Talk:Constitution Hill, London
 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in England may be able to help! |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is a hill
editBy London standards, because most of the centre close to the Thames is flat, Constitution Hill is a hill. So "The term 'Hill' is something of a misnomer; there is barely detectable slope but most observers would regard the road as flat" depends where you come from, and for those from central London it is a hill! Of course for those from a more hill environment such as Zurich then no it is not a hill, but a Berliner like a Londoner would consider it a hill. -- PBS (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be an inaccuracy here. Constitution Hill is stated to be named after Charles II's habit to taking daily walks there. Unfortunately, though, quote:'Originally known as Buckingham House, the building which forms the core of today's palace(Buckingham Palace)was a large townhouse built for the Duke of Buckingham in 1705' while King Charles II died in 1651. 124.148.28.240 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Peter, Brisbane, Australia. 13/08/2012
Ah, that sense of "constitution". I thought it was an odd name since there is no hill and the UK has no constitution, but it makes sense now. Ground Zero | t 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The second sentence in the first paragraph under "Name" negates the third. If it was referred to as "Constitution Hill" in 1642 (the start of the English Civil War), then it is unlikely to have had anything to do with Charles II's constitutional walks as he was only 12 years old in 1642 (and not king). Buckingham was not a royal residence at the time, but St. James Palace was nearby, so it's possible that it had something to do with Charles I, but since 1642 is the first known mention of the name, it seems more likely that it had something to do with the pro-Parliament elements. 192.42.144.23 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)