Talk:Cock Lane ghost

In the Fanny section

"He listened to the couple's plight and was sympathetic, offering them the use of lodgings in his home at what (in 1965) was 20 Cock Lane, to the north of St Sepulchre's."

Is that supposed to say "(in 1965)"? I see in the history it was changed to 1765 last night, but reverted at some point. It doesn't seem to make sense. Also, having the parentheses placed there seems wrong regardless. Should probably be "... in his home at (what was in [whatever year]) 20 Cock Lane." I'm not sure such a clarification needs to be there at all, though. Lara 15:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The property wasn't numbered in the 1700s, but by 1965 it was identified as number 20. It no longer exists. Parrot of Doom 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, is the number really relevant? The inclusion of a modern date is confusing. Would it not be acceptable to have it simply read "his home on Cock Lane"? Lara 20:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've bumped this down to "Legacy" with some clearer context, and have dug up a source for the building's demolition in 1979. --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

April Fool

Fanny scratching? Cock Lane? Is this an April Fool's joke? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Dthomsen8, this is today's feature article, and the misleading intro in its description on the main page is in rather poor taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.38.55 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No - the article is true - and has passed the difficult test of becoming a featured article. As far as we know, everything in the article is absolutely true. The only thing that's (slightly) special is that the intro on the main page was worded so as to lead one to believe that it's a fake. Everything on the Wikipedia front page is true...even on April 1st. SteveBaker (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the article content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.38.55 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, sometimes we have to give a little to those with a sense of humor. It's good to have fun now and then. Lara 20:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is an article about the alleged ghost of a woman called Fanny, scratching, on a street that was probably the site of a cockpit, in poor taste? You'll have to explain that one to me. Richerman (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, well, scratch a fanny find a cockpit. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Came here to point this out. Feel a little late to the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Questions/comments

An excellent article on a fascinating piece of history, my congratulations to the authors, but I have a few questions/comments:

• Presumably the "Lady Northumberland" mentioned is Elizabeth Percy, Duchess of Northumberland? (In 1761, she was Baroness Percy in her own right, and Countess of Northumberland; her husband became a Duke in 1766).
• No doubt "usurer" was the term used at the time, but perhaps today we would call him something like a loan shark?
• We don't seem to have an article on the right John Moore (only a few listed there have the right dates, but this one was apparently rector of St Bartholomew-the-Great - very close to Cock Lane - from 1761 until his death in 1768). The article states unequivocally that he was a Methodist, and talks at length about the spiritual beliefs and "credulity" of Methodists. But, as I understand it, Methodism in England at this time was a strand of belief within the Church of England. John Wesley himself maintained that his movement was within the bounds of the broad church, and Moore was rector at an Anglican church. The Methodists only separated themselves properly as a nonconformist denomination after Wesley's death in 1791.
• Is Thomas Broughton one of Thomas Broughton (divine) (1712–1777) or Thomas Broughton (writer) (1704-1774)? Probably the former, who was born and educated in Oxford, where he was influenced by the early Methodists, and was later secretary to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge from 1741 until his death. The writer was born in London, went to Eton and Cambridge, and seems to have been in Bristol from the 1740s.
• The article on Hogarth's Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism could be linked.
• The Lord Chief Justice (that is, Chief Justice of the Kings Bench) William Murray did not become 1st Earl of Mansfield until 1776, so was not "Lord Mansfield" in 1762.
• Is Cock Lane really "adjacent" to Smithfield? You could say that it is in the area of London known as Smithfield, but it is some tens of metres south of modern Smithfield Market, with another road and other buildings in between, and south of the open area that was used as the market before that.
• Was Richard Parsons a clerk (choral)? If he was officiating at a service, perhaps he was a clerk in holy orders?
• Some sources call the public house at 25 West Smithfield the "Wheatsheaf" (one word) rather than the "Wheat Sheaf" - is this the right place? Which is the right spelling?
• Bartlett's Court (if the one with the double "t" is the same place as the "Bartlet's Court" mentioned in the article) was some distance to the west, south of Holborn, between Bartlett's Buildings and Thavies Inn. There is still a "Bartlett's Passage" between Fetter Lane and New Fetter Lane, just north of New Street Square.
• Could "Alderman Gosling" be the bookseller Sir Francis Gosling (alas, no article), alderman of Farringdon Without and partner with his brother Robert Gosling (not him) in Goslings Bank (shortly to be joined by George Clive, cousin of Clive of India).

No doubt most of these can be resolved from the references already used in the article, or ignored if irrelevant. I don't mean to be critical, just to make sure that this article is as good as it could be. -- Testing times (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You make some excellent points but unfortunately I'm a little inebriated right now, so I'll have to get back to you tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bwaaahaha, so they did you in, did they? Mostly linking issues, but glad to see productive commentary above. Hope you don't have a hangover :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hangovers are for the weak. Nev1 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've linked Lady Northumberland. Usurer is IIRC the word used by several sources so I'll not change that (Grant said he "may have dabbled" in usury). I've changed the text so that Moore has "methodistical" tendencies, as Grant says similar. Broughton is indeed the former link so thanks for that. I've linked Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism (what an awful article that is). Good point about Mansfield, I've fixed that.

I don't know if Cock Lane is adjacent, that description existed before I started work on the article. What do you think?

I don't know what kind of clerk Parsons was, perhaps someone with ecclesiastical expertise can offer advice there.

Ping Gimmetrow or Ealdgyth? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wheat Sheaf" is the name used by Grant, the primary source for this article, and he places it in quotes so presumably he's taken that from a contemporary source.

I'm unfamiliar with the geography of London so perhaps someone can help with the exact location of Bartlet's court?

As far as I can tell Grant only uses "Alderman Gosling". I've done a quick search for contemporary sources but haven't found anything else.

Thanks very much for your help, and if you spot anything else like this please do let me know! Parrot of Doom 09:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to everyone who has worked on this article - it has been the most-viewed article of 2011 so far, with over 222,000 views on 1 April. This makes it the eighth most-viewed Today's Featured Article since we began tracking statistics in December 2007. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics for how it compares with other Today's Featured Articles, and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed for the all-time list. Prioryman (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Who said sex doesn't sell? Not that there was any hint of it...was there? Bob talk 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A strange postscript?

I've just read a fairly bowdlerised account of this case in an old paperback, "Famous Historical Mysteries" by Leonard Gribble, published in the 1970's. Gribble adds an interesting epilogue to this story: many years later (he claims) the vault at St John's Clerkenwell was cleared and many of the coffins removed. Some of the coffins were opened & their contents inspected - including the coffin of Fanny Lynes. Her corpse was discovered to be surprisingly well preserved, with little decomposition and showed no signs of the smallpox which supposedly killed her. A medical examination of the corpse was therefore ordered - and concluded that she had, after all, died of arsenic poisoning (suggesting the 'ghost' had been telling the truth)- the arsenic had preserved the corpse.

Sadly Gribble gives no references for this - so I wondered whether the author of this Wikipedia article knew of this claim & whether or not it is supported by fact? (and if so, whether it's worthy of mention in the article?) Butcherscross (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm stretching my memory here but I remember reading about this and am reasonably sure it's nonsense. I'll check my sources. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick! Thanks, Parrot, I'd be interested to hear your findings! Butcherscross (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Grant (1965), The Cock Lane Ghost, page 3 - "Whether or not the coffin Archer opened was really the one Carlyle imagined Dr. Johnson as tapping on we cannot know. The coffin of the Cock Lane woman never bore a name, and shortly after Archer's visit, in 1860, the vaults were closed for burials and put into decent order, and the coffins were cleared away, hers among the rest." Unfortunately the book doesn't have an index but I'm pretty sure that's all it has to say on the matter, since the final chapter is only 2-3 pages long and comes straight after the Pillorying of Parsons. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So Gribble's conclusion is probably just an elaborated urban legend, then. What a shame - would have given the story a nice twist, had it been true! :-) Thanks for your speedy & helpful replies! Butcherscross (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Grant's book is 45 years old now so it may well be out of date, but it's the most modern source I have on the subject. It may be the case that Gribble found a new document that casts light on Grant's hypothesis but if I were a betting man, I'd say that your observation is probably correct.

Maybe someone will write a new book on the subject, after all, I don't think the story has lost its attraction. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not proven fraud

Elizabeth Parsons was caught engaging in fraud only once, and that was on the night that she was told that unless the ghost manifested that night, her parents were going to prison. That is strong motivation for fraud, even if it had never been committed previously. In addition, the witnesses that night commented that the raps sounded different than they ever had before---they sounded like they were coming from Elizabeth's bed, whereas always before, they had emanated from around the room. Given these facts, I believe that it's erroneous to claim that this case has been proven fraudulent, and although I know that it is common (but erroneous) to state that it was, I object to it in this article. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:CDE6:F417:35D9:A70E (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source supporting your viewpoint? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Wilson, Colin, "Poltergeist! A Study In Destructive Haunting", London, New English Library, 1981

The book has an extensive bibliography, but only one title specifically refers to the Cock Lane ghost: Grant, Douglas, "The Cock Lane Ghost", London, Toronto, and New York, Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1965.

It states in this very article that the only time Elizabeth Parsons was caught in fraud was the night she was told that unless there were knockings that night, she and her father would be committed to Newgate Prison. Of course, having been told that, she made sure there were knockings that night. Poltergeists don't perform on command, she knew that, and she was not willing to take the chance.

The fact that they don't perform on command was the only other so-called "evidence" for fraud. At times, the knocking didn't happen when people wanted it to. That doesn't prove the case was fraud or a hoax.

This was not a hoax. It was a poltergeist. That, of course, does not mean that the phenemona were caused by the deceased Fanny Lynes and it does not mean that the allegations made against William Kent were true. Poltergeists, in the cases in which they have communicated with humans, have not been known to be truthful. Poltergeists are trouble-makers. This poltergeist was particularly and wildly successful at creating trouble for its victim, Richard Parsons. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:A830:DB06:CBB1:B81A (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)