Unsure if this is the right place, but could find no better place for it

Channel 4 in the UK are showing a 6-part documentary series all this week entitled 'Castle' - a series "telling the dramatic and thrilling story of Britains's castles". Seems to be on every morning, 10.30 - 11.20.

This may be a bit basic for some of our resident enthusiasts, but so far there has been some pretty stunning visuals, and the first episode also attempted a bit of experimental archaeology, in determining whether it was feasable for William I (the Conqueror) to build a motte and bailey at Dover in 8 days.

This first episode will be available later today on the Channel 4 website, and all the shows will be available at the same site after broadcast, for 7 days after the original broadcast - http://www.channel4.com/watch_online/

Unsure if it will be available online to non-Uk viewers however.

Just thought I should let my fellow Brits know, in case anyone missed it

Missed it, but saw it first time round. It's a repeat. I'd recommend it to anyone, and I've got the book. I've discussed parts of Marc Morris ideas of what constitutes a castle in the discussions on Bodiam, and the age of debate here in CD and elsewhere.
Bodiam
The Age Old Discussion
Thanks for posting this John, it allows an opportunity for others to see it on-line, it should be viewable abroad.
Be warned, the Bodiam posts, at least in the begining show how mad things can be around here sometimes!

I saw it first time round too - AND have Marc's book.

I enjoyed it, but had reservations about some of his "findings".

Yeah but its fun.
Laureen after reading that topic again I'm not sure your question was ever answered properly.
I know we have several topics about how to make stone and mortar water resistant and water proof else where in the building topics .... I think thats where they are at ....... or if you want I'll try harder this time and maybe the others will lend a hand.

I'll try to watch it in the evening, Thanks!!

Oh, I had no idea this is a repeat - the fact that it's on so early should have been the giveaway
It's very interesting though, particularly as I'm not very expert on any aspect of castle...plus I love watching anything about this period of history, and am a sucker for watching some guy dressed up in 11th century garb or firing a 13th/14th century trebuchet - I'd love to see a reconstruction of the big one Long Shanks bullied Stilrling castle with

Gordon, those old discussions are very interesting - I should aqaint myself with the search button methinks.

Yes, 'The age old discussion ' is a good one for getting peole talking (or posting), everyone has a point of view, and no one has an answer,...but some think they do.

Every one thinks they have an answer ... the point is not that its right or wrong, nor that its even close, but the conversation helps people think for them selfs, do research and perhaps learning, that matters.

Exactly.

Although far from expert, I've always believed that the definition of a castle as we know it is a structure built as a residential, defensive structure - although this may be wrong.

However, having said that I think people who are castle enthusiasts and are building castles today still have the right to consider their structures castles. Surely the definition has changed over time, as meanings of words change over centuries (and even decades), and we may come to recognise a castle by how it looks, rather than it being a kind of defended residence? So much so that it may have become little more than an argument of semantics - and I say this without wishing to offend the sensibilities of anyone reading

Lol, I realise this is not the place for such a discussion - just thought I would add my feelings on the matter. As you both say, the discussion on this is very interesting, and actually is not something I have ever considered before.

Collins English Dictionary defines a castle as follows:-

CASTLE
1. a fortified building or set of buildings, usually permanently garrisoned, as in medieval Europe.
2. any fortified place or structure.
3. a large magnificent house, especially when the present or former home of a nobleman or prince.
4. the citadel and strongest part of the fortifications of a medieval town.


I'm more of a purist - I like to consider a castle as a building which serves (or has served) both as a residential AND defensive structure, and is defensible. Also, if the structure contains what was once such a structure, but has been added to, then I have no problem with that. Furthermore, the core of the structure must have been built before the mid 1700s.

Any modern "castle", whether it is called a castle and looks like a castle, will be discounted.

But that's my personal view, and I will consider some exceptions.

I have to say Andrew that I do find myself agreeing with you on this - what you say certainly makes a great deal of sense.

I wonder therefore whether a distinction can be made between what me may describe as being 'true castles' - those which are built before 250 years ago, and which were intended as defensive residential structures (although having said that, were most Royal castles in constant use residentially? Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know). The second disctinction can be 'modern castles', meaning modern castles, or grand houses from after the mid 1700s, being built as something as a homage to castles, rather than being built for practical defensive purposes in a time when such structures were needed.

It has to be said, it's a very interesting debate, and I can see why there are a variety of different viewpoints on the matter. I have to agree with Andrew, although would add the caveat outlined above - which some may say takes away all meaning from the original point, and the logical conclusion of such a view perhaps being that someone can call anything they wish a castle (Sorry if I am not expressing this very well). I could only reply that the 'aesthetics', if that is what we may describe it as, it important, and the look of the thing can determine whether or not it may be called a castle - in that sense I would disagree with the 3rd of the definitions of Collins' dictionary, that any large or magnificent house could be called a castle. For me, it's how the thing looks, rather than the size of it....I would struggle to agree with someone calling Buckingham palace a castle, for example, although it it certianly an extremely large and extremely magnificent structure, and most definetely meets the addictional criteria of this definition of being "the present of former home of a nobleman or prince".

Anyway, just my two penneth worth on the matter.

No, they weren't. In Scotland we have Edinburgh, Stirling, Holyrood House, Linlithgow Palace as the best known of the Royal castles, but there were many others, Falkland, Rothesay, Dunoon, Ayr, Dundonald, Tarbert, Perth, Aberdeen. Although not all called castles, and some may have existed or been owned by the Royal family or been in use at different times, they were all Royal castles. They could not have been in permanent residence at all at a given time. The King's role at the head of the judiciary within the feudal system of many countries, meant that he moved around the country frequently, often taking the entire court and his furniture and belongings with him, perhaps spending short periods only at each. Stirling and Edinburgh, with Holyrood and Linlithgow were favoured residences with different monarchs, and as we moved toward the later medieval era, they tended to be a bit more static. Also without a proper road network, travel was really only viable during what was once called the campaigning season, when it was also feasible to move armies about and keep them fed without the hazards of storms, snow and swollen rivers impeding them.
Movement during this season was also aided by food being more accessible and less scarce.
All Royal castles would of course have had a constable or keeper who would manage the place in the absence of the lord (not just Royalty followed this transient lifestyle), and there would have been a number of retainers, and perhaps even a small garrison to maintain the place. So yes it would have has residents, but not necessarily always the owner.

I thought the answer would be something like this - thanks Gordon.

Still, even if it were the case that they were only occupied when a Royal decided to stay (and had no keeper/constable, retainers etc), I don't think anyone could say that places such as Edinburgh or Stirling are not castles - I suppose the 'occupied' part is a mere technicality, and a better way of describing it would be somewhere with a residential area, and the fact that it is in constant occuptaion doesn't matter.

However, having said that, this may lead some to say that Brochs are actually castles, as they were fortified structures that contain living quarters of sorts, although only thought to be used in times of danger (although I am not clear on this point) - anyway, I realise that is taking us off onto even newer tangents, and am sorry for derailing this thread with my ramblings

Around here a topic going off stray isn't unusual nor is it bad and often new topics are created out of the tangent conversation.
How could a topic forum named CASTLE MISCELLANIES ever be on a straight line?

Again it comes down to how wide a definition is used. Brochs hillforts and duns are generally not included, since castles are perceived as part and parcel of the structure of feudalism, which arrived with the Normans.
No one is really sure on the function of brochs, duns certainly seem to more of a defensive structure, but hillforts are being reassessed, and like castles the ditches are perceived now as a statement of status, an illustration of the manpower available to the local 'lord'. The variation in size, and occupation shown by archaeological evidence have shown that the largest such as Maiden Castle in England were actually hilltop towns, but some of the others were farmsteads. Ditches were routinely used as delieation, not simply defense, and this was more aptly illustrated where they marked out areas of ritual or religious behaviour. On these sites archaology shows that there may have been no permanent occupation, simply seasonal 'festival' occupation, when large numbers of people congregated around the site, but the ditch marked out the holy area, where only the holy or important people entered.
This is a subject which was discussed on Mondays Time Team Special, but which has been seeping through on more modern history publications.
A good book for you if you were interested in early Scotland, would be Alasdair Moffat's 'Before Scotland'.