Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is an odd question from somebody who has lived in this area for decades, but can somebody clarify where exactly they think the following hills are:


- Dog Kennel Hill (I think of this as the hill that Sainsbury's is on)

- Champion Hill (er, this is the name of the football ground whose location is by Sainsbury's, yet the road called Champion Hill is over the ridge, next to the Fox on the Hill pub)

- Denmark Hill (I think of this as the hill that leads up to the Fox on the Hill)


Are they all basically the same hill? Why is the Hamlet ground not called 'Dog Kennel Hill'?

Geographically they?re all the same hill and the names are of the different roads that go through it.


Geeky info: Denmark Hill used to be called Dulwich Hill and renamed after Queen Anne?s husband. Champion Hill named after the Champion de Crespigny family who owned the land.

Don't forget Champion Hill (the road) doesn't only run alongside the Fox, it turns left and runs along the top to meet DKH at the summit - so everything down the slope from it, and to the left of DKH as you go up, is Champion Hill - hence the estate above Sainsbury's being the Champion Hill estate. Dog Kennel Hill is the section of the hill to the right as you go up, hence Dog Kennel Hill estate.


It's actually not the football stadium name that's an anomaly, it's the Sainsbury's calling itself DKH Sainsbury's; chosen I guess for its nearest major road.

Denmark Hill


Named in honour of George of Denmark, husband of Queen Anne, who owned property here. Nearby Dog Kennel Hill once contained his kennels.


Champion Hill, part of the same mound, comes from the wonderfully named local landowner Sir Claude Champion de Crespigny.


https://londonist.com/2016/04/how-london-s-hills-got-their-names

ARNOULD AVENUE, S.E.5

One of a group of roads on the Champion Hill Estate, named (in 1952) after friends or acquaintances of the Camberwell-born poet Robert Browning (1812-1889), although oddly not including one named after Browning himself. The group comprises:

ARNOULD AVENUE, after Sir Joseph Arnould, a barrister, author and judge, born in Camberwell in 1815;

DOMETT CLOSE, after Alfred Domett, later Prime Mini- ster of New Zealand;

DOWSON CLOSE, after Chris Dowson;

MONCLAR ROAD, after Count Am?d?e de Ripert-Monclar;

WANLEY ROAD, after Nathaniel Wanley.


I always thought the Champion Hill Estate was The Cleve Hall estate.

John Ruskin (1819-1900) first lived on Herne Hill when he was four. From an extract from his autobiographical Praeterita at https://blog.oup.com/2013/01/john-ruskins-childhood-home/ (there's a full version at https://archive.org/details/praeterita01rusk):


Our house was the northernmost of a group which stand accurately on the top or dome of the hill, where the ground is for a small space level, as the snows are, (I understand), on the dome of Mont Blanc; presently falling, however, in what may be, in the London clay formation, considered a precipitous slope, to our valley of Chamouni (or of Dulwich) on the east; and with a softer descent into Cold Harbour-lane* on the west: on the south, no less beautifully declining to the dale of the Effra, (doubtless shortened from Effrena, signifying the 'Unbridled' river; recently, I regret to say, bricked over for the convenience of Mr. Biffin, chemist, and others); while on the north, prolonged indeed with slight depression some half mile or so, and receiving, in the parish of Lambeth, the chivalric title of 'Champion Hill,' it plunges down at last to efface itself in the plains of Peckham, and the rural barbarism of Goose Green.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A lovely bit of writing, which perfectly captures that strange world. I know few men undamaged by public boarding school. 
    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...