.

What was the name of the pub by the way?

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Waterford also owns one of Henry VIII's old velvet hats. One of the City Council overseers used to wear it when heading up the St Patrick's Day parade, until not that long ago.

Henry's letter to Waterford of 1536 states: ...'And now at this tyme as a remembrance and evident token of our favours we have sent you by this brynger a Capp of mainteynance to be borne at tymes thought by you necessarie before you the Maior being our officer of that our said Citie and your successors officers of the same. Given under our signet at our Manor of Greenewich the last day of Aprill in the xxviiith year of our reigne. To our right trustie and welbeloved the Maior and Cominalty of our Citie of Waterford in our land of Ireland.'

Henry VIII, the Last of the Big Spenders.

What was the name of the pub by the way?

That's one useless fact that I can't quite bring to mind at the moment. It was quite a few hundred years ago.

cactus flower wrote:

That's one useless fact that I can't quite bring to mind at the moment. It was quite a few hundred years ago.

A google doesn't immediately reveal the name of the pub but it does reveal that there's a pub called The Pickled Pelican at 22 Waterford Road, London, SW6 2DR.

Lestat wrote:

riadach wrote:

I'm not sure when exactly Dublin was given a royal charter, but given the patchy sources in relation of Norman Ireland due to the destruction of the Four courts, that wouldn't necessarily surprise me. What I do know, however, is that Dublin was considered the administrative capital of Ireland from the start, not something awarded to a mere settlement village or town. Indeed, given that it was in royal hands, perhaps because of the liberties granted under such a charter, it was deemed unnecessary for the capital.

Henry II made it a dependency of Bristol in 1172 which doesn't say a lot for his view of Dublin's status. Nor am I sure about Dublin's ancient status as the administrative capital. The Irish Parliament frquently sat outside Dublin, in Kilkenny for instance.

You're not suggesting that Dublin was smaller than Waterford on the eve of the Norman invasion are you? It being a dependency on Bristol would explain the lack of a royal charter, but not in the manner in which you infer. The trade between Bristol and Dublin, as well as Wexford as shown by Macmurrough's contacts there, was considerable and very lucratice. Therefore Bristol merchants would have already been familiar with Dublin, who better to run the city. The same merchant families who were granted liberties in Bristol, through the dependency, would now have the same liberties in Dublin. Thus, no need for a charter, but it does not make it any less a city, and certainly does not devalue its importance.

I also think you may be confusing a legislative capital with an administrative one.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

riadach wrote:

That would imply Rome was not a city before it had an Emperor. The fact it was the head of a collection of city-states would disprove that.

I would say that is was a city before it had an Emperor, but that essential city-hood was changed by the fact that it became the seat of an Empire.

But to to the extent that its cityhood depended on a charter. Indeed none would exist. What of Milan or Venice whose city-status predated feudal charters? And what of the episcopal cities, who were cities by virtue of their bishops, and not through the later feudal system?

The Romans, Milanese and Venetians didn't call their places of residence, cities. In Latin it was Urbs. And in Medieval Italian it was probably something else. In their context an Urbs could have meant something slightly different to what we mean by city.

Outside of Britain and Ireland a city can also be just a large urban (see? ) area. It was also once defined here by having a cathedral, Cashel used be described as a city and if you blinked you'd miss the place.

Our cities were bequeathed us by the Normans and regularised or abolished by the Local Government Act 2001 which semi-demoted Kilkenny.

riadach wrote:

You're not suggesting that Dublin was smaller than Waterford on the eve of the Norman invasion are you?

No.

riadach wrote:

Thus, no need for a charter, but it does not make it any less a city, and certainly does not devalue its importance..

Yes it it does on both counts.

riadach wrote:

I also think you may be confusing a legislative capital with an administrative one.

And No again.

Lestat wrote:

riadach wrote:

Thus, no need for a charter, but it does not make it any less a city, and certainly does not devalue its importance..

Yes it it does on both counts.

The charter and rights held by the ruling families in relation to Bristol were convened on them in relation to Dublin too. Therefore, Dublin has the same liberties as any other city in the realm, but it was merely held by the same group of people that were granted the liberties of Bristol. It is in fact, still a chartered city.

Here is the charter itself.

Quote :

"Henricus dei gratia, &c. Henry by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitain, and earl of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, ministers, and sheriffs, and to all his faithful subjects French, English and Irish, greeting. Know ye, that I have given, granted, and by my charter confirmed to my subjects of Bristol my city of Dublin to inhabit. Wherefore I will and firmly command that they do inhabit it, and hold it of me and of my heirs, well and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and amply, and honourably, with all the liberties and free customs, which the men of Bristol have at Bristol, and through my whole land.. Witness William de Braosa, Reginald de Curtenay, Hugh de Gundeville, William Fitz-Aldelm, Reginald de Glanville, Hugh de Cressy, Reginald de Pavilly, at Dublin

Note that even at this stage, 1173, that Henry considers Dublin to be his city. The only reason Henry may not have considered this document to be a grant of city status to Dublin, would have been because he had already perceived it as one. This is explained by the fact Dublin (as well as Waterford) were proclaimed cities by him in 1171. That however would not fit into the narrow definition of a city based on the existence of a charter. However, it's clear that the rights contained in this charter confirm its city-status to be on a par with any other city within his realm, something that Waterford did not receive until 1205. The only anomaly is that there were no citizens in Dublin to confer these rights upon, (they had been expelled to Oxmanstown), therefore the subjects of Bristol are granted these right in mirror of their own in their own city. (Indeed it is greatly possible, that this charter may just be a recognition of something that had already occurred a la Frederick Barbarossa on his accession, or giving charters to the lands of Anglo-Norman barons that they had already conquered. Perhaps he was confirming the right of Bristol subjects to inhabit Dublin, though they had already done so and acted in accordance with those liberties laid out in the Charter of Bristol). If you wish to look at other sources, his grant to Oxford confirming its liberties is rather similar to that of Dublin, though it details the liberties and freedoms involved. Therefore, if we judge the age of a city solely on the basis of the issuing of a charter, Dublin is still older than Waterford. In fact, its second charter, which gives much greater detail to the liberties granted to the citizenry of Dublin, dates to 1192, which is still older than Waterford's charter and which is strikingly similar to the charter granted by Henry I to London in 1131.

Quote :

riadach wrote:

I also think you may be confusing a legislative capital with an administrative one.

And No again.

Because the parliament was migratory, it does not mean that their embyronic civil service was likewise. Indeed, I severely doubt, especially given the unsettled political circumstances of Irish life after the 14th century, that either the treasury, nor the rolls were migratory. Therefore, Dublin was still an administrative capital, without a parliament lodged permanently within its walls.

Lestat wrote:

The Romans, Milanese and Venetians didn't call their places of residence, cities. In Latin it was Urbs. And in Medieval Italian it was probably something else. In their context an Urbs could have meant something slightly different to what we mean by city.

Indeed, but we do. Indeed, we recognise various aspects of their construction that are similar to what we consider cities today. A large urban space, a large population, ordered streets, a merchant class, a congregation of many craftsworkers, a resonably sized contado under the adminstration of the city to organize its food supply, and a central focus, a central, often separate, administration to the provinces in which they lay. Indeed, one could judge that as being the fundamental outline of a city in any culture worldwide, and this could make up a rather healthy objective definition of a city, as opposed to the idiosyncratic definitions normally found.

Quote :

Outside of Britain and Ireland a city can also be just a large urban (see? ) area. It was also once defined here by having a cathedral, Cashel used be described as a city and if you blinked you'd miss the place.

Our cities were bequeathed us by the Normans and regularised or abolished by the Local Government Act 2001 which semi-demoted Kilkenny.

It still would make Waterford a city ahead of Dublin only by a very narrow and restricted set of rules. It would also imply that not only were there no cities before the Norman arrival, but given that that is the only manner by which we describe an Irish city (by virtue of their Royal charters) there never could have been. You have admitted that Dublin was the greater in both size and importance than Waterford at this time and since both urban centres had been founded, yet because it does not fit into a very narrow arbitrary criteria on what is a city on these islands, i.e. its own charter and not a shared one with Bristol, you deny it that appellation. Not only that, but under the same criteria, given no letters patent are issued by the President, no other city may be constituted in Ireland. The definition is faulty and anachronistic, and is as equally useful as the cathedral definition you have given above.

riadach wrote:

It still would make Waterford a city ahead of Dublin only by a very narrow and restricted set of rules.

Those were the rules that applied at the time.

riadach wrote:

i.e. its own charter and not a shared one with Bristol, you deny it that appellation.

I got the impression that Dublin was regarded as subordinate to Bristol. In any case Bristol wasn't chartered as a city until 1542.

riadach wrote:

Not only that, but under the same criteria, given no letters patent are issued by the President, no other city may be constituted in Ireland.

A city may be constituted in Ireland under the Local Government Act.

riadach wrote:

Hmm, I think we can dispute the oldest city claim. I've heard it was founded in 914, when the oldest permanent viking settlement in Dublin is from 841. That's not even considering the claims of Derry and Armagh who could claim city status due to their ecclesiastical origins and episcopal pre-eminence.

There are different dates given for Viking settlement in Waterford - 853 and 856 as well as dates in the 10th century.

http://www.waterfordcity.ie/city/walls/index.htm

Would you define a longphort or a dun as a city anyway? I would say it took some time to morph into one. The Woodstown Settlement 5 miles west of Waterford City may be earlier than Dublin.

http://iwn.iwai.ie/v31i3/lastbattlecry.pdf