Talk:Windsor Castle/Archive 1

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

Layout Image

Where is it? It's referenced and linked to (Section H, Section T etc. etc.) in the article but no longer exists. Very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.227.56 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Would be fun to know how big the castle is. What is the length and width? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.153.38 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Built Date

Hi, does anyone know what year the castle was initially built? The article state it's been there for '1000' years at least.. but no specifics. Adidas 17:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the exact date is not known. There was a Royal 'Palace' at Old Windsor from Saxon times and, in 1066, Edward the Confessor granted the manor of Old Windsor to the Monastery of St peter. When William I came to power, one of his first acts was to recover that land for the Crown. It is presumed that this was done because he saw the defensive importance of this piece of land. However, the castle was built on land taken (or rented) from the Manor of Clewer and was probably built about the same time as the Tower of London (1078), but could have been as early as 1070. It was definitely there by 1086, because it is mentioned in the Domesday Book. I'll look up some of the sources again and try to write something definitive! Bluewave 08:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It is unlikely that at a remove of nearly a thousand years you'll find anything definitive. -- Francs2000 01:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've narrowed it to a 17 year period, based on the research quoted in Ray South's book, and that was the nearest I could get to adding a definitive statement to the article. Bluewave 09:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This "oldest continuously inhabited castle in the world" claim is a bit dodgy; Off the cuff I believe that Dunsany Castle in Co. Meath, Ireland has been continuously inhabited since around 800, and I am certain that there are scandinavian, chinese & japanese castles older and longer inhabited. If Duke William of Normandy's castle at Falaise has been continuously inhabited, it would certainly be older. I think it may be safer to say ""oldest continuously inhabited castle in England", even then a bit of authority would help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.192.60.9 (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
"Oldest continuously inhabited" is often quoted (eg the official government site about Windsor: http://www.windsor.gov.uk/attractions/castle.htm) but that doesn't necessarily mean it is true! Was Dunsany actually a castle before Norman times? Bluewave 13:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hibbert, in The Court at Windsor -- which is oddly omitted from the bibliography and ought to be included -- calls it the longest-occupied palace [i.e., royal residence as opposed to mere fortification] in Europe. William I chose the site for military reasons, Henry I settled in, and from King John on it's been a favorite place to retire to, one supposes, from the cares of the world. --Michael K SmithTalk 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
While Hibbert "was the best loved and most widely read popular historian of the latter part of the last century" it is worth noting that he "was not a specialist" (both quotes taken from The Guardian's obituary). This article relies on specialist historians, such as John Martin Robinson and Anthony Emery. I don't think Hibbert has much to offer here, and unless the claim that Windsor is the longest-occupied palace in Europe is backed up by other specialist authors I would not include it in the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It says "the longest-occupied palace in Europe" in the lead, which appears to be sourced to Robinson and Mackworth-Young. I agree it is not necessary to include more books in the bibliography: there are sufficient already and Hibbert is already given one mention (for Edward VII). DrKiernan (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-write

I am planning a pretty big re-write here. The King's reign section headings installed today are temporary while I assemble information chronologically and still keep the page readable. When I've done that I plan to sub-divide them into larger dynastic and architectural sections. Its going to be quite a big job and eventually a long page, but I want the page to stay looking like a page as I do it. All advice/help welcome Aspern 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needed some restructuring and your chronological structure makes sense. I also agree with your removal of the list of constables to another page. At present we are left with quite a gap from the 14th to 20th centuries and I suggest that we need, at the very least, to include something on Henry VIII (and his gateway); the civil war (when it was occupied by parliamentarians); and Wyatville's large scale remodelling for George IV. I'd be happy to draft some text for those bits but will leave your changes to "bed in" for a few days and see what other suggestions and contributions turn up first. Bluewave 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope by tomorrow to have a framework in place (a skeleton if you like) where all information can be then be placed in a suitable chronological heading. This should make it possible for people to readily see where to addinformation. Certain features of the castle such as the chapel will probably need their own section - all help welcome. Perhaps that last remaining list of historical events can then be absorbed into suitable sections. They don't like lists on the FAC page! Aspern 17:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I've just done a few copy edits and tried to make some improvements. One thing that strikes me is that references to key features such as the chapel, St George's Hall and the round tower are a bit confusing in the way that they appear and reappear in different sections. For instance, the section on Henry II's reign seems to lapse into a general description of the layout. I wonder if we should have a section describing the modern layout of the castle, before embarking on the history. This would explain the wards, tower, chapel, hall, terraces, etc and might simplify some of hte other sections. Bluewave 10:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


    • The whole thing is a bit confusing at the moment. There is a lot more information to add to the medieval section. The map of the castle is very good but I think the caption could be changed to make it a lot more clear. And then as you say it could go right at the top just beneath the lead. I'm going to work on it now for a couple of hours and then we'll see what it looks like after that. Aspern 11:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have found a plan of the modern castle that I compiled ages ago from various sources. Not sure if it is of use but I could tart it up a bit. What do you think? Bluewave 13:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Easter egg link

Bluewave, I see you recently added an "easter egg" link equating Angevin with Plantagenet — well, or rather equating two different names of the apartments in question, I suppose. Anyway, I don't understand the point at issue, but the real link isn't supposed to be concealed like that. Could you please unpack the easter egg in an explanatory way that shows both the names on the page ? See Wikipedia:Piped link for an example. Frutti di Mare 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Well...learnt something new today...I'd never heard of an Easter egg link! Just to explain my reasoning, if you try to link to "Plantaganets", it redirects to "Angevin", so I thought it better to avoid the redirect. So now I'm assuming the accepted practice is that it is better to leave the link as "Plantaganets", so that people can at least see that they have been explicitly redirected. I'll change it based on that assumption but please let me know if there is a better option in this circumstance. Bluewave 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you don't need a pipe at all, "Plantagenets" is an unecessary detour. Plantagenet itself redirects to Angevin. Frutti di Mare 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC).
OK I now realise that I tried to fix the wrong problem in the original article. I noticed the link was red and tried to find the right place for it to go. What I failed to spot was that it was red because the author had spelt Plantagenet incorrectly! Bluewave 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete. Snottygobble 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Proposed new lead image

Hi, I propose that the main image on the article should be changed, it is not exactly the most comprehensive image as not much of the castle is visible. I feel a birds eye image or something similar would be more appropriate. Any thoughts? -- 86.13.155.120 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

  • Yes, I have a thought - precisely which image are you recommending we adopt as the lead image? Or are you some form of seagull about to provide us with one? Please indicate your preferred image and we will discuss it here. Aspern 19:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Aerial view of the castle
  • I've added an aerial view above the plan of the castle. Feel free to move it if you think it might be better placed elsewhere or shrunk.mjobling 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I failed this as a GA due to the lack of references. Otherwise, it's great! Some P. Erson 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Please don't remove the talk page templates. Failing a GA is a matter of public record, and the British Royalty template assures the article gets assesses for Wikipedia 1.0. I'm assuming you want the article to be included in Wikipedia 1.0?

Furthermore, imho in no way is this a bad article. I originally assessed it as grade A (the best there is short of FA) and nominated it for Good Article status. Unfortunately the reviewer felt unable to give it GA status because of the lack of inline citations, so with no GA it has to be B grade - still good. Look on it as a helpful hint for improving the article - I think with inline citations this could easily be a Featured Article. It's a wonderful piece of work. --kingboyk 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)



Family Seat

Would Windsor Castle be considered the family seat of the Queen?Drachenfyre 11:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it isn't on the grounds that her family do not own it.Bluewave 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesnt she? Didnt she pay for the reconstruction out of her own pocket after the fire?Drachenfyre 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I reread the artical, 70% of the resteration was paid for by opening Buckingham Palace to the public...and Prince Andrew admited that Windsor Castle is where the entire family truely considers "home." The queen has made it her principle residence since the first year of her ascension, though only gets out there on the weekends. I think it qualifies as Family Seat for the Windsor dynasty.Drachenfyre 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article should probably say something about the ownership of the castle. My understanding (which, no doubt, someone can improve on) is that Windsor Castle is an official residence of the monarch and is held in trust for the reigning monarch. I believe its upkeep is paid for by the UK taxpayers. It is certainly not privately owned by the Windsor family. In this way it differs from Balmoral, for example, which is privately owned by the queen. If there was a change of dynasty for some reason, Windsor Castle would become the official residence of the new royal family. This might, for example happen in the event of an abdication or if the line of succession passed to a daughter of some future monarch. I would say that Balmoral is certainly a family seat of the Windsor family. In the case of Windsor Castle, you could make a case for or against, depending on your exact understanding of "family seat". (I'd still argue against because the Queen doesn't own the castle and its occupation relates not to the family but to the job.) Bluewave 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

History

I added a section on Elizabeth I and her court taking refuge in Windsor castle from the Bubonic Plague as I felt this was an important and interesting fact of the castle. Plus there seemed a huge jump in the history! I didn't go into too much detail as I wasn't sure it was appropriate here. Jannahred (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Please see the proposal. Many thanks. Aiken's drum (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion...

I've been through the article and expanded it a bit. I think everything now has a reference/citation. I couldn't find a copy of Hope's classic 1913 volume, unfortunately, but I think I've found most of the relevant modern volumes, including the key works after the post-1992 fire. I created a couple of sub-articles as well. The architects behind much of the post-1992 reconstruction work were kind enough to donate three presentation pictures from their archives. The last version of the article had the various locations linked back to the (rather nice) map; I think this doesn't work so well with the longer article, but others might disagree. I removed the bit about Wyatville and symmetry, as I couldn't find any references to support it and it just didn't seem correct. I rationalised the external links a bit. There will, no doubt, be substantial copy-editing required. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The phrase "Windsor Castle is notable for..." is used twice in the opening paragraph; finding an alternative for the second time this is used would tighten the prose a bit.
Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Windsor Castle was built with three bailey wards surrounding a motte and bailey castle in the centre": this makes it sound as if there were four wards around a motte. If this isn't the case, I'd recommend rephrasing the sentence to something along the lines of "Windsor Castle was built as a motte and bailey, with three wards surrounding a central mound".
Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "During the Restoration...": a wikilink might help to make it clear to the reader that this means the restoration of the monarchy, or of course it could just be slightly elaborated to "During the Restoration of the Monarchy..." so you don't have readers leaving the article.
Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Windsor Castle today has been formed through a sequence of phases of building projects": I feel that "of" crops up too many times, and the sentence immediately preceding also starts with "Windsor Castle".
Agree - sorted by another editor. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In the section Upper Ward, if King George IV gate and Edward III tower are proper nouns then gate and tower should be capitalised.
Sorted.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "State apartments" is inconsistently capitalised.
Think I've caught these now! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think in the photo of the Crimson Drawing room (should room be capitalised?) could be rephrased slightly to make it clearer that the photo was taken after 1992, eg: "The Crimson Drawing room in ".
I've capitalised room. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I made this edit, was I correct in guessing that "century" was the missing word or is there still a problem?
  • "...the royal hunting preserve previously used by the Saxon kings": unless the Saxon kings only had one hunting preserve, I think the first "the" can be swapped for "a".
Agree. Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "The first king to use Windsor Castle as a residence was Henry I who took up residence": repetition of "residence".
Changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • " Henry replaced the wooden palisade surrounding the upper ward with a stone wall interspersed with square towers; rebuilt the King's gate": the bit after the semi-colon is incomplete and either needs to be expanded or incorporated into the rest of the sentence.
Sorted. I should have said "built", vice "rebuilt", with reference to the gate, incidentally, now changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just checking, but is this the correct missing word.
Yep.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I've started making silly mistakes, so I'll leave the comments there for now. Overall, another outstanding article, probably better than Kenilworth which I particularly liked. I think the writing has also improved. As far as the content, I can't see any holes and at 10,000 words I'd be surprised if there were any; I'm sadly not familiar with Windsor's history. The article is well illustrated and I think this is exemplified by the photos used to show the changing nature of St George's Hall, and I really like the way they've been used. I've made a handful of copyedits you'll want to double check to make sure I haven't screwed up. Visitor numbers would be nice, but as AVLA don't have any figures so I've no idea where to find them and you're probably relying on whether the English Heritage books mention visitors. Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added the tourist numbers using the website you've suggested on my talk page.Hchc2009 (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture removed

I've removed the photochrom picture, because I've concerns about the copyright status. The entry on the original database from which the Flickr user uploaded it says that there "No known restrictions on publication." This is because it is probably under PD within the US. But as a photograph that will probably (given the context and the technology of the time) have as its legal source location as the UK, it may well still have an extant UK copyright on it (e.g. if the photographer was aged 20 in 1900, lived to an average age of 70, the 70 pma rule under UK law won't run out until 2030-ish). If there were details of the photographer and source, it would be easier, but all the database gives us is where the photocrom process was carried out (Detroit). I'm not a specialist in this though, so happy to be corrected! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of latest photo

I've undone the last addition of the photo, as although it is a gorgeous shot, the image description page links to a website which claims copyright over all the photos on it. At the moment there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license, an issue with some other (equally fine) images downloaded from the site. I've removed it for now, but it would good if the licensing could be confirmed, as its a nice picture. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Hello HCHC - My status on Wiki is an autoconfirmed user, involving a verification process (including a wiki "tag" on my website) to show that I am indeed the copyright owner and able to specify the licence under which I place images on wiki in similar fashion to specifying a licence for stock libraries. So - I can assure you I am the copyright owner of the castle panorama. But thank you for checking - there's far too little attention paid to copyright on the web. WyrdLight (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The "tag" is here; maybe it could be made more detailed, linking to the Wyrdlight account on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think everything's ok and it would be nice to use that photo. Nev1 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! I've tidied the caption, and added some alt text, and removed one of the other two images to make room. A nice photo! Hchc2009 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I've linked the tag directly to my WyrdLight Wiki page & hope that will help validate image licensing. WyrdLight (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

why?

why was the windsor castle built —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.71.212 (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Windsor and Prague Castle...

I've reverted the last two changes to the article, because its probably best to discuss them here first. I should say at the outset that I don't know how big Prague Castle is but we probably need a better source than the website being cited (a miscellaneous travel website). The Guinness Book of Records entry lists Prague Castle as the "biggest ancient castle", but I can't work out what an "ancient castle" is from the webpage concerned, and it isn't at all clear to me that this is the same thing as being "the largest inhabited castle", which is what the current Windsor Castle page refers to. Any thoughts welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Novinky.cz is not "a miscellaneous travel website" but the Czech parallel of Yahoo! news, connected with the daily Právo. The Prague Castle is both older and bigger than Windsor, and is still inhabited, and it should be taken into account here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, as far as I know, Windsor is the world's largest castle inhabited by a reigning monarch. Because the Prague Castle is used only by the Czech President, the Czech Kingdom already being dismantled.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we discuss further here on the talk page before any more reverts? My apologies if I caused offence (I was relying on autotranslation of the Czech), but the article in Novinky.cz is a travel article by Lucie Poštolková, who as far as I know is not a noted historian. Like Yahoo! news, the site is not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms for historical facts. An example of this is given in the guidance that "[f]or information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports". This doesn't mean that Novinky.cz is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that we need to look at the sources more carefully.
  • John Martin Robinson, the author of the official history of Windsor Castle (Royal Collection Publications, 2010), is cited in the original version of the article, on the basis of his statement that Windsor Castle "is the largest inhabited castle in the world" (pg.8).
  • Novinky.cz, states that Windsor "the second largest (after Prague) occupied castle in the world". (NB: auto-translate)
I can think of several possibilities here:
  • Robinson is right.
  • Robinson is wrong. Not impossible, but I'd personally like to see a more reliable source than Novinky.cz (I'd say the same about Yahoo! news incidentally!)
  • Does "occupied" actually mean "inhabited" in this context? (occupied in English would mean used; inhabited means that people live, eat and sleep there as well - it's a home to a community, like Windsor)?
  • Is there a variance on how we're measuring "largest" - space versus population, perhaps?
Could we discuss further here before altering the article again? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, just for the record, it was you who started to revert and to remove a sourced material...
  • "Obydlený" means that people sleep and live there, and this is true for both castles. I do not know the current number of inhabitans of the Prague Castle, but there are still people living there, although most of the space belongs to different institutions (office of the President, museums, churches etc.).
  • It is well possible that there is variance in how to measure castles. I think that the basic criterion is the total area of the castle, but I can imagine other criteria, e.g. the number of buildings or the area of rooms. But I suspect that the real problem is either in how to measure whether the castle is inhabited, or in the fact, that the situation in former Communist countries was and still is almost unknown to many western authors.
  • I have found a printed source for the Prague Castle: Ladislav Kochánek, 444 pražských nej, unikátů a kuriozit, ISBN 80-207-0448-5, cited by http://www.ptejteseknihovny.cz/uloziste/aba001/2007-2009/nejvetsi-hrad-evropy.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be a pain, but could you help me understand the page? On my system it is coming up as a mixture of Czech and English. With autotranslate on, it says: (cut and pasted)
  • "(in Czech)
  • "Query text :
  • "Please What is the largest castle in Europe, a castle in Salzburg?
  • "Answer :
  • "Courts and views on what is the largest castle in Europe and the world vary, but generally featured the Prague Castle. According to the book:
  • "Kochánek, Ladislav, 1926-1996
  • "444 Prague it, rarities and curiosities / cords Ladislav Kochánek; [photo Zdenek Helfert ... et al. ; Plans and typography panoramic views of Charles Singer]. - 1 ed. - Prague: Odeon, 1993 (London: printing). - 243 p.: ill. (Mostly col.), Portraits, plans, 25 cm ISBN 80-207-0448-5 (brož.)
  • "Prague Castle is the largest inhabited castle in the world (a reference to the Guinness Book of Records). According to the Guinness website ( http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/ ), enter the query: castle, is the largest inhabited castle England Windsor, Prague Castle is listed as the largest historic, medieval castle. The question about what it means inhabited, its surface is larger than the Prague Castle Windsor.
  • "(in English)
  • "Largest inhabited CASTLE
  • "The royal residence of Windsor Castle at Windsor, Berkshire, UK, as well as of Originally a 12th-century construction and is in the form of a waisted ...
  • "More
  • "Largest ANCIENT CASTLE
  • "The largest ancient castle in the world with Prague Castle in Prague, Czech Republic, built in the 9th century. It is an irregular polygon with oblong ... More
  • "(in Czech again)
  • "Different views on the matter can be found on the Internet when the search engines (eg www.google.com ), enter the Biggest Castle, the largest castle. Even here, however, often appears Prague Castle."
  • I've tried the Guiness Book of Records side it gives, incidentally, but neither Prague nor Windsor are listed on it any more (unless we want the world's oldest Wedding Cake, which is apparently in Windsor...) Is Ladislav Kochánek's book available on-line anywhere? (or does anyone have access to the copy itself?) I've tried Google Books, but there's no preview available. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Foot Guards

Windsor Castle is one of four sites in London where tourists can see the Foot Guards (the others being Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace and The Tower of London). Could we add a note in the 21st Century paragraph that the Guards are posted throughout the castle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.214.128 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to find a reliable source (e.g. a high quality website or a book) that says this (I'd start by looking at the official Windsor website, or one of their official guidebooks). We can then add it in, using that as a reference. If you give the details here, we can help add it in. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Without wishing to state the obvious, Windsor Castle is not in London... 78.146.193.88 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair one! Although, seen from the far side of the Atlantic, I'm sure most of SE England is "London"! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Windsor Castle turns to hydroelectric power

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14652774 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-16276225 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/8966322/Queen-finally-goes-green-as-Windsor-Castle-turns-to-hydroelectric-power.html Can info about this be added in anywhere? It is mentioned when the castled got electricity etc so adding info on the work to make the castle greener seems as relevant.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a bit in. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The first line of this article has all the hallmarks of a Ship of Theseus paradox?

Currently it states the very first line states:

Windsor Castle is a medieval castle and royal residence in Windsor in the English county of Berkshire.

Without being too quarrelsome, what parts make this building significantly "medieval"? I am sure it's got medieval foundations but most of the building isn't! Even the intro says it was significantly rebuilt following the restoration of Charles II. Likewise the fire did a lot of damage to the royal apartments which all had to be rebuilt.

How can something be called medieval when patently most of it is contains reproductions of earlier architecture? Like the Ship of Theseus, when things are substantially replaced does it remain the same or not? Personally I don't think they do and calling Windsor a medieval castle (when large parts of it isn't) fails by the aforementioned fallacy.86.147.57.108 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it just refers to the era the castle was founded in? --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Without going into the intricacies of the Ship of Theseus, perhaps the best solution is simply to remove the word medieval from the first sentence and substitute the era of construction, perhaps like this:
Windsor Castle, which was first built in the 13th Century, is a royal residence at Windsor in the English county of Berkshire.
How do others feel about this? Michael Glass (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd recommend 11th century rather than 13th, :), but yes, seems sensible enough to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
"Windsor Castle is a castle and royal residence dating back to the the 11th century in Windsor in the English county of Berkshire." maybe. Doesn't bother me that much. Significant parts are medieval in whole or part - the fire I think mainly damaged more recent bits. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd change the first part of the sentence as "Windsor Castle is a castle..." is stressing the obvious: what else would a castle be but a castle! Perhaps this would be acceptable:
Windsor Castle, parts of which dates back to the 11th Century, is a royal residence at Windsor in the English county of Berkshire.
Or, if it is felt necessary to tell the reader that a castle is a castle, we could do it this way:
Windsor Castle, parts of which dates back to the 11th Century, is a castle and a royal residence at Windsor in the English county of Berkshire.
Which one would be preferable? Michael Glass (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd go for the former, although with a lower case century. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
and "date"! Ok with that. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
First sentence changed as per discussion. Happy New Year, everyone! Michael Glass (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing bibliographic entry (Robertson)

As I was checking the French version of Windsor Castle (a translation of this article), I have noticed that a reference was missing, and after checking this article, I see that the same reference is also missing in the original.

In the section on the 13th century, Robertson, p. 15 is quoted twice (ref 79 and 82) but the book is not listed in the bibliography. Is there any way to add the source in the bibliography please? Thanks. Bouchecl (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A typo by me, I think; it should have been Robinson. I've fixed. Well spotted! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I've fixed the French version of the article. Bouchecl (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Nice translation btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I have forwarded your good words to the translator, Les3corbiers. Bouchecl (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

square footage

Are there any published figures on what the square footage of the Castle is? 74.69.9.224 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Norman Gatehouse"

The article says ...

"The eastern exit from the ward is guarded by the Norman Gatehouse. This gatehouse, which in fact dates from the 14th century, ..."

Does the 14th century really count as Norman? Or is it trying to say that "Norman" is a misnomer? If so, why is it called "Norman"? Was it once mistakenly dated? I find this part quite confusing. 86.179.113.14 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The sentence you've quoted which says "which in fact dates from the 14th century", is telling the reader that it "really" dates from the 14th century. You'll often find places in England with names that are historically inaccurate; when you see places with capital letters - like "Norman Gatehouse", it means that this is what a location is called today, rather than being a description, e.g. a "Norman gatehouse". Similarly, the White Tower in London is not exactly a "white tower" any more, but in fact a rather dirty grey; the capitalisation is telling you that this is its proper name. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, perhaps someone could make that clearer in the article. The capitalisation thing is too cute to carry it. 86.169.184.128 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The term "Norman" possibly refers to the style of architecture. The round, crenellated towers look particularly influenced by that style. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll check the usual sources when I'm back home next week and see if there's anything further that they say about the source of the name. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
How about "This gatehouse, which despite its name dates from..." or "guarded by "the building dubbed the 'Norman Gatehouse'"? That might be a bit wordy though. Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The latter version does sound a bit wordy, and would beg the question "dubbed by who". I'm not sure that the original wording is particularly unclear myself. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I think "The eastern exit from the ward is guarded by the Norman Gatehouse,[11] which despite its name dates from the 14th century. It is heavily vaulted and decorated with carvings..." removes the close repetition of "gatehouse". Alternatively, "The eastern exit from the ward is guarded by the Norman Gatehouse,[11] which in fact dates from the 14th century. Forming an impressive entrance to the Upper Ward, it is heavily vaulted and decorated with carvings, including surviving medieval lion masks, traditional symbols of majesty." which removes the three-tandem qualifying clauses in the next sentence, by moving one of them to the start of the sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
IMO "depite its name" is much clearer wording. We have to remember that many readers will not automatcially understand that 14th C is too late for Norman. If there is some way to work in an explanation of why it is called "Norman" when it is not, then even better. 86.169.184.128 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

NB: I've not come up with any explanation of the name. It is certainly used by the 1840s, so isn't of Victorian origin; I'd venture a guess that it is late 17th/early 18th century in origin. Will keep an eye out. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

square footage?

What is the square footage of the castle and its surrounding Home Park? Where is this in the article?66.67.32.161 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The area of Windsor Castle grounds is 5.3 hectares (13 acres) but Windsor Great Park is considerably larger. Look under "Architecture." and "Park and landscape." (By the way, as the Royal website gave these areas in hectares, shouldn't this article put the hectares first?) Michael Glass (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ownership

@Celia Homeford: Re [1], "The Crown" is ambiguous because it could be taken to mean that the castle is owned by a government department (i.e. what most people regard as "the state"). See Using the Building Regulations: Administrative Procedures by Mike Billington, Routledge, 2006, pp. 62–63. Quote: "According to the Building Act 1984, a Crown building is defined as 'a building in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest'. Crown interest means 'an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or belonging to a government department, or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department'".

Windsor Castle is royal property owned by the sovereign and passes directly from one sovereign to the next as an heirloom by "custom immemorial" (not parliamentary statute). "In right of the Crown" means due to his or her position as sovereign. In practice, it means that a sovereign forfeits ownership of the castle if he or she abdicates.

Since the monarch is the legal personification of the state, you could say that the state owns Windsor Castle, but that would be confusing too because, as above, people tend to think of the government and civil service as being "the state". The idea that "the people" are "the state" has also gained momentum in recent years (Searching for the State in British Legal Thought: Competing Conceptions of the Public Sphere by Janet McLean, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 292.).

"Queen Elizabeth II in right of the Crown" distinguishes royal property from government property. Firebrace (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ballroom

I know that some people may think that the Van Dyke Room, (formerly known as the Queen's Ballroom) is the castle's main ballroom. But it is not. The Grand Reception Room is also known as the ballroom. You can look it up on royalcollection.co.uk. --142.134.67.151 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The Grand Reception Room is a ballroom, but it is not called "The Ballroom". When your house contains several ballrooms, it becomes necessary to distinguish them by other names, such as "Waterloo Chamber", "Van Dyke Room", and "Grand Reception Room". You've confused the name of the room with its type. DrKay (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. The castle actually does have 3 ballrooms? Apparently Buckingham Palace only has one. Still though, they should still add ballroom to the name, like perhaps "Grand Reception Ballroom". Also, the Waterloo Chamber is also known as the Waterloo Gallery and the Grand Dining Room. --142.134.67.151 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Architecture

Although there has been some criticism, the castle's architecture and history lends it a "place amongst the greatest European palaces".

This follows a section in praise of the architecture. What was the criticism? Valetude (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Present-day worth renovation

This is something very minor, but I'd rather put this up for discussion than to edit the article.

While reading I noticed the following phrase in this [[2]]; The restoration programme was completed in 1997 at a total cost of £37 million (£67 million in 2015 terms). This made me curious so I looked a little further, because a claim like that will get outdated fast. The reference for the section in brackets is a page which seems to provide several tools/methods of calculations for measuring worth, not the actual numbers. It mentions the number was come up with in 2015, but not the calculation, so it can't be sure if the number is based on which years(presently it reaches til 2019 it seems). This makes me believe that the reference might be inaccurate. Is mentioning a 2015 value proper for wikipedia, because as well as that as time progresses that number will continue to get outdated.

So I want to put up the question, should the figure for 2015 stay, should it get updated and if anyone knows a good way to go about that, or if it's better off getting removed. There are this page which says 'equivalent to £68 million as of 2016' but it also lacks sources. Intouchwithbertj (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

prince philip rfc

It seems that we are mainly operating off the user DrKay's personal opinion with respect to should we mention his death in the article. I think we should have an RfC on this. The brave celery (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

His death is in the article. You're operating from a false premise, and making a veiled personal attack. Comment on content not contributors. Use article talk pages to discuss articles not editors. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if you were offended. However, at least earlier today if not presently, you were removing edits that mention this for seemingly no other reason than you feel it should not be there. You are not citing any undue weight rules with these reversions. The only reason it's in the article now is that I added it back, evidently. The brave celery (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned undue weight: [3]. DrKay (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The problems I have with the present mention are (a) that it's unsourced; and (b) who is this (unlinked) "Duke of Edinburgh", especially when there are several mentions of "Prince Philip" in the article? Dhtwiki (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windsor_Castle/Archive_1&oldid=1118241158"