|WikiProject Architecture||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject England||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
This should not redirect but should be the discussion page for the article. Dabbler 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposed move to Tudor architecture
I am unhappy about this page being termed "style" rather than Tudor architecture. Style implies a "revival" rather than the real thing. I am planning to write a page about the 19th century Tudor Revival which could quite justly have the name Tudor Style i.e. in the style of the Tudors. Tudorbethan exists as a Tudor revival but that style pertains strictly to the half timbered houses, "Olde England" and Arts and Crafts movement etc. Jacobethan also exists but this refers to buildings specifically in the style of the English Renaissance. The new page will refer to hundreds of 19th century buildings like Chartwell, which do not fit either the Tudorbethan or Jacobethan categories. I won't make a page move for a week to give previous editors here a chance to object/comment. Giano | talk 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree --Amandajm 07:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. I think it might have been "Tudor architecture" once, and for some reason or other changed to Tudor style architecture. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also agree. I think one way would be to have the current Tudor architecture page to Tudor architecture (disambiguation) and Tudor style architecture moved to Tudor architecture. Not sure if that is an approved method of moving or not... but happy to have a go if there are no objections.Finereach (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not an architect. When I read this article I got the impression that since I am not a member of this group, I must suffer through a constant reminder of this fact; the reminder consisting of cliquish words and phrases, ivory tower innuendo, and an architecture-speak which does little to enlighten those not in the loop. The grammar and usage needs to be tightened, more information needs to be actually presented, and you need to quit trying to portray the idea that your perticular discipline puts you in a superior class of individuals.
For example, the second sentence of the first paragraph seems to be trying to say the Tudor style fell between two other periods (which is something we could assume, I think), and that the English still like it. It's hard to tell given the fluffy words used. The second paragraph suggests Tudor presents itself only in castles and colleges, and gives no insight into the houses found in the Eastern United States which claim to be of that style. This article is mostly useless and needs to be written by someone who has a knowledge to convey, and the ability to convey it. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- How would you describe the gist of what is being explained in perfectly straightforward English, bearing in mind that a discussion of an architectural/historical subject must use architectural and/or historical terms, otherwise it would be patronising to its readers, to say the least. Fluffy?
Tudor vs Elizabethan
Would it be possible to merge the Elizabethan architecture and Tudor architecture as the boundaries seemed to be a little fluid, For example as a few of the example buildings seem to be of the Elizabethan period. The demarcation also seems to suggest a significant architecture style shift around 1533 which I am not sure occurred Rupertjames —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC).
- Boundaries are always fluid for architecture. It takes a while for an established style to fall out of favour before something new & exciting takes its place. The Elizabethan period didn't spring into being on her birth, but upon her accession to the throne 25 yrs later. After the Wars of the Roses' dust had settled down, there was a significant shift toward modernising with fortified manors/palaces rather than defensive castles. Brick was increasingly used over stone, & larger windows became the rule rather than the exception (Hardwick Hall, more glass than wall, shows how much building in England had changed by midway thru Elizabeth's reign), & Tudor architecture continued to evolve over the dynasty's 118 yrs. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Kings College Chapel, Henry VIIs Contributions
The arch over the front entrance isn't Tudor, but Gothic. All you have to do is compare it with the archways at Sutton Place & Oxburgh. Those have the slight curve in the upper section that makes the wider Tudor look for a doorway or arch, whilst the Oxford one just goes straight to a point. That chapel was endowed before Henry Tudor was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. It's Perpendicular Gothic at best, & shouldn't be the lead photo in an article on Tudor architecture.
Also, the Tudor period did not begin with Henry VIII! (It's as bad as Googling the poor sod & having it inquire *Did you mean to search for Henry VIII?*). Henry VIIs sole contribution to English architecture wasn't merely the Lady Chapel at Westminster Abbey, which was Gothic, at any rate, in keeping with the existing building. He borrowed heavily from Burgundian architecture....there weren't a whole lot of brick buildings before his palace of Richmond, as brick had to be imported from the Low Countries for the most part, was cost-prohibitive for all but the wealthiest Englishmen, & England didn't step up its production of brick until his grandchildren's reigns....which included building accents like quoins, decor that was merely decor & not disguising something structural, mullioned windows, & other things that are now recognised as Tudor without acknowledging from whom they came. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Four-centred arch v. Tudor arch
The author refers to "The four-centered arch, now known as the Tudor arch". They are not the same thing. A Tudor arch has tight curvature in the corners but straight edges to the apex of the arch, as distinct from the curves of longer radius that give rise to the term 'four-centred'. (A mathematician might describe the straight parts as being of infinite radius, and that a Tudor arch is therefore a special case of a four-centred arch, but this is not a mathematical article!) Also, as this is about English architecture, it is not appropriate to use American spelling. So the four-centred arch should be so spelt (though a quick scan of the rest of the article shows English spellings have been generally used in the article). I notice that the separate article 'Four-centred arch' also equates these distinct types of arch and is also confusing in other respects. PCWT (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)