The 1861 nonsense

[Penge Eagle]

I really didn’t care until recently, I started going in the early 70’s, anything before that I’m not interested to be honest, but as stated in the thread I started I’m having the badge tattood on my arm because of that thing we did last Saturday 🤣 and I didn’t know whether to have the badge with 1861 or 1905 on it

After Palace changed the date on the badge, the FA brought in a new law which says clubs must consult the supporters for approval before doing so. So unless the FA retrospectively act, you should be fine with the false date if you wanted it. 👍🏻

 

[BuzzBeats]

I thought it strange initially….. but that 1861 club is a Crystal Palace team and I think that should count…..

A modern example being Wimbledon and then retaining the original history even though the club moved away to Milton Keynes. We all recognise AFC Wimbledon as the rightful club of the previous history. I think we could do the same with Palace. But I can see why it annoys historians 🤣 that makes it even sweeter in my eyes.

Plus I like the song we sing that says “era after era, since 1861…..” don’t wanna lose that 🤣

 

[BromleyMonkey]

After Palace changed the date on the badge, the FA brought in a new law which says clubs must consult the supporters for approval before doing so. So unless the FA retrospectively act, you should be fine with the false date if you wanted it. 👍🏻

I suppose I should go with the date on the shirt which we actually won the cup wearing 👍

 

[braunstoneagle]

its just a lovely marketing gimmick…personally i couldnt give a f**k about what year we were formed…for me its always been 1905, and i cant be arsed to change the lockbox’s on mine & my parents house to fall into line with change.

no awful, expensive, garish club shop apparel will change that!

 

[BromleyMonkey]

its just a lovely marketing gimmick…personally i couldnt give a f**k about what year we were formed…for me its always been 1905, and i cant be arsed to change the lockbox’s on mine & my parents house to fall into line with change.

no awful, expensive, garish club shop apparel will change that!

It was hardly a good sell was it? You’re right, some of it was awful

 

[braunstoneagle]

It was hardly a good sell was it? You’re right, some of it was awful

tbf i am at an age where 95% of the club shop merchandise is awful, and in reality i only buy a shirt if i can buy it on ebay sponsor-less or buy shorts when they are reduced by 75% so maybe i am not the best consumer to target.

for the price of a item from the “fashion” (used very lightly) part of the website you can get a proper decent quality polo shirt. mad

 

[Penge Eagle]

its just a lovely marketing gimmick…personally i couldnt give a f**k about what year we were formed…for me its always been 1905, and i cant be arsed to change the lockbox’s on mine & my parents house to fall into line with change.

no awful, expensive, garish club shop apparel will change that!

Agree with this. Peter Manning fabricated the 1861 colours, so the gear was wrong anyway. He said the reflection of the glass and iron Crystal Palace appeared light blue from a distance on a sunny day, so the club would have used that shade of blue for its kit colours! 🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[Dogburger]

The 1861 claim was just a bit of fun wasn't it ? The tops are cracking and its a good story to wind other supporters up in the pub

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The 1861 claim was just a bit of fun wasn't it ? The tops are cracking and its a good story to wind other supporters up in the pub

I tend to think that, after reading the thread, I'm in the 1905 camp On one hand you have two separate clubs with almost identical names, which leads you towards an inaccurate conclusion. Then you have the competing egos of Simon Jordan (and one of his last hurrah's of celebrating the Centenary) and SP who wants to erase the memory of SJ. I bought the centenary DVD and I've got a brick in the wall at Selhurst, so I'm more financially committed to 1905. But after reading comments on here, reasoning would lead me to the same conclusion.

Thank goodness we're not Wimbledon (AFC, MK Dons) , or whatever. 😀

 

[mileend]

The 1861 claim was just a bit of fun wasn't it ? The tops are cracking and its a good story to wind other supporters up in the pub

Agree. Can't wait until the Bicentennial Celebrations in 2061 !

The fury of Penge will be magnificent

Though in all likelihood most of us on here literally can't wait that long but we'll be looking down on events with great happiness after last Saturday

 

[stanzerman]

To settle this nonscence once and for all. The historic Bayeaux Tapestery which is yhe definitive record of the Battle of Hastings clearly shows the arrow sticking out of King Harold's eye has red and blue feathers also one of the Norman knights has a large eagle emblazoned on his shield. William the Conquerer was obviously therefore an ardent Palace fan. Add to that he called his house a Palace and its obvious that the year we should be chanting is 1066

 

[syd snot]

1905 started the love affair end of story.

 

[Badger11]

For me the question is simple. Was there a club called Crystal Palace playing football between 1875 and 1905. If the answer is no then they are 2 separate clubs.

I don't care if someone says yeah but there was a holding company or the accounts say this....

It's about football.

 

[madcap_v2]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the 1861 stuff either. Team 1905 over here, the centinery year was a big deal for me, I still have the shirt, so to then decide we're 1861 is odd. By all means recognise it, but lets go back to 1905 please!

 

[mileend]

Come to think of it we'll want to celebrate the 150 years of CPFC in 2055 so it will be very odd to to celebrate the 200 years just 6 years later

 

[Teddy Eagle]

To settle this nonscence once and for all. The historic Bayeaux Tapestery which is yhe definitive record of the Battle of Hastings clearly shows the arrow sticking out of King Harold's eye has red and blue feathers also one of the Norman knights has a large eagle emblazoned on his shield. William the Conquerer was obviously therefore an ardent Palace fan. Add to that he called his house a Palace and its obvious that the year we should be chanting is 1066

Convincing stuff except he was called William the b****** which suggests a Chelsea fan.

 

[derfes]

I find it makes sense to regard the 1905 starting club as a Phoenix club after the failure of the Previous iterations of the Football club from 1861-1876. we have Dormant companies , so the idea of a dormant trust holding the Football club inside it, a bit like we had with Bury( which then resulted in a merger of the histories of the two parts that reunited) and then becoming an non-dormant company/trust in 1905 seems fine. Obviously longest continuously running football club is Notts county. I don't think the 1861 idea is nonsense, although wouldn't we want a cricket team also. As time has gone on we have been better able to have access to the records of the past enabling us to understand it better, so a revision based on a fuller understanding isn't by definition bad.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

the link between The Gunners and the Woolwich arsenal is a bit tenuous too ?

i like 1861 cos i like unofficial older stuff. Christopher columbus was not the first european to discover the Americas.............that was the Vikings ( and maybe even Irish monks before them ).

unofficial older stuff can often be intriguing even when many would prefer to have it forgotten......the first marriage of Catherine of Aragon, the outbreak of WWII in a Japanese invasion of China....1937, the football paperwork of Carlos Tevez, the dinosaur models at Palace Park, the word Manhattan meaning a good place for Indians to source arrow-wood, Ulster-Scots desire that the Irish in Ulster should 'go back to where they came from' ..... all superseded by a later narrative.

There really was a football club called Crystal Palace in 1861. They inhaled the same SE19 air. Good enough for me. There is a gap between the death of Christ and the establishment of the official christian church (s)..........just saying.

 

[silvertop]

The historic proof is specious for 1861.

However it was definitely earlier than 1905.

The FA refused to let us form as we played from the (then) national stadium. Complete bollox reason but they thought differently in the Victorian era.

For those for whom this is important it would not cost the club much to commission a specialist historian to produce a date supported by reliable evidence.

 

[ASCPFC]

The historic proof is specious for 1861.

However it was definitely earlier than 1905.

The FA refused to let us form as we played from the (then) national stadium. Complete bollox reason but they thought differently in the Victorian era.

For those for whom this is important it would not cost the club much to commission a specialist historian to produce a date supported by reliable evidence.

We need Indiana Jones.