Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Tichborne case

Tichborne case

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 1, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 09:56, 20 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Tichborne case, a Victorian legal cause célèbre, concerned the claim by an individual known as "the Claimant" to be the missing heir to the Tichborne baronetcy and fortune. The real Roger Tichborne disappeared after a shipwreck in 1854; later, rumours surfaced that he had survived and made his way to Australia. In 1866 a butcher called Thomas Castro from Wagga Wagga came forward claiming to be Roger Tichborne; he travelled to England where, despite his unrefined manners and bearing, he was accepted by Lady Tichborne as her son. Although other family members were unconvinced, the Claimant gained considerable public support. However, by 1871 evidence suggested that Castro was actually Arthur Orton, a butcher's son from Wapping in London, who had gone to sea as a boy. A civil case ended with charges of perjury against him, and in 1874 a criminal court jury decided that he was indeed Orton and sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment. He was released in 1884; in 1895 he confessed to being Orton, only to recant immediately. He died destitute in 1898. While most commentators accept that the Claimant was Orton, for some a slight possibility exists that, after all, he was Roger Tichborne.(Full article...)

Promoted 1+ years ago, nothing like it recently, unusual story. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great story. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. One of the more interesting criminal cases I've seen here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, certainly. Excellent stuff. Enjoyed reviewing it at the time of promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]