|Posted on Thursday, 03 May, 2007 - 11:04 am: |
The last version of the topic ../1003/796.html"#cccccc">
|Posted on Thursday, 03 May, 2007 - 12:41 pm: |
actually Michael the guide was always intended to cover SE23 and ajoining areas, watch out for a solicitors letter over copywrite...
|Posted on Thursday, 03 May, 2007 - 12:52 pm: |
What is the oldest Pub in SE 23 that has always been a Pub.????
|Posted on Thursday, 03 May, 2007 - 01:32 pm: |
Dartmouth Arms? The area was known as Dartmouth Arms (after the pub I presume) before the name Forest Hill came into use. Is it a different building though?
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 11:46 pm: |
Highlights this week on the real Baggydave thread are Baggie's review of the new Hooperbar sort of in East Dulwich and a continued debate about the language used on this site and beer vs carrying a gun (none of the latter written by his Baggyness but still worth checking out). Turn over and see
|Posted on Saturday, 19 May, 2007 - 11:16 pm: |
The Forest Hill Tavern is looking ready to re-open after a fairly radical re-furb. Inside looks smart, and the garden a huge improvement, but I agree with BDs comments elsewhere that painting the exterior (black unless my memory is playing up) is a no-no. I'll drop in next weekend and report back.
|Posted on Sunday, 20 May, 2007 - 04:13 am: |
The Dartmouth Arms
The Dartmouth Arms was first licensed in 1815. The original(?)/previous building was approximately on the site of 9 Dartmouth Road (1843 Tithe). The pub was rebuilt on its present site between 1863 and 1875, the licence transferring in 1866.
Who was visiting this pub in 1815 is a mystery, as the canal was dry in the summer, and there is no mooring area in any case. Nor any record of a Quay for that matter. (OK as I proposed before, there was the Davids Rd 'pond', but if that were a viable mooring area, surely that is where you would locate the pub.) There was nothing else in the area in 1815.
So I propose the canal company had the house built, like a lock keepers cottage. Maybe the swing bridge would need supervising; maybe a security presence was required to ensure the barges were not pirated on the common; maybe the canal needed constant checking for leaks here - esp the Davids Road stretch. Maybe this all partially justified a canal keeper living here. And maybe this canal keeper's wife brewed and sold beer as a side line to the labourers who maintained the canal at this point.
I'm not entirely happy with this dual purpose pub, but a pub alone does not seem viable in 1815.