Jump to content

Recommended Posts

'In 1765, at age eight, William Blake had his first vision of angels while walking on Peckham Rye, a park in Greater London. Blake later described his vision as "a tree filled with angels, bright angelic wings bespangling every bough like stars."

In 2011, an oak tree was planted on Peckham Rye to commemorate the event. Does anyone know if it has survived the festivals?

(Map co-ordinates for the tree are 51.455867, -0.063448)I remember it being planted but has anyone seen it recently?

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would very much hope it has survived - as I like

> both oak trees and William Blake.

I went to the area I remember seeing it but not sure its the same tree. This is the young oak i saw today.

I too would like to know whether the William Blake oak planted in 2011 survived the festivals - I have looked for it several times without success. Does anyone know?

The tree in your photograph must be one which has been planted more recently, as a tree planted in 2011 would not still have a guard and a watering bag.

Thank you Nigello

I have received this reply back :


"The tree originally planted in what you described as the empty staked area did not survive very long. The local residents that planted it took the dead tree to use in an art project linked to William Blake.

A small shoot from the root stock of the dead tree started to grow. Unfortunately this tree died recently and the oak in your picture was bought to replace it.

When we came to plant this new tree in the original location we again found a small oak tree growing from the root stock of the original tree. We put a cage around that to protect it and planted the new oak a little further away to allow both enough space to grow.


Unfortunately we could not locate contact details of the original tree requestors to give them an update on the situation."


So that's the update. If anyone wishes to mark the occasion next year then we can gather around this young tree!

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

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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