Jump to content

Talk:Clitheroe Castle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GLAM

[edit]

A GLAM event is being held at Clitheroe Castle Museum on Saturday 26 September 2015. More info and signup here: Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]

I've found these while searching, they're are not currently used in the article. I primarily putting them here for my own use, but if anyone wants to get involved, feel free:

Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gatehouse Gazetteer has a bibliography of sources related to the castle, with links to online sources where available. Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

[edit]

Can we reverse this and put what it is before what it is not?

The castle is not a Motte-and-bailey design, it is classified as an enclosure castle, the principal defence being the wall surrounding the site, and the keep not being significant in defensive terms

maybe

The castle is classified of the enclosure castle design, the principal defence being the wall surrounding the site, is not a Motte-and-bailey castle as as the keep not being significant in defensive terms

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the bits I'm still working to resolve. The sources used (I've not been able to access the journal papers), don't explicitly say it isn't a motte and bailey. Historic England call it an enclosure castle (as you know), while Farrer and Brownbill call it a mount and court. Plenty of bailey mentions, zero motte. The motte claissication has been in the article since it was started, many moons ago by one Peter I. Vardy [1]. I was leaning toward removing it all together, but then it got complicated. I have before me, a short book by Paul Adams (who also seems to have contributed here briefly), called Clitheroe Castle and dated 2007. I assume it is largely the same as the Castle Studies Group Journal paper in the further reading section, but has a few more pages so I can't be sure. It is very interesting however has no isbn and I can't trace a publisher. He does call it a motte and bailey, referring to the high point where the keep is located as the motte, more than once. Although I haven't seen either, I think it can be assumed that at least one of the sources Peter used will say something similar. I currently think it is going to need to be developed into a discussion, rather than removed. Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. I suspect
  1. wikibooks article is right that ECs are a development of M&Bs (a sub type) https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Castles_of_England/Norman_Castles
  2. and the term only came into use after I had left uni in 1975
  3. That the difference was that Francois- trying to settle a county, threw up a structure on the highest point. He then went to B&Q and bought some fencing to keep the animals from getting stolen. Peace. He his son then looked to a bigger residence. In the flat south- he enlarged the motte- but with an awkward lump of stone in t'hills. They started again and build real walls (How to do it sheet from Wickes?), and kept the old keep for PR reasons and to give the devil something to aim at.
I'll keep on Googling. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That edit (above) really takes me back - to the days when I was learning how to "do" WP and before I had "got" inline citations; not even any page numbers! Neither of the books to which reference was made is particularly scholarly but, in my "defence", Fry (p.210) says "A motte castle built on a natural rock outcrop", and Gooderson (p.42) "At Clitheroe ...the motte was 22 feet (6.6 m) above the bailey." --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adams calls it a motte-and-bailey layout that utilises a natural outcrop as the motte, and that the keep was capable of independent defence. Clem, your colourful description of the construction timeline probably isn't even the half of it. There seems to be multiple phases just to explain the stone-built remains. I hope to be able to further detail this in the article if I can find the sources. The central questions being why does the wall so tightly curve around about 270 degrees at the top of the castle mound? And why isn't the keep located centrally in the space? Adams says it was possibly originally a shell keep, later extended and the square keep built then inside it. The possible pre-existing wooden structure theory is something else that I plan to work on.
I'd really like to get access to Adams paper (and the others), preferably without paying for them? I know we've had some free e-library memberships available do we know anyone who might be able to help? Mike Peel I think you said you'd been able to access one on the day? Thoughtfortheday, I sense you might be potentially useful here? Victuallers? Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not one of my super powers :-) Victuallers (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recently gave up JSTOR access via WP because I was offered alternative access via a university library as an alumnus. My new access arrangement doesn't seem as good, but I may be able to turn up something. Thoughtfortheday (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: I do have JSTOR access, however, the Adams paper is not accessible. I've run a handful of literature searches and it appears that the term "enclosure" was originally used to describe the area within the bailey and only morphed into being used as a proper noun (creating a distinction between motte-and-bailey and enclosure castles) comparatively recently. It still isn't used exclusively, as the same castle may be described as Enclosure or Motte-and-Bailey by different authors. Armitage, Ella S. (1904) The Early Norman Castles of England. The English Historical Review. Vol. 19, No. 74 (Apr., 1904), p. 226 describes the castle as a motte-and-bailey suggesting that any "redefinition" as an "enclosure castle" is a modern change. I've also tried via my university library and can't find the Adams paper or anything to provide a definite answer re. Clitheroe Castle itself. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help QuiteUnusual, did you / could you have a look for the two papers currently used as ref 24, one has a JSTOR link in it? Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one: Harfield, C. G. (1991) (A Hand-List of Castles Recorded in the Domesday Book. The English Historical Review. Vol. 106, No. 419 (Apr., 1991), pp. 371-392). There is only one reference to Clitheroe in the 21 pages cited, on page 386. The cited material is in a footnote. It states that Farrer, W, and Brownbill, J. (1908) (Victoria County History of the County of Lancaster Vol ii, p. 181) disagree "that Roger of Poitou actually held Lancaster at the time of the survey," and that "the references might be to the jurisdictional area of Penwortham or Cliterhoe." It then goes on to state that "George Vertue's Engraving of Clitheroe Castle (Antiquaries Journal. Vol lxiv. 1984 pp 366-371) explains why the references cannot be to Clitheroe. Presumably this is cited in the article to support the statement that the castle mentioned in the Domesday Book may (or may not) be Clitheroe. The second reference, to the Antiquaries Journal, is not available through the WP JSTOR unless you want to pay £20 to buy it or £3.99 to access it for 24 hours (no thanks!). QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again QuiteUnusual! I've now obtained a copy of George Vertue's... courtesy of Clitheroe Library (a photocopy no less, who needs the Internet? ). As you might expect it focuses on the engraving Vertue made but it does contain some useful stuff. Somewhat comically it only gives a brief explanation on Clitheroe not being Poitou's and cites J McNulty (1941) 'Clitheroe Castle and its Chapel: Their Origins' Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire Vol. 93 pp. 45-53! [2] Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clitheroe Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting the bibliography

[edit]

Would anybody mind if I sorted the bibliography section by author's surname? That's not possible for a handful, but I reckon it could be done for most. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clitheroe_Castle&oldid=1206813633"