click links in text for more info
SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Crayford

Crayford is a town and electoral ward located in south-east London, England within the London Borough of Bexley. It lies north west of Dartford. Crayford is in the historic county of Kent; the settlement developed by the river Cray, around a ford, no longer used. An Iron Age settlement existed in the vicinity of the present St Paulinus Church between the Julian and Claudian invasions of Britain, from 30 BC to AD 40. Roman ruins have been discovered and Crayford is one of several places proposed as the site of Noviomagus, a place mentioned in the Antonine Itinerary as being on the Roman equivalent of the Watling Street. Crayford is plausible as the site of the bloody battle of Crecganford in 457 in which Hengist defeated Vortimer to become the supreme sovereign of Kent; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle written around 400 years describes how Hengist and Æsc defeated the "Brettas" at that battle. Crayford is mentioned in the Domesday Book, compiled just prior to 1086, as a settlement within the Hundred of Litlelee with a church, three mills, a large population of 27 regular householders and 2 smallholders.

Its overlord was not Christ Church, Canterbury. As a parish it included the hamlets of Northend, Perry Street and Slade Green which lie to the north. In 1831, the population of the parish was 2022 people. For centuries it was associated with brick-making, the printing of silk scarves and calico cloths, for a short period carpet-making. There were two main Manor Houses in the area during the Middle Ages, Newbery Manor on the site of what is now Crayford Manor House, Howbury Manor next to Slade Green. Roger Apylton had served Kings Henry V and Henry VI as auditor, resided at Marshalls Court, Crayford. Late in the reign of Elizabeth I Henry Partich sold Newbery Manor to Henry Apylton of Marshalls Court, Apylton built May Place close by. Hall Place, which lies alongside the River Cray, was built for Lord Mayor of the City of London Sir John Champneis in around 1537. There was an Iron Mill, replaced by a saw mill, which produced the timber for the floor of Buckingham Palace. In 1551 Francis Goldsmith bought a'Great tenement called The Place' next to the bridge in Crayford, between 1556 and 1586 purchased substantial amounts of local farmland and the Old Bell Public House.

In 1623 most of the parish of Crayford was purchased by Merchant Taylor Robert Draper including Newbery Manor, Howbury Manor, Marshalls Court and May Place, where his family took up residence. Draper's wife Anne was the daughter of Thomas Harman who lived at Ellam House which subsequently passed to the Drapers; the ownerships subsequently passed to Robert Draper's son William, selected to be the Sheriff of the County of Kent but died in 1650 before taking office, to Robert's grandson, parliamentarian Cresheld Draper. On the death of Cresheld Draper in 1694, his heirs sold all the properties to Sir Cloudesley Shovell'. Crayford Manor House was rebuilt in the eighteenth century, at the time a farmhouse until it was remodelled in 1816 for the Rev. Thomas Barne. Historic England state it was built piecemeal over several periods, with a porch and Italianate features being added to the 1816 building. Other notable 19th-century local houses included Shenstone, Martens Grove and Oakwood - the latter two designed by architect John Shaw, Jr. and built by George Locke of builders Locke & Nesham with each occupying one of the houses.

In 1819, the former saw mill site became a flour mill. Another major employer was the silk works set up by Augustus Applegath and run by David Evans; the Maxim Nordenfeldt Gun and Ammunition Factory was a major employer, until taken over by the Vickers Company in 1897. Vickers built military aeroplanes and armaments and became the dominant employer, building homes, a theatre and a canteen close to many workshops; the canteen became the town hall of the Crayford Urban District Council and remains a major landmark in municipal use. Another former major employer in Crayford was Dussek Brothers who operated their oils and waxes blending business on Thames Road from around 1928 until the site was bought by BP and subsequently closed down in 2001; the entire site was demolished in early 2010. The David Evans silk works is another recent closure, in 2002. According to the 2011 census, 84% of the population is White British. Crayford has a greyhound racing track; the theatre was named in honour of Geoffrey Whitworth who played a key part in developing a British tradition of amateur drama and in building political support for The Royal National Theatre.

The new Crayford Community Centre, located above the library, is the venue for many groups. Nearby Hall Place is a scheduled ancient monument lying between Bexley, it has gardens with the River Cray running through and a plant nursery, a cafe and restaurant plus the silkworks shop. "The Bear and Ragged Staff" public house are in the town centre. The large Sainsbury's supermarket situated next to the greyhound stadium was claimed by Sainsbury's to be the world first's use of technology which heats the store using natural energy captured through boreholes buried hundreds of metres beneath the ground and was at the time of its expansion the largest Sainsbury's in England; the Tower Retail Park is opposite Crayford Town Hall. The High Street i

Creationism's Trojan Horse

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design is a 2004 book by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross on the origins of intelligent design the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and its wedge strategy; the authors are critical of what they refer to as intelligent design creationism, document the intelligent design movement's fundamentalist Christian origins and funding. The book grew out of an essay, "The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream" which Forrest wrote for the book Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics edited by Robert T. Pennock, it has a foreword by Steven Weinberg. Michael Cavanaugh, President of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science called the book "chilling", saying that "It lets one see how totalitarian religious thought can begin to take hold of a multi-cultural free society." Karl Giberson, editor-in-chief of the Templeton Foundation's Science & Theology News chose it as the July's Editor's Choice and described it as a "remarkable analysis".

Allan H. Harvey reviewed the book for Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation and criticized the authors' understanding of Christian theology, but wrote that "its thoroughness makes Creationism's Trojan Horse worth reading for those who are concerned about the movement's influence on public opinion and science education."There were positive reviews in the scientific literature, by Steve Olson in Science, by Rudolf A. Raff in Evolution & Development, by Barry Palevitz in BioScience and by Lawrence S. Lerner in Physics & Society. Chris Mooney reviewed the book for his CSICOP column and used it to compare ID creationism with young Earth creationism. Biologist Bruce Grant described the authors as "heroes", saying their work was "the most thorough introduction to that enemy "; the book had endorsements from Richard Dawkins, E. O. Wilson, Ursula Goodenough, Massimo Pigliucci, Eugenie C. Scott and Steven Pinker; the main subject of the book, the Discovery Institute, was critical of Creationism's Trojan Horse.

Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute wrote a review in the theology journal Philosophia Christi published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society and said that it had "erroneous reasoning" and that "on every page of the book, there is a tone of paranoia."Witt and John G. West of the Discovery Institute had an article published in the November 2004 edition of Science & Theology News entitled "Unraveling The Threads of Darwinist Paranoia". A month Forrest and Gross wrote in Science & Theology News, with a reply by Witt and West. Ian Musgrave contributed a letter to the editor in the February 2005 edition replying to West and Witt's reply; the research which Forrest in particular did led to her appearing as an expert witness for the plaintiffs at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District intelligent design trial, in which intelligent design was ruled to be religious creationism and not science, thus could not be taught as science in public school classrooms of Dover, Pennsylvania because of the Establishment clause of the US Constitution.

During the trial, pre-publication drafts of the textbook at the center of the controversy Of Pandas and People were uncovered which revealed its creationist origins and how it had changed from using creationist terminology to using intelligent design terminology as a result of the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard; this formed an important part of Forrest's testimony. A few days before Forrest's testimony, the Discovery Institute published its own "brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design" by Jonathan Witt, in which he attempts to diminish the importance of Edwards v. Aguillard, claiming instead that the origin of intelligent design was much older. Hardcover: 416 pages, Publisher: Oxford University Press, United States ISBN 0-19-515742-7 and ISBN 978-0-19-515742-0 Paperback: 416 pages, Publisher: Oxford University Press, United States ISBN 0-19-531973-7 and ISBN 978-0-19-531973-6 Book website, as retrieved by the Wayback Machine on January 4, 2015. Report on Forrest's Darwin Day Lecture Forrest & Gross book description Oxford University Press

Missal of Silos

The Missal of Silos is the oldest known document on paper created in Europe. The manuscript was written on quarto. Speaking, it is not a missal: It has been described as a breviary-missal, it can be described as a Liber Mysticus or Breviarum gothicum. The missal is "Codex 6" held in the library of the Monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos near Burgos, Spain, it is one of a number of liturgical manuscripts of the Mozarabic rite which have been preserved in the Silos library, despite the suppression of the rite in 1080 by Pope Gregory VII. The codex is named after its current location in Silos, but it was not made at the Silos monastery's scriptorium; the paper for the missal is believed to have been manufactured in the Islamic world Islamic Spain though Nájera was in Christian territory at the time the document was created. In 2013, the manuscript was inspected by Umberto Eco, who had referred to Silos in his 1980 novel The Name of the Rose. Eco's visit was reported in the Spanish press. "Catalogue entry and image in Vivancos".

"Mozarabic Rite". Catholic Encyclopedia. See the line-item "Offices and Masses.

Moshchiny culture

The Moshchiny culture was an archaeological culture of the Iron Age from the 4th to the 7th century in present-day western Russia. It is the easternmost known Baltic culture; the settlement area was located in the forest areas at the upper Dnepr and the upper Oka in today's Russian Oblast Kaluga, Tula and Smolensk. It is named after a settlement near the village Moshchiny in the Mosalsky District in the Kaluga Oblast; the Moshchiny culture emerged in the 4th century from the Yukhnov culture, with influences from Zarubintsy culture due to immigration. Moshchiny culture is related to the Dnieper-Dvina culture. Agriculture and livestock were nutritional basis; the settlements were fortified. The ceramic had a smooth surface with bronze ornaments, it was hand-molded. Bronze and iron processing were developed. Mortuary fire was buried in burial mounds. For the period from the 9th century, the Baltic-Slavic origin of the Vyatichi is mentioned in the western part of the area. For the 11th century on the Oka the Baltic tribe of Galindians.

Dniepr Balts Archaeological finds of the Iron Age in the Kaluga Oblast Burial Cultures in the Oryol Oblast Archaeological finds in Tula Oblast Matthias Albani Der Brockhaus Archäologie: Hochkulturen, Grabungsstätten, Funde Publisher Brockhaus, 671 pages, 2009 ISBN 978-3-7653-3321-7 G. A. Massalitina: Современное состояние изучения мощинской культуры. Оки связующая нить In: EE Fomtschenko: Археология Среднего Поочья: Сборник материалов Второй региональной научно-практической конференции. Moscow 2009, pp. 38-43

Cabin Run Covered Bridge

The Cabin Run Covered Bridge is a historic covered bridge located in Point Pleasant, Plumstead Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The bridge was built in 1871, is 15 feet wide and has a length of 82 feet; the Town truss bridge crosses the Cabin Run downstream from the Loux Covered Bridge. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 1, 1980. National Register of Historic Places listings in Bucks County, Pennsylvania List of bridges documented by the Historic American Engineering Record in Pennsylvania List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania Historic American Engineering Record No. PA-197, "Cabin Run Covered Bridge, Schlentz Hill Road across Cabin Run, Bucks County, PA", 4 photos, 1 photo caption page

William Frederick, Prince of Nassau-Dietz

William Frederick, Count of Nassau-Dietz, Stadtholder of Friesland and Drenthe. William Frederick was the second son of Ernest Casimir I, Count of Nassau-Dietz and Sophia Hedwig of Brunswick-Lüneburg, he married Countess Albertine Agnes of Nassau, the fifth daughter of Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange on 2 May 1652 in Cleves. They had three children: Amalia of Nassau-Dietz, married to John William III of Saxe-Eisenach Henry Casimir II, Count of Nassau-Dietz, married to Henriëtte Amalia of Anhalt-Dessau Wilhelmina Sophia Hedwig The fact that his wife was only the fifth daughter of Frederick Henry, that they were married after the death of her father, would take on a special significance in the quarrel about the inheritance of the title of Prince of Orange after the death of William III of England in 1702; this was because Frederick Henry had made a provision in his will that if his male line would die out the title of Prince of Orange would be inherited by the male issue of the line of his elder daughter Louise Henriette of Nassau.

This might have been the case without this provision, had William III not himself left the inheritance to the descendants of William Frederick in his will. The inheritance therefore came down to a clash of testaments, with the outcome that both claimants took the title and divided the material inheritance. William Frederick was a paternal grandson of John VI, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg, a younger brother of his wife's paternal grandfather William the Silent; when John died in 1606 his inheritance was divided among his five sons, one of, William Frederick's father Ernest Casimir, who received the title of Count of Nassau-Dietz and followed his eldest brother William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg as Stadtholder of Friesland and Drenthe in 1620. William Frederick inherited the Nassau-Dietz possessions, the county of Diez and the county of Spiegelberg from his elder brother Henry Casimir I of Nassau-Dietz, who died childless in 1640; as a second son, William Frederick did not seem destined for the career he would follow.

He studied at Leiden University and the University of Groningen and subsequently took a commission in the army of the Dutch Republic, like his male ancestors and his brother. As such he was a junior partner of his future father in law and brother in law William II, Prince of Orange. However, his elder brother died in action near Hulst in 1640; as Henry Casimir was unmarried, did not have children, William Frederick inherited his titles. However, as the office of stadtholder was not yet hereditary, William Frederick only managed to be appointed in Friesland; the stadtholdership in Groningen and Drenthe went to Frederick Henry, not without a struggle with William Frederick, however. After Frederick Henry's death in 1647 William II succeeded his father in these two provinces as stadtholder. Only when William II died in 1650, just a week before his son William III was born, did William Frederick obtain the stadtholdership in the other two provinces also. At that time he might have obtained the stadtholdership in the five other provinces also.

After all, the stadtholderate was an appointive office. The elder branch of the Nassau family might have "first claim" to the office, but as the "claimant" was a newborn babe, such a claim was not to be taken seriously. Yet, to avoid a quarrel with the members of that elder branch William Frederick did not press his personal claim, but offered to serve as lieutenant-stadtholder in the five provinces until the infant William III would come of age, he might have been taken up on that offer, except for the events that preceded the death of William II. William had performed a military coup d'état against the States of Holland in the course of a quarrel about military policy. William Frederick had played a key role in that coup by leading the attempt to seize the city of Amsterdam by force in August, 1650. Though the attempted seizure was unsuccessful, the coup had not been. However, after William's death the Holland Regents seized their chance to revert to the status quo ante, they decided to leave the stadtholdership vacant in their province, followed by the four other provinces in which William had been stadtholder, thus inaugurating the First Stadtholderless Period.

Because of his role in the coup William Frederick was politically unacceptable, not just as a stand-in for William III, but on his own account. The office of stadtholder was a provincial office. On the federal level William II had fulfilled the office of Captain general of the Union, like his father and uncle before him. William Frederick again would have been in line for this office, except for the same political awkwardness that blocked his appointment to stadtholder in Holland. Again he offered himself as lieutenant-captain-general, but again the Regents decided to leave the function vacant. William Frederick did not get the function of acting commander-in-chief, which went to a noble from Holland; this was to be the story of William Frederick's life. He tried to act as the de facto head of the Orangist party, in opposition to the States Party faction of Grand Pensionary Johan de Witt and his uncle Cornelis de Graeff, but was outwitted and checked by De Witt at every step; the fact that the members of the senior branch of the family were suspicious of his ambitions made his position more difficult after he married into that seni