Though I haven’t seen the (obviously bogus) sign, I can confirm that there was never a city marker for the Monastery of the Angels in the past. I’m also mystified by the dates: while it’s true the Monastery was founded in 1924, the nuns moved out in 2022.
Visiting the Monastery of the Angels has been on my to-do list for many years, but I put it off too long and missed seeing the gift shop and their baked goods. When I finally stopped by to look at the place, I saw a new historical street sign, so I created a page on the Historical Marker Database website.
Historical signs contain abbreviated snippets of history, and the wording is often strange and confusing.
“Monumental Angelenos” might have multiple meanings, although somewhat obscure. For example -- The city has similar signs for sites designated as Historic-Cultural Monuments, and the nuns were Angelenos. Or, the words might suggest a desire to designate the site a Historic-Cultural Monument, for the benefit of Angelenos. Or maybe it is just meant to be fun, or funny.
Nothing is inaccurate on this sign. Here’s why: In 1924, in response to Sister Mary of the Eucharist’s request, Archbishop John J. Cantwell invited her and four other nuns from the Newark NJ monastery to live in Los Angeles as the city’s first community of cloistered Catholic women. 100 years later, the year 2024 is the 100th anniversary of that event. It does not matter if the Monastery of the Angels changed locations, or changed its name, or if it closed, it’s still the 100th anniversary of the move to Los Angeles.
The 200th anniversary of the Monastery of the Angels will be in 2124.
We're familiar with the history of the Domincan nuns in Los Angeles, which we researched for our Friends of the Angels campaign: https://www.friendsoftheangels.org/history/
It's an interesting conundrum. Had this been a legitimate, council initiated permanent ceremonial sign, there would have been a motion declaring what was proposed to be honored at civic expense, and an opportunity for public feedback about any question of dates and language, along with several votes. As Friends of the Angels, we would have questioned the 1924 date being attached to this property, and you could have advocated for it. But since this is some kind of bogus monument, none of that happened.
We find this fascinating--and if the sign was in fact produced in a city shop, worrying. There is a reason there is a process. Independent historical groups like E Clampus Vitus can install any sort of sign they can get a property owner to agree to, but on (and obscuring) a city street sign, above a city sidewalk, elected officials and citizens must be involved in any designation!
The 1924 date is attached to this property by you, not by the sign. You invented an incorrect interpretation then blame the sign for your mistake. And the sign is not bogus because you don’t like the lack of your preferred procedure. Again, everything is correct with this sign, so please stop trying to ruin a good thing.
Though I haven’t seen the (obviously bogus) sign, I can confirm that there was never a city marker for the Monastery of the Angels in the past. I’m also mystified by the dates: while it’s true the Monastery was founded in 1924, the nuns moved out in 2022.
It is indeed confounding. And if that sign was made in a City shop, we all paid for it despite there being no official approval, and that's not okay.
Maybe it was this guy! https://thelandmag.com/richard-ankrom-guerrilla-public-service-los-angeles-free/#:~:text=Sign%20From%20Above,the%20soul%20of%20the%20city.
Ha ha--we remember when that happened and the neighborhood wanted to give him a parade!
Visiting the Monastery of the Angels has been on my to-do list for many years, but I put it off too long and missed seeing the gift shop and their baked goods. When I finally stopped by to look at the place, I saw a new historical street sign, so I created a page on the Historical Marker Database website.
Historical signs contain abbreviated snippets of history, and the wording is often strange and confusing.
“Monumental Angelenos” might have multiple meanings, although somewhat obscure. For example -- The city has similar signs for sites designated as Historic-Cultural Monuments, and the nuns were Angelenos. Or, the words might suggest a desire to designate the site a Historic-Cultural Monument, for the benefit of Angelenos. Or maybe it is just meant to be fun, or funny.
Nothing is inaccurate on this sign. Here’s why: In 1924, in response to Sister Mary of the Eucharist’s request, Archbishop John J. Cantwell invited her and four other nuns from the Newark NJ monastery to live in Los Angeles as the city’s first community of cloistered Catholic women. 100 years later, the year 2024 is the 100th anniversary of that event. It does not matter if the Monastery of the Angels changed locations, or changed its name, or if it closed, it’s still the 100th anniversary of the move to Los Angeles.
The 200th anniversary of the Monastery of the Angels will be in 2124.
An anniversary is forever.
We're familiar with the history of the Domincan nuns in Los Angeles, which we researched for our Friends of the Angels campaign: https://www.friendsoftheangels.org/history/
It's an interesting conundrum. Had this been a legitimate, council initiated permanent ceremonial sign, there would have been a motion declaring what was proposed to be honored at civic expense, and an opportunity for public feedback about any question of dates and language, along with several votes. As Friends of the Angels, we would have questioned the 1924 date being attached to this property, and you could have advocated for it. But since this is some kind of bogus monument, none of that happened.
We find this fascinating--and if the sign was in fact produced in a city shop, worrying. There is a reason there is a process. Independent historical groups like E Clampus Vitus can install any sort of sign they can get a property owner to agree to, but on (and obscuring) a city street sign, above a city sidewalk, elected officials and citizens must be involved in any designation!
The 1924 date is attached to this property by you, not by the sign. You invented an incorrect interpretation then blame the sign for your mistake. And the sign is not bogus because you don’t like the lack of your preferred procedure. Again, everything is correct with this sign, so please stop trying to ruin a good thing.
From 1924 to 2024 is the 100th Anniversary. What’s wrong with that? https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=254435
The Monastery was not in Hollywood in 1924, and it dissolved in 2022, so it did not reach its centennial.
How did you find out about the mysterious sign?