sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kenilworth Castle

as it may have been at the time of the great siege of 1266

Kenilworth castle as it may have been at vides a synthesis of previous observations and the time of the great siege of 1266 offers a new ground plan for the castle in 1266. James Petre Previous commentaries The siege of Kenilworth in 1266 was arguably Prominent historians who have written about the greatest siege in British medieval military the events of the thirteenth century, have put history. If the desultory blockade of Harlech in forward Simon de Montfort as a prime mover the 1460s can be discounted, the siege of 1266 in the major enhancements which enabled the 6 was the longest - and indisputably, involved castle to resist so spectacularly in 1266. They the greatest resources deployed against any fastened upon a reference in the Flores Histo- castle in Britain in the medieval period. Sur- riarum, which remarked that Simon had prisingly perhaps, there was no attempt at a full strengthened the castle with buildings, repairs treatment of the siege until B. L. Wild’s article and many novel machines. (‘Kenylwrthie…, in the English Heritage Historical Review in quod quidem comes Legecestriae mirabili 2010.1 That account included Richard Lea’s structura atque reparatione firmaverat ac ma- reconstruction drawing of how the castle may chinis multimodis,…’). In that it is now have appeared in 1420, a drawing which earlier thought that this entry in the chronicle is from featured in the current (second edition) ‘red a period when it was written at Pershore Abbey guide’ by Richard K. Morris.2 In that latter in Worcestershire, the scribe was near enough publication, the image carried a rider that the to have had local knowledge. Simon’s work reconstruction of the outer work, known as may also be suggested in the slightly earlier ‘The Brays’, was entirely conjectural, inas- Chronica Majora of Matthew Paris written at 7 much as little is now left other than the earth- St. Albans. The eminent editors of the History works. The image is a very fine piece of of the King’s Works suggested that Simon may artwork and is no doubt largely correct in all its have constructed the elaborate water defences, other details. It was, however, of Kenilworth a a notion earlier put forward in the Victoria century and a half after 1266. A depiction of County History, but in reality, there is nothing 8 how Kenilworth may have appeared in 1266, to say that he did. Simon was first granted courtesy of a ground plan, was provided in my custody of the castle in 1244: in 1253 the grant contribution to . A History and Guide, was made for life. The castle appears to have published in 1980.3 Subsequent research and become his military headquarters so in theory reflection have made it clear that that plan he could have contributed significantly to its needs correction. Colour reconstruction draw- development but as Wild has remarked, it ings, by Ivan Lapper, displayed on site and seems unlikely that Simon would have spent included in Derek Renn’s guidebook of 1991, large sums on what was, after all, a royal castle showed the castle as it might have been in of which he was the mere custodian. For much Norman times, after King John’s works, after of the time, Simon was ‘constantly on the edge ’s alterations and finally in Tudor of financial embarrassment’. Whether this dif- times. The second of these represented a view ficulty was exacerbated by expenditure on Ke- of what the castle may have looked like at the nilworth or precluded heavy expenditure on it, time of the siege, but certain features are imag- is impossible to know. Simon’s income im- ined, although not recorded as such.4 Richard proved somewhat, first in 1253 and then again K. Morris’s first ‘red guide’ edition of 2006, in 1255, so if he did spend any money on the also included a number of colour reconstruc- castle, it would have been from then and in- tion drawings. One of these envisaged the cas- deed the reference in the Flores, given above, tle in 1266 but is plainly inaccurate in a number is under the year 1264. Even then, however, it of its details, particularly in its representation appears that his ‘budget’ could never have of ‘The Brays’.5 It is perhaps significant that stretched to the accomplishment of truly major these images were dropped for the second edi- works, so whatever Simon did commission, it 9 tion. The present, short paper that follows pro- seems unlikely that it was on a grand scale.

221 THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Kenilworth castle as it may have been at the time of the great siege of 1266

Architectural historians, on the other hand, tween the inner and outer curtains to block off have generally agreed that it was King John a section of the outer and so provide who was the principal progenitor of the fortifi- some protection for a direct route shown as cations. This is reflected in the ‘official’ guide- leading from the outer curtain Water Gate books issued by the successive agencies of the through a small entrance pierced into the inner State entrusted with the keeping of the castle. curtain. Some of these details, such as the In the 1960s, Baillie Reynolds considered that interval towers, can be accepted as accurate; John built the curtain, though felt others, particularly the cross walls, pose some the Brays was created by Henry III.10 Next, in difficulty and so warrant further discussion, 1973, Derek Renn also assigned the outer bai- provided below.14 ley curtain to John, though gave only a thir- The author of the current English Heritage teenth-century date for the development of guidebook to Kenilworth, Richard K. Morris, Mortimer’s Tower and the raising of the level was clear that the extension of the Mere by 11 of the water defences. In the more detailed raising the water level, and building Mortim- writings of M. W. Thompson of 1977 and er’s Tower and the outer bailey curtain should 1991, not only was the outer curtain built by be credited to King John. These works includ- John, but so too was the fortified causeway ed Lunn’s Tower but Morris noted that the later known as the and the raising of Water Tower, in its present form at any rate, is the water levels. better assigned to Thomas, 2nd earl of Lancas- Thompson was a little less exact in assigning ter in the early fourteenth century. Like Baillie dates for Mortimer’s Tower and the Gallery Reynolds, Morris preferred to put the con- tower with its outworks including its south- struction of ‘the Brays’ in Henry III’s reign, west facing D-shaped tower. He did, however, suggesting that ‘Simon might have been re- assign these to the thirteenth century. So far as sponsible’. Since he wrote this in the later that D-shaped tower is concerned, his analogy edition of his ‘Red Guide’, he changed his with the design of the final development of view and thought it more probable that King Dover’s Tower could, of course, be John was responsible. Morris also acknowl- used to suggest a date of the very early period edged the existence of an entrance through the of Henry III’s reign. Thompson also assigned outer curtain on the north but understandably, a thirteenth-century date to the three main given our lack of knowledge, declined to sug- towers on the outer curtain on the north and gest quite where this may have been.15 east, namely, the Swan Tower, Lunn’s Tower Morris additionally mentioned that John’s and the Water Tower. He considered Lunn to works ‘probably’ included a small be early thirteenth century and the Water Tow- protecting the entrance into the inner bailey, a er to be mid-thirteenth century, which would suggestion he received from John Goodall. As 12 put both as in existence by 1266. In Renn’s Morris subsequently noted, however, there is colour guidebook, which appeared in the same no hard evidence for this.16 The arrangement year as Thompson’s second edition in 1991, which is now discernible for defending this Renn too assigned the outer curtain to John and inner bailey entrance, is a masonry causeway also gave a thirteenth century date to Mortim- leading out from the inner curtain, over its 13 er’s Tower. As noted above, this guidebook erstwhile ditch, terminating in a splayed out included reconstruction drawings. These en- platform. This in turn was defended by a draw- visaged that by the end of King John’s works, bridge pit beyond which a narrow causeway there were towers on the outer curtain where continued. This is charted on Thompson’s the Swan, Lunn’s and the Water towers are plans in his Kenilworth Castle, where he as- located, two north curtain interval towers and signed it to the fourteenth century.17 This a considerable with a barbican strad- drawbridge must surely have lain at the front dling the north , where Leicester’s build- of, and as a part of, a barbican complex. Given ing was erected in Elizabeth’s reign. In the military nature of these works, in origin addition, two cross walls were inserted be- their core could just as easily be earlier. Con-

222 THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Kenilworth castle as it may have been at the time of the great siege of 1266 sequently this is reflected in the attached el, to make a striped, wooden wall to separate ground plan, with ‘?’, to denote that the barbi- the chancel from the chapel, to make two can and drawbridge, etc, were possibly there in wooden seats, suitably painted and a third 1266. painted seat for the chapel in the tower. The porch of the tower had fallen down so was to In his The English Castle of 2011, John be rebuilt and the great chamber needed a new Goodall also credited King John with many of roof. The gaol with a ‘bretaschia’ in which the the outer defences: ‘probably’ the Tiltyard, king’s bells hung, was to be repaired; all gut- Lunn’s Tower and raising the level of the water ters were to be repaired where necessary and defences. He considered that John may also finally ‘the wall which threatens to fall into the have had built the outer curtain including Mor- fish-stew, to be pulled down and rebuilt.’ timer’s Tower, and the Brays, but that these could equally be mid-thirteenth century. His The second order, dated 11 September and account is as one with that of Morris in giving issued from Kenilworth itself, is perhaps even a c. 1310 date to the Water Tower but addition- more interesting and worth quoting in full.22 ally he ascribed the Swan Tower to the four- Clearly the king himself was on hand and was teenth century.18 Prior to Goodall’s analysis, taking a personal interest in what needed do- the Swan, or Swan’s Nest Tower, was general- ing, although as usual in his case, the focus ly thought to be thirteenth century.19 remained largely on decorative and domestic aspects of architectural improvements. Both Documentary evidence and an analogy for orders were promptly carried out and paid for, Mortimer’s Gatehouse as reflected in the details which are repeated Unfortunately, the documentary evidence for in the Pipe Rolls for 1241-2.23 the period when, in all likelihood, the castle To the sheriff of , Contra- was transformed into a great fortress - that is breve to cause the queen’s chamber in at the beginning of the thirteenth century - is the castle of Kenilworth to be wainscot- quite thin. We know that King John stayed at ed, whitened and lined (lineari), and the Kenilworth on a few occasions and expended windows broken and made larger; to over £1,100, mainly between 1210 and 1215, have the fireplaces (caminos) of the though we have no detail as to quite what was king’s and queen’s chambers repaired; built. The record in the Exchequer’s Pipe Rolls a privy chamber by the queen’s cham- is incomplete so the King may in fact have ber and the castle wall to be repaired; spent considerably more money than we two gates of the castle to be likewise know.20 The records of royal expenditure in repaired; a new wall to be built between Henry III’s reign, which admittedly may also the inner and outer wall of the castle, a be incomplete, reflect works that are principal- new porch with a finial (crappa) to be ly maintenance and repair and improvements made before the queen’s chamber, and to the royal apartments and chapel. These are a window to be made on the north side not, however, extensive undertakings, which is of the castle chapel, and a swing-bridge perhaps hardly surprising for unlike his father, (pontem torneicium), the cost to be Henry does not appear to have favoured Kenil- credited by view. worth as a residence and rarely visited it. Still, it is worth looking at the detail of what Henry As noted above, Thompson drew an analogy arranged, for among the records for his reign, with Dover’s Constable Tower as regards Ke- are two entries in the Liberate Rolls, which are nilworth’s D-shaped tower in the complex of fairly explicit and they do refer to some works the ‘Gallery Tower’ protecting the outer de- on the castle’s defences. fences of its Causeway-Tiltyard. Analogy with Dover is perhaps rather more valuable with The two sets of instructions are both for 1241. regard to Mortimer’s Gatehouse. At some The first is dated 16 February at Woodstock.21 point, this twelfth century simple gateway was By this, the sheriff of Warwickshire was or- transformed into an elaborate twin-towered dered to wainscote, whiten and paint the chap- gatehouse with double doors, portcullises, side

223 THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Kenilworth castle as it may have been at the time of the great siege of 1266 chambers with arrow slits and at least one upper It should be acknowledged, however, that in storey. Its towers are elongated D-shaped (or 2008, Nicholas Molyneux considered that the U-shaped) to the field, a style of gatehouse that Tiltyard was only developed by Robert Dud- of course became de rigueur in the thirteenth ley, Duke of Northumberland, in 1549-53 and century. But when might it have been built? At accordingly suggested that the Mere was not Dover it appears to be agreed that the formida- raised to its final level until that time.25 Yet the ble elongated D-shaped/U-shaped, twin towered consensus remains that the castle achieved its gatehouse on the north of its outer curtain was greatest degree of fortification, in a unique created by John, together with considerable combination of walls, towers, earthworks and stretches of curtain wall on either side. Interest- water defences, by 1266. ingly, the record of John’s expenditure at Dover The outer curtain is almost identical to what we have for Kenil- worth. It too is incomplete and we may reckon On the northern, outer curtain, we know from the that at both, that king’s expenditure was consid- Hollar plan published in 1656, that there were at erably greater.24 It seems acceptable therefore, least two interval towers: one in the centre of the to consider that John commissioned a powerful curtain and a smaller one to the west, mid-way to elongated D-shaped/U-shaped, twin-towered the Swan Tower. The central tower is shown on main gatehouse at Kenilworth just as he did at Hollar’s view as polygonal to the field. This is Dover. It is fair to acknowledge that John’s known from excavation to have been rectangular gatehouse at Dover is decidedly larger than internally and to have contained a small, pedestri- Mortimer’s at Kenilworth but of course, at Do- an postern gate with a bridge across the ditch ver the gatehouse was pivotal in its first line of outside.26 A survey of the castle was drawn up in defence, which was not the case with Mortim- 1563 which recorded a ‘fair gatehouse of stone er’s at Kenilworth, assuming the Causeway and with a portcullis, going into the town, much in Brays then lay beyond. If Mortimer’s Gatehouse decay’.27 Was this the postern or a larger and may indeed be ascribed to John’s reign, and quite distinct entrance nearby? The phraseology irrespective of its different scale compared to of the survey suggests the latter but it has caused Dover, it is arguable that Mortimer’s is among some confusion to earlier commentators. Derek the very first such that we have. Renn, for instance, considered that Leicester’s Gatehouse, built in 1571-2, replaced the postern, Establishing a date for Mortimer’s Gatehouse although that interpretation is not followed in is perhaps a key in reaching a conclusion on Lapper’s depiction in Renn’s 1991 guidebook.28 when the castle attained its greatest degree of In all likelihood, the main, north gatehouse was fortification. It is inconceivable that Mortim- indeed on the later site of Leicester’s Gatehouse, er’s would be developed without a final com- and this was distinct from the pedestrian postern pletion of the main outer, curtain wall with in a neighbouring tower. Analogy with Dover is angle towers where necessary. It may also be again worthy of note as there, its main entry point argued that the Gateway’s central role in artic- on its north (the Norfolk Towers) is quite close to ulating with the outer defences of the a lesser entry on its north-east (the FitzWilliam Causeway/Tiltyard and ‘the Brays’ complex, Gate). So this juxtaposition of main gate and suggests that all were completed, or at any rate immediately adjacent postern is quite feasible. started, as one grand, overall arrangement. As East of the later Leicester’s Gatehouse is a heavi- noted above, earlier commentators have as- ly buttressed causeway across the moat, probably cribed these outworks either to John or to his marking the site of the northern dam made neces- son, Henry. Either way, those cited above ap- sary by the difference in water levels on the east pear to be agreed that all these main dimen- and west sides of the castle.29 It seems plausible sions of the fortifications were in place by that such a dam could be associated with the 1266. If one or more towers, certainly the gateway and that this argues in favour of locating Water Tower, as it is now, may be of a four- the original, main, northern entrance where teenth-century build, it would seem very prob- Leicester created his elaborate entrance able that there were earlier towers in the same arrangement.30 locations.

224 THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Kenilworth castle as it may have been at the time of the great siege of 1266

The eastern arm of the northern curtain termi- the Mere and that the Water Gate was only nated at Lunn’s Tower which, as already not- created in association with the grand works of ed, was probably built during King John’s John of Gaunt.37 North of the Water Gate is the programme of works. As then constructed, it ‘King’s Gate’. Baillie Reynolds thought it ex- was endowed with five, fish-tailed arrow-loops isted in the medieval period, and J. H. Drew at ground floor level. It appears to have been also felt that it could be old, noting that it was subsequently modified, most probably during blocked at some point and later reopened. It is the tenure of Thomas, around now agreed, however, that it is a post-medieval 1310-20, when an external stair turret was construction.38 added, giving access to the two upper floors Finally, there is the matter of possible cross walls and a wall walk running off to the south. The mentioned above as depicted in Renn’s guide- top floor was designed to be a residential book of 1991. In Thompson’s ground plan, the chamber; at some point, the first floor was western wall is shown as fourteenth century and adapted to serve as another chamber.31 the stump of what may have been a southern wall On the east curtain, there was a sally port just is shown as thirteenth century but in Morris's south of Lunn’s Tower, excavated by Archae- modern ‘red guide’, both these are shown as ology Warwickshire in 2009. It has a lancet fourteenth century. It would have made no sense arch and quite possibly pre-dates 1266. In the to have had one without the other, so they must be later middle ages, it was converted into a cul- considered as a pair. If their purpose was to guard, vert, probably serving the Constable’s house in some measure, that section of the outer bailey which adjoined and included Lunn’s Tower, containing a possible route from the Water Gate and is documented by c. 1400.32 This eastern, into the inner bailey, then these features would all outer curtain between Lunn’s Tower and the be contemporary. Could one or both of these Water Tower is heavily buttressed. As noted cross walls be the new wall ordered in Henry III’s above, it now appears to be agreed that the instructions of September, 1241? Inasmuch as we present Water Tower dates from the early four- know of no other walls between the inner and teenth century.33 It does, however, seem prob- outer curtains, it may be that the cross walls and able that there was a tower at this point in 1266. therefore the Water Gate were all in situ by 1266. Proceeding clockwise, immediately west of (The uncertainty of this is reflected by ‘?’ shown Mortimer’s Tower-Gatehouse (discussed against these features on the ground plan). above), a small entrance through the curtain ‘The Brays’ wall is now clearly seen but its age is uncertain. The Brays constitute a roughly crescent-shaped It is possible that the steps and exit there today earthwork forming the southern element of the belong to the creation of a route to a viewpoint fortifications. Morris was surely correct in con- 34 here for nineteenth-century visitors. Like the sidering that its name comes from the French eastern, outer curtain, the southern curtain is braie indicating a military outwork defended by heavily buttressed from the outside. Part of this (cf the later use of this term in fausse- curtain is furnished with a number of embra- braye, which in the era of gunpowder artillery sures containing arrow loops and is probably fortification indicated a continuous rampart and 35 part of the rebuilding ordered in 1241. parapet placed in the ditch in front of the main Hollar’s plan shows a sally port on the western rampart).39 It is now thought certain that the curtain, leading down to the Mere which Brays were bordered by a dry ditch rather than a Thompson repeated.36 This was in fact the water-filled one.40 There is nothing to say that ‘Water Gate’ which is probably no later than the embankment supported masonry defences. the fourteenth century. Whether an entrance There are, however, the remains of an odd ma- existed in 1266, however, is hard to say: Rich- sonry structure on the outer side of the embank- ard Morris though not. Excavations have sug- ment on the south-east. This is the connected pair gested a possible quay on the south-west side of round fronted, bastions now seen from a bend of the Gallery Tower complex so it is possible in the road coming from the modern town. Its that boats first used this point of access across stonework seems similar to that of Mortimer’s

225 THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Kenilworth castle as it may have been at the time of the great siege of 1266

‘The ground plot of Kenil- worth Castle’ - Wenceslaus Hollar (1607-77), pub- lished in 1656 in Sir Wil- liam Dugdale’s ‘The Antiquities of - shire’. From the University of Toronto Wenceslaus Hollar Digital Collection. Reproduced with thanks. 2-- The Swan Tower 7-- The Water Tower 23- Mortimer’s Tower 24- The Tiltyard 25- The Gallery Tower

Tower. What exactly was this? In previous anal- It appears reasonable to accept that ‘The yses, it has been seen as a gateway and more Brays’ were in place by 1266. Close inspection recently as a pair of connected viewing platforms of this outlying part of the castle, which now created for the tournaments held within the girdles the castle car park, shows that it was an Brays. Certainly the bastion-like circular termini impressive fortification in its own right. For a and the extensive stone platform lying between large part of its circumference, it is defended might have served as a gateway arrangement, by two high ramparts, one behind the other, the outer elements of which have been lost. If each with its own ditch confronting the field. so, it would bear comparison with the entrance Most likely the ramparts were crowned by a to the hornwork, known as the Western Island, . The Victoria County History noted at Caerphilly, begun in 1268 and, it seems, that, in addition to the peculiar masonry, dou- partly modelled on Kenilworth. The alternative ble-bastioned structure discussed above, the proposition - that it served as a grand stand from ramparts included four circular mounds, the which to view tournaments - is not convincing. It summit of the largest being 40 feet in diame- appears to be far too substantial a work for such ter, and proposed that these were platforms for a purpose, and the absence of other, similar, artillery such as mangonels.42 Even if these stone-built structures around the Brays’ embank- prominences had been designed to be tourna- ments, are factors which imply that it had a differ- ment viewpoints, they could obviously have ent purpose. Further to the east, there is a large been adapted as artillery emplacements in time masonry structure projecting forward from the of need. Consequently, capturing merely this bank and blocking the ditch. It is faced with outlying element of the castle must have been well-dressed stonework and may have served as a massive problem in 1266. Kenilworth was, a dam to hold back water from the north. As with in all its many attributes, tremendously strong- the dam beyond the north curtain, this may per- ly fortified: among the two or three most for- haps be associated with a contemporary entrance. midable castles then in existence in England. Accordingly, the plan below shows possible As is well known, it was not taken by assault entrances - marked ‘?’ - both at this point and in that epic siege despite everything that was between the bastions to south-west.41 thrown against it.

226 THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Kenilworth castle as it may have been at the time of the great siege of 1266

Illustration by Cecily Marshall ([email protected]).

Remains of the The Brays bastions; the more southerly ‘entrance?’ marked on the plan.

Image of The Brays gate

227 THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16