JohnC

No, they weren't. In Scotland we have Edinburgh, Stirling, Holyrood House, Linlithgow Palace as the best known of the Royal castles, but there were many others, Falkland, Rothesay, Dunoon, Ayr, Dundonald, Tarbert, Perth, Aberdeen. Although not all called castles, and some may have existed or been owned by the Royal family or been in use at different times, they were all Royal castles. They could not have been in permanent residence at all at a given time. The King's role at the head of the judiciary within the feudal system of many countries, meant that he moved around the country frequently, often taking the entire court and his furniture and belongings with him, perhaps spending short periods only at each. Stirling and Edinburgh, with Holyrood and Linlithgow were favoured residences with different monarchs, and as we moved toward the later medieval era, they tended to be a bit more static. Also without a proper road network, travel was really only viable during what was once called the campaigning season, when it was also feasible to move armies about and keep them fed without the hazards of storms, snow and swollen rivers impeding them. Movement during this season was also aided by food being more accessible and less scarce. All Royal castles would of course have had a constable or keeper who would manage the place in the absence of the lord (not just Royalty followed this transient lifestyle), and there would have been a number of retainers, and perhaps even a small garrison to maintain the place. So yes it would have has residents, but not necessarily always the owner. I thought the answer would be something like this - thanks Gordon. Still, even if it were the case that they were only occupied when a Royal decided to stay (and had no keeper/constable, retainers etc), I don't think anyone could say that places such as Edinburgh or Stirling are not castles - I suppose the 'occupied' part is a mere technicality, and a better way of describing it would be somewhere with a residential area, and the fact that it is in constant occuptaion doesn't matter. However, having said that, this may lead some to say that Brochs are actually castles, as they were fortified structures that contain living quarters of sorts, although only thought to be used in times of danger (although I am not clear on this point) - anyway, I realise that is taking us off onto even newer tangents, and am sorry for derailing this thread with my ramblings :D

Ah, I was wondering what the 2 different names were for, now I know....sorry Gordon, I didn't catch that bit in your original post Still sad to hear it's fallen into neglect apparantly, it is a lovely building - and I hope it manages to survive this latest episode and still be in good shape.

I have to say Andrew that I do find myself agreeing with you on this - what you say certainly makes a great deal of sense. I wonder therefore whether a distinction can be made between what me may describe as being 'true castles' - those which are built before 250 years ago, and which were intended as defensive residential structures (although having said that, were most Royal castles in constant use residentially? Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know). The second disctinction can be 'modern castles', meaning modern castles, or grand houses from after the mid 1700s, being built as something as a homage to castles, rather than being built for practical defensive purposes in a time when such structures were needed. It has to be said, it's a very interesting debate, and I can see why there are a variety of different viewpoints on the matter. I have to agree with Andrew, although would add the caveat outlined above - which some may say takes away all meaning from the original point, and the logical conclusion of such a view perhaps being that someone can call anything they wish a castle (Sorry if I am not expressing this very well). I could only reply that the 'aesthetics', if that is what we may describe it as, it important, and the look of the thing can determine whether or not it may be called a castle - in that sense I would disagree with the 3rd of the definitions of Collins' dictionary, that any large or magnificent house could be called a castle. For me, it's how the thing looks, rather than the size of it....I would struggle to agree with someone calling Buckingham palace a castle, for example, although it it certianly an extremely large and extremely magnificent structure, and most definetely meets the addictional criteria of this definition of being "the present of former home of a nobleman or prince". Anyway, just my two penneth worth on the matter. :)

Going by your 'pre-1700s' caveat, mentioned in the 'castle documentary' thread, then it probably wouldn't - and to be honest, it actually looks more like a house which is built in the style of many castles. Just going by this last point alone, were I to come across this structure without having previously heard it referred to as a castle, I would certainly describe it as a house, and not a true castle :)

Although far from expert, I've always believed that the definition of a castle as we know it is a structure built as a residential, defensive structure - although this may be wrong. However, having said that I think people who are castle enthusiasts and are building castles today still have the right to consider their structures castles. Surely the definition has changed over time, as meanings of words change over centuries (and even decades), and we may come to recognise a castle by how it looks, rather than it being a kind of defended residence? So much so that it may have become little more than an argument of semantics - and I say this without wishing to offend the sensibilities of anyone reading :) Lol, I realise this is not the place for such a discussion - just thought I would add my feelings on the matter. As you both say, the discussion on this is very interesting, and actually is not something I have ever considered before. :)

How sad that this castle seems to have been neglected in recent years, despite Celtic using some of the grounds as a training complex! I would have thought this would have generated some interest at least. This link from the Herald also speculates that a "large part" of the tower may be lost (as mentioned in Gordon's link): http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/displ...al_hospital.php Keep us informed if you learn anything further, Gordon. Very sad that such a magnificent structure has appartantly been on the 'at risk' list since 2002 :( edit: Celtic are a rather large and famous Glasgow football team, for those who don't know about such things :)

And Happy Birthday again! :) Great pics btw - wonder how they're getting on with that collapsed wall!!

Lovely, i've been looking for info on this place for awhile - this is the very first image i've seen of the castle. I wonder if you know Andrew, is there much remaining of this castle today? Whenever I've searched on the web I can't seem to find anything that resembles even ruins. I've aware a lot of the ruins were swept away, either for the building of a railway or road, but I'm just wondering if anything is left and it's a beautiful castle - and, of course, in a very interesting location regarding Anglo-Scottish relations :) I wonder if the castle seen on the prints is the same as the one which felt the wrath of King John and Longshanks etc...EDIT - actually, that's a stupid thing to wonder about, as it almost undoubtebly is

Oh, I had no idea this is a repeat - the fact that it's on so early should have been the giveaway It's very interesting though, particularly as I'm not very expert on any aspect of castle...plus I love watching anything about this period of history, and am a sucker for watching some guy dressed up in 11th century garb or firing a 13th/14th century trebuchet - I'd love to see a reconstruction of the big one Long Shanks bullied Stilrling castle with :D Gordon, those old discussions are very interesting - I should aqaint myself with the search button methinks.

Unsure if this is the right place, but could find no better place for it Channel 4 in the UK are showing a 6-part documentary series all this week entitled 'Castle' - a series "telling the dramatic and thrilling story of Britains's castles". Seems to be on every morning, 10.30 - 11.20. This may be a bit basic for some of our resident enthusiasts, but so far there has been some pretty stunning visuals, and the first episode also attempted a bit of experimental archaeology, in determining whether it was feasable for William I (the Conqueror) to build a motte and bailey at Dover in 8 days. This first episode will be available later today on the Channel 4 website, and all the shows will be available at the same site after broadcast, for 7 days after the original broadcast - http://www.channel4.com/watch_online/ Unsure if it will be available online to non-Uk viewers however. Just thought I should let my fellow Brits know, in case anyone missed it :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_MalcolmRecords of the Scottish Parliament >1707 Gordon that last link is amazing! Astonishing what's available online these days... I used to work at one of the the National Archive (NRA) buildings in Edinburgh - I'm hoping to get another contract with them. I know it's possible to see a lot of the stuff they have, but actually being in amongst the vaults every day is amazing, and a lot of the stuff hasn't even been catalogued yet (I spent a lot of my last contract there sifting through stuff and attempting to catalogue it), so they don't even know what they have. I wasn't doing this project when I was there last, but I was still like a kid in a candy store - I think when I get they're going to have to drag me out! Some amazing finds though Gordon, where do you find this stuff?? :) :)

It's a national disgrace that for years it was not included in formal curricula. I benefitted from having 'enlightened' primary school teachers, and a forthright first year history teacher at secondary school, who provided an overview, but as for the detail, I'm self taught without formal history qualification. An enthusiastic amateur. There are literally dozens of books on The Bruce, but I've still to find one that doesn't have Barrow as a principal reference. Not only a disgrace, it's also bizarre, given the rich and exciting history of our own nation. At school the only aspect of Scottish history touched on was the Highland Clearances, and even this was only a very short course, and in my case was very poorly taught and left me with no real appetite, or understanding, of Scottish history - so when it came to going to university I never even considered Scottish history. Had more of our own history been taught at school, there is no doubt I would have chosen to study Scottish History at university - that I didn't is one of the biggest regrets of my life. So I am also currently teaching myself Scottish history, and hope to pursue it in the future, professionally if possible. So it's also a great pity more of our own history is not taught - if it was, I believe more children would be interested in it, as it would seem much more relevant to them; as it is, many are put off or bored by subjects that just don;t grab their attention in the way hearing about events which may have happened locally, and which shaped the land they are living in would. I'm looking forward to getting Barrow's book - be interesting to read one of our great historians discuss one of our greatest sons :)

Cheers Gordon :) The link naming a Hugh de Lochore as a fellow prisoner of Andrew Moray at Chester is fascinating, I came across similar information awhile back, yet so far have been able to find no other reference to it on the net (indeed, the only reference to a Hugh de Lochore I found anywhere on the net is the link you gave to it) - so, I'll have to wait until I get in amongst the books in Edinburgh. But it's fascinating to think a Lochore may have been fighting the good fight alongside someone as illustrious as Moray! :) Great links, they're all new to me - the one about Wemyss is particularly interesting, I've been looking for detail on him for awhile now :)

.The Amazon listing for the reviewed 2005 edition. A new one, Castles of the Clans, Martin Coventry. Recently published, this is a different slant on Martin's usual format. The listings are by clan or family, some 560 of them, and within each a brief history, then a list of castles owned or occupied by them. There are some new sites, making a total of 3000 just for the families included, an excellent book. The listing at Amazon That's great Gordon - anything by Barrow is fine by me, and something on the Bruce himself must be pretty special. This is an area of history I've only became interested in recently; I have a rudimentary knowledge of the great cause and the wars of independence etc, and it's only recently that I've really come to understand not only how important they are in the history of Scotland, but also how fascinating they are. I'm really looking forward to sinking my teeth into this. My biggest regret is that I didn't study Scottish history, and it's only recently I've began to appreciate just how interesting it is - but, that's another story. Thanks again Gordon :)