Pub that stood on the south side of Croydon Road near the junction with Carshalton Road. It was next to the Blue Houses, and so was also known as the Blue House pub. These blue houses were possibly built to house workers who built the Surrey Iron Railway at the beginning of the 19th century. One mile further along this Croydon Road, towards Croydon, stood the Jolly Gardeners which was known as the Red House. The bridge over the railway line is called Blue Houses Bridge.
The original wooden building was replaced by a mock Tudor one in 1906.
Summary of ownership
1939 : sold by Nalders & Collyer Brewery Ltd of Croydon to Ind Coope.
2010 : sold by Mitchells and Butler Retail Ltd to Zannah Ltd.
2011 : 20-year lease sold to Butcher and Barrel Ltd, which had 2 other pubs, but went bust in 2013.
2013 : sold the freehold to A.N.A. Land Ltd for £860,000.
2015 : the lease was sold to VP Lounges Ltd for £90,000.
It is assumed that the ‘VP’ refers to the company’s directors Vidur and Parin Patel. Currently, in 2017, the pub is an Asian restaurant and night club, called The Ravensbury.
Merton Memories Photos
from 1868 news item : Thomas BENNETT
From 1851 and 1855 directory : Edward Harry CLOWSER
1903 : Harriet VERNEY
(from Licensed Victuallers)
1905 to 1951 : Fred BENTLEY
(from Electoral Register to 1939, and obituary in 1951 newspaper, see below)
1952 to 1958 : John and Stella DAWSON (from The Tatler)
Newspaper Article Index
|Death of Mr Fred Bentley||Mitcham and Tooting Advertiser||25/10/1951||5|
|Historical Note||Mitcham and Tooting Advertiser||01/11/1951||4|
|Looking in at your local||Mitcham News and Mercury||01/11/1974||8|
|The ??? landed||letter||Mitcham News and Mercury||14/09/1979||18|
|Landlord is finalist in ‘top innkeeper’ competition||Mitcham and Morden Guardian||05/09/1991||5|
|Euro trip for winning at wining||wins prize in Grants of St James’s Wine Awards||Mitcham and Morden Guardian||26/11/1992||3|
From the Norwood News – Saturday 13 June 1868, via the British Newspaper Archive
ASSAULT AT MITCHAM.
Thomas Bennett, landlord of the Ravensbury Arms, Mitcham, was summoned for assaulting one Fanny Franklin, the wife of a blacksmith, at Mitcham, on the 28th May. It appeared that a little boy named Newman went to the defendant’s house for some beer, with which he was served. Just as he had left the house he was molested by the complainant’s son, and according to her version of the tale, he struck the lad, who ran away, pursued by the defendant, who caught him when near his mother’s premises, and again beat him. Mrs. Franklin came out, and the defendant not only abused her, but struck her in the nose, and forcibly held her arm, causing her much pain. She called two witnesses, one of whom clearly proved the blow on the nose, and said that defendant struck at Mrs. Franklin’s face twice.—For the defence it was alleged that young Franklin struck and kicked the little boy Newman on two separate occasions, and it was solely for the purpose of protecting Newman from the other boy’s violence that he went out of his house. He denied that be had struck Mrs. Franklin in the face, and said she came out of her house with a hatchet in her hand, and flourished it in a menacing manner ; therefore apprehending violence be took hold of her arm. During this time she called him a thief and a pickpocket, and said she could name the gentleman whose pocket he picked. Of course (said the defendant) I was much exasperated, but I did not abuse her beyond advising her to go home and wash her face, neither did I strike her with my closed fist ; had I done so, there would now have been some marks of the blow. The defendant called a witness who was in his house at the time, and who seemed desirous of impressing upon the Bench that he had attended to tell the truth, and that he was not biassed in any way. He said he saw the whole transaction from beginning to end, but singularly enough he did not see Mr. Bennett strike Mrs. Franklin, although be heard her call him all kinds of foul names. The Bench said they were bound to believe the evidence that had been adduced on behalf of the complainant, and further, they considered that the assault had been satisfactorily proved. The defendant would have to pay 20s. and 19s. costs.—The money was paid.
Maps are reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland.