Talk:Launceston Castle

Controversy over the site
Restored the text as below - statement is about something political concerning this site, but is not written in a pov or inflammatory way - mentioning a political fact concerning this site is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written.

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).


 * BBC news - Historic signs case trio bound over 195.92.168.164 13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the article because it was added by an IP address and my opinion is that it was a blatant attempt to publicize the independence of Cornwall. The evidence being the appearance of the same paragraph in eight articles, and now the same paragraph appearing on eight talk pages. At the same time, changing the location from Launceston, England to Launceston, UK supports my case.


 * The paragraph is totally biased in favour of the Cornish, just explaining their motivation. There is no mention that they performed a criminal act, which could have resulted in a custodial sentence had that not been shown leniency.


 * There was no controversy either. I was living in the area at this time and I do not remember it happening. I have an interest in the castle, and I am sure I would remember a "controversy". The only controversy is the Cornish independence lobby objecting to the fact that the owners of the building has the word "English" in the title. This is POV and nothing to do with the subject of this article.


 * Now the article has a named author, probably accidentally, I am just going to walk away. I have better things to do than get into edit wars, which is why I remain anonymous. Putney Bridge 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Following an independant review, I have toned down the paragraph, which now reports the facts that relate specifically to Launceston castle Putney Bridge 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Castle Terrible"
It would be well if this article had a section explaining this name, whether it is identified with the "Castle Terrible" in Malory's Morte d'Arthur, and other matters touching on legend and its purported history, 72.179.63.75 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Eric

B-class review
Prose comments;
 * ... comprised a earthwork and timber castle ... - an earthwork, rather than a earthwork.
 * earldom of Cornwall - Should earldom be capitalized? same question with duchy of Cornwall.
 * then substantially redeveloped by Richard of Cornwall, after 1227, -> then substantially redeveloped by Richard of Cornwall after 1227,
 * Towards the civil war it was stripped - start, middle, end of the war? any clue?
 * Much of the castle defences remains - either castle defence remains, or, castle defences remain.
 * It was located at a strategic location - reptitive; It was built at a strategic location, or, its location was strategic.
 * Robert's son, William, rebelled against William Rufus in 1106 and the castle was confiscated by the King. - who's the king? Henry I? why not say confiscated by King Henry I?
 * Two years later, the Crown granted the post of constable in perpetuity to Hugh and for two generations after him, in exchange for which Hugh agreed to invest £120 in repairing the facility - this sentence is a bit messy; Two years later, the Crown granted the post of constable in perpetuity to Hugh and for two generations after him, in exchange, Hugh agreed to invest £120 in repairing the facility.
 * ... from the Duke of Cornwall, the then Prince George - I think that it would sound less wonky like; from the Duke of Cornwall, and Prince of Wales, George IV. The "the then" sounds staggered in my head. Though, only in this instance, so... ignore if you will.
 * By now the castle was in poor repair - poor condition or disrepair. I don't think it's in any state of "repair" at that moment.
 * The Ministry of Works took over the guardianship of the castle in 1951 and put pressure on the Air Ministry to leave the site, which occurred in 1956; the bailey was then grassed over again. - This needs revision, it's at least two sentences in one. Possible rewrite; The Ministry of Works took over the guardianship of the castle in 1961 and put pressure on the Air Ministry to leave the site. They left in 1956 and the bailey was then grassed over again.
 * a small, carmped and unlit chamber at the base of the keep. I am ninety-nine percent confident that carmped is meant to be cramped.
 * The tower now leans slightly out of the vertical. - if it leans slightly then it must be out of the vertical. Perhaps, the tower now has a slight lean.
 * Visitors would have been funnelled around the edge of the part and by the town wall - odd question, but what is a part? a parting or is that meant to be park?
 * Sources are fine and well referenced, the reading is a little bit difficult for me as I am unfamiliar with many of the more technical descriptions of the castle. The history is a little convoluted as well, many names to remember, but, after nearly a millennium, that's to be expected. I've updated to C-class per B1 being met. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Cheers! All done, but for...
 * Earldom and duchy. I don't think there's a policy here, and sources seem inconsistent.
 * George IV. Its not perfect, but he wasn't the Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales as George IV - the titles are held by the heir when they are a prince, but not when they come to the throne. (a silly system, I know...!) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'm satisfied with the changes, and thanks for the explanation for both capitalization of titles and the King holding just the primary title. My personal method with titles is to capitalize when specifying the person; e.g. Emperor Macrinus, or Consul Gaius Antonius, but, without capitals when just talking about "emperors", "consuls", "duke", etc. So I fully understand your approach. Updating to B-class. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)