John Whittingham, horticulturalist

Thanks, Robthu - that's not easy to follow I've found this which might help a little.

Very confusing. What we know for sure because John writes in his journal.

From this we know that John's daughter Elizabeth has died and she probably inherited the Much Park Street property from her brother Charles who took over John's business. This refers to John Whittingham but we know he was still alive until late Oct 1794, thanks to Anne's clipping.

Well done, Midland Red, Helen, Anne, etc. Plants etc I can trace but what you people have just done is amazing, it has been putting me in a spin for some time.

We're all still in a spin, Derek, but we'll get there. You and Coventry Digital are the seed for all this. The confusion lies with all those similar names people gave their kids.

From the PDF I posted about Catholics in Coventry it talks about a scission in the congregation at the LPS chapel. The claim was that 'the faithful not subscribing in a proper manner.' The LPS chapel was temporarily closed 12^th Jan 1795 and reopened in 23^rd May but by that time a large chunk of the congregation had moved to a temporary chapel set up in Much Park Street. That building remained until 3^rd April 1797. There are two questions about that chapel, the first relating to where it was and the other was who officiated. The PDF records that the location was in the garden of a Mr Whittingham but one account puts it at 'Much Park Street' and the other at 'Mitford Street'. The author concludes that Mitford Street was Smithford Street but we know that Much Park Street was known as Midsford Street and it seems to me that it would be less likely that the 'S' was missing from the start than that 'ds' was misread as a 't'. We also know for sure that the Whittinghams had a large house and garden on Much Park Street and that Charles was running the business by 1781 and owned the house by at least October 1794. This removes the apparent discrepancy between accounts of where the chapel was. The second question is about who officiated. It states that Mr Collingridge 'continued on' at the Much Park Street chapel. The assumption was that it referred to a Father (Peter) Bernadine Collingridge but his stint in Coventry was never recorded in his career. Perhaps it referred to John Whittingham's former apprentice? Edm=Edmund? Was Peter a relative, or a name that Edmund took up after he was ordained, or just a massive co-incidence? Maybe it wasn't Peter at the Much Park Street chapel at all? I think it might be the latter.

Hi all With great help from my patient mentor and friend Rob, I am linking in the Victorian Kitchen Garden a series I highly recommend for you all, the particular piece on hot beds starts at 19.00 min. Enjoy.

Thanks for that, Derek and Rob. It ties in with a lot of what was written in Whittingham's records. He had tracts of land in multiple places but it seems the Much Park Street garden was meant to be something of a show garden and it seems likely that it was he who remodelled the more formal style that Coventry gardens had, into what we see on the 1850 map.

I've found lots of adverts for Mr Whittingham, including one on Monday 25 September 1769 where he indicates he is giving up one of his nurseries at Charterhouse but keeping the seed warehouse next to the Three Crowns Inn in the High Street (was C Dullison's home). That might be the Rose and Crown?

Details that came to my notice were the deaths he mentions. While he notes the deaths of his two children in a memorandum, he doesn't directly refer to them in the diary but he does write after the death of his second child, two months after the first - 'that the measles were very fatal now and had been so for some great numbers dying of them and of the disorder they leave behind' - suggesting that was what the two kids died of. He notes the death of his wife with a sweet prayer but doesn't attribute a cause. He also records the death of his friend Cleophas Dullison at age 46 from 'Influensy'. Dullison is much mentioned in other sources as a successful 'carter' but that is slightly confusing because his business involved transporting people as well as stuff. There are a lot of adverts for his coaches. Elsewhere I note that he bought the original Coach and Horses that was directly next door to Whittingham's property in Much Park Street along with the shop on the High Street next door the Dullison's Three Crowns. No wonder they were friends. John's properties aren't all mentioned in his diary but they come to light in newspaper adverts. We take these diseases and their modern protections for granted.

I've been watching a documentary on the Gunpowder Plot. I was aware that Catholics weren't allowed to hold public office and were persona non grata for many years but hadn't directly connected it to the plot to kill James I and his entire parliament. Had the plot succeeded, everything within 40m of the blast would have been totally destroyed. Anything within 110m would have suffered significant damage and buildings up to 900m away would have suffered some damage, including broken windows. Thousands would have died or been injured. The scope of the potential carnage would explain the lasting political anger at Catholics. As a consequence of the law, prominent and respected people like John Whittingham and his son Charles weren't elevated to power like many of their fellow business men. This lack of civic progression might have also explained John's increasing social bitterness and religious fundamentalism as he grew older. The law limiting Catholics from public positions wasn't repealed until 1829. What I also wasn't aware of was that November the 5th was ordered to be commemorated by Act of Parliament from 1606 to 1859. People had to attend church for a service on the day. The bonfire in the evening was a standard way major events were celebrated by the public. In the 1600s images of the Pope or the Devil were put on the fire but Guy Fawkes was only brought in during the 1700s. Unfortunately the documentary didn't touch on Coventry's important part in thwarting the plot - that of protecting and hiding James' oldest daughter Elizabeth, who was chosen to be the Catholics' puppet queen.

I possibly saw the same documentary as you, and yes, there was barely the briefest mention of Coventry, which always disappoints me considering the Catesby's strong connection to our city, the plotting that took place in the Bull Inn in Smithford Street, the looking after of Princess Elizabeth in Palace Yard, etc. The same thing goes with any programmes about the Civil War, in which Coventry played a prominent part in its outset, refusing access to the King and his army, who then set up cannons against us from the ground now covered by the London Road Cemetery, and even breaching the nearby wall briefly. What have we done to offend the programme makers?

Helen, can you imagine what would have happened if the 'Plot' was successful and the Houses of Parliament went up sky high ?

Interesting question. The physical effects on the city were some of the least significant. The then houses of parliament were destroyed anyway by a fire in 1836 with the exception of Westminster Hall, where Queen Elizabeth recently rested in state. The same fire might not have happened in a different building and we might not have the magnificent gothic edifice we see today designed by Charles Barry and developed in collaboration with Augustus Pugin. The explosion might have started a fire, similar to the Great Fire of London, although the weather conditions may not have allowed it to spread so thoroughly. It might have triggered fire precautions that might have prevented the Great Fire and there might have been more of the original city still standing... to be destroyed in WW2 and by town planners. The social impacts would have been far greater. Charles would have become king as a toddler but may have turned out very different as he would have been brought up strictly by whichever religion came out of the chaos victorious. Would there have been an instant war between the Catholics and the Protestants? Or would the outrage against the attack have brought people together? Other countries would have tried to take advantage of the sudden loss of leadership, especially military top brass. We could all be French if things had gone differently. While many important people would have instantly perished, they would have had replacements. Children of lords were scattered about with suitable people, who would have acted as guardians until the children were old enough to take over. Politicians are always replaceable. The political power of the monarchy and the Lords would have declined almost instantly because of their youth and it may have removed the impetus for the Civil War. Coventry may have still had its wall.

Thanks Helen. You covered that very well and understandably. It was the political area I was interested in concerning a whole new leadership or sorts. Who knows. Would we be here today ?