Talk:St Michael's Mount

Castle or not?

St Michael's Mount is categorised as a priory, castle and stately home in [1] Ian Cairns 11:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why does St Michaels mount have a Train track going into a tunnel within it?

whats the history behind that?

Merge with Mont Saint Michel

This article should be merged with Mont Saint Michel, and I suggest keeping the french title, not "St. Michael's Mount", as I believe that even in English it is primarily known by it's french name. I will add a merge template to the article soon. --shaile 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

oops, I was mistaken, the two should not be merged... --shaile 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

False accusations in the edit summary

Making false accusations of vandalism and stalking (extraordinary from such a newbie who doesn't even understand wikipedia) will not help youtr POV case. Changing the UK to England in accordance with Cornwall (where you lost your similar argument) is POV and reverting it is neither stalking nor vandalism by any stretch of the imagination, SqueakBox 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Following someone round Wikipedia and deleting their edits to continue an argument (which I did not lose, but simply walked away from so as to leave you to it) about a completely different article IS stalking, and it is also an intensely personal and obsessive vendetta on your part which is embarrassing you. England is NOT a sovereign state (accept it), it is a constituent part of the UK, therefore Cornwall's international state-level identity is UK. To insist otherwise is English nationalist POV. Further, as a self-professed "encyclopedia writer" and "veteran" Wikipedian you should know that using Talk pages and Wikipedia in general to pursue personal vendettas against other editors is against Wikiquette. Show good faith and uphold accuracy. Thanks. Doire 14:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Good faith and act accvording to its strictures. Your comments are out of line. I find your stalking allegations extremely offensive and suggest you withdraw them. I clearly have not been stalking your edits, to be honest you are making so few edits it would be impossible for anyone to stalk you. I am not claiming England is a sovereign state (indeed people here in Honduras often insist for official purposes I must be from England to which I say England is not a state, it is the UK) but Cornwall states Cornwall is in England because it is in England so you have no reason to claim differently, SqueakBox 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not withdraw my insistence that you are stalking me until you stop stalking me on Wikipedia (following someone round Wikipedia trying to continue an old argument from a talk page IS stalking AND a vendetta). Show good faith. If you find such an insistence "extremely offensive" then you are "extremely offended" easily, and clearly do not understand the consequences of your actions. If you don't want to be "extremely offended" by my insistence that you are stalking me then stop stalking me. Simple. You ARE claiming England is a sovereign state because internationally England is a constituent part of the UK. Any edit that uses "England" as if it is a international state-level entity is an English nationalist POV and thus not acceptable on Wikipedia. Thanks. Doire 15:12, 6 January 2006

Well this has no resolution until you withdraw your foul and offensive stalking allegations but it certainly fits in with your earlier vicious personal attacks, cl;aiming I was incapable of work because I did 2 houirs of wikipedia a day, that I was stupid etc. Stop trolling and trying to be aso9ffensive and as rude as possible, SqueakBox 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that you were stupid. Please support accusations with proof of what I have said and where I have said it. Nor did I say you were incapable of work; I suggested ON ANOTHER TALK PAGE TO THIS ONE (in response to an insult from you) that if "all you did was work on Wikipedia, then you should probably consider yourself unemployed or underemployed". Please don't turn talk pages into misinformation fora for your vendetta. This is a talk page relating to the article on ST MICHAEL'S MOUNT. If you are not going to discuss St Michael's Mount or the artice on this talk page then please go somewhere else. Thanks. Doire 15:41 6 January 2006

I never insulted you. Here you are justifying your outrageous and depply offensive attacks. Debates cross over pages. Why not learn about wikipedia before lecturing people who know somewhat better how this place works than you do. Why not look at my user page, where you can read about my job, not that it is any of your business but I can see you are getting a kick out of being offensive. As I said to you before I pity you if you really think 2 hours a day is full time work. Please desist, I am certainly not willing to debater with you until you cease your personal attacks, SqueakBox 15:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the ST MICHAEL'S MOUNT talk page. Use it to discuss St Michael's Mount and the article or leave it alone. As you describe yourself (persistently) as a Wikipedia veteran you should know that. If you are "deeply offended" and "extremely offended", and consider that I am "getting a kick" out of you stalking me, all you have to do is stop stalking me and my edits. (I wish you would.) You say you are not willing to debate with me - I wish you would stay true to this statement and leave me alone. Thanks. Doire, 15:53, 6 January 2006. (UTC)

Why do you think St Michael's Mount is not a part of England? It was the last time I was there and I am sure it would have got in the papers if its status had changed. What you fail in your anger to understand is that I am here because I disagree with your edits which is why your stalking claims are pure paranoid fantasy. Nor, might I add, am i the only editor to think this way. It is you against the other editors here as well as at Cornwall. Why? Because you insist on misrepresenting your POV bnationalist Cornish views as facts and falsely label those who disagree with you as English nationalists, which I am certainly not, and your portrayal of me and others as such is yet another sign of your bad faith, SqueakBox 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And as the latest edit shows I am not the only one who feels this way. Please take note, SqueakBox 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Skellig Michael link added because it is also an celtic island shrine to St Michael Reedgunner 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tides?

This article mentions that remains of trees can be seen at "neap tide." However, this does not make a great deal of sense, since the adjective 'neap' refers to a higher-than-usual low tide, or a lower-than-usual high tide, a phenomenon which occurs twice monthly at the half-moons. I imagine that whoever wrote this meant to say "spring tide," which is when the low tide is extremely low, and the high tide is extremely high. Wherease a neap low tide would actually expose LESS that a regular low tide, a spring low tide would reveal a great deal more. Since I can't be 100% sure that there is not some bizarre local phenomenon whereby neap tides somehow reveal more than spring tides, I have simply changed the wording to "low tide." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.143.213.61 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as Start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Start class. BetacommandBot 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The body in the castle

I'm referring to this passage

In the late 19th century the skeleton of a royalist soldier was discovered when a secret chamber was found in the castle. The soldier had apparently starved to death: a jug of stagnant water was found next to his remains.

which is unsourced. I am watching an episode of Samantha Brown's Passport to Europe in which a St. Michael's Mount guide explains on and off camera that the body was that of an anchorite who lived in a small chamber below the chapel. When the anchorite died (of illness or natural causes, not starvation), the chamber was sealed off and became his tomb. I doubt that two such bodies were found, and since an official guide employed by the Trust is more likely to be closer to a legitimate source than hearsay and the chamber itself was shown on camera, I think the passage regarding the "soldier" should be removed until someone can find a quotable print source.

[EDIT] This article at the New York Times website includes this passage

But the church holds darker memories as well. Under the family pews on the right, a sharp narrow stone stair lurches steeply into forbidding blackness. This was once the castle's dungeon. Peering down the stairs, I shivered. While those in power walked on the sunny ledges, others languished in the cold darkness below. Our brochure cryptically noted: During the last century, a skeleton of a man over seven feet tall was found in it. I remembered the giant-size steps that led to the castle. When I was a child, I was sure every castle had its giant. But this was no Disney make-believe. I thought of a bleached, dirt-covered skeleton.

which corroborates the height of the skeleton and the location as given in Passport to Europe. There are no other details in the NYT article. Please note that this is not something that can be easily Googled, as 90% of the results are quoting verbatim from Wikipedia and therefore call the skeleton "that of a Royalist soldier". 71.200.140.35 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim that a jug of stagnant water was found with the body is silly. I've changed it, pretty much using your words. While a source may be hard to find online you can actually use the TV programme you saw as a source if you can recall some of the details (ie: year, publisher etc). Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Main photo

Anyone think the main photo should be changed, as it shows the island off in the distance and clasped in shadow. Is there a clearer photo?

Cleanup

The lead section should be a summary of the article, including, as appropriate, a brief summary of the history of the Mount. Instead, we have here a lead section dominated by specific and selective historical detail, most of which is not even mentioned in the main History section. Many statements about the time the island formed are incompatible: submerging of the woods at about 1700 BC; sea flooding in November 1099, previously "five or six miles from the sea"; sea port in prehistoric times; "island" visited in the fourth century BC. It is fine for the article to report notable sourced records or conjectures even if contradictory, but it should present these in a structured way that acknowledges the discrepancies. At the moment it seems as if different people have been adding contradictory statements more or less randomly with no consideration of the overall effect. 81.159.110.218 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's taken three years but I think it is looking a bit better now! Jowaninpensans (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing the tag. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Cornish name for the Mount

The Cornish name for the mount was recently changed from Karrek Loos y'n Koos to Karrek Loes y'n Koes. I can't find any sources that back either of these two spellings. There are sources that use the older version Karreg Luz en Kuz, but they're all Victorian. Is there anything more definitive? Mikenorton (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

" Karreg Luz en Kuz " doesn't sound very Cornish to be honest. --Porthenys (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The late medieval Cornish name for St. Michael's Mount would have been 'Carrek Lōs yn Cōs' and its original or earliest known name was 'Dinsol' or 'Dynsol' (to comply with Middle Cornish spelling). 13.30, 16th June 2021 Andrew

Ownership

"St Michael's Mount is still owned by the St Aubyn family, but visitor access is controlled by the National Trust." This is incorrect. As most people in Cornwall know, it's been owned by the Trust for over half a century. The family now lease it: although, the lease is for centuries. The Trust's own website for the island (http://www.stmichaelsmount.co.uk/the-national-trust/) says that it doesn't own the island complete. What the other portion is would be interesting to know. I'm guessing (as often happens in handovers to the Trust) that the family retained the burial ground. In any case, I will revise.Engleham (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack & the Giants?

Why no mention of the Giants tale? there's a little on Jack the Giant KillerTruth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs)

Classification of article

Have reduced this article from C class to Start class because it is badly written, the summary is far too long and the use of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a reference for the formation of Mount's Bay is just a misuse of that document. (Military History was already classified as Start.) This article really should be a B class or higher in the Cornwall wikiproject and I will try and improve it over the next few months, after a certain editor has finished his tinkering (hopefully). Jowaninpensans (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Folklore

Have moved some of the introduction to a new section as much of it did not seem suitable for an opening paragraph. John of Worcester, for example, may be of interest but does not seem, to me, to be a reliable source for the history of St Michael's Mount. Publications such as St Michael's Mount Archaeological Works 1995-8, published by the Cornwall Archaeological Society would seem to be a better source than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle! Jowaninpensans (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Was it an island long ago?

The Saxon Chronicle states that is became an island in historic times, that it was before that 6 miles from the sea. I don't mind that this was reverted as long as there is a reliable source to deny the account of the Saxon Chronicle. Raggz (talk)

Cornwall Archaeological Unit (2000) St Michael's Mount Reports of archaeological works, 1995-1998 is a better source for the past environment of the Mount than a medieval manuscript. Besides which the Chronicle does not say what you claim.

John of Worcester was not correct in relation to the above point, since he is confusing the account with that of Mont St. Michel, where the gradient of its beach is considerably more shallow. The reliable account of St Michael's Mount being beside the sea in the mid 11th century shows that whatever happened on the 28th September 1014, the mount was not still inland by 1099; but the tsunami that affected Mont St. Michel may well have further drowned the western section of land in Mount's Bay and the gardens - now Long Rock reef. Andrew H. Gray 12:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Andrew Andrew H. Gray 14:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your subsequent edits are also not true

1. Ictus is now often considered to have been the Isle of Wight in part because of the neolithic seaport there and because wheat from the Middle East was being imported 8,000 years ago. See your talk page User talk:Raggz#Ictus / Vectis and the reference you use does not make that claim.

2. Caesar took Ictus in 65 BC and the Roman villas on the Isle of Wight are thought to have been built then. Cannot see the relevance to the Mount and your reference dates from 1877! There must be more recent research. Jowaninpensans (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly could be mistaken in regard to Ictus/Victus.

Is there any evidence for a Roman Naval Base there? If so, please share it. Ceasar said that he he took it, but I do not read Latin.

What? Naval base where? Never heard of one on the Mount or Caesar taking the Mount. Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Saxon Chronicle says that it was 6 miles from the sea until 1099. I don't really know that it was. Do you have a source otherwise? Is there evidence for a drowned forest of that age?

Would it help to provide a scientific paper that documents a 20 meter rise in the Humber Estuary? The whole area is also on a geological plate that tips back and forth with Normandy. I haven't looked at the data for geological shifts, but a precise date like 1099 points to an abrupt event. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.754/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+21st+March+from+10%3A30+GMT+up+to+six+hours+and+from+05%3A30+EDT+up+to+six+hours+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience. Raggz (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Humber estuary was under ice. Prah Sands wasn't. Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, this should settle the question. "The dunes which overlie the Holocene palaeosol at Prah Sands are clearly younger than the underlying soil dated at 1290 +/- 70 BP and those within the valley at Poldhu are also relatively recent in origin." French 1999

I do not see how this settles the question. As I understand it overlying dunes are usually younger than the underlying soil! You failed to mention that the dated wood probably comes from above ordnance datum; i.e. above sea level. Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Now I have provided three reliable sources in regards to the geological shift of 1091.

I can't see how you have provided three reliable sources. If there was a geological shift why are geologists so mute on the subject? Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cornwall Archaeological Unit (2000) St Michael's Mount Reports of archaeological works, 1995-1998 This is an archeological report and it has nothing to do with your claim. May I please have a quote from the part that discusses 1091? Raggz (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no single inundation event, just a slow progressive drowning of the coast as the sea level rose throughout the Holocene. It is conceivable that there was a major storm that proved the last straw for a wooded area around the mount, but that's all supposition. Mikenorton (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Lake Humber drained at about 11.1 BP creating the estuary. (Holocene Land-ocean Interaction and Environmental Change Around the North Sea edited by Ian Shennan, Julian E. Andrews) It could not have drained if it remained frozen. Raggz (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The report gives an overview of the Mount from neolithic to recent. If 1091 was relevant it would be in the report. Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Caesar's De Bello Gallico claims that he took Ictus. The reason that Rome invaded Bronze Age Britain was for the mining in Cornwall and Devon‎. So if Ictus was a Roman naval base then there should be ruins or other records. The Saxon Chronicle is in my opinion a reliable source. We also know that those in Bronze Age Britain brought their tin to Ictus in carts at low tide for shipment to prehistoric Europe. Does the archaeology report document the infrastructure for this? Mount Batten has this.

The archeology report does not say anything on this subject. So what supports your claim? Raggz (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning leaves me speechless. Am I right in saying that you think Caesar made it to Cornwall.Jowaninpensans (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Caesar took Ictus. Your claim is that Ictus is in Cornwall. My question is if there is any evidence that Ictus is actually in Cornwall? I am asking you to please support your claim. Raggz (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Ictis is in Cornwall. The Mount is a possible site. Jowaninpensans (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Mount is only a possible site for Ictus if it then was on the coast. All of the references of a millennium ago suggest that it was well inland. There is no Roman naval base. Ictus had a Roman naval base. Before that they took carts of tin to Ictus at low tide for centuries. Sea level back then was 20 m lower than now. If we lower the ocean by 20 m then the Mount is dry land with a submerged forest for miles to the east.

Two centuries ago, before we knew what science now knows, the Mount was commonly thought to be Ictus. If you want these sources then just ask. There however is not one source of less than a century in age that suggests that the Mount was Ictus. If you want to discuss the myth, fine, I can help. If you want to claim that in a modern context that the Mount MIGHT be Ictus, then you need to quote that archeology report where it says that it might be, or some other notable source.

So what next? I'm fine with the Mount being Ictus as long as you support your claim. Raggz (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I repeat what I wrote above I am not claiming anything. I say again the Mount is a possible site, along with other places in Cornwall (and Devon, etc). When the actual Ictis (or Ictis') is (are) proven we can write that the Mount was once thought to be a candidate Ictis site. (Not sure why it is assumed that Ictis is only one site). I suggest you put your evidence for the Isle of Wight being Ictis on the Ictis wikipage.

This discussion started when you wrote that the Mount became an island on one day in historical times. I dispute that because there is no evidence for it, which is why it is in the Folklore section. I am not trying to prove that the Mount is Ictis. Jowaninpensans (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The article says: "The Mount may be the Mictis of Timaeus, mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia (IV:XVI.104), and the Ictis of Diodorus Siculus. Both men had access to the now lost texts of the ancient Greek geographer Pytheas who, is said to have, visited the island in the fourth century BC. If this is true, it is one of the earliest identified locations in the whole of western Europe and particularly on the island of Britain, although the account of John of Worcester in the 11th century would point to this association being very unlikely."

For 7 years we have been waiting for the necessary citation. This is your opportunity to add it. I am deleting this text and I am fine if you revert it when you add the necessary citation. Alternatively I am also fine with framing it as a discredited myth of the 19th Century. If you simply revert it then you will end up violating policy. Why go there? Why not just provide the necessary support instead? Raggz (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that you will eventually find that the notion of wheat being imported from the Middle East '8,000' years ago, is simply wishful thinking on the part of some; but is totally illogical, both from the distance involved and the chronology of it!

Two questions

1. It is written (twice) that "it was given to the Benedictine religious order of Mont Saint-Michel by Edward the Confessor in the 11th century". The article at Mont Saint Michel in Normandy and St Michael's Mount in Cornwall dispute that claim because it is based on a forged charter, or as the article says: " It is now largely accepted that the document was concocted by monks after the Norman Conquest to demonstate the authentic basis in law of their ancient rights and that since St Michael's had long been theirs the Norman conquerors were in no position to give it away."
2. It is written that "castle and chapel have been the home of the St Aubyn family since approximately 1650", but the article Francis Bassett says that it happened ten years later in 1660.

אביהו (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)