At the risk of raising a thorny subject that might have already been done, I was just reading Theo's City kits thread and the link mentions that Harold Needler wanted to re-name the club Kingston upon Hull AFC in 1946. I wish he had because apart from being the official name of the city (which we should be proud of) we would have been named after the city and not the river. I know everyone is used to and attached to our historical club name but if Needler had changed it then we would now be attached to Kingston upon Hull AFC.
I know what you mean but I'm sure the old songs wouldn't change. Even Hull Kingston AFC would be closer to the city name.
I'm with you Craig, it's always annoyed me that our City Fathers (Councillars) tossed away our proper rightful name in favour of just "Hull". Ditto the club should have that name really. We must be the only place who have done this. You don't find Newcastle upon Tyne calling themselves "Tyne" or Newcastle under Lyme calling themselves "Lyme". We were owned by the King as his personal property, and he called it Kingstown. Just because there is another Kingston, (Kingston upon Thames), why should we be stuck with plain "Hull".
Isn't the other Kingston, Kings stone in origin as opposed to Kings Town? I didn't think we were owned as much as thanked for services against the Scots, but being a contrary lot the locals at the time weren't that pleased about the Royal Connection, nailing some of the soldiers to the wall. I think they preferred the names of their Hamlets before the monarch decided to change it. Up until relatively recently we were (and being a unitary arguably still are) the City AND COUNTY of Kingston upon the River Hull. I reckon County Kingston's more apt, because that can still leave the individual hamlets of Myton, Drypool, sculcoates etc. We're quite a fragmented contrary lot, with north, east and west and suburbs, and even within each bit there's different groups. It's hard to get us under one umbrella.
Yes you're are right about the Kings Stone bit down South, it is a much older name, and Saxon Kings where apparently Crowned on the "Stone". In our story I always thought that Edward 1, purchased the place from the Abbot of Meaux and renamed the place “Kingstown” upon Hull, he later issued a charter (ie right to trade etc) and thereby gaining income.
I think it's one of those where we're both right. My understanding is that he paid for the land (although I don't think that was a simple transaction) but that it was some years later that the Charter and renaming occurred and this was due to the strategic position to bash the jocks and the large arsenal kept here. (largest outside the capital?) I'd have to look it up to be sure though.
: You are correct, I left out a lot of detail. I did a bit of reseach a few years back, but ditched most of it in moving. He did want to have a northern outpost, and I suspect it was more of "do you want to remain monks wripping off every one around here; and do you want to hand this place over to me" sort of thing. No flies on him.
Fully agree. One of the aspects of the City's heritage that has never been fully exploited, or even publicised, is the fact that the city is named Kingston by Edward I in 1299 - giving the city a royal charter. Significantly, Kingston-upon-Hull was for many years the only city which could properly define the status of 'city' as being by royal charter. If one was to ask most of the population of England what a city was they would say that it had to have a Cathedral. not at all, and Kingston-upon-Hull was for many years the exception to that notion. More recent towns to have added 'city' status with no cathedral such as Brighton and Sunderland have underscored the point - but this is only very recent.
The reason behind Kingston upon Hull being referred to as just Hull actually predates the 'Kingston' part which came with the granting of the royal charter in 1299 and has nothing to do with anti royal sentiment. The town was originally called 'Wyke Upon Hull' for the Archbishop of York, John Wyke. Local opposition to the association with a regional rival town was the reason the first part was dropped. See. It's not always the council.
BTW: The royal charter had nothing to do with granting city status. Hull became an official city in 1897.
That in itself is debatable as the original settlements could equally have been any or all of Sculcoates, Myton Drypool, Marfleet and some others depending on perspective. As I said, we've always been a fractious and contrary lot.
Good old Queen Victoria, so flushed with pride we stuck her on our posh bogs. It was us, Bradford and a couple of others all in close succession wasn't it? Tickles me to become the City and County of Kings Town upon the River Hull. So the Village of Sutton on Hull got the nap hand. To save me looking it up, why is it Sutton on Hull? Is it just a Parish boundary thing?
I've got nothing against the name Hull, but the name Kingston sounds much better, it's steeped in history and as we've had it since the 11th century it really should have stuck by now. As Chiltons222 said towns like Newcastle upon Tyne are shortened to Newcastle, so why are we shortened to Hull? It can only be laziness. We also get pigeon holed as Dull along with GRIMsby and S****horpe, whereas Kingston is a name you can't denegrate.
The National Gazetteer of Great Britain and Ireland 1868... "SUTTON ON HULL, a parish in the middle division of Holderness wapentake, East Riding county York, 3½ miles N.E. of Hull, its post town. It is a station on the Hull and Hornsea branch of the North-Eastern railway. It is situated near the river Hull, and includes the hamlet of Stone-Ferry, on the left bank of the river. It had a White friary, founded in Edward I.'s time. The living is a perpetual curacy in the diocese of York, value £110. The church, dedicated to St. James, was rebuilt in 1841 at the Grooves, and once bad a chantry, value £14. The parochial charities produce about £21 per annum, of which sum £12 go to a school. In the village are two hospitals, or alms houses, one founded by Leonard Chamberlain, and rebuilt in 1800, for ten poor persons, and the other, erected in 1819, by bequest of Mrs. Watson, for widows and orphan daughters of clergymen." "STONEFERRY, a village in the parish of Sutton on Hull, middle division of Holderness wapentake, East Riding county York, 1 mile N.N.E. of Hull." I'll give 'em £110 for it.
While we're doing history then, archeological digs... They beaver away digging down and down to find the bits and pieces of rubbish tossed away by our ancestors. They find a 2" bit of pot and use it to describe 10 generations of people that lived in the settlement. All clever stuff, what I can't work out, given the depths they dig down to, how come they can still open the door at Holy Trinity? It should be 10' underground shouldn't it? Where does all the extra 'stuff' they dig down through come from, is the globe getting fatter and fatter? Maybe the earths not warming up, maybe we're just getting higher and nearer the sun.
Near the River Hull? Stretching it a bit if you ask me. Wawne on Hull or even Dunswell or Woodmansey on Hull I could accept. I was once told that the church steps at Sutton are exactly the same height above sea-level as those at Holy Trinity. I thought I'd share that, you can never be too sure when this things could come in handy.
