Please login or click here to join.
Forgot Password? Click Here to reset pasword
Linda-mary Sigley Posts: 195 Joined: 27th Jul 2010 Location: USA | quotePosted at 07:56 on 1st November 2010 Chillingham Castle in Northumberland got a licence to crenellate and this was supposed to be very important. What is it and why was it so important. We won't be visiting this castle because they tortured a child there and the bones can still be seen in the vault below a trapdoor. We will be visiting the beautiful Bamburgh Castle, however. Thank you for answering my query. |
Ron Brind Posts: 19041 Joined: 26th Oct 2003 Location: England | quotePosted at 10:00 on 1st November 2010 It means that a licence was granted to build, in this case Chillingham Castle. However, permission could have been granted by somebody other than the King, a Bishop for example. Further, the date of the 'Licence To Crenellate' didn't always reflect the actual date of the Castle building. As for the torture of the child, all I can add is that we were a very cruel lot in those days, maybe we still are! |
cathyml Posts: 23275 Joined: 25th Jan 2010 Location: South Africa | quotePosted at 11:02 on 1st November 2010 I think the licence to crenellate was actually permission granted to fortify a building (it could already have been built). Crenellations are normally the battlements along the top of the walls (ie.castle or city walls) and were intended for defence. It was a matter of prestige to obtain a licence but was not in fact necessary by law according to Academic dictionaries and encyclopedias |
Rob Faleer Posts: 703 Joined: 10th Jun 2005 Location: USA | quotePosted at 23:56 on 1st November 2010 Charles Coulson, an authority on medieval defensive architecture, and certainly the authority on the subject of the licensing of crenellations, states the following (paraphrased from his article): “The king's right as overlord to license was a right to grant, not to refuse, permission to crenellate" (Coulson 1982, 70). “In reality, no feudal or sub-feudal ruler could either in law or in practice deny to his vassal the protection by self-help fortifying which he, as lord, had failed to provide." (Coulson 1982, 97--note #10). From: Coulson, Charles. "Hierarchism in Conventual Crenellation.” Medieval Archaeology 26: 69-100. [Downloadable via http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/resources.html?medarch] Of course, in the article he is dealing with conventual buildings (those buildings attached or belonging to a convent or monastery), but the same held true for secular defensive architecture. Edited by: Rob Faleer at:2nd November 2010 00:39 |
Posts: Joined: 1st Jan 1970 | Thank you all for such terrific and thorough answers to the question. It does seem in our own time a little peculiar to think a licence to crenellate (since not required) would be so important 7 or 800 years ago. It seems the love of bureaucracy continues. Ron, I don't believe the English are any crueler than any other tribe. Think of the past 15 yrs.--Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, 11 September 2001, Iraq, Afghanistan and on it goes. It is the individual choice each person makes whether to side with evil (which includes avarice and overweaning ambition) or to take the high road. We know which way most take, but there are those now or 800 years ago who chose to turn their backs on evil. I would imagine the master of Chillingham castle chose the wrong way, but probably enjoyed a prestigious and long, healthy life. Sorry, I'm much too serious for my own good. Just consider me Fawlty. |
Rob Faleer Posts: 703 Joined: 10th Jun 2005 Location: USA | quotePosted at 11:46 on 4th November 2010 Linda-Mary: Coulson contends that even though a license to crenellate was not a requirement, obtaining a license from the Crown carried with it a certain amount of prestige. Such an application momentarily drew the Royal gaze upon the petitioner and the granting of the license presumably enhanced the social standing of the applicant. Ah, vanity Edited by: Rob Faleer at:4th November 2010 11:47 |
Rob Faleer Posts: 703 Joined: 10th Jun 2005 Location: USA | quotePosted at 22:11 on 4th November 2010 Linda-Mary: Does your decision to not visit Chillingham Castle have to do with the fact that a child was tortured there, or the fact that displayed bones of the child are being exploited for the tourist trade? |
Linda-mary Sigley Posts: 195 Joined: 27th Jul 2010 Location: USA | quotePosted at 06:37 on 5th November 2010 Both are correct, Rob. |
Please login to post to this thread... |