Banbury Cross (England)

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Party Rocker said:
In case anyone is wondering what happened to the Cotton Candy stand, it was not totally destroyed. In fact the main structure is still fairly together with some slight damage, minus the missing counters and half walls.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

It is being stored in a small gravel lot behind the fence closes to the train by Pompeii, or simply behind Groover's Alpine Express. It was only viewable July 4th and 5th, as well as about a week prior when that service road was open for guests to enter/exit the park during the bomb threat, and exit the park after the fireworks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter R., Mushroom and Preston
It's ridiculous to assert that the previous incarnation of Banbury Cross was "old-fashioned" when it's currently re-themed in what I like to call new-old-fashioned. I mean, the 'sixties, even this tacky, one-dimensional version of the decade, was almost 50 years ago. The idea that re-theming a faux-Elizabethan hamlet to faux-Swinging London constitutes "updating" it is laughable. The satisfying fantasy of places like BGW has much to do with the fact that the cultural period they emulate is outside of living memory. Swinging London is decidedly not outside of living memory, which makes the pastiche currently presented in Banbury Cross that much more ridiculous.

...So be it; it seems ephemeral and superficial, like much of the real era it now references was. And just like that era, it will disappear when the fad moves on.

Note that I write this as someone who has great affection for the culture of 1960s England, and because of that affection I hate to see it interpreted so inappropriately and in such a tawdry way.

And while I have even greater affection for the previous era represented by Banbury Cross (c1600s England), I wasn't bothered at all that it was represented in a somewhat less-than-authentic way, because we can't be authentic about an era so far outside living memory, certainly not a theme park. There was something gentle, beautiful, like a storybook, about a pastiche of the distant past, something that cannot happen when the park tries to re-theme itself to a time that many people can actually remember. The difference between a fantasy and a cheap simulation: they're different things entirely, a concept that the current entertainment division of BGW doesn't seem to understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gunsmith, Mad Ludwig, gazisghost and 9 others
Does anyone know if the clock tower in Banbury was originally constructed to be a replica of Big Ben? If it was, the architect did a very bad job.
 
It was absolutely not intended to be a replica of Big Ben! That is simply a nickname that has been given to the clock over the years.

The real Big Ben (officially "Elizabeth Tower") was completed in 1858, making it around 200 years later in history than the time period Banbury Cross was originally set in.

No matter what Gasparich wants you to believe, Banbury Cross was never supposed to represent London or the entire country of England. In fact, Banbury Cross is a real place located about 60 miles from London. When BGW was built they put a great deal of consideration into absolute geographical and historical accuracy, with heavy attention to detail. Just like there is no Eiffel Tower in Aquitaine, there is no Big Ben in Banbury Cross.

Finally, except for the obvious fact it's an English clock tower, Big Ben and the Banbury Cross clock have nothing in common. Here is an image of the real Big Ben, and as you can see there is almost nothing in common. For one thing, the Banbury Cross clock is way smaller than Big Ben. And obviously it is constructed of completely different materials. Even their purposes are different. Just looking at the two clocks should make it clear that they are not meant to be the same, especially considering how much pride BGW took in attention to detail.

So no, the clock tower in Banbury Cross was never constructed to be a replica of Big Ben. It seems most people automatically link English clock towers with Big Ben, and that sure is an easy nickname to give it. Really, though, it's not supposed to be a prop begging for a London theme. It's really a misunderstood, underlying, maybe even forgotten... reference to the Old Country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gunsmith, CastleOSullivan, gazisghost and 9 others
The clock in Banbury Cross does confuse the theming a little bit, if indeed the historical period of the hamlet was originally supposed to be the 16th/17th century. It would have been highly unusual (unprecedented actually) for a small village at that time to have a free-standing clock tower. Mechanical clocks were extremely expensive and required constant maintenance and were therefore associated with cathedrals, palaces, noble houses, Cambridge/Oxford, &c. Most Elizabethans/Jacobeans also didn't need to know the exact time (exact being a relative term since clocks of the period were rather inaccurate) and where public timepieces did exist, they were usually -wait for it- sundials.

A small village square of the Banbury Cross type would have invariably featured a market cross or buttercross, which is anything from a stone cross on a column to a carved stone gazebo-type shelter.

Cultural changes in the 19th century, as well as mechanical advances due to the Industrial Revolution, brought the proliferation of public clocks, such as 'Big Ben'. It was suddenly more important to know what time it was, as more people worked in cities at non-agricultural jobs than ever before. Aquitaine, being a 19th century French village, properly features a public clock.

I have no problem with the slight historical anachronism of a freestanding clock tower in Banbury Cross, as Busch Gardens was never meant to be a rigorous historical recreation. However, as I mentioned in a previous comment, I do have a problem with the cheap-looking "Swinging London" veneer. It's ahistorical to an unpleasant extreme, it's ugly and overdone, and it provides no substantial benefit over the previously serene atmosphere of the hamlet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gunsmith, CastleOSullivan, Zachary and 5 others
I could not agree with Jonquil more. I have mentioned in another thread when looking at the 30,000 foot view BG is slowly trying to change from the various Hamlets each set in a different century to a more cohesive Europe set in the modern era with antiquity as a backdrop. Certainly when one examines Europe today there is precedent for this. Rome may be perhaps the best example. Consider the the Parthenon right in the middle of downtown Rome. It is used today as a chapel at times, and yet it still has tours complete with bad information. (I take issue with its use myself, but that is a discussion for another time.) Better still consider the Roman Forum. It is 2500 years worth of build and recycle and its entrance is near a busy street.

Please do not misunderstand, if this is what BGW is attempting they are failing miserably, because it should be obvious and done in a more considered manner. At the very least better attention to detail would be appreciated.

Deep down, I fear I may be giving them too much credit, but I always hold out hope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CastleOSullivan, Nicole, Mad Ludwig and 1 other person
Speaking of Flags, I miss the ones they used to put on the side of the buildings, as seen in that picture. The Union Jacks only get tangled around their pole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrLaptop
jonquil said:
It's ridiculous to assert that the previous incarnation of Banbury Cross was "old-fashioned" when it's currently re-themed in what I like to call new-old-fashioned. I mean, the 'sixties, even this tacky, one-dimensional version of the decade, was almost 50 years ago. The idea that re-theming a faux-Elizabethan hamlet to faux-Swinging London constitutes "updating" it is laughable. The satisfying fantasy of places like BGW has much to do with the fact that the cultural period they emulate is outside of living memory. Swinging London is decidedly not outside of living memory, which makes the pastiche currently presented in Banbury Cross that much more ridiculous.

...So be it; it seems ephemeral and superficial, like much of the real era it now references was. And just like that era, it will disappear when the fad moves on.

Note that I write this as someone who has great affection for the culture of 1960s England, and because of that affection I hate to see it interpreted so inappropriately and in such a tawdry way.

And while I have even greater affection for the previous era represented by Banbury Cross (c1600s England), I wasn't bothered at all that it was represented in a somewhat less-than-authentic way, because we can't be authentic about an era so far outside living memory, certainly not a theme park. There was something gentle, beautiful, like a storybook, about a pastiche of the distant past, something that cannot happen when the park tries to re-theme itself to a time that many people can actually remember. The difference between a fantasy and a cheap simulation: they're different things entirely, a concept that the current entertainment division of BGW doesn't seem to understand.
Click to expand...

Succinctly put, Jonquil!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Ludwig, MrLaptop and Jonquil
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad