How reliable is Jonathan Coad's description of Dover Castle in the 17th century?

Authors Avatar by reecebucklehotmailcouk (student)

Reece Buckle

Jonathans Coad’s interpretation of Dover Castle is that it was left neglected in the 17th century, which was also unusual. I agree with this. However, it’s still a hard decision based on the lack of the information given on Dover Castle in this time period, except Coad’s interpretation itself. Coad, who works for English Heritage, does have an authority in what he says, due to English Heritage specialising in English history. However, his interpretation may have been exaggerated when it’s ‘neglect’ was described as an ‘anomaly’. This is because his interpretation was merely a snapshot point primarily used for a tourist guide book. This is much different in comparison to William Batcheller, who has written several full academic books also based on Dover Castle.

Join now!

In Batcheller’s descriptive picture of Dover Castle’s Church, it describes 'the arms of Lucius' becoming ‘effaced by time.’ However, the arms of Lucius which were once part of a ‘magnificent church’ clearly became less important over time, suggested by the neglect. This proves that the neglect of Dover Castle, and its grounds, in the 17th century might not have been an 'anomaly' as described. And maybe it was only adapting for new and different uses e.g. becoming a prison. In fact, Coad contradicted himself at this point. He stated that Dover Castle was also used as 'prison well into ...

This is a preview of the whole essay