This is a short book written in a concise style, very easy to read,but informative. The author has the honour of being head gardener of this ancient site, which he tends with care. The garden is not primarily an archaeological site and no buildings survive from the Anglo Saxon period, whence if has its origins, but in dry periods in summer faint traces 8n the landscape hint that earthen memories lurk sileny below.
Lambeth Palace is not a,royal palace,,but is the official residence of the archbishop. of Canterbury, the senior archbishop of the Anglican communion. The archbishop needed a residence. near. the capital city, so Lambeth became his working base. A garden came with the palace. .The palace and garden were built on an ancient Saxon site.the precise age is unknown, but it probably goes back to.the later years of the first Millennium when there was a small religious site. In the eleventh century the garden came into the hands of Goda, the sister of the defeated .and slain king Harold,and then after the Norman conquest to the hands of either monks or nuns. It was at that time substantially larger than it is today. The wider garden was then used partly for farming and also for gardening. Wooden structures were erected on site and it is possible to discern their traces when the ground is dry over summers.
The book is not written in a conventional academic style, though it is well researched and skillfully written. The style is light and popular and easy for general readers to handle, They contain historical material, but it is not presented in chronological sequence and it follows the author's train of experience.
Comments
Thank you for your comment below in answer to my previous observation and question.
Online sources in this century once commented that the cut-flower market, apart those considered as then-Prince Charles', now-King Charles', count on growers outside the United Kingdom.
Does such describe cut-flower cultivation these days?
The royal family are not business owners, but have land and investmentstT
he only agricultural member is the king,but he hires well skilled experts
Thank you for your comment below in answer to my previous observation and question.
Can the royal family be considered capitalists even as they perhaps count among the considerable money- and power-holders of the United Kingdom?
Does the royal family decide how their soils do or do they defer to designated slews of agricultural, arboricultural, horticultural, silvicultural decision-makers?
True in theory, but quite a lot of capitalists look only for short term profits, though some are more enlightened
True in theory, but quite a lot of capitalists look only for short term profits, though some are more enlightened
True in theory, but quite a lot of capitalists look only for short term profits, though some are more enlightened
True in theory, but quite a lot of capitalists look only for short term profits, though some are more enlightened
Thank you for your comment below in answer to my previous observation and question.
Your observation that "Capitalists do not think much of the quality of soils" intrigues me.
But isn't it more injurious to capitalist income to investigate how to improve soils injurious to what they intend for an income/investment opportunity?
Capitalists do not think much of the quality of soils.
The next-last sentence in the last subheading, Conclusion, alerts us that "beautiful places are oft threatened by capitalists endeavouring to turn them into car parks."
Are such changes as beautiful garden to car park arising because of the cooperative soil that gardening commitments cull and that correlates with construction not challenged by compacted soils?