Best Castles & Palaces of Europe

[Langur]

Here is an example of Scottish baronial style "castle" of the C19th. Of course this is a folly rather than real castle, but it compares in style and purpose to Ludwig's Neuschwanstein that began this thread, and was built at exactly the same time:

image hosted on flickr


This is called Ardverikie, and it featured in the hit TV series, Monarch of the Glen.

[let forever be]

Originally Posted by Clay Hefner

He was talking about historicism in the colonies in general, you need to chill.

He was also saying that Britain was "sad" and not as architecturally accomplished as mainland Europe which is complete nonsense.

Further, the things he was referring to in the colonies are NOT castles but palaces and stately mansions.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by Clay Hefner

He was talking about historicism in the colonies in general, you need to chill.

But he's wrong, just plain wrong. I suspect he's referring to the Indo-Saracenic style created by British architects in India for public buildings and also as palaces for Indian maharajas. However there must be hundreds of fantastical C19th stately homes of this era in Britain, in all manner of historicist styles, so his distinction between British colonies and Britain is just plain wrong. And when someone persists with ignorant statements round after round, it does get a little irritating for people who do know something about British architectural history.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by let forever be

He was also saying that Britain was "sad" and not as architecturally accomplished as mainland Europe which is complete nonsense.

Further, the things he was referring to in the colonies are NOT castles but palaces and stately mansions.

He also claimed that British historicism continued to replicate the medieval Norman style, that this is the reason for Britain having supposedly less variety in our castles, and that Brighton Pavilion (!!) was a rare exception to the orthodoxy. All of that is wrong. In fact British historicism was often playful and embraced myriad eclectic styles, some native and some foreign, and Brighton Pavilion is unique only for its eccentric bad taste (which he seems to admire). He claims knowledge but he simply doesn't have it....

[let forever be]

Originally Posted by Langur

He also claimed that British historicism continued to replicate the medieval Norman style, that this is the reason for Britain having supposedly less variety in our castles, and that Brighton Pavilion (!!) was a rare exception to the orthodoxy. All of that is wrong. In fact British historicism was often playful and embraced myriad eclectic styles, some native and some foreign, and Brighton Pavilion is unique only for its eccentric bad taste (which he seems to admire). He claims knowledge but he simply doesn't have it....

I know!

Britain, more than just about any country in the world has a myriad of architectural styles. This is in part due to Britain's 'empire' and how colonies and their art were incorporated into the British vernacular. I guess some people just ignore that...

[buy]

Krak de Chevaliers (sp?) is the best imo. Very thick and impervious.

[JoseRodolfo]

I don´t know if you would call them Castles, but they´re certainly classics, and probably my favorites:


The Chambord in Loire Valley




The Chenonceau also in Loire Valley






And Fontainebleau in Île-de-France

[Hasse78]

Originally Posted by Langur

WOW. This one is cool as hell..

[erbse]

Originally Posted by Langur

Sorry but you're talking out of your arse. Why would Victorians build "castles" in the colonies? I challenge you to find a single British colonial castle of the Victorian era!! The Victorians built palaces and great houses throughout the British Empire, but then there are hundreds of these in Britain too, many built during the Imperial era. What's the distinction? Frankly we could bombard your thread with magnificent palaces and stately homes if you want, but we ourselves do not consider them as "castles" (which is, after all, the title of this thread - though admittedly a lot of what has been posted on this thread are not castles at all). In fact I suspect Britain has rather more great houses than most countries of Continental Europe, and a great deal of our land area remains in the ownership of the great estates even today.

You didn't get my point at all. I was talking about the general Victorian architecture regarding the colonies, perhaps should've point that more out. But I thought it was obvious that there are no British castles in the former colonies (rather forts, colonial palaces, residences and public buildings). It was about diversity in British architecture in general which leads to the lack of it in castle architecture.

In the end you may find distinct styles regarding fomer royal houses, but other than that...
Just compare Brick Gothic castles they built in the Baltic region with Bavarian or Rhineland castles.
You won't find such tremendous differences in British castle architecture, whatever you may think.

[erbse]

Originally Posted by Langur

Here is an example of Scottish baronial style "castle" of the C19th. Of course this is a folly rather than real castle, but it compares in style and purpose to Ludwig's Neuschwanstein that began this thread, and was built at exactly the same time:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/...ef8f70a9_o.jpg

This is called Ardverikie, and it featured in the hit TV series, Monarch of the Glen.

Good example for a romanticist creation of the industrial age. But then again, it exactly incorporates what I said: Brits repeated/copied themselves, instead of developing new distinctive historist architecture. Yet they are the forefathers of historism (mainly neo gothic). So it seems strange they weren't able to come up with something new, or refreshing combinations of styles - while they've done so in the colonies, featuring local traditions and improving their own understanding of proportions, material and ornamentation. It seems this went above the heads of motherland architects.

Originally Posted by let forever be

He was also saying that Britain was "sad" and not as architecturally accomplished as mainland Europe which is complete nonsense.

Further, the things he was referring to in the colonies are NOT castles but palaces and stately mansions.

It seems you're the one featuring inferior complexes here, not us.
I said it wasn't as diversified, which you finally have to admit, as you obviously just can't argue.

And as I stated once again, there are no castles in the colonies, I was talking about distinctive architecture styles that evolved outside Britain.

[erbse]

Originally Posted by Langur

He also claimed that British historicism continued to replicate the medieval Norman style, that this is the reason for Britain having supposedly less variety in our castles

You've got it, Sir.

and that Brighton Pavilion (!!) was a rare exception to the orthodoxy

It is. We were talking about royal architecture at this point already.
And I don't admire it, but ja, it's an exception. And a rare one.
If you can prove me different, try to do so. You won't find striking examples.

In fact British historicism was often playful and embraced myriad eclectic styles, some native and some foreign

When talking about London, no doubt. Obviously the metropolis was an architectural playground at that time, almost to the extent Paris or Berlin were. But outside of it? Don't get me wrong, but main UK already was too centralised at that time to allow regional distinctions. A federal structure would've helped.

He claims knowledge but he simply doesn't have it....

You didn't prove me any of your "great architectural knowledge of Britain" yet.
Where are all those examples of diverse castle structures and historicist styles to be found in Britain you know about? The people are waiting for your references.

[Langur]

*Edit* You posted the above whilst I was typing my response to your previous post....

There is no distinction between London and other British cities in terms of styles or inventiveness. There is plenty of neo-gothic and other eclectic revival architecture to be found in other British cities. Look at the landmark buildings of any of the other British cities that were thriving at this time and it's so obvious. I also don't see the relevance of Brighton Pavilion being royal. Royal archiecture only accounted for a handful of buildings. What about all the rest?

Originally Posted by erbse

Good example for a romanticist creation of the industrial age. But then again, it exactly incorporates what I said: Brits repeated/copied themselves, instead of developing new distinctive historist architecture. Yet they are the forefathers of historism (mainly neo gothic). So it seems strange they weren't able to come up with something new, or refreshing combinations of styles - while they've done so in the colonies, featuring local traditions and improving their own understanding of proportions, material and ornamentation. It seems this went above the heads of motherland architects.

Are you seriously arguing that neo-gothic, which was pioneered in Britain, is simply a verbatim copy of medieval gothic, without any originality or incorporation of new elements? Few Victorian neo-gothic buildings could ever be mistaken for medieval. You mention materials yourself, but where in Britain are medieval gothic buildings made of brick? Victorian gothic, by contrast, made frequent use of brick. That's why you would never mistake Oxford's Keble College (Victorian and brick) for one of its medieval neighbours (stone). And what about the new industrial elements in structures like Tower Bridge or the engine shed at St Pancras Station?

And that's just neo-gothic. Look at the idiosyncratic romanesque reference of London's Natural History Museum. And what of native British architectural heritage do you detect in the neo-byzantine Westminster Cathedral? How can you explain a Victorian building like Harrods in terms of prior British architectural heritage? What of Egyptian revival architecture that also began in London? The truth is that Victoriana was highly original, and sourced architectural reference from far and wide, native and foreign. Sorry to be so harsh, but you're ignorant and just plain wrong.

[erbse]

Edit: Ok, now you've read Master Erbse's post. Glückwunsch.


You obviously didn't read my post. You're the one being ignorant.

Just for you pal, in case you missed it:

Originally Posted by erbse

When talking about London, no doubt. Obviously the metropolis was an architectural playground at that time, almost to the extent Paris or Berlin were. But outside of it? Don't get me wrong, but main UK already was too centralised at that time to allow regional distinctions. A federal structure would've helped.

There's a lot of diversification in London alone, but not when overlooking whole Britain. Regional differences are sparse or almost non-existent. While you have completely different styles at the French Atlantic and Mediterranean coast, or in central Europe even from one village to another (especially in timbered houses and fortifications and historicist resumptions of those), Britain remains rather uniform.

And that was my main focal point since the beginning: Great Britain lacks diversification in (castle) architecture as a whole.


So that part remains:

You didn't prove me any of your "great architectural knowledge of Britain" yet.
Where are all those examples of diverse castle structures and historicist styles to be found in Britain you know about? The people are waiting for your references.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by erbse

There's a lot of diversification in London alone, but not when overlooking whole Britain.

A bizarre point and one I've already answered. I repeat: There is no distinction between London and other British cities in terms of styles or inventiveness. There is plenty of neo-gothic and other eclectic revival architecture to be found in other British cities. Look at the landmark buildings of any of the other British cities that were thriving at this time and it's so obvious. I also don't see the relevance of Brighton Pavilion being royal. Royal architecture only accounted for a handful of buildings. What about all the rest?

Originally Posted by erbse

Regional differences are sparse or almost non-existent. While you have completely different styles at the French Atlantic and Mediterranean coast, or in central Europe even from one village to another (especially in timbered houses and fortifications and historicist resumptions of those), Britain remains rather uniform.

Nonsense. Scottish castles, for instance, are quite different. Firstly there are no massive Norman military castles in Scotland, because the Normans didn't rule there. On the other hand there are few Scottish baronial style spires on English castles. The Scots incorporated elements of the French Renaissance style.

[erbse]

Originally Posted by Langur

Nonsense.

That perfectly subsumes your last posts. You're neither willing to read my posts carefully and get the actual point, nor are you able to express why my point would be nonsense, to prove it wrong or give proper examples.

A further discussion with you is at least questionable.

[Langur]

^ I'm answering your points directly. Your arguments are just poor, and your knowledge, if I'm being polite, is "thin".

This is clearly in a completely different style to the Norman military castles in Wales that I posted on the previous page:

image hosted on flickr

[erbse]

Yes, it is. So we have one example. Enormous.


When was it built, anyway?

[Xfire101]

Originally Posted by erbse

That perfectly subsumes your last posts. You're neither willing to read my posts carefully and get the actual point, nor are you able to express why my point would be nonsense, to prove it wrong or give proper examples.

A further discussion with you is at least questionable.

You represent the worst of the cultural snobishness and elitism, and how continental Europeans like to think of themselves.

Its obvious from your posts you know fuck all about the UK.......

[erbse]

If I'd think like that, how would I dare to travel the whole country extensively?


Some of you people need to grow up. And to find some proper language and manners. Where are the oh-so-famous British gentlemen gone?

If I wasn't such a modest guy you'd be brigged by now.

[Xfire101]

Originally Posted by erbse

If I'd think like that, how would I dare to travel the whole country extensively?


Some of you people need to grow up. And to find some proper language and manners. Where are the oh-so-famous British gentlemen gone?

If I wasn't such a modest guy you'd be brigged by now.

Its the same old crap, from you Continental euros, i've seen it so many times on these forums from all the nationalities of the EU.

You always have, and probably always will ,think that you are so superior when it comes to matters of history and culture.