The 1861 nonsense

[Penge Eagle]

I understand the accepted account (myth?) is it was a works team for relocating the Crystal Palace.

Not sure the dates fit.

However the BBC appears to have bought in with 1861 and refers to the first major prize in our proud "164 year" history

Census records shows the players were not part of a works team and had well-paid jobs, living in large houses with servants. Many were well known in aristocratic circles and were very successful professionally. There are so many great stories about the players...

William Cloete was a South African, who had extensive mining properties in Mexico, was a race horse breeder whose horse came second in the 1885 Derby. He was a passenger on the Lusitania and sadly died when it sank in 1915. There's a town in Mexico named 'Cloete' in his honour.

 

[Penge Eagle]

in the formalised manner that we understand 'football' yes. However, village football, which often resembled a brawl across five miles of farmland, that has been going on for at least a thousand years.

Association football. 🙂

 

[Spindle]

Agree and to clarify it's 30 years, plus no documents about a holding company exist. Football was such a new sport back then, played by amateurs for fun and companies owning clubs wasn't a thing.

Is this the style of your book? Not impressed by the dialect, no wonder it hasn't sold.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Is this the style of your book? Not impressed by the dialect, no wonder it hasn't sold.

Why do you have to resort to a personal attack instead of discussing the history?

 

[Glazier#1]

Is this the style of your book? Not impressed by the dialect, no wonder it hasn't sold.

How spiteful. What is the need for that?

 

[ASCPFC]

I've always personally thought that there should be a connection with the original club. It's hardly a coincidence. However, I can quite understand there being tenuous written evidence. I can quite imagine there being issues trying to find any physical links as such. But I also don't find it any different to many of the clubs in the league.
When I look overall it seems to me that clubs can claim whatever they like, more or less. And as long as the club repeats it, and fans start to accept it, then it just becomes accepted by everyone.
So in ten years time or so, everyone will accept 1861 or whatever. 1905 will have been largely erased from our collective memories.
I've always been slightly inclined towards 1905 - as it's less time to be embarrassed about not winning anything much. But now, that has changed. I'm starting to warm to being an old, established, early club that has had some glory in it's 160 years.

 

[Downeagle]

While I was watching the open top parade coming down Whitehorse Lane via the app and the BBC iPlayer the BBC guy, I think his name was Matt Graveling made reference to 1861 as our foundation year.

 

[chris123]

I've always personally thought that there should be a connection with the original club. It's hardly a coincidence. However, I can quite understand there being tenuous written evidence. I can quite imagine there being issues trying to find any physical links as such. But I also don't find it any different to many of the clubs in the league.
When I look overall it seems to me that clubs can claim whatever they like, more or less. And as long as the club repeats it, and fans start to accept it, then it just becomes accepted by everyone.
So in ten years time or so, everyone will accept 1861 or whatever. 1905 will have been largely erased from our collective memories.
I've always been slightly inclined towards 1905 - as it's less time to be embarrassed about not winning anything much. But now, that has changed. I'm starting to warm to being an old, established, early club that has had some glory in it's 160 years.

If there was some proper history to explain what happened between the 1861ers and the 1905's, someone would have come up with some evidence.

 

[ASCPFC]

If there was some proper history to explain what happened between the 1861ers and the 1905's, someone would have come up with some evidence.

I'm trying to bother to remember the whole story, but someone did? Yet, some think it's not really true or a bit tenuous. I haven't really read any of it by any means.
I guess my point boils down to, not who's right or wrong, the club using 1861 now will eventually mean it won't matter if anybody produces full evidence or not.
I'm not saying we can't debate it, we can. But the 1861 will end up accepted as it will become ingrained over the years.

 

[chris123]

I'm trying to bother to remember the whole story, but someone did? Yet, some think it's not really true or a bit tenuous. I haven't really read any of it by any means.
I guess my point boils down to, not who's right or wrong, the club using 1861 now will eventually mean it won't matter if anybody produces full evidence or not.
I'm not saying we can't debate it, we can. But the 1861 will end up accepted as it will become ingrained over the years.

Not true and tenuous are not history.

 

[ASCPFC]

Not true and tenuous are not history.

I entirely understand what you mean. It's just not going to matter what the history is in the long run. None of us are going to be able to stop the club using what they want.

 

[martin2412]

120 Years Ago Today: Palace's major battle to become a professional league club - News - Crystal Palace F.C.

www.cpfc.co.uk

As it's 120 years today since the formation of the professional club, Palace have released this today.