Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Tower of London/archive1

Some comments moved from the main page

As first glance the article as a whole looks magnificent. I've only read the lead so far, but my first impression is that the writing is a little ponderous. The Tower this, the Tower that (e.g. "The Tower is also known as a place of torture and execution, although only seven people were executed within the Tower"). Also seems a little disjointed and repetitive. For example, "It was sometimes used as a refuge from the general populace in times of unrest. It was once a resented symbol of oppression, inflicted on London by Norman conquerors. The Tower of London has played a prominent role in England's history. It was used as a place of refuge for unpopular monarchs and at times a centre of government." The lead needs a final copy edit to tighten the writing, remove repetition, and make sure there's a strong structure, and I wonder whether the rest of the article would benefit from the same. I mean this as constructive criticism, and I hope it's not discouraging. I know from my own experience of writing longer articles that they often need a lot of polishing toward the end. One thing that can help is to print out a copy of it, then sit down and read it from start to finish, making a mark wherever there's repetition or something awkward that jumps out; it's often easier to copy edit that way than on the screen. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at the lead again, I have to agree with your assessment of it, although I don't think it's the strongest part of the article. I've given it a bit of a copy edit which should ease some of the repetition. If you really want to see something that really does look magnificent, I'd recommend The Tower of London: The Official Illustrated History. It's brilliantly illustrated, and it's a shame I wasn't able to use more of their images. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would try to help with a copy edit of the lead, but I don't know enough about the subject to know which key points to highlight and develop. The problem is that it's disjointed—more a series of factoids than a narrative. For example, it says only seven pople were executed there, but which seven? It's also not clear what some of the sentences really mean, e.g. "Once a resented symbol of oppression, inflicted on London by Norman conquerors, the Tower sometimes acted as a refuge from the general populace in times of unrest." And "It has been besieged several times and controlling it has been important to controlling the country": who besieged it and why was it important to control it?

Also, there's still too much repetition of certain words, e.g. "The White Tower, which gives the whole castle its name, was built by William the Conqueror in 1078. As a whole, the Tower is a complex of several buildings ..." And "Although it is popularly known today as a place of imprisonment, and was used as such from as early as 1100, that was not the Tower of London's primary purpose. Early in its history, the Tower was a grand palace ..." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which seven does not belong in the lead. For a buildings with a 1,000-year history that level of detail would simply be too much to sustain in the lead without it becoming too long. It's a similar situation regarding the sieges; the point of mentioning them was that it has been used militarily, but the sieges aren't all necessarily linked. There were four under the Plantagenet kings (a house which ruled England from 1154 until the Ward of the Roses) and one in the Tudor period. They need to be mentioned as they were important events, but explaining each one will lead to more repetition, which in an article which has to make it clear what is being referred to out of the Tower of London, the White Tower, and London itself, could be problematic. It was important to control the Tower because it was in England's capital, not to mention it housed the armoury and Crown Jewels.

As for "Once a resented symbol of oppression, inflicted on London by Norman conquerors, the Tower sometimes acted as a refuge from the general populace in times of unrest", it means the Tower was built by a conqueror and reminded Londoners of their new rulers. As a result it was unpopular locally. The rulers of England were somewhat unpopular and the Tower provided a useful refuge; the resentment towards the Tower was mirrored in the rivalry between the monarchy and barons, who rebelled several times. Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering who your source was for "Despite popular fiction, the Tower of London never had a permanent torture chamber ...", and whether the scholarly sources agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference is at the end of the sentence. It's backed up by the other sources too. The Tower didn't even have a purpose-built prison (well not until 1687, but it was a "Prison for Soldiers"), and it was common for prisoners to be tortured in their cells. Stories of torture and execution at the Tower have long been popular, partly perpetuated by early guides written about the place. An example of the influence of such stories is that one of the rooms in the castle, the Council Chamber, was known as Guy Fawkes Room as it was popular fiction that he was tortured there. It was not built until 1607, three years after he died. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is Wilson 1998, p. 39. What does he say, and who are the scholarly sources who agree with him? I only have schoolgirl knowledge about this, so I could be misremembering, but I recall there was a lot of torture there for part of its history, and it's unlikely the service would have been a mobile one. So there certainly would have been rooms devoted to certain practices; you mention one, the rack. There was also Little Ease, the famous tiny prison cell. Given that the issue of torture is such a large part of the Tower's image, I wonder if it needs more than one sentence. I'm not suggesting a huge amount—it's something that should ideally have its own article—but I wonder whether a summary-style section would be appropriate. Length is an issue, but you have quite a lot of contemporary, tourist-type material that could perhaps be tightened. I realize that it's hard to decide what to include in an article of this scope.

I do think you need to go through the article and give it a final copy edit to make sure the writing is as smooth as you can make it. There are lots of examples of words being repeated in close proximity, such as "the keep was often the strongest part of a castle and contained lordly accommodation.[7] According to military historian Allen Brown, "The great tower [White Tower] was also, by virtue of its strength, majesty and lordly accommodation ..." and "The area around the White Tower was cleared so as to "stand clear from any Person coming near". If you could make one final sweep through it, and do some rewriting to remove anything like that, it would help a lot. And also to make sure there's a strong narrative thread (a story) in each of the sections, so there's no feeling of "fact 1 plus fact 2 plus fact 3." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I do understand your oppose, but I don't necessarily agree with it. While the reputation of the Tower is undoubtedly dominated by torture and imprisonment, that was not its main use for the majority of its history and the situation has been exaggerated (not by Slimvirgin I hasten to add, but by many 16- and 19th-century authors). The Privy Council had to grant permission for someone to be tortured, so cases were rare. This information is taken from page 92 of Impey and Parnell (2000) and could probably be useful to the article, so I'll add it later. Aside from the rack, the best known torture device used at the Tower was the Scavenger's daughter. The third main method was the use of manacles were also used. These were quite effective and more portable than the rack. There was no official position of torturer, the Yeoman Warders were responsible for the physical business (in their role of looking after prisoners) while interrogators were drafted in. When these factors and the ad hoc nature of imprisonment at the Tower is taken into consideration, the statement that there was no permanent torture chamber is quite reasonable. And that's what Wilson says, explaining that most torture was carried out in the prisoners' rooms. I returned his book to the library some time ago and am unable to quote him verbatim, but I am satisfied that he is correct. While Parnell's books do not mention a torture chamber of any sort (permanent or otherwise), neither do they explicitly state there wasn't one. As the 2000 volume with Impey I have before me covers Tower Hill, executions, and the site of the scaffold where the seven people were executed within the Tower (although there was not a permanent scaffold), it would be an uncharacteristic oversight. But if this going to be a problem I will removed the statement, as this is more trouble than it's worth.

When I began putting this article together, I hadn't expected to find that much of the lore that has grown up around the Tower is exaggerated. Everyone "knows" it was a horrible place used to torture countless people. But that's not necessarily true. Between 1540 and 1640, the peak of the Tower's use as a prison, records suggest 48 instances where torture was sanctioned. It sounds like a lot by today's standards, but it doesn't quite meet expectations. To put the whole issue of the Tower as a prison into perspective, of the 129-page Illustrated History, six are devoted to the Tower's role as a prison and all that entails. I agree, the mythos that has grown around the Tower and how it has been presented ot the public, even by the institution itself, could easy merit an article, however it needs to be put into context here and not given undue weight.

As people are no doubt getting tired of me blathering on, I'll quote the work of Impey and Parnell.

One of the best-known roles of the Tower is that of a place of imprisonment, torture and execution, largely as a result of propagandist accounts by religious extremists in the sixteenth century and the myth-makers of the nineteenth, particularly Harrison Ainsworth's The Tower of London: A Historical Romance of a subterranean torture-chamber, its horrific equipment, and the "open volume in which were taken down the confessions of the sufferers", stuck firmly in the popular imagination. But the reality, although no less interesting, was rather different. The Tower's role as a prison, as with that of all castles, was only incidental to its main functions, although in this case its importance was enhanced by its own status and its proximity to the royal courts at Westminster which made it a convenient holding-place for prisoners of rank and importance. It served as such from 1100, until 1820 (apart from exceptional use in the twentieth century), but even when prisoner population was at its height during the religious and political upheavals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, imprisonment played only a minor part in the castle's daily life.

While a few more sentences can be added with some numbers of those tortured for example, I believe the article more or less strikes the right balance between addressing the history of the Tower and addressing the sensationalism that surrounds this famous institution. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nev, leaving aside the torture issue, the Tower of London was an important and notorious English prison, but there is little mention of that in the article. It really isn't a question of sensationalism. There is an interesting book I used for the Marshalsea: The Oxford History of the Prison by Norval Morris and David J. Rothman. It doesn't say much about the Tower, as I recall, but mentions it from time to time as an example, putting in perspective how it was used relative to other English prisons. It would be good to know something about what kind of prisoners were kept there, with famous examples; when it was first and last used as a prison; how long they tended to be kept; what the cells were like; what the rules were; whether they were allowed out during the day (the so-called "liberty of the rules") as in other prisons; whether their families stayed with them; what fees they had to pay; what happened to those who couldn't pay the fees; what the death rates were like (execution apart); and so on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

I'm happy discussing things here instead. You've made some good suggestions, but the article already implements many of them, it's just integrated into the text rather than hived off into it's own section. Here are some examples taken from the article:

"At the latest, it was probably finished by 1100 when bishop Ranulf Flambard was imprisoned there.[16][nb 4] Flambard was loathed by the English for exacting harsh taxes and is the Tower's first recorded prisoner. He also became the first person to escape imprisonment in the Tower. A rope was smuggled inside, secreted in a butt of wine, and on 2 February 1101, Flambard – who had been held in luxury and was permitted servants – hosted a banquet for his captors. He plied them with drink, and when no one was looking he left for a secluded chamber where he lowered himself out of the Tower. The escape came as such a surprise that one contemporary chronicler accused the bishop of witchcraft."

"Margaret de Clare, Lady Badlesmere became the first woman imprisoned in the Tower of London after she refused Queen Isabella admittance to Leeds Castle and executed royal messengers.[88] Although the Tower was used as a prison, it was not necessarily very secure, and throughout its history people bribed the guards to help them escape. In 1322 Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, was aided in his escape from the Tower by the Sub-Lieutenant of the Tower who let Mortimer's men inside. They hacked a hole in his cell wall and Mortimer escaped to a waiting boat. He fled to France where he encountered Edward's Queen. They began an affair and plotted to overthrow the King. One of Mortimer's first acts on entering England was to capture the Tower and release the prisoners held there. ... Under Edward III's rule (1312–1377) England experienced renewed success in warfare after his father's reign had put the realm on the backfoot against the Scots and French. Amongst Edward's successes were the battles of Crécy and Poitiers where King John II of France was taken prisoner, and the capture of the King David II of Scotland at Neville's Cross. During this period, the Tower of London held many noble prisoners of war.[90] Edward II had allowed the Tower of London to fall into a state of disrepair,[37] and by the reign of Edward III the castle was an uncomfortable place. The nobility held captive within its walls were unable to engage in activities such as hunting which were permissible at other royal castles used as prisons, such as Windsor. Edward III ordered that the castle should be renovated."

"When Henry Bolingbroke returned from exile in 1399, Richard was imprisoned in the White Tower. He abdicated and was replaced on the throne by Bolingbroke, who became King Henry IV.[93] In the 15th century, there was little building work at the Tower of London, yet the castle still remained important as a place of refuge. When supporters of the late Richard II attempted a coup, Henry IV found safety in the Tower of London. During this period, the castle also held many distinguished prisoners. The heir to the Scottish throne, later King James I of Scotland, was kidnapped while journeying to France in 1406 and held in the Tower. The reign of Henry V (1413–1422) renewed England's fortune in the Hundred Years' War against France. As a result of Henry's victories, such as the Battle of Agincourt, many high-status prisoners were held in the Tower of London until they were ransomed."

"In the 16th century, the Tower acquired an enduring reputation as a grim, forbidding prison. This had not always been the case. As a royal castle, it was used by the monarch to imprison people for various reasons, however these were usually high-status individuals for short periods rather than common citizenry as there were plenty of prisons elsewhere for such individuals. Contrary to the popular image of the Tower, prisoners were able to make their life easier by purchasing amenities such as better food or tapestries through the Lieutenant of the Tower.[104] As holding prisoners was originally an incidental role of the Tower – as would have been the case for any castle – there was no purpose-built accommodation for prisoners until 1687 when a brick shed, a "Prison for Soldiers", was built to the north-west of the White Tower. The Tower's reputation for torture and imprisonment derives largely from 16th-century religious propagandists and 19th-century romanticists.[103] Although much of the Tower's reputation is exaggerated, the 16th and 17th centuries marked the castle's zenith as a prison, with many religious and political undesirables locked away. Amongst those held and executed at the Tower was Anne Boleyn.[103] Though they were once the Royal Bodyguard, by the 16th and 17th centuries it had become the main duty of the Yeoman Warders to look after the prisoners.[105] The Tower was often a safer place than other prisons in London, where disease was rife. High-status prisoners could live in conditions comparable to those they might expect outside; one such example was that while Walter Raleigh was held in the Tower his rooms were altered to accommodate his family, including his son who was born there in 1605.[106] Executions were usually carried out on Tower Hill rather than in the Tower of London itself, and 112 people were executed on the hill over a period of 400 years.[107] There were only seven executions within the castle; as was the case with Lady Jane Grey, this was reserved for prisoners for whom public execution was considered dangerous.[107] After Lady Jane Grey's execution on 12 February 1554,[108] Queen Mary I imprisoned her sister Elizabeth, later Queen Elizabeth I, in the Tower under suspicion of causing rebellion as Sir Thomas Wyatt had led a revolt against Mary in Elizabeth's name."

"During the war, the Tower was once again used to hold prisoners of war. One such person was Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler's deputy, albeit just for four days in 1941. He was the last state prisoner to be held at the castle."

Sorry for the wall of text, but this information seems to have been skipped over. So we have details of the first and last prisoners (and the first woman), the peak, the conditions, who was in there, escape attempts. What else would you suggest? Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford History of the Prison says the Tower was actually built as a prison (p. 31). But you say that was initially an incidental role, so who is your source for that?

I would say the prison aspect definitely needs its own section: "prisons in England and the role of the Tower" or something like that. And you need in-text attribution for a lot of your points: e.g. that it wasn't always a grim, forbidding prison. Who says this? The business of prisoners being allowed to buy things: this was normal for English prisons. Indeed, they starved to death if they couldn't buy things, because nothing was provided. Families joining them: also normal. The idea we have today of prisons (people locked alone or with one other prisoner in a cell, everything provided by the state) is not what prisons were like until quite recently. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid The Oxford History of the Prison is wrong in this instance, I would assume the author made a mistake because they were not familiar with the multi-faceted role of castles. The reference is to Impey and Parnell. From the passage I quoted previously: "The Tower's role as a prison, as with that of all castles, was only incidental to its main functions" (page 91). No castle was founded to be primarily a prison as it was far too much expense and effort; however, as noted by D. J. Cathcart King in Catellarium Anglicanum (an authoritative work on castles), many castles were used as prisons as well as performing their primary purposes. The but about prisoners being allowed to purchase times to make their imprisonment more tolerable may not be exceptional for the time, but is mentioned because it is something the majority of readers will certainly not expect. The Tower was not always a grim and foreboding prison (nor did it have such a reputation) early on as high-status prisoners were held in the palatial rooms, hardly living up to the Tower's reputation. All the points are referenced. While there are arguably merits in either having the information on the Tower's use a prison free-standing or integrated into the article, I don't think there is a right way or a wrong way to go about it. So I intend to stick with the current arrangement as it helps with the narrative of the article and prevents it from becoming a string of disjointed facts. I understand your concerns, but respectfully disagree. I will however continue to work on copy editing the article. Thanks for your input, and I regret I could not sway you to support the article (support as in the !vote sense rather than helping as you have been of assistance). Nev1 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding prisoners being able to buy things—yes, you're right that readers will not expect it, but it's important to make clear that this was the norm for hundreds of years for all prisons in England. Prisoners rented rooms, furnished them in a lot of cases, bought their own food, and raised their families there. Those who couldn't afford to pay their way were left (literally) to rot. That is in large measure why people feared them so much. An article about an ancient English prison that doesn't explain that—and the extent to which the Tower of London did or didn't fit that pattern—is missing its most important social and political aspects. To allude to it in passing (that prisoner X was allowed to buy his own food or bring in his own furniture) gives a misleading impression. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that it was common for prisoners elsewhere to buy amenities? Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look through the Marshalsea sources, you should find several; if you can't, let me know and I'll look around. Also I was wondering about the seven who were executed within the Tower, as opposed to outside. Would it not make sense to name them clearly somewhere? An earlier version does, though it actually names eight. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just taken a quick look through the Marshalsea sources and can't see anything that specifically mentions the Tower. Bear in mind, too, that conditions would have been different depending on what kind of prisoner it was, so this is a complicated issue. Do you have easy access to an academic database? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not during the summer. The article already makes comparisons between other prisons, and I think I can glean more from the sources, I just need something that backs up the claim that prisoners elsewhere could buy amenities (it's implicit that it relied on their status, ie: finances). Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a second, by academic database I assumed you meant a university library but I do have a Jstor account. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can get hold of this article, it may give you a source for prisoners needing to pay for things. It's about the 1729 Gaols Committee, which was set up to investigate the state of English jails, though I don't know whether it mentions the Tower specifically. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)