Talk:Harlech Castle

Seven-year-siege

That links to an article that doesn't contain the word "siege" at all... and neither the year "1468" when it was supposed to end. It does seem to talk about various other sieges, but it doesn't look like a very appropriate link to me. Shinobu (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

posible pic

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2001703487/

Great find, the article doesn't seem to have a picture that really sets it in the landscape. As it was published before 1900 I think we're in the clear with copyright. The page even says "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on reproduction". Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, with the anonymous Library of Congress pictures, I'd advise a little bit of caution - a photograph taken in England in 1900 such as this by a photographer aged, say 20, could very easily still be under copyright: he'd only needed to have lived to the age of 60-odd for his rights not to have quite expired on it. Thus the "Rights assessment is your responsibility." tag they put on it. Still, its a question of risk assessment I suspect (and it is a nice photo!). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately only commons worries about UK law not en.wikipedia. If worried find an american to upload it.©Geni 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but one could could potentially argue for Restored Copyright status, which could then make a difference in the US courts! :) I'd just note that the issue isn't simple, and add it in. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

published in the US pre 1923. Thats pretty solidly PD in the US.©Geni 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily...

• Firstly, Commons requires, for example, that "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work" (my italics). The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." Photochrom Prints were certainly created in Switzerland and Detroit through the photo-lithographic process; one might well find, however, that the original black and white photograph could be considered to have been first published in the country in which it had been taken (there are no records of who and where the original no-lithographic photographs were acquired from prior to the process being applied, for example); thus, if first published in the UK, as might be considered by some to be rather likely, this would imply that the UK's laws would apply and uploading could be an issue under Commons processes. The only exception under Commons processes are "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art", which these are clearly not.
• Alternatively, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act can apply, creating "restored copyrights" even in the US, depending on the date on which publishing first occurred, and if that publishing was considered by a court to have occurred legally. Ironically, a work can equally be in the public domain in its source country but still under copyright in the United States under this rule.

All of which still leads me to think that we should use it, but in the awareness that without an author and a precise date for publication, one does so at an (admittedly minimal!) level of risk. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Expansion...

I've gone through and given the article a scrub over and expanded it a bit, removing some close paraphrasing in places, and drawing on some of the latest research from the 2007 conference. A couple of points:

• I've dropped the reference to a "seven year siege"; it isn't used in the more recent literature, probably because it summons up images of encamped armies outside the castle for seven years, which certainly wasn't the case. The current literature talks about a final month-long (or three week) siege, which is what I've gone with here.
• I'm really not sure if Harlech counts as being in North Wales or not; I think so, so I've opted for North Wales here, but more experienced hands may feel it is in Mid-Wales: please correct if necessary!
• I couldn't find a wikilink for Egryn Abbey - if anyone knows of one, do add it in... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• NB: I also updated the references from Arnold Taylor's various monographs to the latest 2007 edition. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Role of the House of Savoy in the building of Harlech Castle

To clarify the links that existed between the County of Savoy and King Henry III and Edward I of England which led to James of St George’s role in the Edwardian castles of wales. Savoie-Carignan (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Here goes. The wife of King Henry iii was Eleanor of Provence, whose mother was Beatrice of Savoy, Countess of Provence. She was daughter of Count Thomas I of Savoy. Two of her brothers played a significant role in Henry III’s England because they were Uncles of the Queen of England. Firstly, Count Pierre II of Savoy was granted the Earldom of Richmond, as well as the important post of ‘Warden of the Cinque Ports’. This made him very powerful. He built the Savoy Palace in London as his residence. His brother Boniface was made Archbishop of Canterbury. So, you see, Savoy had quite a lot of influence in England.

Later, back in Savoy Pierre II began an extensive building program to upgrade many of his castles. His builder? James of St Georges d’Esperance. It was only natural that Edward I should stop over in Savoy on his way back from the Ninth Crusade. There he saw the many works of Master James and decided to employ him on his own projects in Wales later on. The dead ringers are the windows in Chateau Chillon and St Georges D’Esperance as well as the latrine turret at Saillon. Helicoidal scaffolding and a few other things complete the list. In short, his kinsman the Count of Savoy, gave Edward I his builder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savoie-Carignan (talk • contribs) 09:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)