Talk:Tower of London/Archive 1

Overuse of links
It is just me, or are there too many words highlighted in this article? What's the use of linking to Demolition, Office, or Butt? I don't know if there's an actual page for William Blake's "Tyger! Tyger!" poem, but linking to there is better than just linking to poem, isn't it? See Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. Alfvaen 20:31, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Traitor's Gate?
Probably a more specific mention of Traitors Gate should be placed somewhere in the article other than the caption of one of the pictures. Suggestions? -- Rune Welsh &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 17:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. A couple of years ago when I did the tour, the Warder spoke at length about Traitor's Gate.  What he said about it, I can't remember now, but I'm sure there is info worth mentioning.  I seem to remember something about Sir Walter Raleigh and Traitor's Gate, but I can't remember what!!  Someone with some good knowledge of it would do well to put some info about it in this article. IanUK 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thirded: There are three pictures of the Traitor's Gate and not a single word about it in the article. --Eltener 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW it's worth there is an separate article Traitor's Gate. --Richhoncho 07:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Article for Traitor's Gate should certainly be merged with the Tower of London. The main article (Tower of London) does not contain enough information on Trator's Gate as is, and overlapping the information would be unnecessary, as the gate is too insignificant out of context of the Tower to warrant it's own article. If anyone feels qualified to perform the merge and remove the individual article, please do so. do it, be bold :D --KBeder  —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kayqua (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) The article on Traitor's Gate states that heads were on both "spikes" and "pikes" - is it a typo; should both be spikes, or pikes, or is it ok?

The Krays?
The Krays were held prisoner there? The Tower was used in the 1950s for casual locking up of (who they were at the time) random Army deserters??? This can't be true?


 * I personally have never heard of the Krays being kept there, but as for WW2 deserters: some were executed by firing squad at the tower, so they could well have been detained there too. IanUK 10:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw a documentary on the Tower a few months ago: it said that the Krays were stationed in the Tower during national service, in the 50s, and got involved in a drunken brawl while out on the town. They were locked up for a night (or possibly two) in the guard cells as a result.--Bilbo B 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Tower Liberties
Maybe somebody could add some info on the former local administrative role of the Tower of London with regard to the 'Tower Liberties'? Colin4C 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would Tower division contain the correct information, or are the Tower Liberties the much smaller area round the castle? Lozleader 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should have *read* the artcle:

Lozleader 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The liberty of His Majesty's Tower of London, consisting of:
 * The liberty of the Old Artillery Ground
 * The parish of Trinity, Minories
 * The Old Tower precinct
 * The precinct of The Tower Within
 * The precinct of the Well Close

The Tower does not have a Roman origin!
I have deleted disinformation to the contrary. The Roman origin of the Tower is a longstanding myth, popularised by Shakespeare in his Richard III, where he ascribes it to Julius Caesar...However all the evidence suggests that William I was the first to build a fortress here. Colin4C 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Saxons on the Rampage
This bit from the article intrigues me:

'He [William the Conqueror] chose this location because he considered it to be a strategic point being opposite the site where Earl Godwin had landed in Southwark in 1051 during his Saxon rebellion against the Norman influence of Edward the Confessor'

I can't help wondering what the source of this statement is...It sounds very speculative...telling us, as it does, of William the Conqueror's thoughts on strategy as he built the Tower...There could be a grain of truth in it though...London's riverside was devoid of defenses after the original Roman riverside wall crumbled to bits sometime in the Dark Ages. Therefore it would make sense to build the Tower plus the other two Norman London riverside castles: Montfichet's and Barnard's Castle to defend against a riverside attack by Vikings or revolting Saxons etc...Colin4C 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always understood the Tower to have been built just outsie the City in order to intimidate the wealthy(=powerful) burgers thereof.

Date of foundation
Article has recently had foundation of White Tower amended from 1078 to 1066. I believe 1066 was the date for a motte and bailey wooden castle's foundation and construction in stone began 12 yrs later. Anyone got a source? --Dweller 09:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1078 is the correct date. I have changed it back. The Tower was part of a series of fortifications built at that time along the London waterfront (Montfichet's and Baynard's castle were the other ones - now gone) and the coast to protect the London and the country from Viking attack (though an undying 'factoid' has it that the Tower was built to 'overawe' Londoners...which seems a bit of a silly suggestion to me, despite its ubiquitous appearance, and repetition by tour guides). Thus there is no reason to believe that a motte and bailey castle was built on this exact spot in 1066! I have no idea where this latter idea comes from....The man who built the Tower, by the way, was one 'Gundulph', Bishop of Rochester, though nobody has seen fit, as yet, to include that in the article..Colin4C 11:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ravens
With reference to this extract from the article:


 * "The only time ravens have been recorded absent at the tower, was in 1946 during the second world war, when the Kingdom was close to falling."

World War 2 ended in 1945...Colin4C 19:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's slightly embarrassing - I wrote that! Well spotted, and thanks for correcting it!  IanUK 10:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Still embarrassing. Absence of ravens is meant to foretell collapse. While the Kingdom may have in danger from 1939 to 1945 (well, not quite 1945), in 1946 the war was well over and the Kingdom was safe. So the absence of the ravens then is proff that it is just supersition. Perhaps it should simply read: The only time ravens have been recorded absent at the tower, was in 1946, and nothing happened. Emeraude 20:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't we lose the British Empire round about that time? Just a thought...Colin4C 11:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we didn't. That happened later.  Besides, the loss of the British Empire is not connected with the absence of ravens, only the White Tower, the monarchy and the kingdom. Emeraude 11:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case I believe that there must have been at least one raven there in 1946: possibly hiding in one of the Towers. Colin4C 13:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources for that fact, that there was no raven in 1946? says, that there were none during WWII, while  mentions at least one.
 * Additional question: Does anyone know, who pays for the ravens? --Flominator 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the official Historic Royal Palaces info sheet on the ravens makes no mention of them ever being absent (interesting to read), which is not to say it hasn't happened. I don't remember the guides at the Tower ever saying they had been absent either, though they do spend a good deal of time on the legend. In answer to Flominator, they will be paid for from the general expenses of the Tower of London, i.e. from admission charges and general taxation. Emeraude 11:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This site states that there were no ravens in 1946, several websites seem to give slightly different information. But all say it was during or just after the War. There is no way to know which one is correct. I'm rather surprised at the lack of an official website for the Tower of London, to be honest!

That site sounds remarkably like the Wikipedia Tower of London page did a few months ago (see ) on this subject! The fact is, if it's right there were no ravens in 1946, a year after the war, then the myth is false because there was then no danger to England. And if there were none during the war, it's still false, or Germany would have won! I think the link to The Guardian article (number 4 in the references) may give a true picture. The Historical Royal Palaces site I mentioned before is official. Not very informative though. Emeraude 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that there was at least one raven perching on a roost on the Bloody Tower throughout 1946, maintaining in its avian way the Crown of England. Can you prove otherwise? Colin4C 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Colin4C, in that there was probably a raven at the Tower somewhere or other during those times, even if it was in a cage in the cloakroom loo! But seeing as we have no source (I don't think the Guardian is any more reliable than all the others), perhaps the date should be removed altogether? IanUK 09:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your replies. I think that the officials wouldn't tell us, if there were no ravens during WWII, because then, the legend would have been shown to be wrong. Maybe we could mention, that some source claim that there were no ravens present of something like that. My next question: How many of them are there now? The BBC-page mentioned in the article says 8 while http://www.historicroyalpalaces.org/webcode/content.asp?ID=546 says 6. Are there any visual confirmations? --Flominator 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just read in Tales from the Tower (2006) by Fiona Jerome that 'no one can remember the Tower without Ravens' and that a solitary raven named 'Grip' DID survive WW2, even though its feathered friends succumbed to the Lufftwaffe. 1946 marks the date when a new batch of ravens were brought in to augment the numbers. Jerome also points out that in olden days wild ravens were indigenous to London and would roost on the Towers. I.e. before the tame wing clipped ravens of today, the Tower hosted wild ravens. Colin4C 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I too am having a problem with the paragraph that says that all the ravens were killed by bombing and tower records clearly stating "there are none left" - can we have a source for that please? I can't find any tower records, I'm sure there are some though, all I keep finding is mirrors of Wikipedia! The Daniel Diehl book, "Tales from the Tower of London" and Edward Impey's "The Tower of London: The Official Illustrated History " along with several websites eg  all say that one raven called 'Grip' was left at the end of the war and the other birds were scared away (not killed) by the bombing. The raven stock was topped up in 1946. These seem to be reliable sources. There is a similar unsourced comment in Common Raven. Does anyone have any objection to me changing this part?  Artemka 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No objections from me. GRIP lives! Colin4C 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place, or the way, to add my three ha'porth - but I'll give it a go. It occurs to me that maybe saying "If the ravens ever leave the tower it will mean the downfall of the monarchy" or words to that effect was not superstitious at all, but just a rhetorical way of saying "If the king ever gets soft on traitors, stops executing them, and so deprives the ravens of food, he won't last long." I haven't come across this elsewhere but it seems kind of obvious - or is it just me? 86.149.50.199 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Paul J Williams user 86.149.50.199

9 ravens
How come the article states that there are nine ravens, when the quoted page just mentions six? --Flominator (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this public domain image of Tower of London ravens (close up). Would it be possible to put the image in the page. http://www.pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=874559.180.61.221 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Mohit Kumar, India.
 * Did it. Check out Image:Tower of London Ravens Closeup.jpg --Flominator (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed Link To Raven Baldrick
I have removed the Link to Raven Baldrick because it refers to the character of Baldrick in the TV Series Blackadder. Kathleen.wright5 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How to improve this article
This article could be improved in many ways...However one glaring omission is that there is virtually no mention of the role of the Tower as a Royal Palace and its role in the coronation procession of the kings and queens of England. Maybe someone could fix this??? Colin4C 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article could also benefit from a more lengthy discussion of the many famous prisoners of the Tower, the ghost stories, and the graves found in the Chapels Royal. The Victorian renovation of the Chapels - during which the bodies of Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard and many others were found and identified, isn't even mentioned at all. I am no expert on this, but I should think the article should at least include what is mentioned & discussed on a typical tourist Yeoman Warder-led tour. (For that matter, there really isn't much discussion of the Yeomen Warders in this article either.) LordAmeth 13:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Last Englishman to be held in the Tower
The article states that George Salaman was the last Englishman to be held in the Tower. I am guessing that this occurred around 1941 or 1942. It is also stated that the Kray twins were held in the Tower during 1952. The Krays, according to their entry in this encyclopedia, were born in London. It would appear, then, that the Krays were the last Englishmen to be held in the tower. Perhaps the article should be edited to clarify this matter.

See Talk:Tower of London above. They were based there during their National Service and, like many other soldiers, put in the barracks lockup for breaking regulations. So they weren't exactly prisoners in the tower in the sense that they were convicted in court and sentenced there. Emeraude 11:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But Salaman also "wasn't exactly a prisoner in the tower in the sense that he was convicted in a court and sentenced there." The article contradicts itself by saying that Salaman was the last Englishman to be held there and that two Englishmen were later also held there. Dricherby (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit
This addition is redundant and false:


 * The original tower is the so-called White Tower, completed in 1080. It is 27.4 meters high and 4.6 meters wide. The name comes from the white stone used in the tower.

The White Tower was so-called because it was white washed. I also find it hard to believe that the Tower is 4.6 metres wide. I'm 2 metres tall myself...Therefore I have removed it. Colin4C 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
This article does not really need three pictures of Traitors Gate - especially when the Gate is only given a very minor role in the article itself. I have moved one of the pictures here (IMHO, the least relevant of the three, but I didn't want to delete outright without consensus) and reworded the caption of the view from the Thames to make it more generally applicable to the rest of the article. EyeSereneTALK 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tsk tsk......
Some person has been abusing thsytem and writing total rubbish on this article, ie. "the tower of london smells", "william the pedophile", "helooooooooooooooooo", and "duk owt nicely". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.177.216 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tower photo
The current photo is listed as copyrighted. There are many public domain versions, including this one - http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=8739 --12.149.167.6 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

forest harper.
i put the thing about forest harper becuase of the boof the raven master's secret.Becuase it states he lived there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.14.179 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a helpful edit :- doesn't tell us who Forest Harper is, doesn't say anything about the book, and whether this is real, or fiction. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Armoury
I have an almost identical picture. But this is not the Spanish Armories. I cannot remember the name of the exhibit, but it is a collection of horse models and armor of the kings of England. Can anyone identify the name of the exhibit. The Spanish Armouries has weaponry from the Spanish Armarda. KudzuVine (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last prisoner of all?
The Krays in 1952 are variously mentioned in the article and here as among the last, or the last Englishmen. Who was the absolute last prisoner in the Tower? 86.143.48.55 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

a
a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.3.113.173 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding pictures
Several pictures have been removed from this article by user CJ DUB. What is the consensus on this? Obviously an article of this type could be overwhelmed by photos but this particular user seems to have taken it upon him/herself to decide no more are needed. The picture of the Spanish Armoury (although a bit dark) and the photo I added myself of the Beauchamp Tower improve the article in my opinion... Cavie78 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

B-Class?
I'm really not sure this can be considered a B-Class article - the section on the Tower Ravens seems to be the only part that is adequately referenced and the whole thing seems rather slight for an article on a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Cavie78 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons
If anyone is interested, I have proposed a new Wikiproject concerning prisons here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ravens and Charles II
I have found other references on the net to this legend, but the Ravens section reads somewhat strangely at the moment. The second paragraph says the earliest known reference to a tower raven is in 1885, more than 200 years after the Charles II legend. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems that the only way to make sense of the section is that the story about Charles II remained as oral history for two centuries without ever being written down (which seems somewhat unlikely). Then the third paragraph says the legend Britain will fall comes from 1944, which I can't separate clearly from the earlier legend that the monarchy and kingdom would fall so there appears to be a contradiction.

Can anyone sort this section out to make it clearer. Or at least explain to me where I'm going wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.95.177.129 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts
As The Tower is reportedly the most haunted building in England, it seems fit that the ghost section should be ceded and created into a separate article which details documented ghost encounters and descriptions of those ghosts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.132.54 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys AvaV21 (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, I've removed a number of categories that are duplicated in Category:Tower of London. As a general rule, categories that apply to the complex of buildings should be applied there, categories that are limited to specific structures should be applied against the individual structure. This stops overspecification of the category tree, and reduces overcrowding of individual categories with duplication. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Oldest building used by the British government"?
In what way is the Tower "the oldest building used by the British government", as claimed in the opening paragraph? Specifically, in what way is it used by the government. The quoted source is over a hundred years old so is not necessarily up to date... Dricherby (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has any suggestions, I've deleted the claim. The text was as follows.  Dricherby (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the oldest building used by the British government.
 * Er...the Tower of London hasn't got any younger since 1896. Please do not delete valid referenced material on the basis that material is held hostage until editors have to answer any question you dream up on Talk pages. The wikipedia is based on references not question and answer original research queries on Talk pages. I don't have the book in question but it is a fact that the Tower belongs to the Queen who is the head of the government (the Prime Minister is her first minister). The first head of government it belonged to was William I in the eleventh century. Colin4C (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
I’ve rewritten the article, complete with references. I’ve got rid of a lot of trivial fluff and imbalance (especially towards recent events). There may be further additions – a paragraph here or there, perhaps some different images – but I expect this is the main body of the article. I’m going to let the dust settle for a couple of weeks before taking it to FAC; I’d like to see this get onto the front page eventually. If anyone has any comments, now would be the time to make them. Nev1 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why have you deleted the official name - "Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress" from the intro? The Tower is not any old castle but the oldest royal palace in England.Colin4C (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I removed it during the rewrite because it felt a bit clumsy. I neglected to re-add it (the lead could probably do with a bit more work), but since it really does need to be there it's back in now. Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't quite make sense of this: "Like most Norman keeps, the White Tower was entered through the first above ground level ...". Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really like the phrasing but felt I had limited options when I wrote it. I'd like to be able to say something along the lines of "Like most Norman keeps, the White Tower was entered through the first floor", however as the White Tower is terraced into the side of a mound, ground floor and first floor aren't really meaningful designations (hence why the article uses entrance floor and upper floor). Basically, the entrance in Norman keeps was usually above ground and accessed via a wooden staircase so that in the event of an attack the defenders could remove the means of entry. I've just got to find a way of saying that. I don't think this edit makes things much clearer; I'll have to think about this one. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I just came up with a solution without realising it . Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I understand it. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

William Blake and The Tyger
I have removed the following from the article:

"This was where William Blake saw the tiger which may have inspired his poem The Tyger."

This is unsourced speculation and it seems uncertain if Blake had even seen a tiger in the flesh, although he had the opportunity. It would be great if someone could find a source, but I've been unable to and until one is provided this unfortunately doesn't belong in the article despite being interesting. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Article structure. What should go first: history or architecture?
When I was preparing the rewrite, my initial intention was to have the history section first and the architecture later on. However as the article developed, it became clear that it was going to be complex. Part of the history is not simply events at the castle but building work, and dealing with that in the history section led to confusion. Buildings could have passing mentions without much detail paragraphs apart. The solution was to put the architecture first; the section is more than simply a description of the castle but is also a potted history of the development of the complex, with each ward more or less representing a different phase of work with subsequent alterations mentioned. It wasn't exactly what I had envisaged as most readers will find the history more interesting that when things were built, but I think the layout is necessary. In any case, it's not a simple matter of swapping the sections round; the history section in part follows on from the architecture section and some careful rewording would be necessary if there were large-scale changes to the structure. Nev1 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. Very nice article, & how wise you are to resist the crap World Heritage Infobox! The lead is a tad short at 2 paras, and there is not much on tourism.  It has effectively been one of London's major tourist attractions for centuries, with the menagerie etc.  That the 1669 Crown Jewels were virtually all new, and much diminished, might be noted. More on the other executions might be added, if just a listy sentence or two.  No doubt Historic Royal Palace's website has visitor figures in a report somewhere - the huge price of admission might also be mentioned! In 1066 isn't "A series of Norman victories along the route intimidated the city leaders into yielding London without a fight" a bit misleading? I thought the last and biggest battle was very close at hand indeed, and a city siege just not the 11th century way of doing things; they went and fought outside.  A mention of the fairly recently opened medieval palace suite overlooking the river might be made - this is really rare in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the infobox box adds nothing that can't be better explained in a sentence (and it's just ugly). I'll bulk up the lead while the article's at GAC. I was surprised that so few executions had actually happened within the castle; the Tower acted more as a stop over place before the fateful moment. I'll see if I can manage a few more sentences. I think you make a good point about more being needed on tourism and the HRP website is probably the way to go. In fact I've sent an e-mail to them to ask in what ways they think the article needs changing. No reply yet, but it's only been two or three working days. Allen Brown does note that the Normans did not want a siege as it wasn't their type of warfare, but the city leaders didn't want one either and so capitulated. I think there was some fighting just to the south of London shortly before the city surrendered. I sympathise with Olegwiki's suggestion that the history should come first, but it just didn't work that way when I was writing it. It's not the usual way I write about castles, but I think it works. Realising after I'd started the rewrite created more work for me. Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions stats it is the 6th most visited site with 2,389,548 visitors in 2009. Descriptions of the Middle Tower and White Tower might also be useful.&mdash; Rod talk 15:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Officers
One thing this article seems to be missing, except en passant, is a discussion of the officers of the Tower. Besides the Constable of the Tower and the Lieutenant of the Tower, the establishment seems also to have included the (Gentleman) Porter, a physician, and the Yeoman Warders. There should be some discussion of the Tower's establishment, and officers of other branches of government housed in the Tower (the Master-Gunner, Master of the Jewel Office, and so on) should be linked where mentioned. Choess (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Constable and Lieutenant are of course mentioned, although the Yeoman Warders could do with another sentence or two. The Master of the Jewel Office could probably be integrated into the Crown Jewels section. The Wardrobe could be mentioned in a little more detail. Perhaps the Master Gunner and Gentleman Porter could be crammed in, but I'm not so sure. As for the physician, I'm not at all convinced. The problem is, there's a hell of a lot to say about the Tower; the important ones are covered but I think to dwell long on the others would bog down the article. It's already nearly 8,000 words long; while there is of course scope for enlargement as discussed above, I'm cautious about adding too much detail on something that is not especially interesting or important to the understanding of the Tower. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Great article. Any chance of adding a bit on Yeomen Warders? Also, do you have any information about the office of Lieutenant of the Tower? It would be great to explain the duties of these officers (and how they changed over the centuries). Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Quickie
"As was typical of most keeps,[14] the bottom floor was an undercroft used for storage One of the rooms contained a well."

That's probably just a missing full stop but it might also be an overlooked edit, or change. Could you check it out? Parrot of Doom 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a full stop going AWOL fortunately. Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)