Talk:Princes Street

History

Incorrect info on St Giles St as an original name removed. this makes no sense whatsoever. There was and still is a street called St Giles St in Edinburgh. Naming would thus be a duplication!! No source is given for this fact. The earliest plans show it as Princes or Princes' St... occassionally it appears as Princess St.--Stephencdickson (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

From Boog's "The Derivation of Edinburgh Street Names", St Giles Street is named "From its proximity to Collegiate Church of St. Giles, dated 1875. Original name proposed for Princes' St. q.v."Ieya (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The plan from when it was built showed it as Prince's St ref http://maps.nls.uk/towns/view/?id=413 Is there a reference for it being named after two Princes?--137.195.27.126 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A facsimile of the original plan can be seen at http://www.oldandnewedinburgh.co.uk/volume3/page129/pictures/298/zoom where it appears as PRINCES STREET, and you can read at http://www.oldandnewedinburgh.co.uk/volume3/page129.html "And so, to escape from a vulgar London association of ideas, it was named Princes Street, after the future George IV, and the Duke of York." Ieya (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This is also accepted by "Charles B. Boog Watson, FRSE, FSA (Scotland), one of Edinburgh's most noted historians and antiquaries", who wrote "The Derivation of Edinburgh Street Names"

Also accepted by bodies such as Edinburgh World Heritage: https://ewh.org.uk/street-stories/princes-street/ states "Princes Street is part of the New Town plan designed by James Craig in 1767, and took its name from the sons of King George III."Ieya (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you were ignorant of the Prince's Street name. Rather than checking the NLS reference in the comment preceeding yours, you have been misled in your view by referring to a poor scanned reduced facsimile of the plan that was approved by the city council in 1767 and issued in 1768. Good copies of this plan, such as at the NLS reference, clearly show Prince's Street and that name does require explanation. I am well aware of both Grant and Boog Watson but neither explain the point at issue.

I am basing my position on the Stuart Harris citation which again you have disregarded. This citation refers to the primary source, Sir John Pringle, who is the source of the story about King George III's rejection of St Giles Street and its replacemement by Prince's Street.

In December, 1767, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh produced in Council a letter addressed to him from Sir John Pringle. In this letter it is stated, "....His Majesty when he objected to the name of St. Giles Street, and was graciously pleased to desire that it should be called Prince's Street,....". This primary source shows that St Giles Street was to be renamed Prince's Street. Further the letter states, "My idea was to give their Majesties the satisfaction of seeing that the Magistrates of Edinburgh not only took the hint about calling a principal street after the heir to the crown, but another after their second son.". Thus, the primary source indicates that Prince's Street was to be singularly named after the Prince of Wales while another street was to be named singularly after the second son, Frederick, obviously Frederick Street. You can read the whole letter in Book of the Old Edinburgh Club Vol. 23 - The New Town of Edinburgh.

As Harris comments, "...it is instructive to note how explanations of the street name have been founded on this apparently plural spelling, each as confident as it is wrong."82.32.158.226 (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't ignorant of the various versions of the name that have floated around - but had felt that "Old and New Edinburgh", which gave a written explanation for the name, and which was also well regarded by Boog Watson, was a more convincing explanation than a printed name on an early map.

That said, I had *not* previously seen the Old Edinburgh Club's book, which we can find available at http://www.oldedinburghclub.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/BOEC-OS/Volume-23.pdf

On the basis of *that*, I agree - Prince's Street was indeed the original version, and the 1800s/1900s sources I pointed to were mistaken.

Question: how certain are we that Pringle suggested Prince's Street? The letter tells us "that His Majesty when he objected to the name of St. Giles Street, and was graciously pleased to desire that it should be called Prince's Street, had more in view the addressing himself to the Magistrates of the City than to the Draughtsman, who was not present. It appears that Mr. Craig has made some mistake about those names. For the King not only gave no other than that mentioned" - If the king "was graciously pleased to desire" and "gave no other" (as opposed to, say, "graciously pleased to approve the suggestion"), was it perhaps the king's suggestion?

Additional realisation, the 'traditional' explanation gives no explanation for why it would be named after Princes George (who would've been five in 1767) and Frederick (four), but not William (two)... whereas the singular Prince's does point to George, where the street couldn't have been given his name since we already had a George Street proposed after the king!

All that being the case, how about something like:

Princes Street was originally to have been called St Giles Street after the patron saint of Edinburgh. However, when King George III was shown a print or drawing of the proposed New Town by Sir John Pringle, he objected to the name as he associated it with a notorious slum area of London. The street was instead named Prince's Street as recounted in a 1767 letter to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh from Sir John Pringle. By the late 1830s the apostrophe in the name had fallen out of use, giving the street its present day name of Princes Street and perhaps explaining the popular, but erroneous, assumption that the street was named after more than one prince.

Ieya (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The plan was not just an early map. It was the published definitive plan with street names as were thought to comply with King George's wishes at the time. Books of the period also refer to Prince's Street. As such, as i've already said, the Prince's name requires to be explained. Neither Grant or Boog Watson explain the point but the reference to Stuart Harris's book "The Place Names of Edinburgh" does and, further, mentions a primary source, the Sir John Pringle letter. Harris is the go-to source for Edinburgh place names and is quantitatively and qualitatively superior to Boog Watson. {This comment is not intended to criticise Boog Watson} It has concerned me from the beginning of this exchange that you have simply ignored the Harris citation.

I think we can be reasonably sure that it was Pringle's suggestion. Harris thinks it is. I think it is down to the language of the royal court where the term "graciously pleased" seems to be used when the monarch is accepting something being proposed as in, say, "the Queen is graciously pleased to confer an Honour".

You are right, there were three princes at the time. Strangely enough, Frederick is also the source of York Place and, perhaps, Albany Street although these street were named much later. The William in William Street is for the developer William Walker and not the prince, later William IV.

I'm graciously pleased to desire that your proposed text be used with the proviso that the Harris citation is included. You may also wish to refer to Princes' Street which I see is quoted above. 82.32.158.226 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Duly amended, with the hope that the new version is pleasing to your gracious eye ;) Curious indeed that Prince William didn't seem to get anything named after him!Ieya (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Bridge at east end

Erroneous ref to Regent Bridge removed... the bridge in question is called North Bridge.--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Princes Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716191950/http://www.hilton.co.uk/caledonian?WT.srch=1 to http://www.hilton.co.uk/caledonian?WT.srch=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504043918/http://www.pilotimmobilier.com/upload/pdf/Main_Streets.pdf to http://www.pilotimmobilier.com/upload/pdf/Main_Streets.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)