Talk:Bamburgh Castle

Din Guardi

Din Guardi has appeared in at least two articles I know of (this one included) without proper references. I'm from the area and I have never heard of Bamburgh having ever been called "Din Guardi". Most of the locals won't know that either. I've never seen it on any of the small info signs around the castle, either. Although I haven't been to the castle since November ('07).

Therefore, I would ask that Din Guardi have references cited for it for it, or be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.141.247 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

I recommend the removal of the large intrusive map which contains hardly any information, and if clicked, shows even less, not more. The map constitutes what should be a simple link, i.e. by clicking the co-ordinates, the reader can bring up a dozen maps, all far better than that one. Moreover the map, eing large and undetailed, simply takes up right-side space that is the best place for photos. Amandajm (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think maps of this sort can be useful when they're not taking up space that could be better used as I don't know if most readers are aware that clicking on the co-ordinates in the top right hand corner would take them to Google maps et al. That said, I agree that in this article the map isn't particularly helpful so have removed it. It doesn't help that the map is taller than it is long (no way round that), and the problem is compounded by the article being so short. The article on Warkworth Castle uses the same map, do you think it's a problem there too? Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Old spelling in plan caption

Why do we say, uncommented, that it is a "Plan of Bamborough Castle in 1825"? Surely it is equally a "Plan of Bamburgh Castle in 1825"? Or are we trying to make a particular point about this name and that date? If so, we're failing - it is contextless. I'd like to suggest that we either modernise the spelling, or explain why we're using the old one. Please don't just quote faithfulness to the source back at me. I understand that, but it is not my point. Thanks DBaK (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any other view on this, I've removed that spelling. DBaK (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

When did Sir John Forster acquire the castle?

This source states that it was after the Dissolution, in 1541; this is not mentioned in the Wiki article.

  It was the time of Henry VIII’s infamous Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536-7). The Abstract of the Title to Bamburgh Castle at Woodhorn Archive confirms that in April 1541 ”A Lease by Indenture from King |Henry VIII to John Forster of Etherstone of the scite of the late cell of Bamburgh and other Herediments therein” mentioned for 21 years at a rent of 37 pounds 10 shillings and 4 pence. https://bamburghbones.org/skulldugerous-knight-sir-john-forster/

Another source confirms Forster's acquisition:

  16th century With the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII Bamburgh church and its lands were sold to Sir John Forster and thereafter was neglected. http://www.staidan-bamburgh.co.uk/history_heritage.html 

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi - The article currently says "around 1600" but the the two sources you have found suggest it may have been a bit earlier. Please feel free to change the article using your sources as citations. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Dormskirk.. nice to find an editor who is happy to collaborate. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Vikings

User:NooneEtAl keeps removing a section that reads "Vikings destroyed the original fortification in 993." This was based on this source which they describe as a "random article without sources". User:NooneEtAl says they are denying the implication that the entire fort was destroyed. I have no reason to believe that the Northumberland Gazette is anything other than an entirely reliable source. The Northumberland Gazette says "The attack meant...Bamburgh Castle fell into disrepair". That sounds as if it was in a pretty bad state. Comments welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In the same article, they incorrectly state “this meant the days of the kingdom of Northumbria were numbered” (paraphrasing) but there was no kingdom of Northumbria at the time, it was the kingdom of England. And the raid wasn’t so severe to warrant such a statement, the raiding party left the same year and never returned according to the Anglo Saxon chronicle in the entry for the year 993. The extent of the destruction of the fort is up for debate, but the fort was restored almost immediately, because we know according to historical sources such as the ASC that Uhtred the bold, and his descendants ruled over it well before the Normans. NooneEtAl (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)