• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

Royal Oak, Pritchett Street, Aston

SHAHROKH

Brummie babby
Does anyone have any photos of this pub around 1920 - 1940 and knowledge of the landlords? I understand my gt grandfather, G H Ravenhall was landlord of an M&B Royal Oak around this time but do not know where it was.
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
i am not familiar with the royal oak pritchett st...the only photo i have is of the bulls head but hopefully someone on here maybe able to help you

lyn
 

Vivienne14

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wondering if it definitely was Pritchett Street Shahrock ? There's a Royal Oak on Lozells Road - still there but no longer a pub. Was the Lozells pub an M&B pub? Viv.
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
yes viv i was thinking of the royal oak on lozells road and yes again it was an M&B pub

lyn
 

Phil

Retired Layabout
G H Ravenhall was a beer retailer at 115 Pritchett Street in 1921 which was obviously never a fully licenced pub. It was a few doors down from the Bulls Head on the other side of Blews Street

pritchett st.JPG
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
great phil..so it was pritchett st then...no photos im afraid though..

lyn
 

SHAHROKH

Brummie babby
Thank you all for your replies. I knew he was a beer retailer at 115 Pritchetts Street but I've checked Kelly's Trade directories for all the Royal Oaks and came up with nothing. Here is a pic of gt granddad and the pub. Thanks for any clues.
 

Attachments

Phil

Retired Layabout
Shahrokh

You wouldn't find it listed under public houses as it was a beer house, you would need to look under beer retailers . If you look a the licence above the door on the right of the photo you will see he was licences to sell "ale, cider, porter & tobacco" Kelly's only listed by name fully licenced premises which could also sell wines & spirits.
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
nice photo shahrokh...the pub looks far too wide to me to be in pritchett st...if you look at phils map 115 is only the width of a house...the photo you have posted is certainly much wider than the space one house would take up...are you sure that after having the beer house he didnt move to a pub called the royal oak at another location unless of course no 115 and next door was knocked into one building..that is possible i guess i also noted that the pub name looks like its been super imposed..also and not impossible but that means that there were 2 large pubs only a few feet away from each other..the other one being the bulls head..hopefully someone can help with this..just my observations..i could be way off the mark:D

lyn
 
Last edited:

SHAHROKH

Brummie babby
Hi Lyn. Thanks for your comments which have been my thoughts also. It was only because I had seen comments on this website remarking that Pritchett Street had five pubs in it and one of them was the Royal Oak. I knew he was living at 115 as a beer retailer in 1921 so thought it was too much of a coincidence not to be the right pub. I agree the sign does look superimposed but I put that down to the age of the photo etc, I wonder what other explanation there could be. The photo was acquired from another party on Ancestry who is researching the same line but doesn't know more about the pub's location.
 

SHAHROKH

Brummie babby
Phil, thank you for your reply. Yes I have checked beer retailers but will check again, maybe I have missed it.
 

Vivienne14

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sorry to put a damper on your photo Shahrokh. I too think the photo has been changed. As Lyn says, and I agree with her, that the white M&B sign looks added - the edges are too crisp. Also if you look at the left side of the building the wall doesn't look right - poorly reconstructed. Neither does the word "Mitchell" seem to fit properly at that end. The man standing in the doorway looks added to the photo. The walls surrounding him, again, look reconstructed. And the light is wrong compared with the two other men.

I changed the tint of the photo below to see if it shows up more and had a closer look at the wall.

Viv.image.jpegimage.jpeg
 

mikejee

Super Moderator
Staff member
I agree completely. the image has been "adjusted" the disappearance of the first part of "Mitchells" alone indicates this
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
me again...i am not saying i think the photo has been completely doctored because with photos of this age we must take into account that photography was not at its best then..ive seen plenty of old photos that look disjointed or where the photographer shuts the shutter too quick or to slow which again can give a different view of things and make the people look not quite right...i happen to think its a good one the only things that concerned me was the obvious added on pub name which looks so fake (seen these on quite a few pub photos) the other thing was i think the building looks too wide for it to be no 115 pritchett st because if you look at phils map showing 115 its just a basic house which of course beer retailers did trade from...bit of a mystery:D

sha...do you have any photos of your grandad so that you can compere him with the one in the pub photo??

lyn
 

mikejee

Super Moderator
Staff member
In this case i don't see how any non-doctoring could explain the bit below. The entire left hand side of the building has been added, as the first part of Mitchells would be outside the building.

image part.jpg
 

Phil

Retired Layabout
I don't think there has been any trickery with the photograph, I think there are other explanations for the questions that have ben raised. The different colour and different bonds to the brickwork can be explained by alterations to the frontage when the two premises were converted to one as was suggested by Lyn earlier. The sign is not in fact going off the edge of the building only overlapping the new brickwork. The sign looks different or add possibly because compared to the brickwork at that height it is a lot newer. It also begs the question if the sign has been superimposed on the photo, Why? Also has the licence above the right hand doorway also been superimposed? As for the one edge of the image being a bit iffy, surely we have all seen photos either stained or faded with age?
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
i agree phil although the photo looks a tad iffy like you i have seen many like this..i also thought it unusual to have the licence to sell sign so high up...this is just one pub that we discussed some time back..it was decided that the photo was good one even though the name of it has clearly been added technically...

Sir Charles Napier blews st.jpg
 

SHAHROKH

Brummie babby
Thank you all for your views and thoughts. I was feeling totally gutted yesterday and began to think we had acquired an 'iffy' photo from a third party on Ancestry so took myself off to the library. Found that GH Ravenhall was a beer retailer at 115 Pritchett Street from 1916 through to 1923. After consulting my husband who is a professional photographer, he said that he thought the picture is genuine because the negative may well have suffered exposure damage and with age, if not properly inside an envelope, could have produced this fading and obliteration of the word Mitchells. Also if the pub was renovated from two dwellings into one, the new brickwork would account difference in for the sign would be done afresh. Also it would be hard to superimpose the sign over the lamp hanging on the wall without it showing. here is another pic of gt granddad. Thanks to you all.
 

Attachments

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
hi shahrokh so pleased you are now satisified that the photo is a good one...no mistaking your gt grandad standing to the left of the pub door...:)

lyn
 
Top