News:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man  (Read 23262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

John38

  • Guest
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2014, 18:06:01 »
The beauty of being a Man-of-Kent living on Sheppey is that you could claim anything North of the Thames to be Scotland and South of it, France :)

Offline oobydooby

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 138
  • Appreciation 45
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2014, 17:47:09 »
Yes but if I had been born on the Rochester bridge what would I have been? either a Man of Kent or a Kentish Man, or both or neither?
©2014 A Hayes

Astronomers always look into the past.

Offline busyglen

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Appreciation 69
    • Westminster Village
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2014, 15:06:11 »
I'm a Maid of Kent, being born on Sheppey and would have thought that if Canterbury is your birthplace, you would be a Man of Kent. 
A smile is a curve that straightens things out.

Offline oobydooby

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 138
  • Appreciation 45
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2014, 14:13:41 »
My mother told me I was born in an ambulance on the way to the hospital in Chatham from Strood.  As she told it I was actually born on the old Rochester Bridge, although later I discovered I was actually born in an Army hospital near Canterbury.  For many years I truly believed I was neither or both a Kentish Man and a Man Of Kent.  That got some very interesting debates and many a free drink in the local whenever I told my tale.

That has me wondering, if the tale were true, what would I have been? A Kentish Man of Kent? A Man of Kentish Kent?  Hmm.
©2014 A Hayes

Astronomers always look into the past.

derrydale

  • Guest
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2012, 21:33:56 »
Man of Kent is someone born EAST of the river Medway, anyone born WEST of the river Medway is a Kentish Man.

Prior to 1965 Bexley or Bromley were in Kent.


Fred the Needle

  • Guest
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2012, 11:43:42 »
I seem to recall another thread on here which confused the hell out of me as it appears this definition of East and West of the Medway isn't quite as "easy" as it seems.  And being born in Gillingham, I might be a Kentish man rather than a "Man of Kent".

However, the question I'd like to ask is for verification of Saergytha's assertion -
I think it was Sir Robert Menzies, a former Prime Minister of Australia, who on his appointment as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports laid claim to being a Man of Kent as he was born south and east of the Medway!

I've just spent a long weekend up in Scotland and we went to Menzies Castle in Weem, Aberfeldy.  My wife (an Australian) ran a guest house in Aberfeldy for a while (we re-visited that for her as well).  She'd never been to Menzies Castle and was fascinated to learn from the dvd they have that Sir Robert was a member of that clan.  If I could claim that he was a "man of Kent" like me, then it'd be one over on the Aussies again  :)

Offline busyglen

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Appreciation 69
    • Westminster Village
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2012, 12:07:54 »
The revival of this subject has just reminded me that quite a few years ago, there used to be a branch of the Association here on the Island.  They used to have a Dance once a year which was fun, and they also had a tent at Kent Cricket Ground at Canterbury every year, which we used to frequent.  Those were the days!  :)
A smile is a curve that straightens things out.

Saergytha

  • Guest
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2012, 23:15:08 »
I think it was Sir Robert Menzies, a former Prime Minister of Australia, who on his appointment as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports laid claim to being a Man of Kent as he was born south and east of the Medway!

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2011, 16:41:16 »
Here is something that was sent to me by AMKKM:


It goes on to give more details about its objectives that might be construed as advertising, but if anyone would like a contact address, please PM me.

Regarding whether ‘Kent’ is regarded as including those parts lost to London, the Association has branches at Bromley & Beckenham, Chislehurst & NW Kent, and Orpington.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2011, 20:56:32 »
I emailed Faversham branch of AMKKM, stating that I was born in Rochester and live in Chatham, my son-in-law was born in London and lives in Gillingham, and one of my daughters was born in Chatham and lives in Hertfordshire, and asked how each of us stood with regard to membership and what the criteria for membership is, and got this reply:

If you were born east of the Medway you are a Man/Maid of Kent, if west of the Medway a Kentish Man/Maid.
There is no requirement to have been born in the county to be a member of the association, you just have to join one of our branches.
I have copied in Tess Robinson who is Secretary of the association based at our HQ at Cantium Lodge in Maidstone. she may be able to give you more detailed information.


So my daughter and I are Maid & Man-of-Kent, but my son-in-law is not, which is what we all thought in the first place, although there are still some points unanswered.

It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Riding With The Angels

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Appreciation 36
    • Ghost Connections
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2011, 01:14:13 »
But what if they were born in Bexley or Bromley AFTER they became part of Greater London?

As the postal address is Kent then I would suggest still YES

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2011, 22:11:32 »
But what if they were born in Bexley or Bromley AFTER they became part of Greater London?
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline Sentinel S4

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Appreciation 165
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2011, 21:56:36 »
As far as I am concerned, the answer to your question is YES Greentrad.
A day without learning something is a day lost and my brain is hungry. Feed me please.

Greentrad

  • Guest
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2011, 16:50:10 »
So what would a man or maid be if they were born in Bexley or Bromley before they became part of Greater London? In fact would they still be defined today as Kentish?

 :)

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: Man of Kent vs Kentish Man
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2011, 17:47:11 »
A Kentish Man or a Man of Kent. Which am I? Pierre  :)
If you were born west of the Medway you are a Kentish Man, if you were born east of the Medway you are a Man of Kent.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines