Tag: Ralph Neville

Penrith Castle by foot: A new reconstruction

English Heritage is pleased to be a recipient of a generous grant from the Castle Studies Trust to create a new reconstruction image of Penrith Castle (Cumbria, England). Grant co-awardee Will Wyeth (Properties Historian, English Heritage) discusses this work in the context of the charity’s ambitions for public history.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

The castle of Penrith, made of striking red stone, is arranged in four roughly equal ranges bounding a central off-square courtyard. Of the two towers there survives, the Red Tower retains its north-east wall and, and the White Tower a vaulted ground-floor chamber.

Figure 1. Penrith Castle today from the north-west. On the far right is the remains of the Red Tower. The column of stone left of it is the remains of the Great Hall external wall with two window reveals. Left of this are the rebuilt remains of what has been called the ‘White Tower’, projecting out from the line of the curtain. On the far left are the remains of the curtain wall standing to wall-head. It is likely a chapel occupied the top floor of this corner of the range. In the foreground on the left are two phases of gatehouse with bridge crossing the ditch. © Will Wyeth

Scholarly consensus ascribes three major phases of construction in the castle: a primary phase of the very late 14th century and two 15th-century phases, the latter of which was the more extensive. It is this last phase, credited to Richard Duke of Gloucester, which is the focus of the reconstruction image.

The castle today is thoroughly urban, and sits within a public park popular with residents and visitors alike. There are several panels offering information about the castle, including an aerial reconstruction of the site in the mid-15th century.

Figure 2. Existing reconstruction of Penrith Castle in its secondary phase, c.1430 (Roger Hutchins, 2008). © Historic England.

Deconstructing the Reconstruction

The existing reconstruction remains an excellent image. The ranges and towers are carried to full height, the lost courtyard is rebuilt and populated with buildings, while tiny human figures are visible across the site. However, as with many aerial reconstruction images, it has limitations as a device for public history. The image does not aid site orientation for visitors unfamiliar with the ruins or Penrith proper; and life at a human scale is difficult to imagine.

The new reconstruction aimed to address these limitations as well as draw in a further source of guidance. The work of looking after and developing the public history of English Heritage’s properties is supported by a worthy army of volunteers. Penrith Castle is lucky to have one such volunteer, Joanna, who is a true steward of the site’s public history and has led several tours of the castle, gathering  feedback on visitors’ responses to it, and the available interpretation. Through Joanna’s experience, we realised we needed a new image, and imagining, of the castle and its everyday inhabitants.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Rebuilding the Castle

It was necessary to start the process of identifying spaces in the castle from scratch. Several 16th-century surveys mention buildings and spaces with attendant measurements, but the detail is misleading. The missing portions of the site fabric today prohibit confidently identifying spaces such as a hall, chamber, kitchen, accommodations, etc. Certain architectural features survive which can help, but a convincing and comprehensive reconstruction was not achievable.

Figure 3. Buck brothers’ image of Penrith Castle, 1739. The segment of walling on the left with three tall round-headed windows probably depicts a better-surviving portion of the column of stone in Figure 1. In the centre of the image is the tall block (tower?) positioned on the western corner of the castle, now almost completely lost.

Some early images help to locate specific buildings. The Buck image of the castle (1739) illustrates the castle in a more complete state than today – including a complete section of walling where only the reveals and partial window-head of the ‘hall’ survives today – but it also testifies to the presence of a lost tall block positioned on the castle’s west corner (Figure 4).

The great hall was identified by the tall windows in Bucks’ image. This is an unorthodox position. It was unusual for a great hall to be positioned so close to the formal entrance to the castle (in the hall’s primary phase, positioned at the east end of the south range; in Gloucester’s time, just west of the hall). The kitchens which serviced it were also on the other side of the enclosure.

Other ideas were mooted. The presence of a chapel identified with some confidence at the upper level of the east corner of the castle precluded identification with this space in that capacity (see Figure 1). It is possible the three-windowed space was a private or state chamber. While feasible, this pushes the necessity of a great hall elsewhere in the castle where there is not space for it. The high wall outer wall of the surviving south-east range has few outer windows of any significance; the south-west range was, it would seem, dominated by the large tower depicted in the Bucks’ image and resting upon masonry identified with Gloucester’s work; while the north-west range in Gloucester’s time had a number of fireplaces at ground floor whose flues would rise through a first-floor hall set above them, making this alternative, hypothetical arrangement unlikely. For want of alternatives the present consensus, that that hall was in the positioned identified by the Bucks’ three-window wall, is probably correct.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

The New Reconstruction

The new image was developed in collaboration with artist Pete Urmston from an existing photograph (Figure 4, left). This captured several parts of the site which we wanted to reconstruct – the great hall with access stairs, Red Tower and parts of the Gloucester-era gatehouse. It incorporates the part of the castle most familiar to passers-by – the Red Tower – and an assemblage of standing features which in general visitors find difficult to understand. This perspective also granted greater flexibility to create scenes of human interaction in the foreground of the image which might populate the castle and convey a sense of Penrith’s medieval community.

Figure 4. Base photograph used for reconstruction (top); first draft of reconstruction (bottom). Note the column of stone on the left image with window reveals is replicated (rebuilt) on the right.

The process of reconstruction begins with a line sketch superimposed upon the base photograph (Figure 4), and hereafter a sequence of amendments and insertions ultimately leads to the final image (Figure 5). The cutaway into the great hall, and beyond into the Red Tower, gives some sense of the grandeur and scale of lost interiors. The clerestory in the hall, inferred from antiquarian sketches and some degree of analogy with that at Middleham Castle, is defined by windows set on a wall carried by a projecting corbel table. A two-door timber screen of late 15th-century design covers off the lower part of the hall. The window-heads of the gatehouse first-floor echo surviving dressed stone fragments found at Penrith.

Figure 5. New reconstruction of Penrith Castle in the time of Richard of Gloucester. © English Heritage

Perhaps most significantly, the castle is populated with a scene from its tenure by Richard of Gloucester – a meeting of castle staff with tenants and poor folk to hear pleas. A single figure who is attested at the castle and whose presence would be in keeping with a day-to-day scene in castle life in the late 15th-century is represented: Sir Christopher Moresby, depicted on the far left standing with a staff and wearing a green coat (Figure 6).

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Figure 6. Detail of foreground of new reconstruction image. © English Heritage

Moresby supervises under-stewards seated on stools and by a trestle table. Just in front of the restored stair block where a figure descends, painted in Gloucester’s colours of white and blue, are two boys sweeping the yard (Figure 7). Their attention has been captured by a black and white cat standing on top of some barrels. Behind them, through the cutaway, are two figures in the hall basement. One is just entering while the other is sampling (perhaps illicitly) the stores of ale.

Figure 7 Detail of right-hand side of new reconstruction image. © English Heritage

In the hall at first floor are three parallel scenes: well-dressed figures are assembled on a long bench and trestle table in the hall proper. A woman enters the screened area at the low end of the hall from the buttery in the first floor of the Red Tower, visible through the inner cutaway. Leaning upon the sole standing piece of wall that survives in this space today, two servants are bringing down a blue hanging.

The new reconstruction aims to place the people of Penrith Castle at the centre of its re-imagination, while bringing back its lost buildings and interiors. In time the image will feature on a new panel scheme in the castle. In the immediate short-term, Joanna the volunteer is already armed with the image and sharing the new light it brings to the castle with visitors.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

The Medieval Development of Raby Castle

In 2022 the Castle Studies Trust (CST) funded a 3-D digital scan of Raby Castle, County Durham, which was used as a basis for Richard Annis, then of Archaeological Services Durham University, to do a full building survey. Jeremy Cunnington, Chair of Trustees for the CST, takes a look at what he found, focusing on the medieval development of this complicated building that has seen many changes over the centuries, but retains most of its medieval exterior.

Like most castles built and owned by the aristocracy there is no written evidence of what was built when: clues lie in architectural and design features. While exact dates cannot be given, a phasing of what order structures were built in can be shown, much of which agrees with previous scholarship on the castle which suggests that much of the building took place between 1350-88 by the Lords of Raby, Ralph and his son John Neville.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Ground floor plan of Raby Castle. Copyright Archaeological Services, Durham University

A licence to crenellate was granted in 1378 when a lot of the buildings were already in place, as the licence indicates when it refers to “towers, houses and walls”.

The origins of the castle are obscure. The property was obviously substantial enough to be stocked with deer from the royal forest in the mid thirteenth century, suggesting originally an unfortified manor house. Anthony Emery describes Raby as “an awkward and inconvenient shape [that] can only have been determined by an earlier residence on the same low and ill-defended site”.

Raby’s principal purpose has always been residential rather than military with comfortable living taking precedence over defence. The early building seems to be a standard hall house design, with the hall running north to south and utilities and household staff quarters at the north and the lord’s quarters at the south end.

Phase One of the Works

The earliest surviving part of the castle is the Great Hall block. The main discussion relates to whether it was built in two phases or one, with the ground floor being built in the first half of the fourteenth century, and being added to later in the fourteenth century, as proposed by Malcolm Hislop, or was all one build, proposed by Anthony Emery. Evidence for the former is based on the window tracery on the ground floor which is said to date from before 1320.

Blocked first floor doorway in Great Hall block, copyright Archaeological Services, Durham University

Regardless, the main entrance from the courtyard into the Great Hall block from the courtyard was always on the ground floor in a similar position to the current one. The blocked doorway on the first floor was a much later insertion to access an eighteenth century classical loggia. There was no evidence of a staircase down and more importantly the door does not align with the floor of the original first floor hall. Based on an old nineteenth century plan, the entrance to the first floor hall seems to have been a newel (spiral) staircase where the current chapel staircase is now.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Whenever the first floor was added, it was also when the majority of structures on the east side of the castle were built. Both the “Keep” and Mount Raskelf towers at the north end seem to have been built at the same time as the first floor of the great hall given the connecting passage from the first floor great hall to the Keep Tower and probably Mount Raskelf. Although not clear today with the re-arrangement in-fill of Mount Raskelf, both were of mirrored L-shaped design.

Ground floor of Mount Raskelf tower, where the original kitchen was. Copyright Archaeolgical Services, Durham University

The first kitchen was on the ground floor of Mount Raskelf tower. It is also here where there are indications (heavy ribbed vaulting and the plain doorway) that the ground floor of the tower could have been built earlier, but the report found no evidence of a building break.   

Equally it looks as though the chapel tower was built at the same time as the upper Great Hall, as it seems that the chapel’s west window, with no evidence of glazing, was intended to allow people in the upper hall to observe, or, given the height of the window above the floor, to listen to services.

Buck engraving from the south east showing what the original high status rooms of the Great Chamber and Bulmer’s Tower looked like

At the high status (south) end of the hall the accommodation differs from what it was like originally due to the destruction of the chamber block in the eighteenth century. The Buck engraving shows a square great chamber block which was connected to the moated en bec Bulmer Tower with an arched passage way at second floor level. It seems that it was for semi-private rooms for important guests while the Bulmer Tower was the lords’ truly private accommodation, which, in addition to the second floor link, had its own external stair and gate to the south terrace.

It also seems that the Bulmer Tower could date from the same time as the Mount Raskelf tower, as its basement, had the same vaulting as the northern tower according to Hodgson’s 1885 survey. Although no evidence of that now survives.

To the west of the Great Chamber block is Joan’s Tower which had two building phases. Its interior has been much re-arranged so there are no clues to its phasing but it is likely to have been at a similar time to the large expansion around the hall. The older part of the tower was square and had two floors.

Possible blocked postern gate, now in Mount Raskelf tower

Between the original Mount Raskelf and Chapel Towers may also have been the site of an old postern gate at the southern end of the Tower. Although now part of Mount Raskelf Tower the report also suggests that it wasn’t originally, based on later plans, the room in front of the putative gate was originally part of the gate passage and separate from Mount Raskelf . The elongated nature of the gate is also reminiscent of gates at the John Lewyn-designed Bolton Castle.

At some point this gate was blocked up and replaced by an entrance in the Chapel Tower.

Phase Two of the Works

Much of this work took place before the building of the famous Kitchen Tower which couldn’t have been before 1373. The survey shows that the Kitchen Tower was added after the addition of the two northern towers, given that the original kitchens were in the base of Mount Raskelf Tower, and the position of the kitchen which is slightly oblique to the axis of the hall range and northern towers and off centre between those towers. Richard Annis suggests that this is due to the owners wanting to have a service entrance at the south-east corner of the Kitchen Tower but still allow the kitchen’s dimensions to be similar to the kitchen at Durham Cathedral which was completed in 1372.

Roof of the John Lewyn kitchen, copyright Raby Estates

More works took place in the western part of the castle. This was probably when the castle took its current concentric form between 1381-88: the coat of arms on that extension shows the crest of John Neville who died in 1388 and Elizabeth Latimer who he married in 1381. The report assumes the Joan Tower extension, the building of Clifford’s Tower along with the (re) building of the Watch Tower and Western Range took place at this time, as they both extend beyond the original gatehouse to offer protection to the gatehouse or, just as likely, be an aesthetic way to create more space.

Remains of spiral staircase in Clifford’s Tower going from the first to third floors. Copyright Archaeological Services, Durham University

All these buildings have been greatly re-arranged but of them Clifford’s Tower is perhaps the most interesting, given that it was extra lodgings for high status guests. Originally, there was no way to access floors one to three from the ground floor. The only possible access to the first floor was from the West Range, but any evidence has been destroyed by later reworkings. Access to the higher floors seems to have only been possible from the first floor via a spiral stair in the south-east corner of the tower: remains of it were discovered during the survey. No other evidence survives of any other access. There might have been a service entrance from the north yard by a newel staircase and a putative mural passage in the small rooms but that is not certain.

That the (re) building of the Watch Tower dates to a similar period to Clifford’s Tower is based on the design of the two medieval windows in the east wall of the tower, which are paired lights with trefoiled heads identical to the surviving old windows in Clifford’s Tower.

Dating the building periods

It seems likely that, given that so many of the buildings were built simultaneously, which would require large resources, much of the building was carried out by John rather than his father Ralph. While the wealth and importance of the Nevilles of Raby was growing under Ralph thanks to a good marriage and royal service, it was under John that the family’s fortunes really took off. This was particularly thanks to royal service, especially in France from the 1350s onwards. This would have brought great rewards and also allowed him to be influenced by continental styles such as the en bec design of the Bulmer’s Tower. In the early 1370s following the unsuccessful expedition to Brittany he was rich enough to pay ransoms totalling £4,500 for some of his captured companions. It is also likely that it is after that time, when he was back in the north of England, and again from the late 1380s, after a brief stint in Gascony that he would have had the time to devote to the development of the castle and help turn it into the striking castle we see today.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Feature image courtesy of Daniel Casson

Bibliography:

Emery, A, 1996. Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales, 1300-1500 1: Northern England. Cambridge University Press

Hislop, M, 1992. The Castle of Ralph Fourth Baron Neville at Raby. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th series XX, 91-98.

—– 2007. John Lewyn of Durham: a Medieval Mason in Practice. British Archaeological Reports British Series 438. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Hodgson, J, 1885. Raby in Three Chapters. Trans. Archit. & Archaeol. Soc. of Durham & Northumberland III, 1880-85, 113-127.

—– 1887. Raby. J. British Archaeological Assoc. 43, 307-27.

—– 1895. Raby in Three Chapters. Trans. Archit. & Archaeol. Soc. of Durham & Northumberland IV, 1890-95, 49-122