> 1) Why is a castle a suitable or romantic place to be married?
> 2) If an MP is married in a castle - is it a private matter?
> 3) Is a wedding ever a private matter? - ceremonies in perhistory are
recognised
> to be prime times for advancing political agendas - why not now?
> 4) If this MP finds the castle a romantic and lovely place to be, why does
she
> overlook an activity which was central to the culture that built it?
Which
> leads to -
> 5) How did castles - symbols of miltary domination - become divorced from
the
> violent context of their constructions in the minds of 21st century
British
> people (or Cornish people)
> 6) How do archaeologists (and EH) contribute to this decontextualisation
which
> I think stems partly from 19th century notions of romanticism (ruins =
loss
> = love)
Be gentle please, this is my first time:
I think you have answered much of your own question. All materials can be
considered de-contextualised, or rather 're-contextualised' over time and
space. Myths and fairy-tales of princes and princesses invariably invoke
notions of the romanticism of such places. And besides, many 'castles' in
Britain are not truly castles in the sense of being defenisive positions but
are rather the aesthetic 'reproduction' of many 'true' European
fortifications - Britain never suffering the same conditions of social
stress that the Continent did (my apologies if this is not entirely
accurate, i'm basing it on vague recollections of long-forgotten history
A-level lectures!). The romantic associations that we, and past generations,
have for these places represent another 'chapter' in the biography of these
places and with each narrative, be it a childs fairy-tale or archaeological
tome, its meaning will change. Some monuments and places might be
're-written' for political ends and others as mere artistic license (e.g.
according to Hollywood only Americans appear to ghave faught in WWII). To
atempt to stop such social reconditioning of these places and their
narratives is perhaps futile and we ought to ask why we might want to do so
in the first place? What is our political agenda as archaeologists?
I agree that such ceremonies should be public affairs, particularly if held
in public 'monuments', and we might consider it her bad luck if she doesn't
like it - although i'm certainly not remotely bothered about attending
myself! And yes, i've no doubt there is a 'political agenda' behind what
should be a very personal ceremony - profile and publicity I imagine, after
all, she made the Arch-theory discussion board!
Cheers, Steve
|