[Bell Historians] Royal, or other names

John Camp camp at hcXvBvJEAw8kbcUa5pORhnB_pklkw5yd4VnNAHF0X1_6L5LPw-Vu01RQkJpOXBKyzAeNC81-MF_oMo87uT_2.yahoo.invalid
Mon Aug 21 16:41:33 BST 2006

At 16:24 on 21 August 2006, Richard Offen wrote:

> Perhaps someone should start a history of change ringing group

I do hope not. I would have thought that there are enough lists to
cover all ringing topics at present, and some of them go for weeks
without contributions (nothing except 'test' messages on NRT for 7
weeks). Lists need a certain amount of momentum to keep going.

Wouldn't it be better explicitly to broaden this list to include
history of change ringing, so that no-one is worried about being

At 15:00 on 21 August 2006, edward martin wrote:

> The 'original' question (Richard please note) was not from George,
> he merely repeated part of the original question, which was from
> Roderick Bickerton who wrote:

> " I have often wondered about these names on all numbers why doubles
> when 5 is an odd number? Were they all settled on by a convention of
> the ancients? Why are changes on 10 bells called Royal?"

No, Eddie. George's message came first (sent at 11.08 on 18 August).
Rod's message (sent at 11.53 on 18 August) quoted George's, though he
didn't actually say so.

John Camp


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list