Every month, we read, and I write in the London Bridge, our monthly newsletter. The intention and meaning of the name, the London Bridge, seems obvious. It is our bridge or connection to London and its history and events; the crossing of our cultures. But does the London Bridge, the real bridge, represent the meaning we have imparted to it? It made me wonder. Is there any historical significance to the London Bridge that we can draw upon to make relevant our use of its name? In my search, this is what I have read and learned.

Present day London Bridge, completed in 1973, is one of the most famous landmarks in London, Yet it is only the latest of several bridges to bear the name “London Bridge”.
The original London Bridge was built during the first century at the request of Roman Emperor Claudius. It was the first wooden bridge to cross the Thames. It was the bridge that the nursery rhyme “London Bridge is falling down” is based upon. In fact, the Bridge, when first built, was actually made out of “wood and clay” and fortified or rebuilt with various materials used in the nursery rhyme.

A succession of wooden bridges followed until 1176 when the first stone bridge was constructed for Henry It took 33 years to build. and was completed in 1209. By the 1300’s the Bridge held houses and nearly 200 shops. The reference to “silver and gold” in the nursery rhyme relates to the trading done on the bridge. The Bridge lasted a very long time and took on various forms, including arches, buildings, a ban on buildings, guardhouses and gate houses adorned with infamous displays of the severed heads of traitors which had been impaled and dipped in tar, a tradition that would last over 300 years. The Bridge was so well constructed that, almost 600 years later, when it was decided that it should be replaced, it was still very useful. The decision to demolish and replace this Bridge was not prompted by a structural deficiency. But rather by the fact that the existing bridge was damaging the Thames in that 45% of the river’s flow was blocked at high tide. Additionally, until 1750, the London Bridge was the only river crossing in London. Once the Westminster Bridge was completed in that year, the Bridge came to be regarded as too narrow and an unsightly relic from medieval times and “ripe for rebuilding”. . The new bridge was built just a few yards upstream and opened in 1831. The old bridge continued in use as the new bridge was being built and was demolished after the new bridge opened. The new bridge only lasted `140 years (despite serving two world wars) as it proved to be sinking into the river bed due to its immense weight. The southern end had sunk 12 inches on completion, and had continued to sink at a rate of one inch every eight years. Increased traffic in the 1960’s meant that some of the piers were lower by 3 or 4 inches on one side. The government decided to put the bridge up for sale and it was bought by an American for $2.46 million. It took three years to disassemble. The bricks were coded so that they could be put back in exactly the same place and sent to Arizona to be reassembled over a specially created river near Lake Havasu. Arizona didn’t really get much of the original bridge. It was only the original outer stonework that was used in the reconstruction to cover a modern structure. This London Bridge has become Arizona’s second biggest tourist attraction after the Grand Canyon!

The current London Bridge over the Thames was opened by Queen Elizabeth ll in March of 1973. It was constructed to be long –lived and functional and, therefore, is much less decorated than other Thames bridges.

So, in reconsidering my above question, does the London Bridge, the real bridge, have any historical significance for us? Perhaps not. Perhaps we are giving it our own meaning. Our London Bridge represents our history here. It is our connection to London, to making our lives here meaningful. It is our connection to each other. After all, isn’t that history?