Tag: Henry III

Leybourne Castle gatehouse, Kent: patterns of baronial influence

Starting on 8 October 2024, Philip Poucher of Heneb – Dyfed Archaeology (formerly Dyfed Archaeological Trust) will carry out a laser-scan survey of the gatehouse at Leybourne Castle, near Maidstone in Kent. The survey will be supported by a full programme of research by Neil Ludlow who outlines the importance of such a survey.

A small baronial castle, picturesquely sited on a low bluff above the village church, Leybourne has been occupied since it was built in the 11th or 12th century, and is still a private family home. It is not generally open to the public and no structured recording has so far taken place, while no accurate site drawings exist. The work, which is wholly-funded by the Castle Studies Trust, will fill this gap and greatly improve our understanding of this important site.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Fig. 1: Leybourne Castle – the gatehouse from the exterior. Present house to left,
latrine turret to right. Copyright Neil Ludlow

Beginning as a circular ringwork of around 0.12 hectares, Leybourne was later given stone defences, with a gatehouse that still dominates the castle. Centuries of alteration have masked much of the rest of the surviving stonework, but the present house – heavily restored during the 1930s in the Arts-and-Crafts manner – is built around the core of the medieval hall and chamber-block. A further building is thought to have been the chapel, while there are the remains of at least one other mural tower.

Fig. 2: Leybourne Castle – the gatehouse from the interior. Latrine turret to left,
present house to right. Copyright Neil Ludlow

The date of these works is still uncertain. Our only record is from 1266, when King Henry III granted 4000 freestones to Leybourne’s lord, Roger de Leybourne. They are normally thought to have gone towards the defences, but these are entirely of rubble construction suggesting that the freestone may instead relate to an upgrade of the domestic buildings. So the key to understanding the development of the defences is the gatehouse, which despite alterations through time, and the loss of its rear half, is substantially as built. Nevertheless, its precise form has never been properly established – published accounts are based on drawings produced by Sidney Toy, in 1927, which are somewhat misleading in many important details.

The gatehouse is of unusual design. It has been regarded as transitional between the simple twin-towered gatehouses of the early/mid-13th century and the more complex structures of the late 13th century onwards, but appears to be somewhat later. It is two storeys high, with D-shaped towers flanking a narrow gate-passage that was formerly rib-vaulted. The entry lies beneath a high outer arch and is deeply set back between the towers, characteristics that were both introduced, in Wales, during the 1280s. And the entrance arch lies beneath a horizontal chute outlet, somewhat like a letterbox in outline. This is a feature of debatable function, but which was notably employed at Caerphilly Castle by Gilbert de Clare in the 1270s. In addition, the gatehouse towers are of unequal size and projection, as in the Clare’s gatehouse at Llangibby Castle (Monmouthshire), probably built c.1307-14, while both gatehouses show a D-shaped flanking latrine turret. Incorrectly shown by Sidney Toy, it lies parallel to the towers at Leybourne, unlike Llangibby where it projects at right-angles. And while the arrowloops at Leybourne were restored as fully-oilletted ‘Clare-style’ cross-loops in Toy’s drawings, alteration during the 18th and 19th centuries has in fact masked their original form and the evidence for any original oillets is questionable.

Fig. 3: Leybourne Castle gatehouse – the ‘letterbox’ chute.

So the gatehouse has a highly individual design, which is of international significance. While it may largely be down to personal choice by its patron and master-mason, at least some influence from the Clares is unquestionable. This may have emanated directly from the Clares’ nearby centre at Tonbridge, but Welsh aspects of the Leybourne design may point towards additional input via an intermediate lord such as William de Valence, who also used ‘Clare’ motifs and was very powerful both in Wales and in this part of Kent. At any rate, the combination of features suggests a date long after 1266 and probably in the early 14th century – perhaps under Roger de Leybourne’s son William, or his grandson Thomas, between c.1300 and 1310. However, on current evidence much of this is speculative: these are the key questions the project will seek to answer, in addition to producing survey data.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Please note Leybourne is a privately owned house and is not accessible to the public.

Commemorating Bedford Castle on the 800th anniversary of the great siege of 1224

On Saturday, 24 August, the Higgins Museum in Bedford hosts an event to mark eight centuries since the town’s castle was subject to an 8-week long siege by the army of the teenage King Henry III (booking details at the end). Dr Peter Purton, FSA, outlines what happened in the siege.

Not much remains now of Bedford Castle – just a degraded and much altered mound near the river Great Ouse in the town centre and a few excavated fragments of stone buildings, making it hard to visualise that it was once a large stone-built fortress with a moat, barbican, two wards and a stone tower on top of the motte which marked the original castle built after the Norman Conquest. A display board nearby reconstructs its possible appearance in 1224.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Image of display board showing how Bedford might have looked in 1224

 In that year, Henry III was assembling an army which was to be transported to France in an attempt to recover Poitou, part of the once extensive Angevin empire. This plan unravelled with the rebellion of Fawkes de Breauté. Fawkes had been one of the captains of King John, Henry’s father, and had become rich and powerful. He had been granted Bedford castle and we are told that he had strengthened the fortifications to make it “impregnable”. Rebelling against the crown, he prudently left the country while leaving Bedford in the hands of his brother, who in arresting the justices sent there by the king made it inevitable that he would face royal retribution: this was a direct insult to royal authority and following years of civil war and rebellion following John’s reign, there was no possibility that it could be ignored. The royal army, assembling conveniently nearby at Northampton, was diverted to Bedford. What happened next was recorded in several contemporary chronicles while royal expenditure was detailed in surviving accounts, a combination of evidence which is rare enough and which allows an unusually detailed reconstruction of the siege.

The royal army deployed seven stone-throwing engines (mangonels and petraries) and built two siege towers but the garrison resisted stoutly and inflicted heavy casualties on the attackers. Eventually the barbican and outer ward were breached and captured by royal soldiers then miners, summoned from the Forest of Dean, brought down the wall of the inner bailey and did the same with the tower on the motte, to which the defenders had withdrawn. The prisoners were set free and the entire garrison was hanged as punishment for their rebellion. The castle was then demolished.  A period of instability in England was thereby ended, but so too was English rule in Poitou, the French capturing La Rochelle at the same time as Bedford was being besieged.

These events were therefore of international as well as national significance, and through archaeology, it is possible to now know much more about Bedford castle. All these themes will be discussed at the conference on 24 August, the speakers are Professor David Carpenter, expert and author specialising in this period, Dr James Petre who has written about Bedford, Ben Murtagh who has been exploring Bedford Castle, Jeremy Oetgen (Albion Archaeology) who will update us on a long history of archaeology on the site, and the author of this blog who will place the siege in the context of contemporary siege warfare.

Anyone interested in attending can find all the details and book a ticket at the museum website: www.thehigginsbedford.org.uk. Tickets cost £15 and advance booking is encouraged.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter

Marlborough Castle: the missing keep

Over the last two decades, the Marlborough Mound Trust has carried out extensive conservation and investigations on the ‘mound’ in the grounds of Marlborough College. The origins of the mound were uncertain until recently. It was known to have been part of Marlborough Castle, but there had been persistent speculation, on the strength of its resemblance to neighbouring Silbury Hill and the discovery of antlers in the early twentieth century (now lost) that it was of prehistoric origin. In 2008, when Silbury Hill was being investigated, the opportunity of taking cores from the mound to obtain comparative dates presented itself. After a precarious operation involving a very large crane, the necessary drilling rig was hoisted to the top of the mound. The resulting cores, as a paper published the following year by Jim Leary and his colleagues showed, supported a date in the second half of the third millennium BC, broadly contemporary with Silbury Hill.

The drilling rig for the coring operation is hoisted into place (copyright Marlborough Mound Trust)

Jim Leary has subsequently carried out a survey of some fifty castle mottes, looking for other sites where prehistoric mounds could have been reused as the base for a castle, and has found only one other rather uncertain case. This means that Marlborough may be unique in being a prehistoric structure recycled into a medieval castle.

But we now know more about the prehistory of the mound than the supposed castle keep. The only possible sighting of masonry on the mound is uncertain in the extreme. H. C. Brentnall, a master at Marlborough College, in one of his many contributions to the Proceedings of the College’s Natural History Society on the the history of the castle, had this to say in 1936:

“Excavations necessitated by building operations at Marlborough College in the course of this summer have revealed several traces of the medieval castle which perished gradually between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. What little remains above ground (if the elevation justifies that expression) is to be seen on the summit of the motte, where a buttress of the keep was laid bare some years ago.“

The note implies that the buttress was visible in 1936, but recent geophysical surveys have not found it.

The problem is further compounded by the subsequent use of the mound. It became a garden feature in the seventeenth century, and a spiral was cut into the side of it to give access to a summerhouse at the top. Stukeley’s engraving of the countess of Hertford’s gardens in 1723 shows only the summerhouse, and no traces of masonry.

Stuckley’s engraving of countess of Hertford’s gardens.

About the same time, a water tank was installed to supply the Hertfords’ newly built mansion. This was enlarged by the College after its establishment in 1843, and adapted over the years, until the top of the mound was graced by a large iron tank surrounded by a spoil bank, concrete steps, and substantial pipework. This meant that in effect most of the original top of the  mound had been destroyed.

This raises the question of what we are looking for. The earliest mentions of the site, in 1070 and 1110, present the king’s establishment as a place of imprisonment and a site where a royal court was held. In the 1140s, Marlborough castle is first mentioned as such. It is described ‘very defensible’ in The Deeds of King Stephen. It was held by John Marshal, who used it to control the surrounding countryside, and there is no record of it ever being attacked.

The only entry in the plentiful records for the castle under Henry II and Henry III is in the context of payments in 1222 for work designed to create a substantial royal residence there. This is a single sum for the building of a lime kiln ‘for the Great Tower’, which must therefore have been of stone. There is no indication where this tower was sited, and it may well have been part of the lower bailey. It has simply been assumed that it was on the mound.

An inconclusive exploratory dig was carried out by Wessex Archaeology for the Mound Trust in 2019, and at the time of writing, it is still hoped that a follow up to this will be possible in 2020. The present assumption is that the mound was among the hastily erected timber forts from immediately after the Norman conquest, and that this was replaced by a stone keep after 1222. It would be good to be able to find some actual evidence as to the nature and even the existence of the keep at Marlborough.

Richard Barber is a trustee of the Marlborough Mound. He would welcome any comments, particularly on the replacement of timber with stone, and the nature of ‘great towers’: email rwbarberuk at yahoo.co.uk.

Subscribe to our quarterly newsletter