Sign In
Register
Help
My Own Research
In the process of building now
Other areas of the site
Other
Posted 25 November 2005 - 09:53 AM
Quote
Posted here by Gordon
(AKA wurdsmiff in his other life)
Ah the age old discussion. Ladies and gentlemen, may I refer you to a discussion which extended over several threads in my previous existence, where both Ralph and I were involved, and I may just have been persuaded to change my position slightly.
http://www.castleson...TML/000054.html
http://www.castleson...TML/000020.html
and then there was this!
http://www.castleson...TML/000021.html
The point is that even well educated castleologists or whatever they should be called, or enthusiastic amateurs, cannot agree on a definition. What is agreed is that
1. A castle is first and foremost a home.
2. It is the home of a landowner.
3. It is a statement of rank.
4. it should be defendable....but to what degree?
Given the plethora of Victorian 'Castles' which adorn this country of mine, I'd say that the castle should be a building built with defensive intent, and that whatever feature it posesses to make it defendable, be it a moat, a portcullis, or even a single gunloop guarding a door, it must have been functional, and intended to be used if under threat.
The Bodiam question puzzled even Marc Morris in his book and TV series 'Castle'.
Morris spent a whole chapter discussing Bodiam, and arguing that because of it's flimsy defences it could only reasonably be defined as a mansion (albeit in the style of a castle). However Bodiam is accepted as a castle by so many people, that Morris in the end (and ending book and series with the point) that no one could or ever produced a definition of a castle which is accepted by all , and concluded that if someone built something, and believed and intended that it be called a castle, then it was. Bodiam was called a castle when it was built, therefore it is a castle, because although it had no serious defensive intent, that is what it's builder called it in a time when castles were still being built, he had gone to the trouble of gaining a license to crenellate a weak building so that he could call it a castle, why?........because it was important to proclaim his status within society as a castle owner, one of the higher eschelon of society, and in this case defensive seriousness was not intended.
"Bodiam then, might talk tough, but it would not have been much good in a real fight. It is a castle that is more concerned with dazzling us with it's good looks than it is with keeping us out." Marc Morris.
It surrendered easily to the yorkists because the occupants knew it could not withstand any serious attack. It looked like a castle, It was called a castle, it had a licence from the King which allowed it to be called so, but it was indefensible. It's defenses were a charade. Morris concluded that a castle was whatever it's builder intended it to be, and principally it was a statement of rank, a status symbol, and everything else took second place.
..if on the other hand we pay less to our own definitions, and ask what contemporaries thought, then the problem disappears. Edward Dallingridge clearly believed he had built a castle, and more importantly, so did his contemporaries. It hardly mattered to them whether or not Bodiam's defences worked. The fact that it had them was enough." Marc Morris.
McLean in his more recent book 'The Scottish Chateau' takes an architects view of what a castle should be and argues that defensive capability is necessary. Based on this, and his arguments that many buildings generally perceived to be castles in SCotland, were not, since closer examination of the buildings, and their defensive features, illustrate that they were not. Gunloops inserted over doors to guard access, non-functional because they were never open to accept a barrel, or because the elevation of the loop was such that it would only have been good for shooting seagulls. Hence the title of his book, he resorts to the traditional childs quadrilateral crenellated structure with moat etc to define castles, and attempts to exclude 95% of Scottish castles as chateaux, mansions in the style of castle built as status symbols in the style of castles.
Edzell, Tolquhon, Huntly, and a host of other well known Scottish Castles become fancy mansions built in the style of castles because in the Scottish psyche at the time of building, a castle meant power, a big hoose didnae!
I don't necessarily agree with McLean, because castles were built with differing degrees of defensibility dependant upon affordability and most likely threat ( siege by invading army, or to protect against a small band of fast moving but lightly armed raiders), but I do agree with both of the guys mentioned above, the primary function of a castle was as a statement of rank.
(AKA wurdsmiff in his other life)
Ah the age old discussion. Ladies and gentlemen, may I refer you to a discussion which extended over several threads in my previous existence, where both Ralph and I were involved, and I may just have been persuaded to change my position slightly.
http://www.castleson...TML/000054.html
http://www.castleson...TML/000020.html
and then there was this!
http://www.castleson...TML/000021.html
The point is that even well educated castleologists or whatever they should be called, or enthusiastic amateurs, cannot agree on a definition. What is agreed is that
1. A castle is first and foremost a home.
2. It is the home of a landowner.
3. It is a statement of rank.
4. it should be defendable....but to what degree?
Given the plethora of Victorian 'Castles' which adorn this country of mine, I'd say that the castle should be a building built with defensive intent, and that whatever feature it posesses to make it defendable, be it a moat, a portcullis, or even a single gunloop guarding a door, it must have been functional, and intended to be used if under threat.
The Bodiam question puzzled even Marc Morris in his book and TV series 'Castle'.
Morris spent a whole chapter discussing Bodiam, and arguing that because of it's flimsy defences it could only reasonably be defined as a mansion (albeit in the style of a castle). However Bodiam is accepted as a castle by so many people, that Morris in the end (and ending book and series with the point) that no one could or ever produced a definition of a castle which is accepted by all , and concluded that if someone built something, and believed and intended that it be called a castle, then it was. Bodiam was called a castle when it was built, therefore it is a castle, because although it had no serious defensive intent, that is what it's builder called it in a time when castles were still being built, he had gone to the trouble of gaining a license to crenellate a weak building so that he could call it a castle, why?........because it was important to proclaim his status within society as a castle owner, one of the higher eschelon of society, and in this case defensive seriousness was not intended.
"Bodiam then, might talk tough, but it would not have been much good in a real fight. It is a castle that is more concerned with dazzling us with it's good looks than it is with keeping us out." Marc Morris.
It surrendered easily to the yorkists because the occupants knew it could not withstand any serious attack. It looked like a castle, It was called a castle, it had a licence from the King which allowed it to be called so, but it was indefensible. It's defenses were a charade. Morris concluded that a castle was whatever it's builder intended it to be, and principally it was a statement of rank, a status symbol, and everything else took second place.
..if on the other hand we pay less to our own definitions, and ask what contemporaries thought, then the problem disappears. Edward Dallingridge clearly believed he had built a castle, and more importantly, so did his contemporaries. It hardly mattered to them whether or not Bodiam's defences worked. The fact that it had them was enough." Marc Morris.
McLean in his more recent book 'The Scottish Chateau' takes an architects view of what a castle should be and argues that defensive capability is necessary. Based on this, and his arguments that many buildings generally perceived to be castles in SCotland, were not, since closer examination of the buildings, and their defensive features, illustrate that they were not. Gunloops inserted over doors to guard access, non-functional because they were never open to accept a barrel, or because the elevation of the loop was such that it would only have been good for shooting seagulls. Hence the title of his book, he resorts to the traditional childs quadrilateral crenellated structure with moat etc to define castles, and attempts to exclude 95% of Scottish castles as chateaux, mansions in the style of castle built as status symbols in the style of castles.
Edzell, Tolquhon, Huntly, and a host of other well known Scottish Castles become fancy mansions built in the style of castles because in the Scottish psyche at the time of building, a castle meant power, a big hoose didnae!
I don't necessarily agree with McLean, because castles were built with differing degrees of defensibility dependant upon affordability and most likely threat ( siege by invading army, or to protect against a small band of fast moving but lightly armed raiders), but I do agree with both of the guys mentioned above, the primary function of a castle was as a statement of rank.
************
First'st link
************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prompted by the question about which has more castles Britain or Germany and by people give answers which included estimated numbers I was wondering if there can be a definition of what a castle is?
Is a temporary seige work, like the motte near Corfe Castle, a castle (I presume it would be recorded on the OS map as a motte)? Is Maiden Castle Dorset a castle? http://www.english-h...ex.asp?mkey=149 Is Burgh Castle in Norfolk? http://www.english-h...ex.asp?mkey=149 Is Fillingham Castle? http://www.lincsheri...ey/gateway.html
I have my own feeling about these but without giving some idea of what is meant by castle the mention of numbers is fairly meaningless. My own view is that it is likely the the privated fortified residences of Lords (including the monarch and ecclesiastics and also including individuals who's domains were small) built in England is between 1000 and 1500. I also feel that some remains exist of almost all of these castles although not always recognised as such. An example of a possible unrecognised seige work/castle was spotted last year by The Royal Commission for Historic Monuments' Stewart Ainsworth whilst working on Time Team television programme (see his comments on the bottom of the page http://www.rchme.gov.../ttplympton.htm .)
I know there is no definate answer to this but
I am interested in what other castle buffs think?
Geoff
Senior Member posted 07-24-99 04:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to agree with your definition. One cannot be prescriptive about such things as like many words, the term 'castle' is slowly broadening to take on more general meanings.
However, in the medieval, historical sense of the word, I would define a castle as a fortified structure which usually had a residential function (even though the accomodation may have been used on an irregular basis). To my mind castles are also inseperable from feudal society.
Of course the nature of medieval castles and their functions changed over time from the timber functionality of early Norman structures to the palatial castles of the late medieval period, the defences of which were more apparent than real.
As to temporary structures, one can argue that mottes erected during periods of warfare can be accepted as 'castles' if they fulfilled the same basic functions as a more permanent castle.
Many other features ranging from Iron Age forts to mansions have the word 'castle' in their names, but they do not have the characteristics I have described. As essentially feudal structures, castles are found across Europe and I would also include those in Japan. In North America on the other hand, the term is used in a different sense to my understanding of the word.
This is only a very general answer to your question. One can scarcely do justice to such an enormous subject in so few words and no doubt others will have their own opinions on the matter.
Geoff.
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 09-18-99 03:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A castle by my definition in part agrees with your own in that some form of defensive feature must exist and that it must have formed a residence of some sort. I would not agree that it has to be the residence of a lord, a simple fortified house suffices, though I would agree that by reason of cost only those with enough finance could build a 'Castle'. To widen the discussion, my definition would exclude Edinburgh Castle which in modern times represents a military installation rather than a home, however did provide accomodation for the scottish Royal family and their representatives. A similar dilemma exists at Dumbarton, where only minimal remains survive of the original Royal castle. They are included in my definition if you argue that the military resided within. I tend to accept castles as such when ( in Scotland at any rate) they were built during the period that defensive features were necessary, and exixted. That period faded out toward the end of the 17th century as far as private houses were concerned. This includes the more ancient motte and bailley castles common here, and in a wider sense the Brochs of the Picts. There is so much variance in design, and many 'transitional houses', i.e. mansions with minimal defensive ability, that I define a castle by the presence of a single defensive feature. However if by chance a building was designed in an L-Plan for example, simply for architectural raesons, and not intentionally as a means of defence, then I would exclude it. I do not include within my lists the many large Georgian and Victorian mansions which simply include the title castle in the name. There must be or have been an earlier fortified structure on site. There is a style of architecture in Scotland known as 'Scots Baronial' which includes many castle features. however these were added purely for decorative purposes, and so such buildings are excluded.
Wurdsmiff
************
2'd link
************
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-15-99 05:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referring back to the discussion line 'What is a Castle?', can you really build a castle?
I live in a castle. It was built by a well known Scottish house builder in 1997. It has all the modern conveniences, three bedrooms, en-suite wc, bathroom, shower, central heating, double glazing etc. It's not really a castle, but to me it is, with a little imagination. It is my home, it has security features such as locks on the doors, burglar alarm, security lighting, and my desire to protect my property from unwelcome visitors. But these are to deter intruders, not true defensive features. It could not deter a siege. If I were to build such features into the house they could be fully functional, but who would want to besiege it?, and if a war broke out, could it withstand modern weaponry? The answer is of course no, and the whole thing would be pointless unless it were done simply to enhance my imagination, and a desire to live in a fantasy world where the atmosphere and history were derived from my own thoughts and escapism.
The point is that if a castle were to be built nowadays, complete with functional features such as gunloops, machiolations, ditches, etc. it would be a mock castle rather than a true castle. The most important feature which could not be replaced is a true history. Events from the past or the atmosphere generated by them cannot be replaced, and this is what makes a castle so interesting. These places actually stood through the events we find so stimulating, or were built with the intention that they would. We cannot replace that.
So can we really build a castle? the answer must be no.
As an alternative, my suggestion to would be castle builders is, why attempt what you cannot achieve? Why not renovate the genuine article and achieve a sense of realism? You would be doing a great service to world heritage and preserving what inspired you in the first place, allowing future generations to appreciate what otherwise is a disappearing resource.
It is also more likely to be more viable from an economic point of view. In reselling a renovation you are selling history, and that has a high price. In reselling a mock castle you are selling your own fantasy, how many would pay for that?
I hope not to have destroyed anyones dreams, but to have inspired those of you with the finance to adopt a much more worthwhile cause.
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-16-99 11:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several good reasons why someone might want to build a brand new 'castle' rather than restore an existing ruin.
Firstly if you live in Alaska, for example, there are no medieval castles to restore and it seems unreasonable to move to another country.
Secondly if, like me, you wish to build a castle of a particular design the chance of finding a restorable castle are less. There are very few restorable Norman square keeps around and none likely to be on the market.
Thirdly contemporary needs my make a restored castle inappropriate. If your swimming pool is going to be an ugly cabuncle on the face of a old castle it may well be better to build a new 'castle' where it can be incorporated in a pleasing manner.
Personal if I had the money and Castle Hedingham was on the market I'd buy it rather than build new, but I don't feel I can suggest that everyone should do this.
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
duncan
Senior Member posted 11-23-99 01:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a CASTLE builder, I agree with Philip.
A castles history starts, I believe, with its conception. Ours won't see the history that others have, but it will exist through as interesting of times.
SELL? You would be surprised at the amount of people who are interested in buying. But for us that has never been an option.
FANTASY? You might check Trevor Hayward's post of 8-10-99 He owns castle Leven. His home page is http://www.kirkburn.com/castleleven/
index.htm
MOCK? The stone, building materials, and timber framing going into ours also made up the construction of what you refer to as real castles.
There are many reasons to build or renovate a castle. Business, history, or the joy of living in one are just a few.
Every day, a small or large item comes along that is added to make our project more authentic. We have no interest in makeing a mock castle, but in preserving the traditions and many of the arts and crafts of the past that has almost been lost. {You can check some of my other posts to learn more}. When our CASTLE gets further along and time allows I'll bring our web site on line and we hope then that we can help those with questions more than we are able to now.
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-24-99 03:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I appreciate what you say about building your castle to suit your own needs, and I have said elsewhere that I would not deny anyone the right to build their own 'Castle', I still believe that to be a true castle a building has to be built primarily for defence, and have excluded hundreds of such buildings from my lists on this tenet. There are authentic structures crumbling all over the world which could be adapted ,and again I repeat what I have said elsewhere that I believe it would be a worthwhile exercise to transport these if there were no other option (since by that stage we would be losing them).
If you want a large feature such as a pool it could be put in an authentic looking outbuilding, whilst preserving the appearance of the original structure.
I am familiar with Levan's site, indeed I have written about his home, and I applaud everything he has done, because he has saved a crumbling ruin which the rest of us will be able to admire for years to come. Indeed he proves my point, since he has a genuine castle which meets his needs. He has adapted it without destroying it.
Mock? Historically Castles were structures which were built to be defended. The term moved on to be used in large houses which were adapted, extended or replacements of such places. But there began a fashion of naming large new build houses by the term 'Castle' despite the fact that they were not truly defensive structures. It was done to imply the grandeur of the structure, and done so quite deliberately despite not meaning what was then the conceived meaning of the word. They were mock castles, in the same way as we use the term to describe modern fur coats, where an authentic look exists, but where the term now implies a functional(for castles as habitations)alternative. Mock is not intended as an insult, I used the word because it is descriptive. There is a difference of definition across the Atlantic in what defines a castle. But whatever constitutes a castle the root of the term is common, as is the inspiration to preserve and that to build. I simply believe that greater authenticity and atmosphere can be gained from the real thing, and was trying to inspire that feeling in others. If it is achieved in one person, and one castle is saved, then my comments are worthwhile. I agree with what you say about retaining dying crafts, but this can be achieved better through renovation, where the work done would have to perfectly match what was already there, and so demands the utmost skill.
Fantasy? The term is used because for many that is why they build such structures.
For Levan it is reality, because he lives a true castle and we all agree that he deserves a great deal of credit for having achieved that.
[This message has been edited by wurdsmiff (edited 11-25-99).]
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-25-99 06:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual link for Castle Levan is www.kirkburn.com/castlelevan/ . This is indeed an excellant site, both in it's rich content and carefully considered layout, although I do hope the Laird Trevor Hayward will add to the section on the restoration of the castle and expand on how the decisions needed to achieve the current state were made.
I did ask about the interesting ceiling paintings (see www.kirkburn.com/castlelevan/castlephotos/large/p7250073.jpg ) and got the following interesting reply. the ceiling was painted by Norman Edgar, a contemporary artist, who is quite well known in Scotland - he used to be a senior painting instructor at the Macintosh School of Art in Glasgow. Rather than copying specific images, motifs have been painted 'in the style of' a variety of examples found throughout Scotland. A particular source of inspiration has been paintings recently discovered under later plaster-work at Traquair House near Peebles. You'll also be interested to know that great care was dedicated to the selection of colours and tints used in the painting that were all blended using natural materials in the manner thought to be contemporary with the period. which says a great deal about the care taken in the restoration of Castle Levan.
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
[This message has been edited by Philip Davis (edited 11-25-99).]
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-26-99 07:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd just like to mention the 'Friends of Historic Scotland' whilst this topic is receiving a lot of attention. Castle builders and renovators alike could pick up a great deal of information by joining. The web site for Historic Scotland is at
http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk
By joining you get a quarterly magazine which details current events (re-enactments,renovations and the like), amongst many and numerous other topics. You would also get free access to the 'Friends' page. Both of these give details on how to get involved as a 'Friend' in various renovations, archaological digs etc. They also regularly feature articles on renovation tecniques and interview their professionals on various crafts. Worthwhile stuff and interesting to all.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-26-99 02:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Scotland and it's English and Welsh counterparts, English Heritage and CADW, are united kingdom statutory authorities who have legal powers to protect the UK historical heritage and are closely involved in restorations of historic properties. They have staff who help with restorations, English Heritage even has a school for train hisoric building restorers in a 19th Fort nr Portsmouth. I gather that they are usually very helpful to people undertaking restorations (including grants of money) but are very strict about historical integrety.
All these organisations also directly care for many historic properties and largest organisations looking after castles in the UK. Anyone planning to visit the UK to see castles would be well advised to join one of these organisations well before travelling.
English Heritage are online at www.english-heritage.org.uk/ . CADW (pronounce cadou) is not online but details of the organisation and the properties in it's care can be found at Jeff Thomas's excellent Castles of Wales site at http://www.castlewales.com/cadw.html
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
[This message has been edited by Philip Davis (edited 11-26-99).]
[This message has been edited by Philip Davis (edited 11-27-99).]
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-26-99 03:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Philip, I should have mentioned that.
Do the English organisations have a similar association as 'The Friends'?.
It is also worth adding that all monies raised through membership fees contribute to restoration project costs, and that as a friend you get free entry to all the properties and a discount on gifts in the visitor centres/mail order sales (plus a few other goodies). Good value for the holiday maker who is visiting a few sites.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-27-99 03:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The English organisation does not have friends as such, I suppose they think all members are fairly friendly. Life members, like me, get to take a guest. The Welsh organisation I'm not sure about.
I'm very suprised at you wurdsmiff calling a welsh organisation english. The Welsh are notorious for not having a sense of humour about these things, I hope your fire insurance is up to date
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
[This message has been edited by Philip Davis (edited 11-27-99).]
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-27-99 03:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my insurance is up to date, but with respect I had a notion that you would be the respondee to my question, so only asked about the English 'friends'.
If my comments have been picked up by any nice people in Wales and taken out of context, please accept my humblest apologies, and may England get the wooden spoon when you win the five nations next time around.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
************
3'd link
************
Nicolas The First
Member posted 11-23-99 06:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To anyone. I am ready to do some castle designing. Take note that i am NOT an architect, but I have some very good ideas. So, if you need a design, i give the basic sketche and you ask an architect to do the rest.
E-mail me at n_billardon@hotmail.com
------------------
Nicolas The first, king of the Vallebourg virtual kingdom.
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-24-99 10:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are thousands of castle designs that have been proven to work.If your looking for a design try one of these and get an architect to make workable plans. The Castles? Well look at the plans of original castles from the 11th 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th or 16th centuries; from Europe, India or Japan your bound to find a design you like. Even better by an original castle - a vast number are for sale - and do it up.
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-24-99 12:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hear! hear!
Nicolas The First
Member posted 11-24-99 12:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of my message was to inspire some new designs for a castle. Sure, there is a lot of castles for sale and a lot of plans, but where is the interest to own or built something that exists or has existed? You will probably tell me that it was the way they where doing the plans at that time, but, what I propose is based on the idea of original castles. I take the best parts of similar castles and i put them all together to create a new design, one that would be more easy to live in or that would meet your needs. You say your a purist, I am to. The thing is i use original plans to create new ones, but the great majority of all the things i add on my castles are OLD TIMES AUTHENTIC designed. I pick my ideas on REAL castles so where is the problem? The castles i create ARE real. Anyway, not everybody has the chance to live in europe close to an old castle for sale. I live in canada and if you want to see what kind of castles we have, check this: http://members.xoom.com/canadacastle/ you'll see we have only a few of them, and most of them or not for sale and dont has all the quality required to be real castles. These are all reasons why i think what i do IS good. We CAN'T have a 800 years old castle in North America, so that's why we have to built them. If I lived in France, you could be sure that i would buy a REAL castle, but i'm not. And it is the same for a lot of people. As i said, my designs can be conseidered as authentic because they all come from real castles. Think about it.
------------------
Nicolas The first, king of the Vallebourg virtual kingdom.
duncan
Senior Member posted 11-24-99 02:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the castles from the crusades in the Middle East and Turkey.
As a builder I can see the problem, if eny one is going to use these plans, the architect and or builder will have to start from scratch.
In takeing apart REAL, EXISTING, CASTLE PLANS, you take away the structural integrity with out putting eny back in. If your castles are for dreams, gameing or the virtual world as your byline says, you might need to post in one of the other sections.
This is not to say that new castle plans can not be made, but alot of facts need to be understood before they can become real, even on paper.
------------------
Megan and Ralph
DUNCAN CASTLE
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-24-99 02:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas
Whilst I appreciate your dilemma, I continue to consider that a castle is a building built and designed with defence in mind. Whilst the castles on your site are indeed large and
palacial buildings, the fact is that by my own and most other European definitions, they are not castles. This is simply a question of definition, and whilst we welcome all castle interest, whether by our own or the American Continent definition, the difference should not be taken personally. Anyone has the right to build a castle, whether it be real or not. My point of view is clearly stated elsewhere on this forum, and we all have the right to our opinions. However, I will repeat my point of view here for your benefit. There are wonderful buildings all over the world which are crumbling because no one is either willing or able to renovate them. Many of these are for sale. People who want to build castles have been inspired by the history and atmosphere of these old places. I believe that it would be a worthwhile exercise if rather than build new structures, that these old places could even be transported (if there were no other option) in order that they be preserved for the future.
[This message has been edited by wurdsmiff (edited 11-24-99).]
Nicolas The First
Member posted 11-24-99 02:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you wurdsmiff, but do you have a little idea of how much it would cost to move a castle? And imagine all the casts: you have to buy the ruin, to move it AND to renovate it. As i said, i agree that a lot of castle SHOULD be saved, and believe me if someday i have the money, i'll try to renovate and preserve as much castles as i could. I love castles, from wherever they come and the only wish i have is to preserve those monuments of our past. I say our, because i have a french citizenship. My parents are french and, in France, there is also a lot of crumbling castles that should be renovated. So i am concerned about the european problems with those ruins. I really like your point of view because you are able to put the interest of a lot of generation before your owns. So if one day i'm rich, I WILL renovate at least one or two ruins and more if i can.
------------------
Nicolas The first, king of the Vallebourg virtual kingdom.
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-25-99 02:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for appreciating my point Nicholas, and yes I do appreciate that moving a structure can be an expensive business. There have however been a few examples, and there is one locally to me at the moment, although on a smaller scale both size and distance wise. This shows that it can be done. However, although the cost is greater, would it not be worth it to hold the dream for a little longer until the costs could be met? I'm sure that geneologists and family history societies would be supporters of my idea, helping to share costs, if the alternative was to lose a bit of heritage when a demolition order has been served.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
[This message has been edited by wurdsmiff (edited 11-25-99).]
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-25-99 04:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me the issue here is authenticity. I love authentic medieval castles and it is in an authentic castle that I would want to live. However, since I can't transport myself back to the twelth century I realise I have to make some compromises. I'd restore a genuine norman keep if one was available but if not then I'd work from the plans of a genuine norman keep. I'd happily use a garderobe but planning requirements would probable insist on a flush loo - this requires a compromise in the plans, but I'd try to keep these to a minimium. Of course, other peoples idea of a castle may be more Disney, and this is ok, but it is not authentic in any sense and these are castles only in the loosest use of the word.
It is not nessecarily unauthentic to build a castle using aspects from several castles, since many of the greater castles had bits built at many times over the centuries and can look a bit of a hodgepodge. However to do this successfully would require a very good understanding of the architectural developements. Whilst I disagree with Duncan about castles having structral integrity (The Tower of London immediately strikes me as a castle with next to no structral integrity- one of it's charms) I wholly agree that a very good knowledge of medieval castles is required if you are going to build an authentic looking castle from new (or even from plans of bits of genuine castles).
I hope the discussion here is not seen to be about if people should build their dream homes or not, or even if they should call these homes castles. My point is about those who want to build an authentic looking medieval castle should exercise care to be authentic least they fail to achieve their goal. The best way to be authentic is to restore a real castle, the next best way is to build a copy of a real castle. If you chose to build from you own design you will need to be very careful or your castle will end up wearing it's Calvin Kline's over its Armani suit.
The other way to build an authentic castle is to build a contempory defensive residence, as wurdsmiff implies. However, an underground, nuclear bomb proof, concrete bunker has little appeal to me
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-25-99 05:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important aspect of authenticity that I should mention is the castles site. An authentic looking castle must match it's geographical site. A copy of Bodium castle would never look right, however carefully built, if it was on a hill. This consideration would mean that a castle plan might have to vary from it original to fit the topography and, again, a very good understanding of real medieval castles would be nedded to make these variations work. This consideration is also important if one was going to move a castle ruin to a new site.
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-26-99 07:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point about choice of site. I would add that for me the historical atmosphere generated by the castle, and it's environment
are integral, and much would be lost if the castle were re-sited. However, if the alternative is an empty space, then I would favour the removal of the structure to a new site, and hopefully one which enhanced the atmosphere and appearance of the building.
By seeking a geaographically similar site you could go some way to doing this.
Philip is also correct in stating that a good technical knowledge would be required to produce an authenic lookingcastle.
How better to prepare than by training on renovation projects (nag nag).
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
Nicolas The First
Member posted 11-26-99 09:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you that to build an authentic castle from scratch, you need to have a very good knowledge of the medieval architecture. I have around 500 castles pictures on my computer, and I studied each one of them carefully, so i have a certain knowledge of this medieval architecture. I also have visited some medieval sites while in vacation in europe. The way i design my castles is always an authentic way. All the modern conveniences are hidden. As I read on an other topic, to see a TV antena on the roof of a castle is shocking for the castle purist, however, there's some ways to hide those ugly but sometimes useful common objects. There's another thing that i have to say. If you design a castle taking into account the landscape and the atmosphere of the site, and taking in consideration that "real" castles were designed in a defensive mind, you shall be able to create an authentic looking castle with a unique design, adapted to your site. Everybody who wants to design a castle, should use these constraints as a starting point. If it's on a flat land, you may need moats, if you plan to put your castle on the top of the mountain, you have to take this fact in consideration, because the way to defend a castle on a mountain differs from the way to defend one on a plain.
------------------
Nicolas The first, king of the Vallebourg virtual kingdom.
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-26-99 10:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas, you have obviously done some homework on the subject. If you (or anyone else) are looking for some detailed plans and pencil drawings of entire castles, decorative and defensive features, can I recommend the Scottish castle persons bible, 'The Castellated & Domestic Architecture of Scotland' by David McGibbon & Thomas Ross,from the last century. It is an expensive 5 volume affair, and may be difficult to borrow ouwith the UK but it also has introductory chapters on European castles. It has been produced as a facsimilie edition by James Thin of Edinburgh. This pair of 19th century architects travelled around Scotland on their weekends off, recording in immense detail as many extant castles as they could. The 5 books were published over a five year period, and the amount of work they put into this hobby of theirs is quite astounding. I would recommend it to any one serious enough about castles to part with the money. Last time I checked it cost £125 for all five.
Nice to see you've been reading my other mails, unfortunately not all castle owners will go to the effort of concealing TV antennae, and don't really worry enough about the appearance of the building to let such a thing worry them. But it is their home, and if that is what they want to do, who am I to question them? People can listen politely without hearing a word you say.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
Nicolas The First
Member posted 11-27-99 11:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank's wurdsmiff for the reference, i'll try to find it somewhere. It will be with a great interest that i'll read this book. We never have enough knowledge, do we?
------------------
Nicolas The first, king of the Vallebourg virtual kingdom.
Savoy
Senior Member posted 11-27-99 01:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen, I have been out of pocket as of late, and do enjoy the latest round of discussions. Let us, however, put to rest the idea of demolishing any medieval castle in Europe! The chances of a demolition order being levied upon a castle are EXTREMELY remote. Any attempt to buy and move a castle from Europe would be met with a hail of protests, fines, and possible confiscation. This is a thing of the past, besides being blasphemous by it's very nature! Besides...even IF permission were granted, one could build five castles over here for the costs involved in demolishing and moving one.
Regards...Savoy
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-27-99 03:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savoy, nice to have another point of view on this topic, and very welcome it is. Blasphemous? Not quite, since I don't think castle hunting has quite acheived the status of a religion.....yet!
You are quite right to suggest that the idea of transporting a castle abroad would create a shower of protests, from the likes of me. I would in that situation campaign vigorously to avoid such a fate, and hopefully win. However it is not quite correct to state that it is an unlikely situation for a demolision order to be served. As I have said it is currently the fashion over here to preserve and restore. This has come to the fore this decade, and I feel that like all fashions it will fade. I could provide a lenghty list of castles which have been demolished in the last twenty, thirty, forty or six hundred years. Even since 1960 there are about twenty which have been demolished in west central Scotland, my own area. In some cases this was because they were deemed too dangerous to be left standing. No one had financed their restoration at an earlier stage, and the development potential of the land was appreciated. A large and stately castle in Glasgow (which had been home to an ancient family until as recently as 1930, then used as a children's home into the 60's)was demolished for no other reason than the home was closing. Some of the ground was used for development, the gardens are now running wild, but only a few stones remain of the foundations of a castle which was built in the 15th century. There was public outcry, which was largely ignored. Given the desperate desires of those who wished to save the place, there were the beginings of a campaign to find a buyer who would rebuild it on a new site- just to save the building. Unfortunately before it got off the ground, the bulldozers moved in. Scandalous, yes, but now there is only the memory of this hoistoric place. What sort of effort would go into saving some of the less well known buildings? Not much. What we have now is the statutory bodies and NTS doing their best, complemented by a few enthusiasts who undertake the work at their own expense to provide a home.
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out the reactions if my proposition is taken up by one individual? Either public outcry would hopefully save the building on site, or some lucky person gets a castle to take home.
Take a close look at my web-page, and see how many have one star rating. These are the ones of which virtually nothing is left to see. About 50% were either demolished or fell apart at some stage(the others developed into mansions with little left to show of the original), and there are many two star castles going the same way.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-27-99 03:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not entirely convinced you are right Savoy. Of course the grand castles are beyond question but both Scotland and England have a large number of fortified tower houses (Pele towers) which I could conceive being allowed to be sold in this way. Wurdsmiff may have examples.
Cost is another matter. The reality for most potential castles builders is that they will have to externally decorate a normal house to look a bit like a castle. This decoration may be a faux painted effect on the side cladding or even a real stone wall built around the house. This sort of castle might cost a few hundred dollars or some tens of thousands and that is fine by me and I wish good luck to anyone involved in such decoration.
However if you want an authentic looking castle you can not expect to achieve the look without considerable cost and then wurdsmiffs option may be a practible alternative.
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
Savoy
Senior Member posted 11-27-99 05:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen, Did I step on anyone's toe? If certain ruins have been demolished in Scotland, I am sorry to hear that. Surely Scotland is subject to the same advancing European Union regulations as Ireland is! It has been an offence to harm any historical ruin in Ireland for many years. They would rather see it fall down, than have it knocked.One cannot even be "restored" without proper permission from the government.I think it will be increasingly difficult to demolish even a scrappy pele tower or tower house in the future. If anyone wants to attempt to knock one of these, I will be very interested to observe the outcome (being cast into one?).It is not overly expensive to build a good replica using relatively inexpensive modern materials. It is a simple thing to "harl" or "render" over concrete blocks in order to achieve the look of an Irish or Scottish tower house, so long as you leave credible "quoins" on the corners.
Regards....Savoy
[This message has been edited by Savoy (edited 11-27-99).]
[This message has been edited by Savoy (edited 11-27-99).]
[This message has been edited by Savoy (edited 11-29-99).]
Philip Davis
unregistered posted 11-28-99 03:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructive resiteing is very different from demolishing. I know Savoy means resiteing but he says demolishing. For me this comes over as bolstering a week argument with distortion. I'm not saying this is Savoys intention just letting him know how I percieve what he has written. It is clear that the option of resiteing a castle would not be easy, it would rightly require someone to show considerable commitment to the project to overcome the proceedual hoops. However, for someone who wanted an authentic castle this may be a possible way. My concern with this topic is to make clear for potential castle builders that there are varing degrees of authenticity in castle building.
A thick walled, stone clad, concrete structure copied from a genuine castle may be the easy and practible way to build a castle in the states. I have no objection to this, it may be a useful example for people who might not otherwise see the power and glory of castles. But ultimately this is not a castle.
In answer to Savoy's question in Britain there is a political history of arguing forcefully (see Prime Minister question time on Wednesday afternoons- widely televised in the states I believe) which does not mean any animosity. Many british politicians of widely opposing views are actually quite friendly as exampled by the genuine delight expressed by politicians across the board at the news of the Cheri Blair's unexpected pregnancy. (I enjoyed the calls for him to finally admit to a cock up.)
------------------
Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, Psychiatrists charge the rent, art therapists do the interior design and nurses clean out the garderobes!
To find out about me see www.castlesontheweb.com/members/philipdavis/index.html
Nicolas The First
Member posted 11-28-99 07:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion on castle moving is that if the castle may be saved by this and restored, it may be a good idea. Another thing, not every body have the money to travel in europe to see a real castle. This would alow a larger number of people to see and appreciate the work of our ancestors. Dont you think so? Yes, it is quite difficult for a coundtry to let some of their monuments taked away by some strangers, but sometimes, it worth it. The concerned country should apply a law saying that if you want to take a castle home, you have to restore or finance the restoration of a castle that would remain on its mother land.
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-28-99 07:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now now, lets not get into the other side of politics and the profanities often uttered by our elected representatives. Though I agree that this was really something, Blair's admission I mean.
To Savoys point. Yes there are regulations governing ancient, and architecturally important buildings. These grade the buildings by importance into A, B and C listed buildings respectively. However there seems to be a quota allocated to each, listing being applied for, or by the Government. As you go down the grades, the restrictions lessen, and for each there are get out clauses. Again it is usually the government who are asked to decide the outcome, and their decision is based on what is best for the community/country/themselves. Such was the case at Castlemilk which I previously mentioned, though the benefits have not yet become apparent!
Many of the endangered structures are not listed, and for the lower grades there is no obligation for the owner to repair them. They are not allowed to demolish them until they become hazardous. The solution for them is to allow the buildings to decay or be vandalised, then they are perceived suitable for demolition, and the developers move in.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-28-99 10:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Nicholas, you posted your reply as I was writing mine. That seems a good idea, but might increase already high costs, and put off prospective buyers.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-28-99 10:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savoy, my best wishes on your project, I hope it comes to a satisfying conclusion. I note the castle has a Talus. This is a rare feature in my area, Kilmaronock being the single example. Is the ground around the site very soft, or is it to give additional stability because of it's height?
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
Savoy
Senior Member posted 11-28-99 03:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WURDSMIFF...Actually, Ballytarsna rests on a bedrock of solid limestone. The "batter" or "talus" to which you refer, is a common feature of Irish tower houses. These accomplish a number of things. As you say, it does give added stability to the tower, thickening the 7 foot thick wall out to nearly 9 feet at the base. The defensive qualities of this are twofold. First, the batter increases resistance to mining or picking the corners. Secondly, since most tower houses are not fully "machicolated", the ground up against the base of the wall is hard to protect. The batter keeps the assailant just a few critical feet further away from the tower, where he might be vulnerable to one of the two "bartizans" on the opposing corners (now vanished). The batter, was the primary subject of our efforts this summer, as the quoins and face stones had been robbed from it.
Regards...Savoy
duncan
Senior Member posted 11-28-99 08:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savoy
Thank you for your post and letting us know about your web site. We read it with considerable interest. Your project is going very well and it looks like you started with
a structure that has much promise. We wish you the best in your endeavor.
Years ago we looked into the moveing of a castle {a simple keep} to our home here in the states, but the overall cost and politics was unbearable to say the very least. And moving to another country was out of the question. Finding a castle that could be adapted to our needs proved next to imposible. It has been saner to design our own useing as many plans and as much information as we could accumulate from all sources including experts from several UK collages and other organizations in many countries during the years before we started building.
I'm not being pretentiours by saying we have strived for as much authenticity as we can. Our thoughts of what a castle is, follows along closely to many peoples ideas on this site.
I agree that many, but not all, castles were built for defence. Some were built with politacal aimes to house locale governing bodies.{which needed the defence capabilties more than others, if they are any thing like what we have now days}
In my research several years ago, I came across an arrow slit/loophole that a single man could fire in three directions from and I'm wondering if this is rare, I've never encountered one like it since. The castle had alot of inovative items built into it like flanking fire and cross fire capabilitys.
I wholly agree that any castle, be it a ruin or in restorable condition should be protected. The rich history that they stand for can not be replaced or ignored.
------------------
Megan and Ralph
DUNCAN CASTLE
Savoy
Senior Member posted 11-29-99 07:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M&R...Thank you for your comments. Yes, we were quite pleased with the possibilities the day we jumped that fence in Ireland to view what appeared a forlorn ruin. By the next morning, we had located the owner and made a deal.
What are you building, and where is it?
Concerning the arrow loop that can fire in three directions, yes, there are several examples. The very best example (my opinion) is at Caernarfon castle, North Wales. You will see several such loops at courtyard level on the side that faces the walled town.
I would love to see pictures and/or plans of what you are building. If you are interested, I have plans for a castle on our hilltop property near Austin, TX, as well as 3-D computer images.
Regards...Savoy
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 11-29-99 08:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savoy, thanks for the comments regarding the talus, as I said such features are rare over here. As I explained the talus at Kilmaronock was designed to provide stability on the soft ground, the castle being built amidst a marsh in an area which is still regularily flooded by the River Endrick. Machicolations are much more common and in many cases protect the entire base of the wall, since they are built in all around the parapet. As for arrow loops which allow fire in various directions, the splaying of these is a feature at numerous scottish sites, though by the time gunpowder arrived, and the gunloop developed, this feature had been refined to the point that one particular gunloop at Strathaven Castle allowed musket fire through a range of about 160 degrees. This was placed on a round corner turret in such a way as to protect the base of the main block wall, and the approaches to the tower itself. Another interesting feature which allowed a greater level of covering fire along the base of the wall , is the caponier at Craignethan. This was a stone built structure which traversed the width of a deep dry ditch, with a series of gunloops built in along its length allowing the base of ditch and wall to be strafed. Like the talus at Kilmaronock, this is a unique feature, not just in this part of the country, but in Scotland as a whole.
Duncan, it's nice to know that someone has experience of having tried to re-locate a castle. Could you supply more details? I'm interested in which country was involved and the importance of the site on a national, and local level.
Again we have raised the issue of defining what a castle is. Certainly I will agree that in both nature and definition castles developed, however, I maintain my opinion and forsee that this transatlantic diversity of definition will be maintained.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
duncan
Senior Member posted 11-30-99 05:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savoy
I'm VERY interested in exchanging our plans and information. I'll email you just as soon as I can break free. Thank you for the info on the loopholes.
Wurdsmiff
Just as soon as I can I'll dig out as much info as I have on our attempt to move my famlies castle from Irland to here in the states.
Sorry,the castle reference was a bad attempt at humor, and I don't take our difference's of opinions seriously. It's the Castles that are important.
------------------
Megan and Ralph
DUNCAN CASTLE
wurdsmiff
unregistered posted 12-01-99 08:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The castle data would be of great interest. Don't feel that I've taken anything in ill humour, I seldom do - it is something you can't afford in my job where a thick skin is essential. I simply like to stimulate healthy discussion, and a good bit of controversy certainly gets things going!
I note that it was an Irish castle which was the subject of your proposed move. This explains things a little, if I have interpreted the political reaction correctly from your previous response. What Philip has said earlier is very relevant, combined with my last mail you will see that there are many sites over here which are much neglected, and such opposition might not be as intense. There are specific cases where it would, and if that happened to be your chosen site the plan would run aground. If anyone was to try this idea then going into it with an open mind by identifying potential sites would be the best course of action, then choose by identifying that which best suits your needs.
And yes it is the castles which matter.
------------------
'Give me the groves that lofty brave,
The storms, by Castle Gordon'.
Visit my web-site at
www.castlesontheweb.com/members/wurdsmiff/castles.htm
Nicolas The First
Member posted 12-08-1999 04:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for these great replies! However I thought about the idea to move a castle, there is not only the problem to move it out of its original country, you have to move it in your own country, is there some laws about that? I'll try
MultiQuote
