This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warkworth Castle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Warkworth Castle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 25, 2012. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
A rude comment removed - Wa*kworth. You can guess what letter the asterix represents. Mungo Shuntbox ( talk) 09:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warkworth Castle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Warkworth Castle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 25, 2012. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
A rude comment removed - Wa*kworth. You can guess what letter the asterix represents. Mungo Shuntbox ( talk) 09:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)