London has a hidden Roman bath that isn’t actually Roman at all
Tucked behind Somerset House, away from the hustle and bustle, the street is pretty unassuming at first glance. But if you make your way along, you’ll find a rather curious attraction at No. 5 Strand Lane.
An old wooden sign hangs on the brick wall, with faded and chipping black paint, proclaiming that a National Trust Roman Bath is hidden underneath the building; however, this isn’t quite the case.
While the Strand Lane Baths have been called Roman since the 1830s, they aren’t Roman at all, and they weren’t originally a bath.
Instead, they are the remains of a cistern built in 1612 to feed an ornate fountain in the gardens of the old Somerset House.
At the time, the house was a palace and used as a residence for royal consorts.
The house famously entered a long period of decay from 1688 onwards, and as with the palace, the cistern was left to rot.
It wasn’t until the 1770s that it was used again, when a man named James Smith moved into 33 Surrey Street, a property which backed onto the cistern.
He decided to give it a new lease of life, and in 1776 he started advertising it as a cold plunge bath for ladies and gentlemen ‘supplied with water from a spring’.
James later expanded, adding a second bath, known as the ‘Essex bath’, lined with tiles and marble.
The baths continued to run after James’s death in 1782, but by this time they’d garnered a bit of a reputation, after several strange incidents occurred there – including an MP’s death.
Something needed to be done to restore the appeal for visitors, so it’s thought the baths were essentially given a ‘gimmicky’ rebrand, and in 1838, under the proprietorship of a Mr Charles Scott, it became known as the Old Roman Spring Baths.
Within a decade, a story spun about the bath’s Roman origins had become fully ingrained in the public consciousness – so much so that it was even referenced in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens.
For decades after, people accepted that it was a Roman bath, and it wasn’t until the National Trust took the space on in the 1940s that its proper history was revealed.
The LCC Architect’s Office conducted a historical investigation into the baths which concluded in 1951 that they were ‘almost certainly not Roman, but worth preservation as a historical curiosity all the same’.
Metro
Tucked behind Somerset House, away from the hustle and bustle, the street is pretty unassuming at first glance. But if you make your way along, you’ll find a rather curious attraction at No. 5 Strand Lane.
An old wooden sign hangs on the brick wall, with faded and chipping black paint, proclaiming that a National Trust Roman Bath is hidden underneath the building; however, this isn’t quite the case.
While the Strand Lane Baths have been called Roman since the 1830s, they aren’t Roman at all, and they weren’t originally a bath.
Instead, they are the remains of a cistern built in 1612 to feed an ornate fountain in the gardens of the old Somerset House.
At the time, the house was a palace and used as a residence for royal consorts.
The house famously entered a long period of decay from 1688 onwards, and as with the palace, the cistern was left to rot.
It wasn’t until the 1770s that it was used again, when a man named James Smith moved into 33 Surrey Street, a property which backed onto the cistern.
He decided to give it a new lease of life, and in 1776 he started advertising it as a cold plunge bath for ladies and gentlemen ‘supplied with water from a spring’.
James later expanded, adding a second bath, known as the ‘Essex bath’, lined with tiles and marble.
The baths continued to run after James’s death in 1782, but by this time they’d garnered a bit of a reputation, after several strange incidents occurred there – including an MP’s death.
Something needed to be done to restore the appeal for visitors, so it’s thought the baths were essentially given a ‘gimmicky’ rebrand, and in 1838, under the proprietorship of a Mr Charles Scott, it became known as the Old Roman Spring Baths.
Within a decade, a story spun about the bath’s Roman origins had become fully ingrained in the public consciousness – so much so that it was even referenced in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens.
For decades after, people accepted that it was a Roman bath, and it wasn’t until the National Trust took the space on in the 1940s that its proper history was revealed.
The LCC Architect’s Office conducted a historical investigation into the baths which concluded in 1951 that they were ‘almost certainly not Roman, but worth preservation as a historical curiosity all the same’.
Metro
Tucked behind Somerset House, away from the hustle and bustle, the street is pretty unassuming at first glance. But if you make your way along, you’ll find a rather curious attraction at No. 5 Strand Lane.
An old wooden sign hangs on the brick wall, with faded and chipping black paint, proclaiming that a National Trust Roman Bath is hidden underneath the building; however, this isn’t quite the case.
While the Strand Lane Baths have been called Roman since the 1830s, they aren’t Roman at all, and they weren’t originally a bath.
Instead, they are the remains of a cistern built in 1612 to feed an ornate fountain in the gardens of the old Somerset House.
At the time, the house was a palace and used as a residence for royal consorts.
The house famously entered a long period of decay from 1688 onwards, and as with the palace, the cistern was left to rot.
It wasn’t until the 1770s that it was used again, when a man named James Smith moved into 33 Surrey Street, a property which backed onto the cistern.
He decided to give it a new lease of life, and in 1776 he started advertising it as a cold plunge bath for ladies and gentlemen ‘supplied with water from a spring’.
James later expanded, adding a second bath, known as the ‘Essex bath’, lined with tiles and marble.
The baths continued to run after James’s death in 1782, but by this time they’d garnered a bit of a reputation, after several strange incidents occurred there – including an MP’s death.
Something needed to be done to restore the appeal for visitors, so it’s thought the baths were essentially given a ‘gimmicky’ rebrand, and in 1838, under the proprietorship of a Mr Charles Scott, it became known as the Old Roman Spring Baths.
Within a decade, a story spun about the bath’s Roman origins had become fully ingrained in the public consciousness – so much so that it was even referenced in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens.
For decades after, people accepted that it was a Roman bath, and it wasn’t until the National Trust took the space on in the 1940s that its proper history was revealed.
The LCC Architect’s Office conducted a historical investigation into the baths which concluded in 1951 that they were ‘almost certainly not Roman, but worth preservation as a historical curiosity all the same’.
Metro
comments
London has a hidden Roman bath that isn’t actually Roman at all
comments