Talk:The Cenotaph

Comments

I've read through the article and have a few comments.

• (1) I have a copy of Lutyens and the Great War (2008) and have re-read the chapter on the Cenotaph (pages 37-47) and there is lots more that can be said. The current use of this reference gets the page numbers wrong and only uses it to cite one sentence in the article.
• (2) More also in Lutyens's Cenotaph, Allan Greenberg, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 5-23.
• (3) There is also a page at the National Archive, which may help with some pointers to elsewhere, even if it can't be used itself.
• (4) Despite numerous recent sources crediting the wording on the Cenotaph to Rudyard Kipling, there are also many sources (older and more reliable) that state that the wording on The Cenotaph came from Lloyd George. In Lutyens and the Great War, on page 42, it says that the wording was "supposedly suggested by Lloyd George". There are numerous other sources that state this as well. I'm not sure where the idea that it was Rudyard Kipling has come from. Kipling was literary advisor to the Imperial War Graves Commission and suggested and composed many of the inscriptions that they used, but this is not an IWGC/CWGC monument. If you search Lutyens, the work of the English architect Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869-1944), you will see that on page 48 the origin of the words is credited to Lloyd George.
• (5) One thing that could be added to the article immediately are the details of the unveiling in 1946 by King George VI after the dates of the Second World War were added.

I hope the above is useful. I'll try and help out where I can, but that should be enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Kipling word itself I think is probably suspicious. From what I can find from doing some searches he supposedly proposed some rather poetic words for another cenotaph and I think it might have been mixed up with the Whitehall one. Miyagawa (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that part of the sentence for now until we can be clear what is reliably verifiable and why more recent sources differ from the older sources. Would you be happy to change it to Lloyd George with a suitable source, or do we need to be sure that the more recent sources are not based on some recent scholarship that overturned the previous work? I doubt this would be the case, as the older sources appear to be based on the actual notes by Lutyens on the diagrams he drew, but it does need checking. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dissertation

Noting here a dissertation on the topic, which may or may not be suitable for inclusion in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Catafalque

Another (possibly non-free) picture of the Paris catafalque is here. That site also contains other pictures of that monument from various angles. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Union Jacks

Are the Union Jacks on the Cenotaph the civil/state flag (1:2) or the war flag (3:5)? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Is there an easy way to tell? It is intended to represent the British Army, and the Union Flag article states that in the war flag version "the innermost points of the lower left and upper right diagonals of the St Patrick's cross are cut off or truncated", but I can't see that difference in the images used there. Best thing to do is find out who is responsible for maintaining the flags and see if their instructions go into that level of detail. English Heritage have maintained the monument since 1999, but I'm not sure if they deal with the flag changing or not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As it is flown alongside the various ensigns, which have a theoretical ratio of 1:2 (a lengthy discussion of the actual ratio of the White Ensign is here), I strongly suspect that the Union Jack must also be 1:2 or it would stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Cenotaph in Middlesbrough?

In the replica section of Cenotaphs there is an exact replica of the London Centaph in Middlesbrough, England which I feel should be in this article. Tony (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Cenotaph, Middlesbrough. Thank-you for that. I have added a sentence to the article with two sources, one for the design (derived from Lutyens, not an exact copy) and one for the date of unveiling (that source includes a picture of the unveiling). Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Conservation

It was removed as not being a reliable source, but I think this (rescued and placed in external links for now) is a reliable source on a fascinating subject that would enhance the article if included. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I had to rescue this link again. Please ping me if links appear dead, as I am willing to go hunting for them if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cultural and social history

There will be huge numbers of mentions and longer writings on this topic in cultural history and social history books and similar sources (as well as the standard histories). It won't be easy to cover this aspect of things, but hopefully it will be possible. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just added Edkins (2003) and ter Schure (2019) to the bibliography as a starting point for examples of where the Cenotaph is used as case studies in such disciplines. The treatment of the philosophy of Henri Bergson might have to go into further reading if it is a bit too abtruse. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Photographs

Links to some photographs where it does not seem possible to upload them:

• Top of temporary cenotaph at IWM in 1926
• Money boxes made from the wood of the temporary cenotaph

Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Starting a discussion section for sources that should be used in the article (I've given what I think is the most recent edition). The first three are from a discussion on my talk page.

• Biographies of Lutyens
• Jay Winter, Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History, Cambridge University Press, 2014
• Ana Carden-Coyne, Reconstructing the Body: Classicism, Modernism, and the First World War, Oxford University Press, 2009

Bit of trivia, while rummaging around Wikipedia articles, I found a reference to the Cenotaph in the film Jackboots on Whitehall (no, I'd never heard of it before either). Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Story of the Grave of the Unknown Warrior, blog post on Heritage Calling (by Historic England). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Cenotaph poem by Charlotte Mew

A fair amount has been written about the poem 'The Cenotaph' by Charlotte Mew. Not sure where is the best place to have a summary of that? Either its own article, or in Mew's article, and maybe a bit here? Several pages on the poem are in The Remembered Dead: Poetry, Memory and the First World War (2018) from page 119 onwards. There is lots of other commentary on this poem as well. So it would be possible to flesh out the bare bones of what is currently in this article, but am wary of putting too much in - there is also a need to balance the coverage (lots will have been written about the other poems as well, especially Sasson's anti-war poem). Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree we definitely need to at least mention the most significant representations in the arts, but we don't want to bog this article down with detail. There might even be scope for a daughter article or list, like cultural representations of the Cenotaph or the Cenotaph in culture or list of artistic representations of the Cenotaph, depending on how much material there is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

BLM Vandalism

https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/police-dispel-rumours-cenotaph-being-18360724

Apparently the vandalism didn't actually happen. Is this a reputable source, and can anyone find the quote from the Met about it? Amekyras (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Cenotaph and Unknown Warrior

I just found this in Bryan, Rachel (February 2021). "Unlived Lives, Imaginary Widowhood and Elizabeth Bowen's A World of Love". The Review of English Studies. 72 (303): 129–146. doi:10.1093/res/hgaa043. which perhaps could be worked into the article somewhere appropriate: "Writing to the architect Edwin Lutyens, who had been responsible for the Cenotaph’s design, David Lloyd George outlined why the British public had been given these two distinct centres towards which to direct their grief: ‘The Cenotaph’, he observed, ‘is the token of our mourning as a nation; the Grave of the Unknown Warrior is the token of our mourning as individuals’" which in turn is cited to "David Lloyd George, ‘Letter to Edwin Lutyens, 17 November 1920’, quoted in Hanson, Unknown Soldier, 462." DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill, just what I need, more reading material! ;) Thanks for raising it. There's definitely more to say about the Cenotaph and the Unknown Warrior. I'll probably work it in as I continue with the expansion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I've worked in a reference to it now. I'm still working on the article, but that gets it in and gets that paper into the bibliography. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks, I thought it captured something meaningful about the two and their relationship. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

More on Unknown Warrior and unveiling of Cenotaph

(Following up a talk page ping.) Just quickly adding (to follow on from the above section): the current treatment of the unveiling of the Cenotaph doesn't quite capture how the event was tightly bound up with the burial of the Unknown Warrior. If you read the account at The Unknown Warrior, the unveiling of the Cenotaph is depicted as part of the overall funeral procession. But this article (about the Cenotaph), doesn't quite strike the same tone. The Salisbury painting captures this well. No other specific suggestions, other than to say thanks for including the Edkins reference. I thought the 'ter Schure' reference might be too obscure. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have another look at that. I've tried to focus on events as they affected the Cenotaph and not go too much into detail that is (or should be) in other places, like the Unknown Warrior's article, because I'm conscious that this article is already 6,000 words, but there's obviously more to say here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Bergson and History (Leon ter Schure, 2019)

An excerpt (the introduction) from Bergson and History is here. It does seem too abstract, but Leon ter Schure does explain what he intended with his chapter 1 ('The Case of the London Cenotaph'), which is described as an "evaluation of a current debate in the philosophy of history", where the author makes the claim:

that the Cenotaph succeeded in turning the past into a 'disquieting presence' [that] interrupted the official narrative of the war.

As I said above, maybe this tidbit on Henri Bergson may only be suitable for further reading? I've tried to obtain a copy of the work to assess it further, but have not managed it yet (free samples only give part of the chapter). Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have just found I do have access to this book (I have a subscription to the Perlego library). I will skim-read it now... It is... interesting (but doesn't appear vital). Will need to read in a bit more detail later! Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

To be meaningful and make sense, should not the quote read that events at the Cenotaph 'succeeded in turning the past into a quiet presence that supports the official narrative of war'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.122 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hardly, as that would appear to be the opposite of the point the quote is making. KJP1 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, in what respect did the "Cenotaph succeeded in turning the past into a 'disquieting presence' [that] interrupted the official narrative of the war"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.122 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You would need the full source to understand that. But, to be clear, we reflect what the sources say - we don’t argue with them. KJP1 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Less attacking, more attempting to highlight the true meaning of the quote. To be clear, does not saying that the "Cenotaph succeeded in turning the past into a 'disquieting presence' [that] interrupted the official narrative of the war" suggest that the state event is in some way anti-govt - when the Remembrance Service is clearly a state-driven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Carcharoth - to be frank, I’m not sure I understand what the quote “means”. I think we would need to read around it, to understand, and to convey, the author’s intent. I can’t do that, as I don’t have access to the source. But I’ve pinged Carcharoth, who does, and they may be able to help. KJP1 (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I am a bit late (as usual) to this (the IP who commented above may sadly never see this), and I no longer have full access to the source, but I do remember that it was, well, abtruse is a fair comment I think. I have just now re-read the chapter on a Google Books preview. The author's key argument is that the Cenotaph's mode of commemoration is as metonym rather than metaphor. By 'official narrative of the war', the author is referring to the (still ongoing) debate between modernist and traditional historians (those are the terms the author uses) as to whether the aftermath of the First World War saw a fundamental break from pre-war society, or whether there were elements of continuity that the official narratives obscured. I can see why the author used the Cenotaph as a case study. The "disquieting effect" comes up mainly in the author's discussion of the views of Eelco Runia who wrote about the Cenotaph in his 2014 work Moved by the Past: Discontinuity and Historical Mutation [(European Perspectives: A Series in Social Thought and Cultural Criticism.) New York: Columbia University Press] (see for example, the review here). The disquieting effect comes from the "juxtaposition of contexts" arising from the transposition of the deaths in the trenches to the patriotism of the peace parade in the centre of London. The author (ter Schure) also quotes from works by Jenny Edkins and Jay Winter. Which is to say (as at the beginning of this section) the Cenotaph has indeed featured in a "debate in the philosophy of history" (the really abtruse discussions of Bergson come later in the book).Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Origins

Harry - It’s looking good. Somewhere, but I can’t remember where just now, there’s a book reference, with illustration, to Lutyens’ original sketch - on a napkin? It’s probably Vita Sackville-West, given her mother’s connection with Lutyens, and I think I came across it when doing Sissinghurst. I’ll try to dig it out this weekend. I’ve unfortunately not got time to pick up the GA in full, but will be delighted to read it through and lob in any thoughts. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Saluting the Cenotaph

Just a quick note to point out that the two funeral processions for the Queen in central London both have routes that include going past the Cenotaph on Whitehall. In the first one (on Wednesday 14 September), the news media picked up on the fact that those in uniform saluted as they passed the Cenotaph, but those not in uniform gave a different response, as reported in 'The Independent': "This rule also meant that Prince Harry and Andrew bowed their heads while passing the Cenotaph, a war memorial on Whitehall, during the procession, rather than saluting like their family members in uniform.".

Depending on who is in the second procession (on Monday 19 September) going from Westminster to Hyde Park Corner, there will be similar observances. This is not a suggestion to put this topic in this article (arguably it is not 'encyclopedic' as was discussed in the FAC nomination), but noting it here. It is possible it may get mentioned in articles relating to the funeral, but possibly not. Carcharoth (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Just adding here that there was a very touching moment when the Queen's funeral cortege passed the Cenotaph when all the standards (of veteran organisations I think) were lowered to the ground. There is a short article and photo here (the tribute was organised by the Royal British Legion). Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent far right march

Recentism or not, this event has been widely covered by reliable sources and widely condemned by public figures. It's practically the british equivalent of the Charlottesville march. There has to be enough coverage to warrant its own article. Wikipedia regularly reports on recent events as they develop. Why is there not a single mention of this one? 46.97.170.46 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's worth a passing mention along with the various other protests that have taken place at and around the Cenotaph over its lifetime. I'll try and work something in, but I'm thinking a sentence or two at the end of the paragraph about protests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of a good idea it is to classify a violent far right riot, defined by clashes with the police and antisemitic hate crimes as "a protest", and put it in the same category as every other event. It strikes me as WP:FALSEBALANCE. 46.97.170.46 (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added a sentence. I don't think we need more than that but if you think it can be improve on, feel free. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Correction regarding 1923 Abbey/Cenotaph services

@HJ Mitchell and KJP1: as most recently active on this talk page (though obviously anyone else watching and reading as well). I was reading through the article again, and noticed that one of the final sentences of the 'Appreciation' section is possible slightly ambiguous. It currently reads:

"the Church even petitioned for Armistice Day ceremonies to be held in Westminster Abbey rather than at the Cenotaph in 1923, but the proposal was rejected after it met with widespread public opposition."

While this may technically be correct, the reader may think that this means that no service was held in the Abbey in 1923 on Armistice Day (when there very much was an Abbey service held then as part of an established tradition) - i.e. the (rejected-by-public-outcry) proposal was to move the focus from the Cenotaph to the Abbey by abandoning the Cenotaph ceremony, as opposed to replacing the Cenotaph ceremony with an Abbey ceremony. This is clearly laid out here (a delightful transcript courtesy of The National Archives of a memorandum from William Joynson-Hicks, Home Secretary, in 1928 (10th anniversary of the Armistice) concerning the BBC and commemoration of the Armistice). In that document, the following is said (apologies for the extensive quote):

"In 1923 when Armistice Day fell on a Sunday it was first decided that there should be no religious ceremony at the Cenotaph and that the King, attended by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, should be present at a special service in Westminster Abbey, His Majesty depositing a wreath on the tomb of the Unknown Warrior. So soon as the proposed arrangements were announced in the press there was so much public outcry at the abandonment of the service at the Cenotaph that the decision had to be reconsidered and eventually two services were held- the main service at Westminster Abbey at which The King and The Queen were present and a subsidiary service at the Cenotaph at which His Majesty was represented by The Prince of Wales. My own feeling is that the procedure adopted in 1923 was somewhat of a mistake and it would be better this year to observe Armistice Day in the customary manner, the main ceremony taking place at the Cenotaph on the usual lines with a special service in Westminster Abbey attended as in ordinary years by representative Service detachments. An alternative suggestion would be that The King, the Cabinet and others taking part in the usual short service at the Cenotaph should proceed at the conclusion of the Silence to a second service in the Abbey."

Given that, should the wording be slightly tweaked in this (Wikipedia) article to make the sequence of events a bit clearer for reader around the tension between Abbey and Cenotaph at that time in 1923? Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, @Carcharoth, and great to see you around. I'll have a look at this tomorrow or the weekend but I'm sure we can tweak the wording. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I gave it some thought and I made a tweak. See what you think when you have a moment. I'm sure there's room for improvement in the wording. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)