Brough
Some 630' above sea level, Brough castle is built upon the Roman site of Verterae
on a bluff commanding the Swindale Beck. The fort itself may have
been built upon an older settlement as an Irish designed ornate flanged
bronze axe was discovered here. Pottery finds consisted of some
second and third century ware, but most came from the late fourth
century. Stone fragments found include 2 uninscribed altars, 2
columns and 2 querns. In the third quarter of the nineteenth
century many fibulae and bronze objects were recovered from the river
as well as over 130 lead seals, both official and private. These
suggest that this was a major delivery site for goods or at least a
dumping ground for military rubbish! Many of these seals were
inscribed cohors VIII Thracum. This unit originally came from
Thrace and was therefore in this district, if not within the fort
itself, in the third century. The name Verterae would seem to come from the verb Verto
which could have many meanings, viz, to turn, overthrow, destroy,
transform, reverse or exchange to name a few. As sealed military
artifacts seem to have been unloaded here it was perhaps ‘the
place of exchanges'.
Coins found on the site apparently numbered in their thousands in the
eighteenth century. They cover the broad range of the Roman era,
beginning with the Republic and include some coin from the time of
Claudius (41-54AD). The Roman Republic ended in 27BC, while the
fort itself could not have been built before the penetration of the
North of England began around 70AD, nearly 100 years after the end of
the Republic. This again shows the dangers of dating sites by
finds and proves the necessity of checking history against archaeology,
before coming to any tentative conclusions of a site's origin and
development. The last certain coin found at Brough was from the
reign of Constans (337-50AD) although another coin may be one of
Theodosius I (379-95AD). Other coins were thought to have been
‘minimi or the small pieces presumed to have been made in
imitation of these by the abandoned Roman-British population about the
fifth century'.
The fort is said to have been repaired or renovated by Virius Lupus,
who was governor of Britannia from 197 to 200 AD. Such rebuilding
was apparently commemorated on a lost Roman inscription found at
Brough. Another inscription found near the site of east gate ran:
For the
Emperor Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus, and for
the Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus, and
for Publius Septimius Geta most noble Caesar, in the consulship of Our
(two) Lords the Emperor Antoninus for the second time and Geta Caesar;
the Sixth Cohort of Nervians which Lucius Vinicius Pius, prefect of the
said cohort, commands, built (this) barrack-block, under the charge of
Gaius Valerius Pudens, senator of consular rank.
Another lost inscription also recorded:
For the Emperor Caesar Lucius
Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus and for the Emperor Caesar
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus and for Publius Septimius
Geta, most noble Caesar, the Sixth Cohort of Nervians built this
[rampart] of uncoursed masonry with annexe-wall under the charge of
Lucius Alfenus Senecio, senator of consular rank; Lucius Vinicius Pius,
prefect of the same cohort …, had direction of the work.
As Lucius Alfenus Senecio, was a senator from about 205 to 208 AD this
again shows that work was carried out here under the Emperor Septimius
Severus (193-211AD). This obviously occurred after his recovery
of Britannia from the dead hands of the usurper Clodius Albinus
(193-97AD). Further, it would seem that this inscription had been
reused as a flagstone in the fourth century Headquarters Building, and
that a statue of Maximianus Herculius (286-305) had been placed on
it. Regardless, the inscription would suggest that this
‘annexe' was once walled. Certainly there are earthwork
ramparts currently to both east and west of the fort. An incised
Roman grave slab with Greek inscription in the church porch is also
probably associated with the fort, dedicated to a 16 year old Syrian
called Hermes.
Brough is mentioned twice in the Antonine Itinerary. This work is
generally reckoned to date from the reign of Diocletian, the co-emperor
with Maximian (284-305AD). The first time Verterae is stated as
lying 13 miles from Kirby Thore (Bravoniacvm) and 14 miles from Bowes (Lavatris) in Iter II. It is then found in Iter V, again 14 miles from Lavatris, but this time 20 miles from Brougham (Brocavvm).
The fort of Verteris is next named in the Notitia Dignitatum (usually
assumed to date to the 420s in the West) which would suggest, but not
prove, that occupation continued at the site well into the fifth
century. This text has Uerteris between the entries for Lavatris and Bravoniacum as in Iter II of the Antonine Itinerary. The much later Ravenna Cosmography of the seventh century has Valteris after Castleford (Lagentium) and before Old Penrith (Bereda), the old Roman Voreda.
In the Notitia Dignitatum the Brough garrison was said to be the
Numerous Directorum, a unit assigned to the Duke of the Britons.
A numerous was an irregular unit of some 400 auxiliary troops, usually
part mounted, but the meaning of Directorum is disputed. One
possible meaning is ‘a west to east movement in an
epicycle'. Possibly this suggests that these units were regularly
shuffled about the Wall to make sure they didn't grow too attached to
their environment and too friendly to neighbouring hostile or
potentially hostile forces, although the standard suggestion that they
were border guides is just as possible.
Fort Description
The masonry Roman fort was about 220' east to west by 350' north to
south, while the surrounding ditches are up to 50' wide and 20'
deep. A brief excavation under the keep in the 1930s found the
remains of 2 Roman buildings presumed to be barracks on which what was
thought to have been 2 separate keeps were built in the Middle
Ages. Further Roman masonry was uncovered near the centre of the
fort which may have been part of the principia as well as pottery
dating from the Flavian period (69-96AD).
Some 215' of the eastern castle ditch was excavated in 1993 prior to
drainage works. This showed that the Roman ditch had been recut
in medieval times. The site of the bathhouse has also been
identified some 160' southeast of the fort, while part of a vicus has
been found on the level ground some 600' southeast of the fort and due
east of the church. Excavation uncovered 2 phase timber buildings
with clay floors and associated pottery dated from the time of the
Roman conquest of the district until the third century. The
limits of the vicus have not been discovered, but a Roman cemetery was
discovered in 1972 some 1,000' east of the castle.
Three other earthworks may be relevant to the fort. The first is
some 180' west of the castle keep and consists of a pathetic 2' high
rampart with 10' deep, 40' wide ditch to the west. This is as
wide as the castle defences on the west side and ends with its northern
end on the scarp to the Swindale Beck, while its southern end is, in
military parlance, ‘in the air'. Its military use is
therefore somewhat suspect. A further 180' beyond this is another
parallel rampart and ditch of similar dimensions at the head of the
spur of land the fort lies upon. This is about 300' long against
the first rampart's 180'. Either could be part of the annex
mentioned around 200AD.
East of the castle is a ditched snout shaped platform pointing due
east. Possibly this was part of a larger castle bailey which was
cut off when the current bailey east wall was built - assuming that the
right angled north-east corner of the enceinte is original.
Foundations within this ‘snout' have been suggested as being
traces of a walled garden possibly of Lady Anne Clifford's time
(1605-76). Running south from the snout is a denuded rampart and
6' deep ditch, between 50' and 60' wide. This lies some 120' east
of the fort ditch and has been much built upon in the last century.
The Castle History
It would seem likely that Brough castle was founded on the northern portion of a Roman fort when William Rufus (1087-1100) invaded and conquered Cumberland in 1092. This expedition certainly saw the king founding Carlisle castle.
Excavation in the village in 1972 uncovered traces of Pre-Norman
settlement in the district. This could suggest a continuity of
occupation on the Roman fort site and that Rufus's troops made use of
an existing fortification. However, it seems unlikely that Rufus was personally responsible for the castle's foundation. Certainly there is no motte of royal dimensions at Brough, while the motte like earthwork around the keep is quite minuscule compared to Warkworth, Gisors or Chateau sur Epte
mottes, all of which were apparently built in Rufus' reign.
Excavation has confirmed that the builders of Brough castle recut the
Roman ditch and piled the resultant soil up over the Roman walls and
gateways, sealing a great depth of Roman stratification and making the
southern 2/3 of the fort into an apparent outer bailey. The
question remains as to who built this original mottless castle - and as
such it should be noted that all the major castles of the
surrounding districts have no motte either - viz. Appleby, Barnard Castle, Bewcastle, Bowes, Brougham, Carlisle, Cockermouth, Kendal, Lancaster and Pendragon. The exceptions are Durham, Egremont, Harbottle, Liddel [mostly destroyed], Tebay [heavily damaged], Tickhill, Wark, Warkworth and of course the 2 at York. Minor mottes are said to exist in Cumberland
at Beaumont, Brampton, Irthington and Maryport. The best way to
proceed from here, as ever, is to examine the tenurial history of the
site.
At the time of the annexation of Cumberland by Rufus
in 1092, Brough seems originally to have formed part of the earlier
parish of Kirkby Stephen, the church of which was granted before 1097
to St Mary's of York under Abbot Stephen (1080/89-1112) by Ivo
Taillebois (d.1094/97). Ivo seems to have acquired Appleby, Kendal and Kirkby Stephen during the time of King William II's annexation of the lordship of Carlisle in 1092. After Ivo's death in the period 1094 to 1097, Appleby
lordship seems to have passed with his widow, Lucy Bolingbroke
(d.1138), first to Roger Fitz Gerold and then around 1098 to her third
husband, Ranulf le Meschin (d.1129). Around the same time as his
marriage with Lucy, this Ranulf was invested with the lordship of Carlisle.
That Ranulf made no grant concerning Kirkby Stephen or Brough would be
logical if St Mary's already held these lands by the grant of Ivo, the
previous husband of Lucy.
Ivo's original grant of Brough was included amongst his grant to St
Mary's. These included the services of half his lordship of
Kirkby Stephen with the church and tithes, land in Winton (Wytuna) and the churches of Kendal (Cherkaby-Kendale) and Eversham and Kirkby Lonsdale (Cherkeby-Lonnesdala) and the lands which pertained to them, namely the vill of Hutton, the church of Beetham? (Bethome), the land called Helbeck (Halfrebek) and the churches of Burton in Lonsdale (Burton) and Cliburn (Clepeam).
As Ivo held the church of Kirkby Stephen it is all but inconceivable
that he did not also hold the rest of the parish. It is also
noticeable that the chapel of Brough was not mentioned in this early
grant. This suggests that it was not built at this time, although
it certainly existed before the twelfth century was out. This can
be seen as the monks of St Mary in turn granted the advowson of Kirkby
Stephen with the chapel of Brough to the bishops of Carlisle before
1214. Abbot Thomas Wardhull (Warterhille) of St Mary's, York (1244-58), confirmed that the bishops held Ormside, Musgrave, Brough and Appleby
churches on 8 May 1248. From this evidence it is reasonably clear
that Ivo Taillebois was lord of the district within which Brough castle
stood between 1092 and his death which occurred between 1094 and
1097. As such he is far more likely the founder of the fortress
than William Rufus or Ivo's 3 successors, Roger Fitz Gerold (d.bef.1098), Earl Ranulf le Meschin of Chester (d.1129) or King Henry I
(1100-35). It is also apparent that both Appleby and Brough
castles shared earlier rectangular keeps as their main defences.
This is also possible, but unlikely for Kendal castle, which was probably at Castle Howe at this time.
On Earl Ranulf of Chester's death in 1120, it is thought that King Henry I (1100-35) resumed Carlisle lordship when he made Ranulf le Meschin earl of Chester in his cousin's
place. However, there is no direct evidence as to when this
happened although it was certainly before 1122 when the king went to
view his town of Carlisle. On
acquiring the lordship the king is thought to have reorganised the old
Meschin fief into a northern and a southern sphere, Appleby with Kirkby Stephen and Brough was apparently subsumed into what was to become Westmorland.
It therefore seems most likely that during the reign of Rufus (1087-1100) Ivo Talebois (d.1094/97), ordered the construction of Brough castle. It would subsequently have fallen to King David of Scotland (1124-53) in the late 1130s when he overran much of the north of England and certainly acquired the castles of Alnwick, Bamburgh, Carlisle, Cockermouth, Egremont, Lancaster, Norham, Skipton and Warkworth. If the castle existed it would therefore have been held by the Scots until 1157 when it was returned by King Malcolm (1153-60) to King Henry II
(1154-89). It would seem that Brough castle existed at this time,
but no money was recorded as being spent on it. If work did occur
here it should have been accounted for in the pipe rolls which are
complete for the reign of Henry from 1155. That no money was
spent at all on the castle would suggest it was complete and
defensible. However, it should be noted that money for the
castle's upkeep may have come from sources unrecorded in the pipe roll
and that a nominal sum of £5 was usually accounted for the upkeep
of Carlisle castle during this
period. Despite this lack of record, the extant castle remained
stubbornly outside recorded history until war again convulsed the north
in the 1170s.
In 1173, Queen Eleanor (d.1204) and her sons led by the Young King Henry III (d.1184) rebelled against their father, Henry II
(1154-89). As a result, in 1173-74, the king spent £58 2s
8d on garrisoning the castles of Westmorland. Presumably these
were Appleby, Brough and possibly Pendragon. The position of Kendal at this time is uncertain.
The implication of the pipe rolls accounts for Westmorland made between 1175 and 1178 is that some or
all of this county had been under the control of Hugh Morville (d.1201) who had various lands in the North in his bail or custody. Whatever the case of the castle's status, in 1173 King William I of Scotland
(1165-1214) invaded the North of England, but probably didn't progress
as far south as Brough. According to the pipe rolls, money was
spent during this period on the defences of Carlisle, but not the nearby royal castles of Appleby and Brough. Work, however, had been undertaken at Bowes from 1171.
In the Spring of 1174 King William the Lion returned to invade the North of England and, according to the well informed chronicler, Hoveden:
besieged Carlisle,
which Robert Vaux had in custody. And, leaving a portion of his
army in besieging the castle, with the remainder he marched through
Northumberland, devastating the lands of the king and his barons.
And he took the castles of Liddel, Brough (Burgo), Appleby (Appelbi), Warkworth (Wercwrede) and Harbottle (Yrebotle) which was held by Odonel Umfraville, after which he returned to the siege of Carlisle.
Similarly during the Great Cause in 1291 the monks of Croyland reported back that from their chronicle it was recorded that:
King William with David his brother and the knights of the earl of Leicester besieged Carlisle castle
which was held by Robert Vaux. After a few days he went with part
of his army, invading the lands of the barons of the English king in
Northumberland and took by arms the castle of Liddel (Liudel) which belonged to Nicholas Stuteville and the castles of Brough (Burgh) and Appleby; royal castles garrisoned by Robert Stuteville and the king's castle of Warkworth (Werkewrda) which was in the custody of Roger Fitz Richard and the castle of Harbottle (Hirebothle) which was held by Odonel Umfraville and afterwards he took his army back to Carlisle
and then he made a peace with Robert Vaux, as Robert's stocks were
diminished, that he [Robert] would surrender the castle and borough if
he was not relieved by Michaelmas.
Similarly it was found in the chronicles of Bridlington priory that King William of Scotland had captured Brough castle before 13 July 1174 when he was taken at Alnwick.
The siege of Brough appears in the rhyming chronicle of Jordan Fantosme
and it should be noted that the above chronicles place the taking of
Brough before Appleby, when logic as well as Fantosme state the opposite. As a passing note, the route of King William's
armies would have meant that he covered some 340 miles during these
operations and as the action took place before 12 July, when the king
was at Alnwick, he must have been travelling on horseback and picking any infantry up on site.
To Brough they wish to go; the resolution was soon taken,
If it is not surrendered to them, no one shall go out of it alive;
But the castle was not altogether so unprovided
That there were not in it more than 6 knights.
The castle was very soon besieged on all sides;
Both the Flemings and the Marchers make a vigorous assault upon them,
And have on the first day taken from them the bailey,
And they soon have abandoned it, and placed themselves in the tower,
Now they are in this tower, few hours will they hold out:
For they set fire to it: they will burn those inside it.
They neither know of any resource nor what they can do:
Already the fire has caught; now there they will be burnt.
`By my faith, noble sire, if you please, they will not do so
Rather will they act like knights: they will offer to capitulate to the king.
For they see very well that they will have no succour.'
They cannot endure longer: to the king they have surrendered.
That is a right act which they now do.
To the king they have surrendered; great sorrow have they in their hearts.
But a new knight came to them that day,
Now hear of his deeds, and of his great strength.
When his companions had all surrendered,
He returned to the tower, and seized two shields,
He hung them on the battlements, stayed there a long time,
And hurled on the Scots 3 sharp javelins:
With each of the javelins he struck a man dead.
When these failed him, he takes sharp bolts
And hurled them at the Scots: so he confounded some of them;
And ever he goes on shouting: `Soon shall you all be vanquished.'
Never by a single vassal was a conflict better maintained.
When the fire deprived him of the defence of his shields
He is not to blame if he then surrendered.
Now is Brough demolished, and the best of the tower.
Quite clearly the fighting in the castle advanced from the overthrow of
the defence of the inner ward to the keep where the knights made a
brief last stand before the tower was set on fire. That one
knight refused to surrender and reentered the burning keep would
suggest that the tower was of stone, for surely a wooden structure
alight would have taken a man defending the battlements with it.
However, it is possible that after a stubborn defence, that might have
only lasted a few minutes - the time needed to throw 3 spears and some
‘sharp bolts' (peus aguz),
he could have retreated down the straight mural steps, assuming that
this was the keep assaulted and that the upper floor with its spiral
stair was yet to be built, while the wooden floors and roof of the
tower was ablaze. That the tower was stone is apparently
confirmed by the 1920s investigations of the ‘motte'. This
will be dealt with in the castle description. However, something
that needs further comment is the term ‘sharp bolts' which are
usually translated as sharp stakes. This is a translation of the
term peus aguz. Peus derives from pale,
for which the Anglo-Norman dictionary gives the following terms as
current translation, stake, stave, stick, pointed piece of wood
intended to be driven into the ground, pile, something used to prop up
material, thorn, peel (boundary), fence, wooden fence or palisade make
of stakes, limit, boundary border, staff, wooden post as quintain,
bolt, bar, stripe, band, mast, pole. Quite clearly most of these
can be dismissed as not something you would carry up a tower during a
siege. Possibly then the sharpened things being hurled off the
tower might have been sharpened palisade timbers taken up there
especially for this purpose, or even an unfinished hoarding, but
surely, more likely these were sharpened bolts and rather than door
bolts, the trouble being taken to sharpen them being rather pointless,
it is a euphemism for crossbow bolts he was firing down on the
besiegers from above. The idea that a prepared castle would be
defended without crossbows would be rather silly. That said, the
term used for throwing the spears and the bolts was lancer which
translates as throw, cast, hurl, fling, expel, thrust, launch, direct
or fling. Again this rather proves nothing.
With the fall of the castle it was probably sacked and left
ruined. Certainly there is no mention in Fantosme of Brough being
garrisoned by the Scots as Appleby had
been. After the war of 1173-74 the king reorganised Cumberland
and Westmorland into counties with Reiner the dapifer of Ranulf
Glanville (d.1190) accounted in 1177 for the 3 years rent and being allowed
£58 2s 8d for custody of the castles of Westmorland.
Presumably these were Appleby and Brough castles which pertained to the sheriffdom, although Kendal and Pendragon
might also have been included with these. The same year it was
recorded that Adam Fitz Robert Truite and Robert Vaux had no idea of
how much money they had spent during the war. Consequently their
sergeants were to ‘access how much they received in past years as
they do not know'. Despite this Robert Vaux paid £112 4d
into the treasury after rendering an account of £342 12d for the
farm of Cumberland for this year and the
last 2 years. Wikipedia claims King ‘William then destroyed
the remaining defences of the castle using Flemish mercenary
troops'. It cannot be stated too strongly that no original source
supports this assertion. In fact the opposite is true as by
September 1175 a force of sergeants was in the king's castle of
Brough (Burgh) under Torphin
Fitz Robert at a cost of £5. Presuming these were foot
serjeants they could have been paid anything between a penny and 4d a
day. Most likely they were on about 2d per day. At 2d a day
this would have allowed a force of 10 sergeants to reside at the castle
for 60 days. Presumably this force would have augmented the
standard garrison. The garrison of Appleby,
in 1173 when it surrendered, was some 30 named men under Gospatric Fitz
Orm (d.1185). The status of these men cannot be assumed, but as
Gospatric seems to have been a sergeant, it is unlikely that any were
knights, but how many were sergeants or simple foot is unknown.
If the 6 knights of Brough were supported by sergeants there should
have been 12 of them and 120 foot, using the usual twelfth century
ratios, which of course could not be religiously adhered to.
However, a force of some 178 men in Brough would probably not have been
forced out of the bailey and certainly could not have taken cover
within the keep. Most likely there were only the 6 knights
defending the fortress, though where the locals would have gone during
the attack is another matter.
In 1175 it was recorded in the September pipe roll that £22 had
been given in land to William Stuteville (d.1203) in Brough (Burch)
as well as £5 for Torphin Fitz Robert retaining sergeants in the
royal castle of Brough. Other castles garrisoned on the Yorkshire
roll this year included Edinburgh (Castellum Puellarum) and Norham, while repairs were carried out in Scarborough
and Topcliffe castles. No payment was recorded for work at
Brough. This would tend to indicate that the bailey was not
damaged during the assault and that the woodwork of the tower burned
during the assault may already have been replaced and the keep again
habitable. Certainly the keep in its current form seems to
predate 1174.
According to Wikipedia after this:
Henry II had a square stone keep
constructed in the 1180s by first Theobald de Valoignes and then Hugh
de Morville, who rebuilt the remains of the castle. It was placed
into the bailey wall, allowing it to directly support the outer
defences. Thomas de Wyrkington conducted further work between
1199 and 1202 for King John, converting the castle entirely into stone.
None of the tertiary sources quoted to back this series of false
assertions quotes a single original document and, as the history from
original sources clearly shows, all of this is merely spurious
guesswork, the most fun part of which is that according to the pipe
rolls, if the ludicrous Wikipedia account is accepted, it cost much
less than £40 to convert ‘the castle entirely into
stone'. All that can be said in reality is that in August 1181 King Henry II (1154-89) may have visited the castle when he went from York up to Knaresborough then down to Richmond and across Stainmore via Brough to Appleby and Carlisle. His itinerary that year gave sufficient time and impetus to grant Appleby a charter of liberties, but nothing is mentioned of his time at Brough.
Brough next appears in the historical record during 1197, when the
borough paid 18s tallage. The next year, 1198, a full mark (13s
4d) was spent in amending Brough castle, while Appleby had £2 spent on it by the sheriff of Westmorland. Such improvement was continued under King John (1199-1216) who's sheriff of Westmorland spent £4 on Brough, £5 on Appleby and £2 16s on Pontefract
castles in 1199. The next year, 1200, the king spent considerably
more money on the fortresses. First £22 15s 1d was spent on
repairing Appleby and Brough castles under
the view of Thomas Fitz Gospatric, Ivo Johnby and Hugh Fitz
Gernagan. To furnish both castles 9 tuns of wine and 100 bacons
were bought at King's Lynn and transported to the fortresses, 6 tons and
the bacons to Appleby and the other 3 tuns
of wine to Brough at a cost of £28 16s 8d. Work began on
strengthening both castles in 1201 with the sheriff spending £19
16s 5d by the view of William Denton and Robert Newby. Finally in
1202, only 15s was spent on the works of Brough castle. No other
work was recorded at any other castle in Westmorland at this time.
On 21 February 1203, King John (1199-1216) informed his lieges that he had given to Robert Vipont (d.1228) ‘custody of our castles of Appleby and Brough (Burgo) with all purtenances...'. Before this date Robert had been one of King John's
staunchest supporters in Normandy. As such he was given custody
of Prince Arthur in Rouen castle. There the prince disappeared,
allegedly done to death by King John
around 6 April 1203. Around the same time, on 31 March 1203, King
John announced that not only had he given Robert custody of Appleby
and Brough castles, but he also had included all the bail of
Westmorland. Finally on 28 October 1203, the king converted this
grant into a hereditary grant of Appleby
and Brough with the county of Westmorland for Robert and his
heirs. Interestingly the castles were not mentioned in this final
grant, just the placenames. More of Robert's career can be
followed under Appleby castle.
The Northern chronicler of Lanercost, probably copying Richard of
Durham who wrote around 1297, carried a confused account of these
events which they set in 1213, not 1203. In this it is wrongly
written that William Vipont (d.1198), mistaken for his son, Robert
Vipont (d.1228), was lord of Westmorland and that he helped King John
murder prince Arthur at Rouen. As Robert was present at Rouen at
the time of the murder and received the grant of Westmorland with
Appleby and Brough castles around the same time, this is plausible,
though by no means provable. Indeed much else of Lanercost's
remembrances of this period are definitely erroneous. Regardless
of this, it is the next part of the chronicle that is really of
interest, for it reads:
But Arthur's sister, Eleanor,
was first privately detained in the custody of William Vipont in
Westmorland at Brough castle and afterwards at Bowes; after that she was removed as far as Corfe castle where she lived in seclusion until her death, and ended her life in our times.
This appears perfectly feasible if Robert is swapped for William and it is assumed that Eleanor moved to Corfe castle
before being moved to her various places of imprisonment in the
Southwest, dying eventually in Gloucester or Bristol castle on 10
August 1241. Regardless, the impression given is that Brough was
a fully functional castle in 1203 as the Lanercost chronicle was
apparently recording a tradition that Eleanor was kept at Brough and Bowes
early in her imprisonment. It should also be noted that medieval
prisoners of rank were usually held in the highest point of the keep
for security and not some dank dungeon. This would also indicate
that the keep was habitable by this date. Again, the castle was
apparently operational when Robert died a little before 1 February
1228, the king granting the ward of the land and heir of Robert Vipont
to Earl Hubert Burgh of Kent (d.1243). He then commanded the
constables of Pendragon (Malverstang), Perlethorpe (Peverelthorpe, Notts), Appleby, Brougham and Brough (Burgh)
to give them up to the earl's men. If Brough keep was operational
in 1203 when Eleanor was held there, it would indicate that the current
structure must have predated that date if its predecessor was
‘destroyed' in 1174, as no royal money was spent on its building
- the paltry amount of some £25 during 1199-1202 barely being
enough to build the forebuilding, let alone the keep. It was
unlikely that any major building took place at the castle during a
minority either as the estates tended to be run for the benefit of the
custodian, rather than them facing expenditure to improve their ward's
lands.
John Vipont came of age in 1233, but died young before 25 July 1241,
leaving an approximately 7 year old son, Robert. Consequently on
4 August 1241, Henry Souleby was appointed custodian of Brough
castle. The next year on 1 May 1242, all John's castles and lands
were granted to Bishop Walter Malus of Carlisle (1223-46 (d.1248)) for
600m (£400) pa. It was probably in 1254, at the end of
Robert Vipont's minority, that an inquisition was ordered into the
waste committed to the lands formerly of John Vipoint by the prior of
Carlisle, while he was guardian of the heir. This found:
that in the manor of Burgo,
the tower there is decaying and the joists rotting, while many of the
houses are being brought to nothing due to the defective custody of the
prior.
Again this shows that the tower had been repaired since 1174, otherwise
its burnt out jousts could hardly be ‘rotting'. As there is
no record of a new tower being built under royal control (1174-1203),
it was either constructed by Robert Vipont in an archaic design, or the
stone tower burned in 1174, was simply refloored and reroofed.
Judging by the remains the latter seems the more logical assumption.
Presumably Robert Vipont (d.1264) rectified these faults with the
castle over the next few years. He died, only 12 years later on 7
June 1264, from his wounds after the battle of Lewes on 14 May.
How his estates were divided amongst his 2 daughters and their fate is
described more appropriatly under the caput of the barony, Appleby.
Roger Leybourne (d.1284) received Brough on his 1267 marriage to Idonea
(d.1333), the younger of Robert's 2 daughters. The division of
the lands between the 2 heiresses including breaking up the lordship of
Brough. On 5 June 1281, an order was given to perambulate the
bounds between the land of the earl of Richmond in Richmond,
Yorkshire, and the land of lords Clifford and Leybourne and their wives
in Brough, Westmorland. That Brough had been divided is confirmed
by 2 further documents. On the first of 1 August 1281, it is
implied that Roger Clifford (d.1282) held rights in Brough borough as
he agreed to pay Albyn the merchant £17 for wool at the market at
Brough under Stainmore. This fact is confirmed by the inquest
post mortem on Roger's widow in 1292. Three years after the
Brough agreement in February 1284, Roger Leybourne died and the
resultant inquisition found that he:
held no land of his own
proper heritage of the king nor any other in Westmorland, but held in
chief of the king as of the heritage of the said Idonea, the castle of
Brough under Stainmore with a moiety of that manor, worth yearly in all
issues £70 13s; the moiety of the manor of [Long] Marton, worth
yearly £13 3s 5¼d; the moiety of the manor of Appleby,
worth yearly £27 5s 3¼d the fourth part of the manor of
Kings Meaburn, worth yearly £12 11s 6½d; the manor of
Winton, worth yearly £24 2s 3¼d; the manor of Kirkby
Stephen, worth yearly £39 16s 9d; the castle of Pendragon (Mallerstang)
with the moiety of the forest, worth yearly £22 3s 9½d;
the moiety of the forest of Quinnefell, worth yearly £23 3s
3½d; the moiety of the services of the knights and free tenants
in Westmorland called cornage, worth yearly £13 11s 4d; fee farms
of free tenants, worth yearly £2 15s 7¾d and the moiety of
the profits of the county court, worth yearly £3 6a 8d. All
of this was held of the king in chief by the service of 2 knights' fees.
Idonea went on to marry John Cromwell (d.1335), taking Brough castle
into his hands during the minority of the heir, John Leybourne who had
been born on 2 February 1281. In the meantime there was a major
patronage dispute in 1287 between the heirs of Robert Vipont of Appleby
and Brough, the bishop of Carlisle and the Crown. Each claimed
the patronage of Brough church. The king claimed this right
because his father, Henry III
(1216-72), had presented William Clifford, the last incumbent to Brough
church. The daughters of Robert Vipont came to court and replied
that Brough manor had previously belonged to Hugh Moreville (d.1201) who forfeited it to Henry II (1154-89). In turn Henry's son, King Richard I (1189-99), gave the church to Thomas Bowet from whom it came to King John
(1199-1216) who granted it with Appleby to Robert Vipont, the ancestor
of the current sisters. Then, many years afterwards, during the
minority of their father, Robert Vipont (d.1264), Henry III
held the custody of the barony and so appointed Peter Chamberi to the
church. After Peter's death, Brough again being in the custody of
Henry III due to the death of the sisters' father, Robert Vipont (d.1264) and the sisters still being underage, Henry III
once again made a presentation to the church, this time of the William
Clifford who had recently died. They further stated that Bishop
Walter Mauclerk of Carlisle had similarly presented to the church
during the minority of Robert Vipont, their father. Despite this
well argued case, the court eventually found that the advowson belonged
to the Crown as King John's
grant gave only Brough with its appurtenances and the advowson was not
mentioned! This therefore must have remained to the Crown.
Meanwhile Brough castle remained in the hands of John Cromwell through
his Vipont wife. Before 14 May 1292, Isabel Clifford nee Vipont
died. Her inquest found that:
she held the manor of Brough
under Stainmore in chief of the king where there were 134 acres and 3
roods of arable land worth 18d for each acre yearly; 5 acres of waste
land worth 3d an acre; 50 acres of meadow worth 12d an acre; of
William's Rydding 30s; 20 bovates of land rendered £8 2s 9d
yearly; 11 cotters rendered for their messuages and gardens 23s; free
tenants rendered £19 17s yearly; two mounds (torella)
rendered 9d yearly; in the lower Brough 25 free tenants rendered 20s 6d
yearly; the autumn works of tenants raised 10s 6d; of stallage 3s; of
the oven 20s; 3 forges rendered 3s 9d yearly; 3 cotters rendered 10s
yearly; perquisites of the court 15s yearly; the office of constable
and his foresters £3 6s 8d; a wool assessment house (Yarnest cesthouse)
was worth 20s yearly; a certain herbage in Stainmore with agistment was
worth £5 yearly; two closes were worth £8 6s 8d yearly; 13
vacaries with a plot were worth £26 3s 4d yearly and sea-coal 3s.
This gave a total value of £101 10s 10¾d per annum for
Brough manor, without the castle which was held by her sister and her
husband, John Cromwell. On 6 September 1307, the new King Edward II
(1307-27) was at Brough where he issued a grant before moving off to
Bowes and Knaresborough. The next year on 14 July 1308, John
Cromwell (d.1335) and his wife, Idonea Vipont (d.1333), granted in fee
to Robert Clifford [their nephew], Brough castle with the manors of Appleby, Kings Meaburn, Kirkby Stephen and Pendragon [Mallerstang]
with their appurtenances in Westmorland. By this act the old
barony of Robert Vipont (d.1228) in Westmorland was virtually recreated
in Clifford hands with Appleby at its head. Brough castle was
still obviously defensible at this time, for after the battle of
Bannockburn where Robert Clifford was killed on 24 June 1314, Edward
Bruce (d.1318):
invaded England via Berwick and progressed as far beyond Richmond
although they attacked no castles. Afterwards... they all
returned by Swaledale and other valleys and by Stainmoor, whence they
carried off an immense booty of cattle. Also they burned the
towns of Brough and Appleby and Kirkoswald... trampling down the crops by themselves and their beasts as much as they could...
After this assault an inquest post mortem was carried out on the
Westmorland lands of Robert Clifford on 26 August 1314. This
found that Brough castle was held of Appleby
barony and that the castle within the precinct of the trenches had a
herbage which was worth 6s 8d yearly. The lordship consisted of
200 acres of demesne, of which 22 at least were worth 9d a year
each. There were also 110 acres of meadow each worth a shilling a
year. Further, there were 2 parks, the herbage of which with all
issues was worth 100s per annum. The free tenants of the manor
paid 17s 2d yearly, while 20 oxgangs of land were worth 4s
yearly. There were 10 tofts coterell worth 6d each per year and
the bakehouse with the profits of measuring the village corn brought in
20s. The water mill had been burned, but was previously worth
£6 13s 4d, while the constableship of the castle was worth 40s
and the profits of the fairs 10s. In the lower burgh were
24½ tofts which, although they had been burned, used to pay a
shilling yearly. On Stainmore were 10 vaccaries which had been
burned, previously each of these with their attached meadows had been
worth 10s. Five vaccaries had survived unburned which were worth
£20 pa. with their meadows. There were also 3 tenants
holding 4 closes of new improvement worth 115s and a farthing per year,
while the pleas and perquisites of the court brought in 13s 4d.
In total the lordship was worth £49 18s 4d per year. The
lordship would appear to have been still intact on 15 July 1315, when
Ralph Fitz William was ordered to provision Carlisle
by taking produce from various places. Brough park was assessed
for 6 bucks. A month after the inquisition on 27 September 1314,
the castle and manor of Brough were assigned as dower to Robert's
widow, Matilda Clare (d.1327), even though the Clifford estates were in
the hands of Bartholomew Badlesmere (d.1322) during the minority of the
Clifford heir since at least 18 September. Bartholomew was
married to Margaret, the sister of Matilda Clifford, nee Clare
(d.1327). Regardless of this, the escheator, Ralph Fitz William,
was ordered by the king to hand Brough castle over to her. Quite
clearly the fortress had weathered the storm, although on 3 August
1316, Robert Clitheroe was ordered to provision Brough and Cockermouth
castles which were in his custody. A month later further
misdemeanours were obviously occurring within Westmorland for on 4
October 1316 the king set up a commission at the request of Bartholomew
Badlesmere (d.1322) to determine who had broken the parks of Appleby and Brougham and entered the free chases at Brough under Stainmore and Kirkby Stephen, hunted therein and carried deer away.
In 1316 it is claimed that the king ordered Robert Welles (d.1320) to
maintain at Brough castle 15 sergeants fully mailed and mounted on
covered war horses and 20 hobelars mounted on hobby or fell ponies at
the fortress and, if necessary to place a further 10 sergeants and 10
hobelars on the king's pay. Robert Welles, a king's clerk, had
been made receiver and keeper of the king's victuals and stock at
Carlisle on 20 May 1315 and married the widowed Clifford lady of
Brough, Matilda Clare (d.1327), without a royal license, a little
before 3 October 1316. In November 1319, after the 12 October
‘Chapter of Mytton', it is said the Scots returned from Yorkshire
over Stainmore pass and in Randolph and Douglas visited Brough again,
‘laying all waste' according to Barbour's highly partisan and
often dishonest tales in The Bruce.
In 1322 the young Roger Clifford was executed at York on 23 March after being captured at the battle of Boroughbridge. Skipton
was apparently confiscated, but Brough, as his mother's dower, remained
in her hands. On 24 May 1327, after Matilda's death, it was found
that she held Brough in dower which included the castle within the
walls, lands and rents including a garden, herbage of the castle ditch
and profits from the fair and from Stainmore. The same year the
Mortimer government of Edward III
(1327-77) is said to have restored Robert Clifford (d.1344) to his
estates, including Brough. On 2 August 1330, Clifford was granted
a market at Brough to be held every Thursday, as well as the right to
hold a fair 2 days before the Feast of St. Matthew, that day and the
day after. Unusually the original charter is said to have
survived in Appleby castle which remained the head of the barony.
Repair work may have been going on at the castle when, on 3 December
1383, the king ordered that the sheriff of Cumberland
should supply stone cutters, masons and other labourers until Easter at
the wages of the said Roger Clifford (d.1389) ‘for the repair of
certain castles and fortlets of Roger Clifford which are useful as a
refuge for the king's subjects'.
At the accession of Henry Tudor (1485-1509) in 1485 the castle was
returned to Henry Clifford (d.1523). He is generally known as the
shepherd lord from his being brought up in obscurity to avoid the
vengeance of the Yorkists who had killed his father and disinherited
him. After enjoying his patrimony for 35 years a disaster
overcome Brough castle when the hall and associated buildings caught
fire and were burnt out after the Christmas festivities of 1521.
That might have been the end of the castle if it were not for the Lady
Anne Clifford (d.1676), restoring the fortress between 1659 and
1662. In her own words, in April 1659:
did I cause my old decayed
castle of Brough to be repaired and also the old tower called the Roman
Tower in the said castle and a courthouse for keeping in my courts in
some 12 or 14 rooms to be built in it upon the old foundation.
In 1660 she continued:
And in April and May this
year did the masons begin to build up again and repair my castle of
Brough in Westmorland, a good part whereof had been repaired the last
summer and the remainder thereof now this summer, being taken in hand
after it had lain ruinous ever since the year 1524, that it was burnt
down in Henry Lord Clifford's time, about 2 years and a little more
before his death, he dying in 18 Henry VIII. And this Brough
castle and the Roman Tower in it was so well repaired by me that the
16th of September in the next year (1661) I lay there for 3 nights
together, which none of my ancestors had done in 140 years till now.
Later in 1661 she wrote that on 16 September she moved from Appleby castle to Brough castle:
where I now lay for 3 nights
together, the first night in that half round tower called Clifford's
Tower and the other 2 nights in the second room of the great tower
called the Roman Tower...
She went on to describe again the burning of the castle in 1521 (which
date she calculated correctly) and its rebuilding by her since 14 or 15
April 1659. Finally in 1662 she noted:
and this summer did I cause a
kitchen, a stable, a bakehouse and a brewhouse to be built in the court
of my castle at Brough in Westmorland within the walls that were lately
built there by me. The kitchen, bakehouse and brewhouse to the
north and the stable to the south side thereof.
Anne was staying in Brough castle on 2 January 1666 when she recorded:
about 6 or 7 o'clock in the
evening did there a great fire happen in the highest chamber but one in
the great round tower... which burnt a bed and the curtains and valance
and all the furniture belonging to it and a tapestry hanging that hung
behind the bed. But before it got any further hold it was by
God's merciful providence discovered and quenched, so as the tower
itself received no harm. And I then lay in my own chamber in
Clifford's Tower in the said castle.
Anne and her family only left the castle on 19 April 1666. During
her rebuilding of the castle she had set over the main gate a great
inscribed stone which read:
This castle of Brough under
Stainmore and the great tower of it, was repaired by the Lady Ann
Clifford... in the year of our Lord God, 1659; so as she came to lie in
it herself for a little while in September 1661, after it had lain
ruinous without timber or covering, ever since the year 1521, when it
was burnt by casual fire.
In 1695 Earl Thomas of Thanet sold the timber from the keep and used
parts of the fortress to repair Appleby castle, while the fittings were
stripped out of the houses and sold in 1714 for a total of
£155. By 1785 it was recorded that the earl had much
demolished the fortress:
for the sake of the materials
which have been used in building stables, garden walls and other
conveniences; and particularly about the year 1763 a great part of the
NE (aka SE) round tower was pulled down to repair Brough Mill, at which
time the mason therein employed for the sake of the lead and iron with
which it was fixed, displaced the stone which the countess of Pembroke
caused to be set over the gateway...
This great stone was then used ‘under the water wheel of Brough
Mill'. Finally in 1792 the southeast corner of the keep
collapsed. This was followed in 1920 by the southwest corner.
Description
The castle is about 280' east to west by up to 150' north to south,
although around the keep it is only some 50' deep. This Norman
fortress sits on the northern portion of the Roman fort, probably with
its north and east walls overlying the site of the Roman walls.
The whole is built of sandstone rubble quarried locally, as are the
dressings and ashlar. Excavation has proved that at least in
parts the north wall is built on a rampart and only goes down another
2' or 3' from the current surface level. Surrounding the whole
structure is a 25' deep ditch and counterscarp. This is most
impressive to the east and west. The ditch on the north side lies
nearly 30' down the scarp towards the river and may well have been
eroded by that water.
As the castle is quite small it seems best to describe it in sections,
after a brief recapitulation of what is actually there. On what
is alleged to be a motte stands a tall, rectangular tower keep.
That this was not a motte has been proved by excavation, it is merely
an earth covering of a masonry structure and not an artificial hill
which was once the centre point of the defence like at Cardiff or Windsor.
To the east of the keep lies the wedge shaped bailey with various
auxiliary buildings placed along the perimeter. To the south lies
the remains of the gatehouse, while a large round tower lay at the
southeast corner of the enceinte. It should be noted that the
remaining southwestern portion of this is made of the same
‘Roman' masonry as the keep. Therefore its ‘c.1300'
date may well be hundred or more years too late. The idea that
Normans couldn't or wouldn't build round towers if they so desired
should now be seen as rather dated, viz the keeps at Buckingham, Freteval and Verneuil, Normandy, as well as many other possibilities.
The earliest masonry part of Brough castle has been thought to be the herringbone masonry that can be seen in the north curtain wall and which exists under the visible ruins of the keep. The amount of herringbone
in the north wall is actually negligible and lies on top of the older
curtain only in its much ruined eastern portion. There appears to
be none in the rest of the enceinte. It has been a mantra for
many years that this herringbone
work must be the early Norman work, aka, William Rufus in the period
1092 to 1100. Of course that doesn't quite jell with the history
relayed above. Further, this section of the masonry on the north
wall shows this scenario to be false, the herringbone masonry
would have to have been laid before the rest of the wall it lies upon
or the rest of the early curtain wall must predate the herringbone part
of the castle. It is unlikely that the curtain predates the herringbone
‘tower' under the current keep due to the junction of the two
around the keep. Obviously excavation of these junctions would
shine more light on the matter.
This leaves the questions of when was the 'herringbone
work' under the keep built and for what purpose? Unfortunately
the excavation report of this structure in the 1920s is rather brief -
as was the dig which was an emergency measure to stop further collapse
of the tower. It appears that a note on a sketch is the only
verification of herringbone work. However, what these sketches do
show is a very odd construction. This consisted of a rectangular
Roman building with internal dimensions some 15' north to south by over
26' east to west - the east end of the structure was not
uncovered. On the south side the excavators found a wall 19'
thick underlying the south wall of the keep and at a different angle to
it of 10 degrees. This Roman wall was still at least 7'
high. Above this lay a 15' thick wall which was claimed to be herringbone
work, but faced normally. This was also 7' tall. Above this
lay the plinthed 10' wall of the current keep, although the base of the
rough plinth now lay under the current ground surface some 5' with the
top over a 1' below ground. Pits along the west wall confirmed
this layout. However, 2 internal pits, one in the southwest
corner and the other at the east end of the north wall, found a
different layout. Within the tower walls a black soil at least 5'
deep filled the bottom of the Roman structure to the north, but to the
west this was only some 2-3' deep and lay over clay and stones which
were dug into for a depth of a foot without encountering the bottom of
the Roman wall. This black soil overlay the Roman work in all the
pits, which suggests a period of abandonment after the Roman walls had
been stripped down to a height of their current remains. These
are over 7' high. This layer of black soil varied over all the
test pits from nothing in the northern exterior pit to slightly over 2'
in the internal pit at the east end of the north wall. Internally
the black soil was overlaid with a layer of clay up to 6' deep.
Oddly only the interior pit under the east end of the north wall found
a 2' thick layer of this clay between the Roman masonry and what was
identified as the ‘early Norman herringbone
work'. Other oddities encountered were the fact that the current
west wall of the tower lay on 5 longitudinally laid oak beams on top of
the herringbone work, while the
interior of the south wall extended down further than the exterior side
by about 2 feet. Further the interior of the east end of the
north wall overhung the ‘early Norman work' below by some 18"
which resulted in the necessity of packing this area with concrete to
hold the current tower up. Concrete reinforcement was also added
under the south-west internal corner of the tower.
The only valid conclusions from this would seem to be this. A
stone Roman building occupying the northwest corner of the fort was
over 45' long and 34' wide with walls 19' thick! Such a structure
would be unique and odd to say the least. On top of this, after a
period of abandonment that in places allowed 2' of soil to form, a
tower with herringbone masonry,
but rubble faced, was built with walls only 15' thick and dimensions
only slightly smaller than the ‘Roman tower' below.
Finally, on top of this, the current tower was built, 60' by 40'
externally with walls some 10' thick. Some of the ‘herringbone'
tower can be seen under the lower north face of the keep and is
described below. If this was the tower of 1174 it would appear to
be a normal tower keep, that was probably partially demolished to found
the basis of the new tower. If this is so the question needs to
be asked why it wasn't faced with ‘Roman' masonry like the tower
above and the older parts of the enceinte? The Roman history of
the site does not seem to allow for a period of abandonment that would
lead to the formation of 2' of soil. Could the tower then be
Saxon, or has the current tower been built using material, viz the
Romanesque south and Anglo-Saxon west windows, taken from the
demolished early tower? Even, could these elements have been
inserted by the Lady Anne's command in 1659? Finally, the idea
that the 1174 keep ‘had a stone base and a wooden superstructure'
should be immediately quashed as what remains under the keep to the
north is certainly no such structure. This idea which seems to
have taken hold in some quarters seems based on the false belief that
only wooden towers can burn. I suspect that anyone who has ever
seen a house fire or Windsor castle burning in 1992 would disagree with
this conclusion. Further, the fact this was a royal castle from
1120/22 to 1203 would suggest that any building works would have
appeared in the royal accounts which exist from 1155 onwards, with the
one notable exception of the survival of the 1130 roll. That it
doesn't suggests that the keep dates from before 1155 or after
1203. That said, Brougham keep, 20 miles to the northwest of
Brough, dates from 1203 onwards and has Romanesque features in it,
although the main 4 square fabric appears far more massive and
substantial than the comparatively small keeps at the earlier Appleby
and Brough.
One of the things missing from the castle is a well, either in the keep
or the bailey. Mitchell's 1666 plan shows a well some 30' south
of the main gatehouse east wall in the middle of the castle
ditch. This probably explains the odd arrangement of Lady Anne's
roof for the keep with a central gully to catch rain water.
Presumably a similar rain water catching roof was used over the hall
block and Clifford Tower judging from Mitchell's plan.
The Bailey
Only 3 sections of the original bailey wall survive today. The
first section consists of the northeast corner of the castle.
This a plain rectangular angle, although the rest of the east curtain
has been replaced. The north curtain runs westwards from here for
about 75' and is about 5' thick. Half way along this there are
the slight remnants of a rectangular fifteenth century buttress.
Internally are the remnants of Lady Anne Clifford's kitchen, brewhouse
and bakehouse. Mitchell's 1666 plan show these 3 chambers entered
from the south by Romanesque doorways apparently similar to that found
in the basement of the keep.
Externally the curtain wall is ruined to ground level, but internally
it stands some 2-3' high above the cobbled court and buildings.
Archaeological investigations in the 1920s revealed the current cobbled
surface of the ward, but could not confirm a date for it, although it
was noted that the ground might contain late medieval fabric as well as
seventeenth century repairs. Further excavations in 2009 found
that the north curtain foundations varied from 2-3' deep under the
current ground surface. They therefore do not appear to have been
built upon a Roman predecessor, but upon earth - the black soil from
under the keep? - overlying those remains.
The next section of the north curtain is some 80' long and probably
dates from the thirteenth century. It has a fine sloping plinth
and the remnants of a buttress half way down its course.
Internally a flight of steps ran up to the wallwalk just before the
small, probably seventeenth century, rectangular garderobe beyond which
is some 40' of oddly angled, probably also seventeenth century curtain
wall. There then follows some 85' of rubble curtain which appears
similar to the first, early section, apart from the fact it lacks any
herringbone masonry. This ends at a near right angled corner
where the curtain swings back towards the south. After some 10'
the wall ends suddenly with the northwest angle of the keep.
Possibly the wall originally ran around the outside of the keep forming
a partial chemise, or it always ended here with an odd butt joint at
the keep. If this latter suggestion is true it would suggest that
the wall post dates the keep. In the short 10' section of the
west curtain wall a doorway entered a passageway from the bailey which
then turned some 90 degrees into a short flight of steps which run up
towards the keep wall. Possibly this was associated with the
earlier tower, but more likely this led to a projecting garderobe to
the west of which some foundations still seem to remain, jutting some
5' beyond the west wall of the keep.
On the other side of the keep, on the southeast angle, the curtain
reappears, again at a most awkward junction. From here it runs
some 30' due east before shearing off to the southeast with another
awkward angle. This wall is badly damaged, but it appears likely
that the second section was built to enlarge the original bailey whose
line possibly continued due east on the line of the first wall.
In the seventeenth century Lady Anne built a stable block here which
runs all the way down to the gatehouse. If the above assumption
about the expansion of the early, smaller bailey is correct, this
gatehouse lies outside the line of the original castle and might be
better described as a barbican, even if it is as old as the
eleventh/twelfth century as is suggested by the castle guide
book. That the cobbled interior of the gatepassageway slopes
towards the exterior and the ditch bottom would tend to enhance this
view of the structure being a later barbican, as otherwise most normal
gatepassageways are level. Antoher oddity is that there is no
trace of the south curtain meeting the current gatetower which might be
expected as a gash or toothing in the wall. Perhaps then, this
face of the gatehouse has been refaced when the eastern end of the
south curtain was down.
The Gatehouse
For continuities sake the suggested ‘barbican' will be described
as the gatehouse it certainly later was. Firstly it must be noted
that this originally may have been a rectangular tower some 40' long by
30' wide and having walls about 6' thick. It was probably over
40' high, a surviving fragment still reaching 35' tall. The
southern, exterior front of the gatehouse was augmented, probably in
the fifteenth century, by 2 angled buttresses which the Buck print
shows only rose to first floor level. Internally the
gatepassageway has been much altered over the years, but still retains
the jamb and some arch stones of its inner gateway. The remains
of this show that the inner gate opened inwards into the
courtyard. Within, the passageway seems to have consisted of a
ribbed vault of which traces of 5 ribs remain. Apparently a
flight of stairs originally ran up the east wall to a constables's
chamber which was about 20' by 32' and had lights both front and
back. This is a somewhat similar layout to the much larger Norman
gatehouse at Ludlow that was later converted into a keep. It has
been suggested that a better analogy with this ‘gatetower' is
that of Egremont. Certainly both towers were of 3 storeys, but
Egremont was certainly more decorative and apparently earlier. It
also lacked mural flight of steps in the wall going up to the
constable's chamber as is present at Ludlow
Normally a portcullis or drawbridge would have been operated from the
constable's chamber, but there is no trace of either at Brough,
although both interior walls could well have been refaced to disguise
all evidence of this. Further, recent excavation uncovered a
stone structure on the south side of the ditch that was interpreted as
a possible drawbridge abutment.
By comparing Buck's view with the current remains it can be seen that
the gatehouse in the seventeenth century stood 3 storeys high and had
the Lady Anne's inscribed stone placed immediately above the apparently
Romanesque entrance, but below a rather squashed window. Each
floor was externally offset while the windows on both the upper floors
were triple lighted. The upper floor would seem to have been
similar to the constable's chamber below, except it had a small window
to the west with a fireplace beside it which still survive. In
Buck's print there is a chimney to the east, but this may well have
been fed from the inserted fireplace in the great hall basement.
The Hall
East of the gatehouse lay the probably fourteenth century great hall
which was repeatedly expanded and refashioned up until the time of Lady
Anne (d.1676). In the fifteenth century this refurbishment had
involved virtually doubling the size of the structure by expansion to
the north. The original work had 3 vaults placed transversely
beneath, the flat pointed arches of which suggest a fourteenth century
date. These would appear to be a later insertion to give the hall above
a paved floor. This can be deduced as the vaults overlie the
fenestration of the 3 basements. The doorways to the 2 garderobes
within are shoulder headed which would suggest a date within the time
period 1250-1350 for these basement walls. As the basement next
to the gatehouse had a fireplace inserted in it, as well as a garderobe
set in the south wall, it may have been used as a porter's lodge.
However, the central basement was also similarly converted with a
fireplace. The hall above was approached via a flight of steps at
its northeast corner and was about 13' high with another set of
chambers on the floor above it. This would appear to be a latter
phase of the construction again, the lower 2 storeys consisting of
reasonably well laid rubble with occasional courses of reused Roman
masonry. Above this the wall is predominantly well coursed
smaller pieces of rubble.
The great hall retains 2 apparently fourteenth century windows in its
south wall. These are similar and have 2 trefoiled ogee lights
with a quatrefoil in a two-centred head with a moulded label.
Even though the mullions and parts of the tracery are missing it seems
reasonable to date them to the early fourteenth century as has been
done with the larger, but similar window in the west wall of the nave
at Little Burstead, Essex, those in the tower at Thruxton,
Herefordshire and the renewed east window of Broadmayne, Dorset
The Lady Anne gave an interesting account of how the castle was used in
her time. She arrived at Brough on 19 April 1672 at about 1
o'clock in the afternoon:
where in the court of it I alighted out of my litter
and came upstairs into the hall where all the strangers that
accompanied me took their leaves... and from thence I came upstairs
into the great chamber and through it to the chamber adjoining and came
into my own chamber in the Clifford's Tower where I formerly used to
lie...
The Round or Clifford's Tower
There is no trace of the original or the presumed thirteenth century
curtain between the gatehouse and this structure. The Clifford
Tower was massively rebuilt by Lady Anne Clifford, so there is little
to be said of it's medieval predecessor other than the idea that it was
part of the ‘important works' carried out by Robert Clifford
during his tenure of the castle (1308-14), is supported by no
evidence. The tower was a boldly projecting D shaped structure
some 30' in diameter. The southeast portion of this has evidently
been totally rebuilt with new windows, although much of this was
demolished in 1763. The 2 upper rooms seem to have been used as
bedrooms for the great hall - at least in its later uses. A
spiral stair led from the southeast end of the hall, through the top of
the garderobe turret, to the upper floors of the tower - the tower
itself only being accessed from the gorge and not serviced by its own
stairs. A single original crossbow loop remains to the southwest
on the first floor, while traces of a second one remain to the
northeast. The idea that this tower was therefore the work of the
Cliffords after 1308 seems much too late and based upon the dating of
the tower by its anachronistic naming as The Clifford Tower. The
same goes for the ‘fact' that Clifford rebuilt the curtain walls
due to the Scottish threat.
The East Curtain
North of Clifford's Tower is the east curtain which contains a peculiar
projecting spur just north of the gorge of Clifford's Tower. This
projects just one course beyond the line of the enceinte. In
this, at first floor level, is a small loop that lights an internal
mural passageway in the first floor of the north wall of the
‘fourteenth century' great hall. North of this spur the
curtain is obviously of 3 phases. The lower half of the wall
consists of reused Roman masonry above a tall, slightly sloping
plinth. Some 12' above ground level, at the base of a
‘fifteenth century' window that lit the ‘thirteenth
century' chamber beyond, the wall masonry becomes more regular after a
rudely laid couple of courses of the previous wall style.
Finally, on the summit, are a half dozen or so courses of a smaller
masonry which overlies the projecting spur by Clifford's Tower.
Probably this lowest section of all, using Roman masonry, is of a
similar date to the keep and the older section of the north wall.
This east curtain was used as the east side of the large (about 35'
east to west by 60' internally), early great hall which ran from the
north-east corner of the ward probably to the line of the fifteenth
century inner range of the hall block. This structure has been
partly revealed by excavation in the 1970s and again suggests that the
lower portion of the east curtain dates back to the foundation of the
castle. Between this great hall and the Clifford Tower lies
another chamber thought to be of the same age as the curtain. The
west wall of this chamber has been built into the main hall block range
of buildings between Clifford's Tower and the gatehouse. It
retains parts of a plinth on its west face within the easternmost
basement of the great hall. As there is a large fireplace in the
east curtain wall at this point it is possible that this was a kitchen,
set between the old hall and Clifford's Tower. That said, this
would be in an odd position, the kitchens usually being kept well away
from the main accommodation and ranges due to the risk of fire.
The Keep
It is necessary to examine the keep in great detail as it is said to
date to 1200 by which time such structures were largely obsolete,
although the building of such structures at this late date as
accommodation was not unknown, viz Dover 1170s and Brougham
1200s. The great tower at Brough is 3 storeys high with pilaster
buttresses at the corners. Such a design tends to the period
before 1150 although many date such structures up to and even into the
thirteenth century. As ever historical documents actually dating
such keeps are non-existent, so we are in the realm of logic in trying
to sort out the time frame of these structures. Sadly this is
usually done by finding a similarly undated tower for which the history
has not been adequately researched and then saying that as both towers
have superficial similarities - no 2 towers are in fact the same - they
must date from the same time and a figure is plucked from the thin air
to support such a supposition. This may be a hard way to put it,
but it is accurate. If you doubt this statement then please send
me original documentation to prove the founding date of a keep as I
would love to see it. Conversely if you doubt this statement
please take the time to look at the assessment of documentary evidence
to support the building dates of great keeps and, most importantly, the
associated costs, viz. Castle Expenditure 1155-89 and its subsequent
papers that take the time frame down to 1216.
The current Brough keep has been much altered over the years. Its
foundations have already been commented on. The tower lies on a
similarly shaped foundation some 7' high and 15' thick. This has
been interpreted as the keep that was burned in 1174. As has been
noted, such an interpretation poses several problems. Above this
herringbone work lies the basement of the keep which currently stands 4
storeys high. The remains show quite obviously that this was a
multiphase affair. The basement was approximately 50' east to
west by 40' north to south and had walls about 10' thick.
As has been noted the 4 corners have clasping buttresses while the
masonry consists of coursed apparently reused Roman masonry. The
first 5 courses of the south-east buttress also appears to have been
nicked, although this may be related to the junction here with the
south curtain wall. The buttress above this point has also
obviously been refaced with the masonry being much better cut than the
original work to the west. The south front also has a fine
moulded single course plinth. However, the height this is set at
and the less even coursing of the rubble, which is not reused
‘Roman masonry' indicates that this front has been refaced at
this level. This more rubbly facing ends at first floor
level. It is also apparent that the west front of the keep has
been refaced up to first floor level. This begins with a rough
stepped plinth of 2 courses, 7 courses of rubble facing, then a fine
chamfered plinth course. This front has also obviously been
refaced up to first floor level.
The Basement
The original basement, some 15' high, may have been blind, but
currently there is a door and an odd V shaped opening to the north with
an inserted window loop, while to the west is another opening which
also probably dates to the work of the Lady Anne Clifford
(d.1676). The odd, crude double internal opening to this where an
embrasure should have been, is all but certainly a modern
invention. Underneath the inserted window loop to the north
appears to be a portion of the 7' high foundation that underlies the
tower. The exposed portion consists of a rough rubble on the top
of which are some 3 courses of stepped plinth. This terminates to
the east in an 18" projecting buttress which appears to be of a later
phase and only remains 2 courses above ground level. The
northeast buttress of the current keep has a single chamfered course of
plinthing, as exists on the south side and beyond the central buttress
on the north side. The ‘old work' begins just after the
point where Lady Clifford's badly built ‘Romanesque' doorway is
ripped through the basement wall. It has been suggested that this
marked the original entrance to the basement through a blocked mural
stair from the level above which it was thought may have existed before
the entrance to it was made into the current basement access to the
outside. Externally, the northwest buttress appears to have no
plinth at all.
It is apparent that the north side of the keep is some 3' lower than
the south side. The east side also carries remnants of a
rectangular stone forebuilding, of which only the foundations
remain. To the east this had a moulded plinth of at least 3
courses above which was a wall only some 4' thick. Within the
forebuilding is a boss of masonry which also has a single chamfered
course of plinthing. This has been added to the east side of the
keep and above it was the first floor entrance into the tower.
This has subsequently collapsed leaving a 15' gap in the wall starting
about 6' above current ground level. It should be noted that
internally the facing is all rubble, with no trace of the ‘Roman
masonry' facing as graces the outside of the tower. At the west
end of the south wall are the rebuilt remnants of an inserted fireplace
with its chimney curving up into the destroyed southwest
buttress. Remains of 2 flues can be seen in the rubble of this
turret strewn down the side of the bank beneath. The basement
fireplace is undoubtedly a later insertion, probably by the Lady Anne.
First Floor
Entrance was gained to the keep at first floor level at the south end
of the east wall via the destroyed forebuilding. This led into a
passageway, apparently with some kind of cupboard set in the south wall
and mural stairs up to the next floor to the north. Through the
passageway was a hall about 30' by 20'. This seems to have had 3
loops in its original plan, one in each of the other 3 walls.
That to the west has been mostly destroyed by a collapse, while that to
the north retains its original Romanesque embrasure, but the window is
a large, probably seventeenth century opening which has lost its
central mullion. The south embrasure and splayed rectangular
window loop might just be original, even though the exterior of this
front has been refaced.
Second Floor
The second floor was reached via the mural stair next to the
entrance. This gave access to a solar with loops to the 3 points
of the compass like the chamber below. Unlike the hall below,
this room, as a solar, was also equipped with a garderobe in the
northwest turret and an odd L shaped chamber in the southeast turret
(mostly destroyed in the 1920 collapse). However, unlike in the
hall chamber below, the north and south loops were central and opposite
one another rather than being staggered. Once again these 2 loops
were different, the west loop having been largely destroyed although
some trace of a possibly reset Romanesque arch remains outside.
According to Mr Clark's report of the 1880s, the west window was square
headed and of Tudor date. Buck's view may suggest that this was
similar to the east window, which has now disappeared in the 1920
collapse. It should be noted, however, that the remains of the
other 2 western loops show that the jambs consisted of Saxon long and
short work! It would therefore appear, as such is lacking on the
more original north and south loops, that these features belong largely
to the work of the Lady Anne, otherwise they would appear to be
pre-1066! The north window consists of a fine chamfered doubled
light with Romanesque styling set in a chamfered reset. The whole
odd structure could well be the work of Lady Anne trying to give these
large windows a ‘Norman' effect - certainly the windows
themselves bear comparison with those in the east end of Alnmouth
chapel. Conversely the south window is set in a smaller
Romanesque embrasure, but has a fine Romanesque double arched exterior
with 2 rectangular windows within. The style is crude and would
not appear out of place in Saxon churches like Barton on Humber, Bywel
St Andrew, Deerhurst, Earls Barton, Jarrow or Monkwearmouth. It
always amuses me when I see this window described as a ‘late
Norman window' of c.1200. It is sad that it should have to be
pointed out that the Norman period actually ended in 1135 with the
death of King Henry I (1100-35), although it can be argued that the
period continued until the death of King Stephen of Blois, the son of
the Norman William the Conqueror's daughter, in 1154. After this
came the Angevin period from 1154 which is usually named the
Plantagenet period, although this name too is anachronistic.
The first floor level is also marked by a chamfered external
offset. A much more pronounced offset marks the top of this
floor. This is also distinguished by a change in style and
masonry which is most noticeable to the north and south where central
clasping buttress have been added to the design. Quite clearly
these first 3 chambers, basement, hall and solar, were the extent of
the original keep.
Third Floor
The added third floor was reached via a spiral staircase set in the
north-east turret. This extra room had central windows to east
and west set just under the crease of the original high pitched
roof. There was also a small fireplace added in the west
wall. The pitched roof crease is clearly visible in the north and
south walls. About 6' above the flat roof crease in the north and
south walls are a row of corbels. These would seem to mark the
level of the final, flat roof of the tower. Probably this is
synonymous with the roof the Lady Anne Clifford built. This had a
central gutter, perhaps intended to collect rainwater and may well have
been constructed at the time of the insertion of the 2 windows at this
level. The appearance of this roof is known from a crude drawing
made by the antiquary Thomas Machell (1648-98) in his 6 volume
work. In 1660 he thought the roof was designed ‘in a quite
contrary way'. Further his sketch seems to show another plaque
above the pointed first floor east entrance to the keep.
Overall, the flooring of the tower appears unsatisfactory. Set in
the south wall are 2 normal sets of joist holes for the first and
second floors. However, in the north wall there are only 3
corresponding holes at the east end of the wall at second floor
level. This shows that the interior of the entire north wall has
been refaced in modern times, apparently after the tower was abandoned
and defloored, otherwise it would be impossible for the floors to stay
in position without a ledge or joist holes for the beams to balance
upon.
Buck and Hooper's prints of 1739 and 1772 have the keep still intact
and show that the forebuilding was already gone, the tower being
entered through a Romanesque doorway, that would appear to have been
the work of Lady Anne. The 3 windows above were shown to be
double with the top storey window being the same size as the large
north window. There was also a doorway from the top of the spiral
stair in the northeast turret leading southwards onto the battlements
of which only the fragments of the 3 remaining turrets now survive.
Copyright©2023
Paul Martin Remfry