Coventry Crosses

It's only happening because the Shearer Property want the site for development - true fact. I assume the Coventry Society know more about it than me, and this is what a representative said: "Coventry Society's Keith Draper said: "What exactly has been going on behind the scenes to make every effort to filibuster our councillors into voting for a proposal that will see the city's Cathedral Quarter profoundly harmed? "These are extreme efforts to ride roughshod over public opinion giving a commercial operator free reign to do precisely what they like. "Looks like our heritage sites are up for sale at the right price. To hell with the will of the people."

I walked past the Cross yesterday. I must admit I've never liked it as it's just plain ugly. However, I've got used to it and I don't see any value in moving it with our £150,000. What did occur to me though was how ugly the landscaping behind it was, clumsy railings and changes of levels here and there. Why not leave it where it is and landscape around it ?

I agree Davey that would be the sensible solution. I think the changed levels date back to when there was a Festival café there when the Cross was erected.

Part of the planning application is to reconstruct the area behind it reconstruct the wall so it fits in more with the sandstone of the church. Removal of the cross will probably improve views towards the Cathedral and the restaurant will make it look a bit livelier, rather than dark and gloomy as it currently looks.

Whatever we think of the destruction of Butcher Row or whatever the council had in mind, there is no doubt that Trinity Street turned out be a godsend in 1940 with fires raging in the Burges and fire engines attending Trinity Street - became the lifeline to and from Broadgate for ambulances, fire engines, police etc. Its width allowed it to continue running.

The way I read it is the 16th century Cross was nearer the 50's Leofric entrance than near the church, so why not place it over there.

As far as I know it was roughly where the tip of the arrow is in this picture (the red line the front of a nearby building which was later the site of the Royal Vaults), so it's where Cathedral Lanes is now, and too near Godiva. It would be nice if the Primark building was demolished and the Cross located somewhere upon the liberated ground, but not covering anything that was part of Little Butcher Row. I think the Owen/Primark building is worst thing ever built in terms of functionality of the city centre, it used to be like one continuous street, only divided by names: Broadgate-Cross Cheaping-Burges-Bishop Street. Then this big blockage was plonked down on it. People say The Burges is a dead zone, not surprising that the lesser part that is virtually blocked off, withers and virtually dies. But, the worse a building is, the more likely we are to be stuck with it - the council can demolish three Hippodromes but not one Primark. Edited by Midland Red, 22nd Nov 2018 2:49 pm (Discussion on the merits or otherwise of Owen Owen has been moved to the Owen Owen thread)

Hi all, Just saw a photograph from a friend on Facebook showing that the destruction storage and relocation of the Coventry Cross is now underway, with the area fenced off and workers on site. It remains to be seen whether a new Cross will ever be constructed.

This news is dreadful. The Council will erect these senseless tower blocks all over the city centre, completely out of scale with anything else close by, but I judge we shall never see the Cross saved and reinstated elsewhere.

I fear that many people have forgotten that we are supposed to learn a lesson from history. Memorials are there to remind us of mistakes or creditable actions made in the past. Without learning from history we can make the same mistakes in the future, and they are likely to be bigger ones. We did not learn from the Great War and had a bigger and almost cataclysmic one 20 years later.

Born in Coventry I soon learned the rich history of the city. The sheer wealth of fascinating detail to be discovered, it needed to be walked to be understood and enjoyed. During the period of a century or two on either side of the Norman Conquest, people began to draw together. Our Anglo-Saxon forefathers had spaces set apart in their midst for the interchange of commodities and the necessities of life. Gradually, as times changed and population increased, these open spots became useful. Crosses were erected, merchandise sold and bought. Annual fairs were held - within a few yards of the cross a bear ring was fastened down to give them amusement, but the cross fell down. Earl Randolph obtained a grant from Henry VIII for market rights and for a yearly fair to be held for eight days (1218). By 1423 there was a cross in Cross Cheaping - it became dangerous, and by 1537 it was demolished. It had existed 114 years. Efforts being made for a more handsome cross, gifts were made by 1541 - Henry VIII was involved and donated, there was a lot going on. By 1542 the cross was finished and in place, it was twenty feet high. It was pulled down in 1771. During those 230 years strange events occurred. There had been an ancient prophecy that should a swarm of bees settle on the cross the person that hived them would come to an untimely death, and the person that bought them would die from 'want'. They were hived by one called Stacker, and bought by one called Pickering. Stacker fell out of a hayloft in West Orchard and died of concussion, and Pickering lost his money and died in the Workhouse.

So Henry VIII donated to a cross that was perceived in the 1930's and built in the 1960's? Or do you mean he donated to a cross that was much bigger, grander and pulled down nearly 250 years ago?

AD, the topic heading doesn't distinguish between crosses. Comments will naturally cross purpose. The second cross is a reminder of the first (well second, but who is counting) and of the city's history of loss, by town planner as much as war. Those who have seen the most changes are also the most distressed by another. They're entitled to object. Kaga's comments indicate he knows the difference between the two crosses.

Helen - I'm certainly not saying Kaga has no right to object. It's just the wording of the post that talks about removing Henry VIII from history books because he donated to a cross which was the inspiration for the current one. It's totally nonsensical. We're knocking down a number of post-war buildings at the moment but this doesn't mean we're eradicating the 1950's/60's from the records does it? As I've said before, I hope that the removal of the cross is only temporary and will lead to it being reconstructed in a more prominent position or at least one more fitting with its original purpose of designating a market (although whether there'll be any more shops/markets left soon is open to debate )

I think that the point of any memorial, be it a building, monument or plaque, is to reinforce the written account of any historical event, and let's face it few of the current generation read many books, much less history books, and so need the visual reminders more than ever to ensure that they do not forget the way of life and lessons of the past.