Talk:Restormel Castle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Restormel Castle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Fortifications / Technology / British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Controversy over the site

Why was this text removed ? - please discuss before removing further text.

In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wrote to English Heritage asking them to remove all signs bearing their name from Cornish sites by July 1999 as they regard the ancient sites as Cornish heritage, not English. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed by members of the Cornish Stannary and a letter was sent to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". (see external BBC link). *Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall *BBC news - Historic signs case trio bound over

The bias of this paragraph is currently being discussed at Talk:Tintagel Castle Putney Bridge 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this a bit, as the language struck me as non-neutral. (Being a Yank, I have no particular axe to grind one way or another. I tried to retain the important information. Polytrope (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"it's defences were perfect"

I visited the castle at the weekend. There are large windows in the keep opening out to 'ground level' of the top of the motte. There are a number of guide panels which describe how the windows represented a fatal flaw in the castle's defensive architecture and that the castle (in the form we see preserved today) was largely for show and was not intended to survive any serious assault.

Earlier incarnations of the castle before it was re-built in stone may well have not had these weaknesses so the quoted phrase is likely to be at least partly correct. I feel it needs adding to however to represent the above.

Unless anyone has objections I shall look at editing in the near future. --62.173.76.218 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I've gone through and expanded a bit and added some in-line citations. Hopefully all OK without too many errors. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More good stuff. I just a couple of comments:

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "It contains a limited number of domestic buildings,[1] clustered around the inside of the wall in an extreme example of the normal style of concentric castles.[2]" Is Pounds calling Restormel a concentric castle, or saying that the domestic buildings were laid out as they would be in a concentric castle? If it's the former, I think 13th-century phase of Restormel is closer to a shell keep (and is described as such by Pastscape) as it only has one circuit of defensive wall.
"Restormel has seen action only once during its long history, when Charles I's forces drove out the Parliamentarian garrison during the Civil War": I take it the Civil War was the first fighting at the castle, although if so it needs to be said that Simon de Montfort and the Sheriff of Cornwall captured the castle withuot resistance for whatever reason.
Is it necessary to subdivide the Today section?

A short article but exceptionally well referenced for its size. As with Goodrich, have you considered nominating this as a Good Article? I think it would stand a good chance. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was struggling to capture Pounds' point about it being an extreme example; it is a shell-keep, but with an internal bailey formed by a stone wall; the buildings are then forced around that bailey in the same way as they are at Goodrich, for example, but in an extreme fashion because they have to fit into a circle. I've played with the text to try and capture it better!
I believe so - will fix the text accordingly.
Probably not - will get rid of the subdivides as you suggest.
Many thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Restormel 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515071635/http://www.magakernow.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=79ba408d-7c02-499e-8cd6-b18dd48de58d&version=-1 to http://www.magakernow.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=79ba408d-7c02-499e-8cd6-b18dd48de58d&version=-1

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) 19:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]