Bucks Row Project

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s as good a possible suggestion as any Pat. I can’t help feeling that someone, somewhere would know.

[Paddy]

I have seen on a lot of old maps streets named "Back Row" Do you think its possible it could have been a transcription error of this name?

Pat...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Pat,

It would be interesting to know where the name came from. A buck is also a male animal like a deer? I wonder if the information exists?

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Herlock,

I have often thought that "Buck's Row" might have referred to the usage of "buck" to mean a man, usually young, and "dashing", who might have used the road to show off his horses.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/buck

It could also derive from someone's surname.

[Herlock Sholmes]

While the Bucks Row Project is still some way from completion, for which I sincerely apologize, I have a few snippets of Research which I would like to share with the Forum. Here is the first

It is often said that the Bucks Row had originally been called Ducking Pond Row on account of the ducking pond which apparently had stood at the Eastern end, where Brady street is now; such is quoted by many including Mr John Bennett on the Whitechapel Society website and in the dissertations section of Casebook.org. I must say here and now that this brief work by John is truly excellent.
While researching Bucks Row I have studied a great number of maps from the 18th and 19th centuries and something has become very clear to me which leads me to believe that the view that Bucks Row was called Ducking pond Row, is not the whole picture or entirely accurate, let me expand.
The original thoroughfare from Bakers Row was single track and was indeed called Ducking Pond Row, but when this was split into two separate routes, North and South, in the early 19th Century, the position becomes more confusing.
It seems after this that the Southern route was more often referred to as Ducking Pond Row on maps, first being name such on a map in 1827; the Northern route baring no name in that map, The Southern Route was again referred to as such in 1844.
The Northern route is first called Bucks Row in an 1850 map, while the southern route is labelled as Ducking Pond Row on the very same map. This is repeated in a map of 1861.
One map in 1857 and another in 1865 however both give the Northern Route the title of ducking pond Row, while not naming the Southern Route.
However, the Northern route is referred to as Bucks Row in the majority of Maps after 1850.
The lower route is shown as little North Street in 1864, and becomes Winthrop in an 1886 map. Bucks Row and Whites Row are shown as Durward street in the Stanford map of 1897, and in the 1;1,056 1893-1895 OS map which is not included in the table below.

All maps are on the site mapco.net

It therefore Seems that the Name Ducking Pond Row was not "The" previous name of the Road later called Bucks Row, but a name for a single, wide thoroughfare which ran behind and parallel to the Whitechapel Road. When this was split into two distinct roadways in the early 19th Century, it was the Southern, not the Northern Route which was most commonly referred to as Ducking Pond Row.




Steve

Interesting stuff Steve. I always wondered where the name ‘Bucks’ came from. I wondered if it could have derived from ‘ducks?’

[Elamarna]

The Name of Bucks Row

While the Bucks Row Project is still some way from completion, for which I sincerely apologize, I have a few snippets of Research which I would like to share with the Forum. Here is the first

It is often said that the Bucks Row had originally been called Ducking Pond Row on account of the ducking pond which apparently had stood at the Eastern end, where Brady street is now; such is quoted by many including Mr John Bennett on the Whitechapel Society website and in the dissertations section of Casebook.org. I must say here and now that this brief work by John is truly excellent.
While researching Bucks Row I have studied a great number of maps from the 18th and 19th centuries and something has become very clear to me which leads me to believe that the view that Bucks Row was called Ducking pond Row, is not the whole picture or entirely accurate, let me expand.
The original thoroughfare from Bakers Row was single track and was indeed called Ducking Pond Row, but when this was split into two separate routes, North and South, in the early 19th Century, the position becomes more confusing.
It seems after this that the Southern route was more often referred to as Ducking Pond Row on maps, first being name such on a map in 1827; the Northern route baring no name in that map, The Southern Route was again referred to as such in 1844.
The Northern route is first called Bucks Row in an 1850 map, while the southern route is labelled as Ducking Pond Row on the very same map. This is repeated in a map of 1861.
One map in 1857 and another in 1865 however both give the Northern Route the title of ducking pond Row, while not naming the Southern Route.
However, the Northern route is referred to as Bucks Row in the majority of Maps after 1850.
The lower route is shown as little North Street in 1864, and becomes Winthrop in an 1886 map. Bucks Row and Whites Row are shown as Durward street in the Stanford map of 1897, and in the 1;1,056 1893-1895 OS map which is not included in the table below.

All maps are on the site mapco.net

It therefore Seems that the Name Ducking Pond Row was not "The" previous name of the Road later called Bucks Row, but a name for a single, wide thoroughfare which ran behind and parallel to the Whitechapel Road. When this was split into two distinct roadways in the early 19th Century, it was the Southern, not the Northern Route which was most commonly referred to as Ducking Pond Row.




Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not if I do the same.

Damn! Foiled again

[Fisherman]

Now, if I can make another 14,000+ posts today I can catch up with Fish

Not if I do the same.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now, if I can make another 14,000+ posts today I can catch up with Fish

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing worth adding from me but I thought that I’d use this thread to make what I believe will be my 1000th post! How time flies.

[Fisherman]

I am more than happy to let others judge if either of us are right.


Steve

Ans so am I. It seems to me that you may have believed that I was fishing for your unpublished, ongoing research, but frankly, there are fins and gills on everything I am fishing for.

Are there fins and gills on your research?

[Elamarna]

Well, we have made different interpretations about how things come across in posts before, Steve, so I am thinking this is probably just another such occasion.

I am more than happy to let others judge if either of us are right.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Fine by me too just as long as you you understand that is not how it comes across from the posts.


Steve

Well, we have made different interpretations about how things come across in posts before, Steve, so I am thinking this is probably just another such occasion.

[Elamarna]

I´m fine with you understanding that it is not an issue for my part.

Hi Christer

Fine by me too just as long as you you understand that is not how it comes across from the posts.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Dear Christer

Grammatical incorrect when refering to your response yes; but perfectly ok when refered back to my original post. Sloppy on my part I agree.

I am sure you honestly beleive it is not an issue, however the exchanges over the last day tend to suggest otherwise. A simply acceptance of my position should have been enough to end the debate.


Cheers


Steve

I´m fine with you understanding that it is not an issue for my part.