Talk:Warkworth Castle

Invaded

what i want to know is if any one invaded any of the castles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.221.53 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 October 2007‎ (UTC)

Roger Fitz...?

I discovered a discrepency between the name the sources give for who Henry II gave Warkworth to. Goodall 2006, p.34, states Henry granted it to "Roger Fitz Eustace", whereas Summerson 1995, p. 6, said it was "Roger FitzRichard". I'm not so worried about the space between Fitz and the final name as it's just one of the variations between names, but the discrepency between "Eustace" and "Richard" is harder to explain. It's worth noting that "fitz" meant son of in anglo-Norman names. In a straight shoot out between these two sources, I would normally choose the one with more detail, however in this case they are about equal in that respect so I sought more information elsewhere. Hardly conclusive, but Google books searches for "Roger fitzEustace" + Warkworth and "Roger Fitz Eustace" + Warkworth didn't produce any results. Replacing "Eustace" for "Richard" was more productive.

• An historical, topographical, and descriptive view of the county of Northumberland (1825), p. 29, says "Richard Fitz-Eustace left another son, called Roger Fitz-Richard, first baron of Warkworth". So the grandfather was Eustace, he had a son called Richard, and one of Richard's sons was called Roger and became baron of Warkworth. This suggests that when putting together his history of Warkworth Castle, Goodall may have skipped a generation and changed Roger Fitz Richard to Roger Fitz Eustace.
• A more recent source, Matthew Strickland's Anglo-Norman Warfare discusses the lack of defence of Warkworth Castle in 1173. Though it doesn't explicitly say who Henry II gave the castle to, it does say that it was held by Roger fitzRichard in 1173. Goodall and Summerson agree that the Roger who had been given Warkworth in the 1150s was still in control in 1173. Strickland also quotes another source which calls Roger "fitzRichard".
• Andrew Wareham's Lords and communities in early medieval East Anglia (2005) and Judith Green's The Aristocracy of Norman England (2002) both refer to a Roger fitzRichard of Warkworth who was a nephew of Roger Bigod. As this relates to the 12th century, it must surely refer to the person Herny II granted the castle to, rather than the Roger who owned the family's property between 1240 and 1249.
• Michael C. E. Jones is more explicit in England and her neighbours, 1066-1453 (1989), stating that "Newcastle was committed to Roger FitzRichard in 1157, and at some date also Warkworth, which he held in 1173."

In conclusion, I am opting for "Roger Fitz Richard" over "Roger Fitz Eustace" as everyone else seems to. The likely explanation is that Goodall made a mistake in the genealogy of the family. Nev1 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Harbour and seafaring

Has anyone any information concerning Warkworth harbour, particularly in the Medieval period? The castle commands the modern channel with the land to the south slightly above 20m and that to the north barely above 10m. The North bank of the Coquet looks as though it could have been built by deposition (witness the straight couse of the river and the large area of sand), in which case where was the mouth in, say, 1200? Given that the roads in the period were pretty bad, the harbour would be a natural transport centre for the area, both local coasting trade and international trade. Control of transport both for revenue and internal order was essential, and might even be sufficient reason for building a castle.

Sorry to just pose questions, but I have no information to hand other than Wiki and the OS map. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting question. The harbour's current, no doubt artificial, shape is evident on the 1868 edition of the OS map (1:63360), which was the earliest reliable map of the area I could find. This source indicates that the construction of the north bank was a 19th century innovation but that the bay was in its current position (the bank was to provide extra shelter), indicating the mouth was in its current position. It seems that Oliver Creighton in Castles and Landscapes doesn't talk about harbours much, there's no mention of Warkworth Castle and the nearby harbour, and neither Summerson nor Goodall touch on the subject. Nev1 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

From the reports I note that the £200,000 was spent on the 800 yard stone north pier, which is clearly visible on a modern map as stretching from the high water mark due east to the navigation light (referred to in the reports). Whilst the development of the lower harbour as a harbour of refuge is interesting, it isn't really relevant to the siting of the castle. I was more interested in the stretch roughly where the main road forms the south bank, up to the castle itself. Without local knowledge it looks to be an earlier harbour. The weir appears to be a tidal weir and could just possibly be for impounding water in the old harbour. The steam coals referred to will be a modern trade, but the herring fishery could (stress could) indicate medieval origins. I note from the conservation PDF you dug out for the Warkworth article that "Warkworth flourished in the Medieval period as a harbour and market town", and the key points at the end mention the harbour in the first line. The long period of settlement (Neolithic, Bronze, Roman and Anglo-Saxon) again make me wonder about control of trade being a principle reason for the location of the castle. Unfortunately I won't be in that neck of the woods any time soon. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Luckily I have some local knowledge, having visited many times. Looking at the geography, you can see longshore drift in action, and see signs of an older coastline to the west of the current one, it's easy to spot as a carvan park is right up against the old coatsl bluffs. It's shaped by longshore drift, the same mechanism that has shaped Spurn Head for instance, and explains why Amble harbour needed some of its works to protect it from the southwards drift of the coastal sands. Warkworth itself I am sure would have had a smaller landing stage/dock as the river is navigable even beyond the mediaeval bridge by small craft capable of coastal travel, and the river is still noticably tidal past the castle itself. The weir I think is a late addition by the way, as when it's low water you can see it's made of concrete and there's no sign of earlier works. Looking at the geography of the site, the castle controls a neck of land from the southern end (very similar to Durham by the way), and the northern end is controlled by the fortified mediaeval bridge. I would be very surprised therefore if ther was not some form of watergate within the defended area next to the village itself rather than 2 miles downstream at Amble. This is pure conjecture I know but is based on what I know of the site. I hope this helps! Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mungo; I've always wanted to visit Warkworth and never had the chance, so found this particularly interesting. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I add my thanks also? The information on the weir is interesting, without it the medieval port must have dried at low water. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership

Is it accurate to refer to ownership descending through the family? To most readers "ownership" would imply a freehold estate, but in 1214 the castle would have been held from the king as some form of tenancy. The payment of 300 marks in 1199 implies as much to me, but then it won't be the first time I've got things wrong! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be easy to misinterpret, sorry. Do we know anything more specific than "some form of tenancy"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, if we're changing "ownership", I would think "the family's property" and other phrases would have to change as well. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the subject is complex. Were it simple I'd have been bold! See feudal land tenure for an introduction. Possibly a phrase such as "The tenure descended through the family ..." might do? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tenure" is going to mean something different to a lot of readers. I see that "lords who received land directly from the Crown were called tenants-in-chief", so I think "tenancy" would work for me; it's accurate, it's a common term in modern law, and even readers who haven't seen it before should be able to work it out from "tenant". And think "family line" is harder to misread in this context than "family". - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I did consider "tenancy" rather than "tenure". My concern is that "tenancy" might imply "£200 a week including electricity" rather than holding (latin teneo -ere) the castle in return for a liability for military service. I would guess that your concern about "tenure" is by comparison with the academic and judicial forms. Ironically feudal land tenure was much closer to that model than landlord-and-tennant. Agreed about "family line". I'll leave the judgement call to you and Nev. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tenure" is too common a word in the sense of time spent in one place. Agreed that tenancy might be misunderstood, too. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe simpler words? Such as: they were at the castle, they had the castle, the castle stayed in the family line. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As I don't want to go into detail on feudal relationships in the article, I turned to the sources to see what terminology they used. "Ownership" id the term Goodall uses on page 35

In that year, for the sum of 300 marks, [Robert] purchased royal confirmation of his ownership of both the castle and the manor of Warkworth

As Martin points out, this would indicate that John still retained authority over the castle, and indeed "rendability" in the Middle Ages was the right of the king to take under his direct control any of the castles of his subjects. But John's might be a difficult case to use as an example because the Close Rolls record "fines" paid to the king for incurring his displeasure (often with no more detail than that). It may have been the case that John saw the opportunity to make some money. The following is from Summerson (1995), p.6

In 1157, however, Henry II (1154-1189) recovered Northumberland from the Scots, and in the following year gave Warkworth, with its castle, to Roger FitzRichard, whose descendants held it until the early 14th century.

To avoid the issue of ownership I've made these edits, so what do you two think? If it's still a concern I think Dank's suggestion of using simpler terms would work and "held" might a good choice, and "family's holdings" may replace "family's property". Goodall does use the term "property", for example on page 36 "Robert's son, John de Clavering, took control of his father's estates in 1310, and in 1311 made over the inheritance of all his property to the king". Nev1 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Held" and "holdings" sound good, I'll keep those in mind. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, and "descended in" circumvents the problem nicely. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A rude comment removed - Wa*kworth. You can guess what letter the asterix represents. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Bot nuke of 1332? Robots in disguise? Powermining? I couldn't find when this text was added, but it looks like vandalism to me. The full quote is - John de Clavering died in the bot nuke of 1332 and rsbuddy died in 1345, at which point robots in disguise, 2nd Baron Percy, took control of powermining Castle, having been promised Clavering's property by Edward III. 205.127.245.70 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

more vandalism

However, John de Clavering was a very good doctor, so he was still alive. He made a surgery a transplanted heart from sheep to him.09:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.4.129 (talk)

Thanks both of you for mentioning it here, the vandalism has been fixed. Nev1 (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hermitage

It seems a little odd to me that the hermitage only creeps into the See Alsos, being not mentioned at all in the body text. Doesn't it have any relationship at all with the castle that we should mention? Or is it just the way that they are packaged together by EH? What do you think? DBaK (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Church, inner outer wards

For reference - the low arch (lower middle center) is the passage between wards and underneath the remains of church

I think it should be mentioned that the church (uncompleted) forms the boundary between the inner and outer wards, and that the passage between the wards (still extant) is actually undernearth where the chancel would have been on the east side of the church.

It's also shown on the main plan in the article.

Mentioned in Companion to Castles (S.Friar), and probably elsewhere too.83.100.174.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)