We all remember the nursery rhyme from our childhood which begins with the words London Bridge is Falling Down.  Well the London Bridge that I am going to share with you

did not fall down but was transported stone by stone to a lake in Arizona just over fifty years ago.  But why am I interested in a bridge which although in America, has a place in the memories of all Londoners over the age of fifty?

 

By John L.Stoddard (died 1931), Scan by Robert Schediwy [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

 

The answer is easy as I am the proud owner of a small piece of the nineteenth century bridge which I purchased today from the Arcade.

 

I had not really planned to visit the Arcade, but my daughter wanted to pop in to browse around (she lives in Kent and is an infrequent Hungerford visitor).  After I had completed the grandchildren watch, I was left alone as the little wonders made their way to the canal to feed the ducks with their mum.  I was free once more and decided to visit the book section for some peace and quiet.  It was as I turned towards the stairs that I noticed what seemed at first to be a small lump of rock on a small shelf to my right.  Initially I ignored it as I thought that there might be an Eliot first hidden away awaiting my discovery.  But as I rummaged through the books, I thought of the lonely piece of rock sitting on its own at the base of the stairs.

 

I selected a modern book on Uxbridge, (which is where I met Caron whilst at college) and a 1910 London guide book.  When I examined the rock, which I instantly identified as a piece of granite, I soon became aware of its unique historical significance.  It was an original piece of Rennie’s 1831 London Bridge which spanned the mighty River Thames for over one hundred and thirty years.  I decided to purchase it on the spot and write a short article about this famous lost bridge.

 

The identification of the stone was the easy part, but how did I know that it was from Rennie’s bridge?  The answer was simple as there was a small plaque on the mounting noting this fact.  But what of London Bridge?   Well as most of us are aware, there have been a number of bridges that have been called by that name.  The first one was built by our friends the Romans (what did the Romans ever do for us?) and was not much more than a glorified pontoon.  But as times matured, our Italian friends replaced this temporary bridge with a permanent piled bridge which was maintained and protected by a small garrison nearby.

 

After the Romans returned to Italy in the 5th century, London was slowly abandoned and the bridge suffered as a result.  It is thought that the bridge was rebuilt by either Alfred the Great or later on by Etheired the Unready in or around 990.  However, history does record that William the First did rebuild the bridge and that it was repaired during the reign of William the Second.  The bridge was further maintained (or maybe rebuilt) during the reigns of both Stephen and Henry the Second.  It was Henry who created a monastic guild (The Brethren of the Bridge) to oversee all aspects of the crossing.  A man known by the lovely name of Peter of Colechurch was the warden of the bridge and oversaw its last rebuilding in timber in 1163.

 

And now we come to the next bridge and, which in its way, is more famous than all the others.  Old London Bridge which crossed the Thames between 1209 and 1831 was, in its way, the result of a very bloody murder.  The penitent King Henry the Second after he foolishly ordered the assassination of the popular Thomas Becket in 1170, commissioned the building of a new stone London Bridge.  Although I am sorry for his unforgivable act, I believe that Henry was quite smart politically and knew that a shiny new bridge would help to integrate his name with his people once more.  And what a bridge it was.

 

Work began in 1176 and was supervised by our old friend Peter of Colechurch.  Unlike today where mega engineering works are almost put up in days, the building of the new bridge took over thirty three years and was finished in 1209 during the reign of King John.  In common with today’s projects, the costs of building the bridge were astronomical (as was recently demonstrated by the ill-fated  and ill thought out Garden Bridge over the Thames).  John tried to cover the costs by licencing out commercial and domestic plots on the bridge (This I believe, was the genesis of the famous song).

 

However, bridges are expensive and this was never going to cover the costs and in 1284 in exchange for loans to King Edward the First, the City of London acquired the charter for the maintenance of London Bridge which included all duties and tolls.  The new bridge was pretty impressive being some nine hundred feet long and supported by nineteen arches.

 

It also had a drawbridge to allow for the passage of taller ships and because times demanded it, had defensive gatehouses at each end.  What I did find amusing was my discovery that the bridge had a multi-seated public latrine overhanging the parapets (I would imagine that sailing under the bridge in those days was quite an experience).  The latrines must have been popular as between 1382 and 1383 a new one was constructed at the north end of the bridge (I wonder if there was a small toll for this and this is where the term “Spend a Penny” originated).  But enough of this toilet humour, grow up Stuart you are not at school now!

 

As I noted earlier, to try to recoup some of the costs, buildings were allowed on the bridge and as normal this got out of hand quite quickly.  It was an obvious fire hazard and added to the load that the arches of the bridge supported.

 

In 1212 there was a very serious fire on the bridge which occurred at both ends  (trapping the poor people in the middle).  History does not record whether this was deliberate or not, but the burning of both domestic and commercial properties during Wat Tyler’s Peasants Revolt of 1381 and during the Jack Cade Rebellion of 1450 were deliberate.  Strangely enough, the damage caused by the major fire on the bridge on 1633 acted as a firebreak during the Great Fire of London in 1666.

 

Going back a hundred or so years, by Tudor times there were some two hundred buildings on the bridge and some were up to seven storeys high and still, buildings were added such as the palatial Nonesuch House in 1577.

 

There was immense congestion with traffic coming in both directions and to add to the fun, I am told that the less secure structures sometimes fell into the Thames (hence the song).

 

On a slightly more fun note, the bridge was also used to display the severed heads of traitors impaled on spikes (after being dipped in tar and boiled to preserve them against the London weather).

 

William Wallace was the first to appear followed in no particular order by Jack Cade, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell and many others.  A German visitor once remarked that he counted over thirty heads on the bridge.  The practise was supposed to have ceased in 1660 when Good King Charles came to the throne but was reported as late as 1772.  Today, if the practice was still in operation, I can think of a few candidates for the honour but will leave my humour there (all suggestions on a plain white envelope please).

 

During the rationalisation of the bridge (1758-1762) all the houses and shops were demolished (that is if they had not fallen in already) and to improve navigation, the central arches were modernised.  But the bridge was past its working life and was dying on its feet.

 

In 1799 a competion was held to design a replacement for the old medieval bridge.

Thomas Telford threw his hat into the ring amongst others, but a design by John Rennie  won the competition and in 1824 work commenced.  As the new bridge was situated some one hundred feet away from the old one, the medieval bridge continued to be used until the new bridge was completed in 1831.  The old bridge was then demolished without ceremony.

 

The new London Bridge cost an amazing £2.5 million pounds to complete which taken at today’s costs, would be some £208 million.  This bridge was some 928 feet long and was constructed out of Haytor granite.  It was opened by King William the Forth and Queen Adelaide on the 1^st of August 1831 with great celebration.  It proved very popular and by 1896 was the busiest point in London with some 8000 pedestrians and 900 vehicles using it every day.  Due to this congestion, it was later widened by thirteen feet using granite corbels but there was a problem.  The bridge was sinking.

 

By 1924 the east side had sunk by some four inches and this was not going to stop as it was sinking at a rate of about an inch every eight to ten years.  It was decided that the bridge would have to be replaced and in 1967 the bridge was put on the market.  A council member had suggested selling the bridge, although the idea initially seemed a little odd.  But as with all crazy ideas there was an element of foundation and here is where the strange story begins.

 

On the 18^th of April 1968 London Bridge was sold to an American entrepreneur Robert P McCulloch.  His idea was that the bridge be taken apart with each part carefully numbered and shipped via the Panama Canal to California and then on to Lake Havasu City in Arizona.  It was to span the Bridgewater Channel and act obviously as a bridge but also as a tourist attraction.  It was a hare-brained idea but it worked against all odds and can be found in its new location to this day after being rededicated in October 1971.

 

I can hear a question from the audience.  If the bridge was taken down stone by stone how is it possible that you have a piece of the granite from this bridge not far from where you are writing this article?  This confused me at first, but I soon found the answer as some of the stones from the bridge did not make it to sunny Arizona and were left behind at the Merrivale Quarry in Princetown in Devon.  This quarry was abandoned in 2003 due to flooding and the remaining stones were sold in an online auction.  That is where my block of granite came from and although I have studied photographs of the 1831, bridge I have no clue to its location, although the weathering indicates that it was exposed,  But then again, Princetown is not exactly Arizona so I can only guess as to its location on the Rennie bridge.

 

 

If I have whetted your appetite with regard to Rennie’s bridge there is no need to travel to Arizona to see an example of his work as between Bradford on Avon and Bath there is a magnificent aqueduct which I have visited on many occasions.  If you travel along the railway between Bath and Bradford or in the opposite direction, then you will pass under it.  Although it is crumbling a little it is a magnificent sight and can be crossed on foot or along the Kennet and Avon Canal.

 

 

The new bridge which was opened in 1973, is a familiar sight and most of us have crossed in on numerous occasions.  The structure comprises of three spans of pre-stressed concrete box girders and is 928 feet long and it was built to last.  It later survived a collision with HMS Jupiter in 1984 which caused damage to both ship and bridge.

 

The new London Bridge also featured in the 2002 movie, About a Boy starring Hugh Grant.  Whilst the 1831 bridge was noted in The Wasteland by TS Eliot in which he compares the faceless London commuters to the hell-bound souls in Dante’s Divine Comedy.  I am off to Margate next week to see an exhibition on Eliot’s famous work and wonder if London Bridge will be featured.

  

You can find most things at most times in the Arcade, but I was rather surprised when I found that small piece of granite late of London Bridge and I have retired it to one of my shelves as I think that after all these years it needs a rest.

 

Who knows, you might find another piece of the bridge when you visit the Arcade as London buses always come in pairs so why not London bridges.

 

Good luck in your future searches and perhaps, if you brave the Devon mists, you might find a few pieces of the bridge in the Princetown quarry.

 

Sadly, our most recent memory of London Bridge was the ghastly terrorist attack in June 2017 in which eight poor people were killed either on the bridge or in the nearby Borough Market area.  I dedicate this short article to those who died or were injured on that dreadful day.

 

Stuart Miller-Osborne

 

Hungerford Arcade’s wonderful friend, Stuart Miller-Osborne has come up trumps again with this fascinating article he has written which I hope will fascinate you as much as it did me.

 

When one enters an antique shop or an Arcade there are three things that will always happen. Firstly, within minutes you will find a copy of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (usually the Fitzgerald translation). Secondly you will find for sale the Tri-ang lorry you had when you were a child which you managed to batter to destruction before you were twelve.  Sadly you note that if you had not been such a horror then you might have been some fifty pounds richer now. Thirdly, you will see an animal or a fish looking startled (or not) in a glass case.  

 

One of the many pleasures of walking down Hungerford High Street (there are many if you look) is that you cannot miss these creatures in their glass cases looking out onto the West Berkshire day. A lot of these are Victorian and I always consider that they are like the H George Wells character in the 1960 movie, The Time Machine. There is a scene in the movie where Wells uses his machine to travel to the future from 1899. Although the machine stays in roughly the same place the world around him changes as the future develops. A Victorian fox looking out onto our High Street will have seen a lot of changes and will do as we progress. Obviously the fox would have been in situ for the last hundred or so years looking at our main street but he is encased in a time capsule which has not changed since he was positioned by our forefathers

 

This is why taxidermy fascinates me although by no means do I collect. The only time I ever purchased anything in a glass case was when I was eight and at an auction (no less) I spent my pocket money on three butterflies in a small wooden box to the horror of my parents. A year or so later I gave these beautiful creatures a Christian burial at the insistence of my sister who would not look at them when she came into my room. My mother shared the sentiment and I consider that this display would have accidentally been given away if I had not buried them. They still lie at peace in the Wiltshire soil display case and all. 

 

Apart from maybe butterflies I would not collect any other creature. My wife like my sister and mother shudders even at the thought of dead creatures in cases. Any chance that I may have had with my future wife accepting my interest in butterflies and moths was sunk once and for all when as a teenager she was sent a not very well preserved stuffed lizard from her pen friend in the Maghreb. After a week or so in transit the obvious has began to occur and its funeral pyre was quickly arranged.

 

I was well into my twenties until I began to understand how a taxidermist worked. Previously like a lot of people, I thought that the creature had its internal organs removed and was preserved then later stuffed and glass eyes added. Although I knew this did not apply to insects I could not have been more wrong.

 

I will not go deeply into the process as you like I have probably recently eaten. But it appears that the creature (which must be a vertebrate) is just skinned and after that is persevered in chemicals (which is a much safer process these days than it used to be) and then mounted on a mannequin which can be made from a variety of materials as is the internal stuffing of the creature. 

 

Although I find looking at creatures in glass cases a little haunting, I feel a little uncomfortable when looking at them elsewhere. On a recent visit to the Natural History Museum in Oxford there were quite a large number a birds displayed without cases in the various rooms. For an unknown reason I found this a little sad as the theatre of these creatures seemed to indicate that they wanted to fly and escape into the skies of Oxford. Quite what Inspector Morse would have made of a Golden Eagle perched on the Bodleian is open to question.

 

Although existing prior to the Victorian era, taxidermy really took off during those years.. As my researches indicate it helped to confirm the Western held belief of human superiority over animals. As the Empire grew men left these shores to all parts of the globe, some were hunters who returned with many trophies ready to be mounted. Others were naturalists such as Charles Darwin who travelled the world to study and report on other creatures. Whichever way the tannery business’s were very busy in the nineteenth century. Hungerford is likely to have had one or two at the time.

 

As the taxidermy techniques became more sophisticated, museum collections grew and now nearly two hundred years later we have collections in the United Kingdom and Europe to be proud of. I remember as a child being dragged around various dusty museums and seeing wild animals although long dead as real as you could see them. This made a lasting impression on me although I always looked forward to the collections of butterflies and moths.

 

A big name in the early days of taxidermy was a certain Louis Dufresne (1752-1832) who as a naturalist on board the Astrolabe went on a voyage around the world between 1785 and 1787, during which time he classified an enormous number of creatures. He became the curator and taxidermist at the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris in 1793 and in 1802 perfected a technique (especially for preserving birds) which advanced the method a great deal. His extensive private collection is now conserved at the Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh.

 

Apart from butterflies and moths one of my favourites are the various fish that you see mounted in cases (often in pubs) where a lucky fisherman, proud of his catch has had his catch stuffed and placed in glass case for posterity. It is the detail that fascinates me .

 

Pike caught in Broughton Water 15^th of September 1899 by G R Robinson E
sq. or Perch  landed by M R Trowbridge at Lacock on the 6^th May 1871     

 

The list is endless but if you are in a pub or elsewhere then they are fun to look at. Whilst on the subject of pubs, there is an interesting one in Beesands in South Devon (near the ruined village of Hallsands). On the wall to the left as you enter is the biggest lobster that you are ever likely to see caught, I believe off of Cape Cod in 1956. The size is awesome especially for a lobster layman such as myself. What further amused me was that in a recent advertisement for the pub that this huge lobster was released from its case and placed on the sea wall with various other items. So near the sea but so far.

 

For a while whilst visiting this establishment, I thought this lobster to be a rouge. This is to say creatures that are not real and are in the realms of imagination. Creatures such as Unicorns and Dragons or long extinct species, but it was real. My researches note that when the Platypus was first discovered in 1798 that it was treated the same way and was thought to be a playful hoax. The people of the time thought a ducks beak had been attached onto an animal resembling a beaver. They were all proved wrong as the Duck Billed Platypus although odd was real enough.

 

 

However, if I ever walk down Hungerford High Street or elsewhere and see a mermaid in a glass case then I will most definitely change my choice of ale. For the time being though I will continue to admire the work of these Victorian taxidermists as I peer curiously into these glass cases.  

 

Stuart Miller-Osborne

I have just finished a novel called Carol by Patricia Highsmith.  It is an elegant love story set in the America of the late 1940s and early 1950s.  As well as transporting the reader back to the era, it is also a novel about travel and escape and also is something of a thriller.

 

Being an admirer of Highsmith’s work, I was not at all disappointed but what I did notice above all was how much the two main characters Carol Aird and Therese Belivet smoked. It seemed that in every chapter either Carol or Therese lit up.  

 

Although it is not explicit, I would strongly imagine that Carol in particular would have used a cigarette holder and maybe would have introduced the practice to her younger lover Therese.  To some extent cigarette holders are a thing of the past as are the beautiful lighters that one used to see and admire.

 

If one walks down any street in any town then one will see people smoking but they usually have the cigarette hanging from their lips or dangling from their fingers. Smoking is no longer chic.  We have learned much about the possible side effects of the habit and quite often one looks at a person smoking and feels a gentle sorrow for them.

 

I have never smoked in my life as the taste and the idea leaves me cold but I can remember walking into adult rooms when I was a child and finding it difficult to see my parents.  It was like a London fog.  On the small black and white television I was often told that a certain brand of cigarettes were as cool as a mountain stream.  These were the golden days of smoking.

 

I do not like smoking and if anybody asks me for support to break the habit then it is willingly given.  But here is a secret of mine.  I long to see a beautiful woman dressed in elegant clothes smoking a cigarette from a memorable cigarette holder.  In these days of gory images on cigarette packets and their retail being obscured by ridiculous screens, one finds very little beauty in the practice.

 

In the last couple of years, pseudo-cigarettes have appeared and these are to this writer rather alarming as the victims seem to be enveloped in clouds of heavy smoke. Although I am told that these pseudo-cigarettes are supposedly more beneficial to ones wellbeing for me, the jury is still out.  I cannot imagine either Carol or Therese puffing away on one of these oddities in New York or elsewhere during their trips together.

 

But what of cigarette holders?  I have looked and you can still purchase these items from specialist outlets.  But do you know what might be more fun whether you smoke or not.

That is to collect cigarette holders from what I might call The Age of Elegance.

 

 

 

It appears that cigarettes have been around for longer than most of us think.  There are records dating back to the ninth century noting that reeds were used as a sort of smoking tube.  The Maya and the Aztecs are known to have smoked tobacco and other drugs usually during rituals and the like.  Cigarettes and its older cousin the cigar were widely smoked in the America’s and it was not long before they made it across the pond to Spain.

 

Around 1830 the cigarette was introduced into France and this was where it gained its name.  Britons started smoking cigarettes during the Crimean War (1853-1856), although evidence suggests that this habit was influenced by the Ottoman Turks as well as the Russians.  By 1880 the whole process had been automated and the world was hooked.  

 

But what of cigarette holders when did they make their first appearance?  Well surprisingly, cigarette holders date back to the late eighteenth century.  Its initial use was to ensure that excess tobacco was successfully used.  As far as I can see, it was wrapped in paper (as with a roll up) and connected with the early holder to create a cigarette ( I am still trying to work out the mechanics of this procedure).

 

One always thinks of the cigarette holder as a fashion accessory but the truth is far from that.  Cigarette holders have a practical use as it prevents tobacco flakes from entering the mouth of the smoker.  The cigarette papers would not cut the users lips also (imagine getting a paper cut on your lip, they are painful enough when you cut your fingers).  More importantly they could act as a filter to stop some the nasty stuff from entering ones system. (Filtered cigarettes only appeared in the 1960s).

 

Cigarette holders also prevented staining of the smokers fingers and helped to prevent the smoke from stinging their eyes.  Some of the more sophisticated holders even had a secondary filtration system.  What I did not know was that cigarette holders actually came in four different lengths

 

Opera Length (c 16-20 inches)

  

Theatre Length (c 10 to 14 inches)

 

Dinner Length (4 to 6 inches)

 

Cocktail Length (really anything shorter) 

 

The cigarette holders used by women were usually up to four inches long and often used for cheroots as well as cigarettes.  As expected, cigarette holders were made from a variety of materials such as jade or Bakelite but silver and amber were often used as well as ivory.  I have also seen examples made from enamel, horn and quite often tortoiseshell.

 

Men’s cigarette holders were made from wood, meerschaum as well as the materials already mentioned.  The heyday of the cigarette holder was from about 1910 to the end of the 1960s.  Hollywood was quick to get in on the act and to use a cigarette holder was seen to be an act of sophistication.  Countless movies showed the actors smoking.  

Hollywood was selling a fantasy product, elegant clothes and elegant accessories were shown frequently.  These included cigarette holders.  The next time you watch a Hollywood movie on a wet Sunday afternoon, see if you can spot their use.

 

A  British girl from Belgium who was born Audrey Kathleen Ruston was perhaps the most famous user in a movie set in New York as the 1960s dawned.  Other notable users outside of Hollywood included Jackie O, Princess Margaret, and Ayn Rand.

 

Perhaps my favourite photo involving a cigarette holder was taken in 1947 and shows Cleo Trumbo (The wife of the novelist Dalton Trumbo) elegantly smoking whilst listening to the sinister ramblings of the House of Un-American Activities Committee.  Her posture, the way that she was dressed and the way she was holding her cigarette holder all add together to show her contempt for the hearings.

 

 

 

Noel Coward is famously remembered with a cigarette holder as was Franklin D Roosevelt and my favourite composer Sergei Rachmaninoff was also a keen user.

 

Cruella De Vil in One Hundred and One Dalmatians used one in the 1961 Disney animation.  The list is endless.  Captain Hook used a unique double holder which allowed him to smoke two cigars at one time.

 

One frequently finds all kinds of cigarette holders in antique shops and the like.  Quite often they come in elegant cases.  To me they are rather like pipes they belong to the initial user.  They are fun to collect but I always feel that they belong to someone else.

But do not let this put you off as they are beautiful creatures, are quite small and therefore do not take up much room if one started a collection.

 

For the reasons stated above I do not collect cigarette holders so price wise I would not know where to start.  It is like everything else, always pay the price you are comfortable with.  Some of the cigarette holders I have seen are miniature works of art.  Some are minimalist in their design.  Whilst others are highly decorated.

 

As stated I do not smoke and never have and it is likely that because of this I do not fully appreciate the cigarette holder.  They are mysterious creatures.  But from afar, I can write about these accessories and whilst I am not encouraging you take up smoking to start a small collection, it would be quite a nice idea and rather interesting.

 

I must close now as I have been invited to share breakfast with a young lady at a store on 5^th Avenue and I am already running late.

 

Happy Hunting

Stuart Miller-Osborne