Talk:Brougham Castle

Picturesque ruin
I've just put the word Picturesque back in, as the relevant section makes the intended artistic meaning clear: "During the late 18th century, the Lake District became a popular visitor attraction and the sensibilities of Romanticism glamorised historic ruins such as Brougham Castle." (It would help if I'd spelt it correctly in the edit summary though!)--Northernhenge (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Royal visit
Prior to this edit, the article used a royal visit as evidence that the condition of the castle had improved. The edit removed that implication. Do we know if the king stayed at the castle? If so, I assume it would have been in splendid condition. If he just visited and moved on, it could have been in any condition. If he stayed, I think the edit should be reverted (and saying "stayed at" instead of "visited"). If he just visited, the current version seems OK to me. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The situation is explained more fully later on in the article: the Earl of Cumberland hosted James at the castle where expensive feasts were held for him. The repairs were carried out by the dowager countess before the earl got his hands on the castle, the royal visit just confirms that Brougham was in a decent state. It's difficult to go into much detail in the lead, but I think the change is ok. The implication that the castle was in a good state by the time James arrived is still there, just a bit weaker. As "visited" could be a bit vague, I've changed it to "entertained at Brougham". How's that? Nev1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll undo Dank's edit and reinstate "to such a condition that". I didn't want to do that without checking the context. Thanks. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Inflation" template
The template says: "This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich." so unfortunately it doesn't seem to apply to Brougham Castle's building costs and probably not to its maintenance costs. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an issue that's been moving along slowly elsewhere and I've got no objection to removing the estimates so have done so. I don't pretend to have more than a basic grasp of economics and related issues, but I can envisage problems in converting between medieval and modern currency. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brougham 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/20100222090738/http://www.visitcumbria.com:80/pen/brougham.htm to http://www.visitcumbria.com/pen/brougham.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is it pronounced "brum", "brome", "brug-um", or "broe-um"? Or something else? Please add the pronunciation if possible. 106.68.197.3 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the Oxford dictionary, the general word is /ˈbruː(ə)m/.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"The second Roger Clifford"
Is "the second Roger Clifford" a correct name? I'd change it to "the second Roger de Clifford" at least, but I'm not sure about this either.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Either works and the two are often used pretty much interchangeably in the sources. Nev1 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Names of daughters
In this edit I reinstated the names of Vieuxpont's daughters and reinstated a deleted reference. I see the daughters' names, and the reference, have gone again. Does anyone remember why they were removed? I would just put them back, but I'm not about to start an edit war! --Northernhenge (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)