PhilipG
02-22-2008, 01:27 PM
Agreed the route was there but there were no buildings on it and at that time it had no name
I've never said there were (or weren't) buildings there at the beginning of the 18th century, but I'd love to know how you can be so sure it wasn't named and there were no buildings.
(Sources please, Taffy).
The 1725 map clearly shows that the area covered by Church Street and Hanover Street was about three-quarters built, and it seems incomprehensible that there would be no buildings once you left that area and entered Ranelagh Street.
I've never said there were (or weren't) buildings there at the beginning of the 18th century, but I'd love to know how you can be so sure it wasn't named and there were no buildings.
(Sources please, Taffy).
The 1725 map clearly shows that the area covered by Church Street and Hanover Street was about three-quarters built, and it seems incomprehensible that there would be no buildings once you left that area and entered Ranelagh Street.