Talk:Raglan Castle

Expansion...
I've gone through and given the article a proper scrub, referenced it and updated the pictures. I've adapted a diagram by Pugin as well. Any copy-editing of the result gratefully received - I'm sure it will have some typos in it! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Landscape and gardens
, The above section describes the 16th and 17th century gardens, and their decline in the 19th. Bradney includes a rather beautiful description of the earlier gardens of the ap Thomas's -
 * "Perfect spheres and elegant pearls in clusters like grapes, the store of the Blue Knight; and about the palace there were orchards full of apple trees and plums and figs, and cherries, and grapes, and French plums, and pears, and nuts, and every fruit that is sweet and delicious."

I'd quite like to put, a bit?, of this in. The problem is that Bradney's source is that well-known forger, Iolo Morganwg. Does this invalidate the use of Bradney? KJP1 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Doing a bit more digging, I see Elisabeth Whittle, The Historic Gardens of Wales, makes reference to this, but does not use any source
 * "The most detailed record of actual plants within a medieval garden comes from any early 15th century document in Welsh about Raglan Castle. At the castle, it says, were 'orchards full of apple trees and plums.....'" KJP1 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * KJP1, I'm personally a little bit cautious here - I'd be inclined not to, but I'd happy bow to anyone with a better knowledge of garden history (I know it is a specialist subject!). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone with Royalist bias has removed the Parliamentarian Henry Herbert's role
I wrote lengthily for this Henry Herbert who was descended down the Coldbrook line and was much, much younger than the Royalist Henry Somerset. This Henry was given the plunder of Raglan castle something that only happens to people who take part in a battle, he was elected twice Member of Parliament for Monmouthshire and so would be at the seige to represent them. The seige was long and drawn out, the chances he was not there are zero.

The article also paints the Royalists as the sole preservers of history, this is highly inaccurate and baseless. Lost documents, damage and theft could easily have been done by Royalists angered by their defeat as by anyone else.

Destruction of the castle was not left in the hands of the Royalist Henry Herbert, but in the Parliamentarian Henry Herbert's. Something he did only to the point as to render the castle inoperable as a fortress.

I can't even see my edit in the history. To be honest wikipedia probably needs to die like Raglan castle deserved too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Scott Herbert (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * - Hi, I removed your edits. It may help if I explained a few things:
 * I didn't remove your edits because I have a "Royalist bias". We should start by assuming good faith;
 * I removed your edits because they weren't Verified by References to Reliable sources. This is the bedrock of how Wikipedia is written. In this case, you included two cites to Wikipedia, which can't source itself, and two cites which didn't support what you'd written. [I'm not sure Tribe supports your other claim, but I'll need to check that.] It's not sufficient that you believe Henry Herbert was at the siege, you need sources that support the claim;
 * We try to write from a Neutral point of view. Your position doesn’t come across as very Neutral, "wikipedia probably needs to die, like Raglan castle deserved to". And, "the plunder of Raglan Castle, which he used to enrich the normal local people's lives." This is uncited, and is nothing more than your particular viewpoint. This, and other text you added are also Undue for an article about Raglan Castle. By all means add them to the article on Henry Herbert (Parliamentarian), provided you have the sources to support them;
 * It’s also worth remembering that Wikipedia’s not a forum for the righting of great wrongs, or for advocating a strongly-held position. There are plenty of fora to to that, but this isn’t one of them;
 * Lastly, a few house-keeping matters. Please sign your posts; please add new posts to the bottom, rather than the top, of pages, and please format your sources, rather than leaving them as bare urls.
 * I hope this is helpful. KJP1 (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) The article was written with royalist bias, portraying the economically average people of monmouthshire as superstitious destroyers and the royalists as rationalists.


 * 2) To continue to claim the royalist Henry Herbert who was imprisoned after the fall of Raglan castle was in charge of turning Raglan Castle into an inoperable fortress, when there was the democratic Henry Herbert another direct descendant of the founder of the Herbert family, a colonel in the parliamentarian army of that time and who had taken cities in Wales from royalists.


 * 3) There is absolutely zero chance I will give anything to someone like you who completely removed any sign of my contribution, zero. What you did broke the neutrality of wikipedia, I don't know if there is a formal complaint procedure, as this is voluntary.  What I know is you shouldn't be allowed my family's history.


 * 4) It is worth noting wikipedia isn't here for rightwing oligarchists to perpetuate the myth that the 'common' people are superstitious and need controlling.  That they can be scared with steam engines and will destroy priceless historical works and art if allowed too.  Anyone can do that.


 * 5) I don't see any version of what I wrote and which you destroyed I see previous versions by Ologarchists like yourself.  This means you have acted without being neutral,because you're not neutral.


 * 6) Don't tell me to sign my posts, I don't contribute to wikipedia and never will again, I have zero respect for you.


 * Henry Herbert was at Raglan, you cited him yourself as being given the order to render the castle inoperable by Fairfax, lol. Your claim "The fortifications proved too strong, however, and only a few of the walls were destroyed, or slighted.[37]" Is ridiculous non-neutral biased soapboxing, which has no place on wikipedia.  Henry Herbert did as little as possible to the Herbert family historical home.  There are plenty of other places for your royalist oligarchy propaganda.  Though wiki is probably one of those places as the article is atrocious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Scott Herbert (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm a little lost, how does superstition and rationalism factor into how the wording was changed? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, Wikipedia articles need their content to be sourced. Without a source, the idea that “Henry Herbert did as little as possible to the Herbert family historical home” is an opinion which doesn’t belong in the article.
 * We’re free to speculate on talk pages of course as long as we make sure to include sources when writing articles. In that spirit, I might indulge a bit here since I’m interested in slighting. Lila Rakoczy’s ground-breaking PhD thesis covers this topic well but I’ll summarise a few points here.
 * There are a few important points here. Firstly, Raglan was indeed slighted on the orders of Parliamentarians. Most documented cases were carried out on Parliament’s orders, but there are examples of royalists slighting castles. It was often quite a political act, not senseless violence. And there are documented cases where castles were carefully dismantled and parts reused or resold. Slighting also wasn’t just about the building itself, it also included its contents (eg: Raglan Castle’s library) and the landscape (the moat and its fish).
 * For the evidence base we have the initial order recorded in the House of Commons Journal, a purported eye-witness account, and the physical remains themselves.
 * The order, as cited in Rakoczy 2007, reads “That the Castle of Ragland, the Works about it, and the House and Buildings thereof, be forthwith pulled down and demolished”. The intention it seems was for quite extensive destruction. The reality of what was carried out may be due to a range of factors: the resources available, the motivation of people involved, whether other events overtook them.
 * The eyewitness account, written at least two decades after the fact, details the undermining of two sides of the Great Tower, noting that efforts began with trying to dismantle the Great Tower top down but this was abandoned, the implication that it was too difficult/arduous/ineffective. Arguably “The fortifications proved too strong”, as the Wikipedia article currently says, referenced to Tribe. A different method of slighting was then used, switching to undermining the tower on two sides. The account also notes that “the country people were summoned into a rendezvous with pickaxes, spades, and shovels, to draw the mote in hope of wealth; their hope failing, they were set to cut the stanks of the great fish ponds, where they had store of very great carps, and other large fish”. By taking the fish from the ornamental lake they were transgressing and rebelling against the earl’s authority, as well as acquiring something with direct value to themselves. The elite landscape is part and parcel of how the castle was experienced.
 * The buildings of the castle tell their own story. While a significant portion of the stone buildings are intact, the earthworks erected during the civil war are truncated. John Kenyon suggests the earthworks may also have been timber stakes, which were most likely removed as a result of the orders to demolish “the Works about [the castle]”. Working out what was removed can be difficult if the work was too thorough, and decay over the next 370+ years will have taken its toll. That said there is evidence of the removal of decorative features such as from the Grand Staircase, ornate fireplaces, and facing stone and probably statuary from the pitched stone court had little to do with Raglan’s role as a fortress. The tricky bit is working out which damage was caused during the initial act of slighting (primary damage) and which came later with looting and despoliation (secondary damage). The sources don’t seem to explain that, at least not from what I can see.
 * The partial destruction of the Great Tower is very interesting and reminds me of Kenilworth. Kenilworth was another castle in a watery landscape that was slighted by Parliamentarians; its great tower was slighted by demolishing one of its four sides, the one most visible from outside the castle (Johnson 2002). Since the Great Tower at Raglan stands apart from the enclosure, most of the tower would be highly visible, and the undermined walls fall in that area. As well as diminishing its value as a fortification it was a highly visible statement about the fate of one of the king’s most enthusiastic supporters.
 * In short, a significant amount of damage was inflicted on Raglan, not just what would leave it “inoperable as a fortress”. The assertion that Parliamentarian Henry Herbert’s “did as little as possible to the Herbert family historical home” could certainly use some sources.
 * And finally, please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative place. We are trying to create a reliable source of information, and constructive discussion is an integral part of that. Stomping around making personal attacks doesn’t exactly enhance your case. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

- Many thanks. There’s some very good material here that could usefully be added to the article. Personally, I doubt that constructive dialogue with Adrian will be possible, but I may be proved wrong. KJP1 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apropos the above, I see that John V. Hiling attributes the Great Tower's collapse to "Cromwell's mines". He appears not to be acquainted with the latest thinking on its destruction! KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)