SecretLeeds - History, culture and architecture in Leeds

Perhaps, yes.The only comment on that theory would be if that church burnt down, would it have been a stone building or feature stone decoration?

I think I'm confusing myself now - you mean the 14th century replacement don't you? ... so yes, that makes sense!    

Croggy1 wrote: I think I'm confusing myself now - you mean the 14th century replacement don't you? ... so yes, that makes sense!     Yes the 14th century one,knocked down in 1838 to build the present one.

Having finally read the Radestock article which I missed when it was first posted (thanks for pointing me to it Geordie), i have some thoughts.Ignoring all the bit about the monastery,he seemed to be convinced that they were from the former Chapel of Saint Mary which stood on Leeds Bridge.it was finally demolished in 1760 when a new bridge was built next to the then 2 existing ones.An act of 1760 was passed to allow it's demolition along with nearby houses so the bridge could be built.Now I know that we never found a story of the soldiers so far, but in 1755 there was a major riot in Leeds where the military got involved and many people died.I got to wondering whether the 2 skulls are part of the chapel and were picked up along with other stone at the time and plonked on the stables as they were being repaired (we know there are various ages of stone in the stables from previous research) as a kind on memento mori of the riot.I may be stretching things as it would be 5 years after the event and Radestock is writing 131 years after the demolition of the chapel,but the tone of his article isn't when they were put there,but IMHO where they came from PRIOR to being on the chapel.I will be interested to see what others think.    

Steve Jones wrote: Having finally read the Radestock article which I missed when it was first posted (thanks for pointing me to it Geordie), i have some thoughts.Ignoring all the bit about the monastery,he seemed to be convinced that they were from the former Chapel of Saint Mary which stood on Leeds Bridge.it was finally demolished in 1760 when a new bridge was built next to the then 2 existing ones.An act of 1760 was passed to allow it's demolition along with nearby houses so the bridge could be built.Now I know that we never found a story of the soldiers so far, but in 1755 there was a major riot in Leeds where the military got involved and many people died.I got to wondering whether the 2 skulls are part of the chapel and were picked up along with other stone at the time and plonked on the stables as they were being repaired (we know there are various ages of stone in the stables from previous research) as a kind on memento mori of the riot.I may be stretching things as it would be 5 years after the event and Radestock is writing 131 years after the demolition of the chapel,but the tone of his article isn't when they were put there,but IMHO where they came from PRIOR to being on the chapel.I will be interested to see what others think.     See my post,about 3 messages back.Momento Mori was something of a shared social consciousness of mortality and death following the Black Death.It occured all over Europe and wasnt to do with marking a particular event or events as such,it was a sort of "Beware ,we are all going to die in the end" sort of thing,a reminder to all living people that they should live their lives in a certain way as one day they will be held account at the day of judgement.

cnosni wrote: The old parish church predated the reformation (16th century),and as the parish church became church of England (with a brief respite during the reign of Mary) then such a carving would not have been permitted on an establishment (C of E) church even into the early 19th century when the medieaval church was demolished.......Im still of the mind that they are either some remnant of Thomas Clavell's chapel which were uncovered when the market was being developed in the 19th century or are recovered stonework from the demolition of the Medieaval parish chuch in the 1830's. This is worth bearing in mind I think - the C of E aspect in regard to memento mori and the type of building they might have occupied.*************On a side note, one thing I didn't previously notice in Radestock's article. He says:'...And inasmuch as each religious order of bygone days had its own peculiar style of architectural decorations, it seems to me that the sculptured stone walled in the gable-end in Court-lane is one of the remains of Thrywolf's monastery...' etc etcCourt-lane? A schoolboy error by the esteemed twirly-moustachioed Herr Radestock? Or a new opportunity for googling? Surely this little court can't have had yet another name it was known by?

Geordie-exile wrote: cnosni wrote: The old parish church predated the reformation (16th century),and as the parish church became church of England (with a brief respite during the reign of Mary) then such a carving would not have been permitted on an establishment (C of E) church even into the early 19th century when the medieaval church was demolished.......Im still of the mind that they are either some remnant of Thomas Clavell's chapel which were uncovered when the market was being developed in the 19th century or are recovered stonework from the demolition of the Medieaval parish chuch in the 1830's. This is worth bearing in mind I think - the C of E aspect in regard to memento mori and the type of building they might have occupied.*************On a side note, one thing I didn't previously notice in Radestock's article. He says:'...And inasmuch as each religious order of bygone days had its own peculiar style of architectural decorations, it seems to me that the sculptured stone walled in the gable-end in Court-lane is one of the remains of Thrywolf's monastery...' etc etcCourt-lane? A schoolboy error by the esteemed twirly-mustachioed Herr Radestock? Or a new opportunity for googling? Surely this little court can't have had yet another name it was known by? But where was the monastery, and without irrefutable proof of a) where it was or b) if this court lane or exists unfortunately we will never ever know.

[See my post,about 3 messages back.Momento Mori was something of a shared social consciousness of mortality and death following the Black Death.It occured all over Europe and wasnt to do with marking a particular event or events as such,it was a sort of "Beware ,we are all going to die in the end" sort of thing,a reminder to all living people that they should live their lives in a certain way as one day they will be held account at the day of judgement. Yes,but the term can also be used to denote memorials to various people etc .I meant that perhaps someone had put them up to commemorate the deaths in the riots not 2 specific deaths.Wakefield Chantry chapel which is also dedicated to Saint Mary still stands and the current frontage includes heads,however this is the 3rd facade on the chapel since it was built having replaced an earlier Victorian restoration badly done in a stone which didn't weather well.

LS1 wrote: Geordie-exile wrote: cnosni wrote: The old parish church predated the reformation (16th century),and as the parish church became church of England (with a brief respite during the reign of Mary) then such a carving would not have been permitted on an establishment (C of E) church even into the early 19th century when the medieaval church was demolished.......Im still of the mind that they are either some remnant of Thomas Clavell's chapel which were uncovered when the market was being developed in the 19th century or are recovered stonework from the demolition of the Medieaval parish chuch in the 1830's. This is worth bearing in mind I think - the C of E aspect in regard to memento mori and the type of building they might have occupied.*************On a side note, one thing I didn't previously notice in Radestock's article. He says:'...And inasmuch as each religious order of bygone days had its own peculiar style of architectural decorations, it seems to me that the sculptured stone walled in the gable-end in Court-lane is one of the remains of Thrywolf's monastery...' etc etcCourt-lane? A schoolboy error by the esteemed twirly-mustachioed Herr Radestock? Or a new opportunity for googling? Surely this little court can't have had yet another name it was known by? But where was the monastery, and without irrefutable proof of a) where it was or b) if this court lane or exists unfortunately we will never ever know. We don't know where the monastery was. But we do know that Radestock was talking about where the skulls were before they were moved by Ion Dyson - he talks early in his piece of the skulls in the wall of the Crown & Fleece. It's only towards the end of the piece he says they are 'walled in the gable end in Court-lane', obviously meaning the same place. Which is why I thought he'd made a schoolboy error.

I hadn't realised previously that there is a High Court Lane between Kirkgate and The Calls. Perhaps Radestock got his Court names mixed up? ETA: drapesy's painstaking thread about Kirkgate might go some way to explaining the confusion over street names and numbering in the Kirkgate area. http://www.secretleeds.com/forum/Messag ... eadID=1125