Newcastle upon Tyne




The castle of Newcastle guards a crossing point over the River Tyne and marks the boundary between Northumberland and Durham - a political boundary only formed in the 1090s.  The fortress stands on top of the remnants of it's Roman predecessor and an Anglo-Saxon cemetery that was made when the former had gone out of use.  However, the use of the site can be taken back further into history.  Prehistoric flint tools and a stone axe have been found on the site as well as evidence for agriculture being practised here at an early but uncertain date.  The military use of the site, however, seems to have begun with the Romans.

Excavation has found a series of ditches and gullies which are thought to belong to the Roman era.  These were levelled and a stone Roman fort built on top of them.  Pottery found with this suggests it dates from the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-61).  It is possible that the fort was attached to the end of Hadrian's Wall.  Certainly it was attached to the nearby bridge over the river and as a consequence it was called Pons Aelius in the fifth century.  The latter itineraries show that the First Cohort of Cornovii garrisoned the fort in the early fourth century.  The Cornovii were a British tribe based at Wroxeter on the River Severn and this was an unusual occurrence for a native unit to be serving in their own province.  Usually the Romans made troops serve away from their home provinces in an attempt to stop localised rebellions.  Newcastle fort remained occupied into the fifth century, but was apparently reused after a short period of abandonment.  This included the construction of wooden structures with which non-Roman native pottery was associated.

It would appear that the Roman fort was at this time settled by monks, giving the place the name of Monkchester (Munucceaster).  Certainly this, with the cemetery, suggests a religious settlement within the confines of the old Roman fort.  No mention of the place occurs in Bede (d.735), so presumably this period of use began after his death.  Excavations confirm this opinion with the graveyard showing evidence of having been in use from the eighth to the middle of the twelfth century.  Presumably then, the graveyard fell out of use when Henry II constructed his fortress after 1168.  This is interesting, considering that a castle was built at the site as early as 1080.  Within the Anglo-Saxon burial site some 660 inhumations have been uncovered - all aligned east-west in the Christian tradition.  The earliest burials, dated by coin evidence to the eighth century, were interred without coffins.  Later wooden coffins were used and finally stone coffins with grave covers, head and footstones.  All sexes and ages seem to have been buried here, while excavation also uncovered remains of a building thought to be the church or chapel associated with the graveyard.  This now lies under the second railway arch from the west and consists of the lower courses of a structure some 20' square.  If a church it is of an unusual design.  Unfortunately the tightly packed burials did much damage to the underlying Roman fort.

Monkchester as a name seems last to have been used in 1070 when it was recorded in the Vita Oswini that William I (1066-87) camped there during the Harrying of the North.  He also camped there during his return from Scotland after the campaign of 1072, after King Malcolm had become his man at Abernthy in about mid August 1072.  Then King William:

was returning from Scotland with a strong army, when he pitched his tents above the River Tyne, about the place which is now called Newcastle, but was formerly called Moneccestre.  For at that time it happened that the river itself was so flooded that it could not be crossed anywhere, nor could the bridge, which was just visible, be open to the wayfarer.  Therefore, on account of this necessity, the king made a short stay there.  But the Normans, being accustomed to live by robbery, plundered for themselves and their beasts the produce from the surrounding districts.

After raiding supplies from Tynemouth the king moved on.  The above description would suggest that the religious settlement at Monkchester was probably ruinous before the religious reformers Prior Aldwin of Winchcombe, Elfwine and Remfry settled there soon afterwards.  Simeon of Durham recorded the events some decades later.

Three monks from the province of Mercia, poor in spirit, sent by God to the province of Northumbria, came to York, asking Hugh Fitz Baldric, who then held the sheriffdom, to find a guide for them as far as the place called Munekeceastre, that is, the city of the monks, which is now called Newcastle.  When they were conducted there, staying there for a time, when they found no trace of the ancient congregation of the servants of Christ there, they turned to Jarrow, where the ruins scarcely showed what they had been of old, many buildings of monks and half-ruined churches were seen, Bishop Walcher received them with the highest rejoicing, and provided them with necessities.  The names of these were, in age and character the first being, Aldwin, the second Ealfulf and the third Remfry.  These 3 established monasteries in Northumberland.

By 1074 they had moved to Jarrow whose church they repaired after being granted it by Bishop Walcher (1071-1080).  There is no mention of any work being undertaken by them in their short term home at Monkchester around 1072.  In that year Newcastle had been founded.  This may also explain their moving on if military activity was taking place at the site.

In the autumn of the same year [1072] King William sent his son Robert into Scotland against Malcolm.  But when he had arrived at Falkirk (Egglesbreth), returning with no business completed, he founded a new castle on the River Tyne.

King Malcolm of the Scots, disdained to be subject to King William at that time.  Consequently, having gathered an army, the king sent his eldest son Robert into Scotland in his place, and with him several of the primates of England, one of whom was Abbot Athelelmus.  He was told to either offer them peace or arms - peace if they submitted to his obedience - otherwise arms.  It is true that the king, meeting at Lothian (Lodonis) with his men, chose to negotiate rather than to fight.  Accordingly, he gave hostages to show that the principality of Scotland was subject to the kingdom of England.  Having entered into this agreement, the king's son with his army galloped to his father, from whom, as a reward for his performance, he and the others accompanying him, as befits the dignity of each, were rewarded.

What form Robert's castle took is unknown, but his mission was hardly unsuccessful if the intention was to secure the northern frontier and bring the king of Scots to heel.  Nevertheless, by 1095 the castle was strong enough to hold King William II (1087-1100) at bay for 2 months.  This was during the Mowbray rebellion which had the intent of making Stephen of Aumale, Rufus' cousin, king.  Unable to take the castle, Rufus passed around Newcastle and took the faesten or munitiuncula of Morpeth where the earl's best troops were.  Several early chronicles recorded these events and how the plot was frustrated by King William forming the English army and besieging the rebels for 2 months in Newcastle at the mouth of the River Tyne.  This has led some researchers to believe that Tynemouth was the fortress besieged and not Newcastle.  The original texts soon put this idea to rest.  The Durham chronicler notes:

For when the king learned of this matter, he assembled an army from all England and besieged the fort of the aforesaid Earl Robert [Mowbray], situated at the mouth of the River Tyne, for 2 months; while this was occurring, the king stormed a certain fortification [Morpeth], taking almost all the best soldiers of the earl, and put them in custody.  Then he stormed the besieged castle [Newcastle] and handed over the earl's brother, together with the knights who he found there, to custody.  After this he established a castle before Bamburgh (Bebbanbyrig), that is, the city of Queen Bebba, into which the earl had fled, and named it Bad Neighbour (Malveisin); and after placing soldiers therein, he returned to the south of the River Humber (Suthymbri).  After his departure, the guards of Newcastle promised Earl Robert that they would permit him to enter, if he should come in secret.  So he, having become elated, went out one night with 30 soldiers to accomplish this.  When this was discovered, the knights who guarded the [siege] castle pursued him, communicating his departure by messengers to the keepers of Newcastle, while he [Robert], being unaware of this, attempted to accomplish what he had begun on a Sunday; but he could not do this, for he had been caught.

The rest of this story is told under Tynemouth castle where the last of the action took place.  With the capture of the earl, Newcastle became a royal fortress as too did Bamburgh and the other castles of the earldom.

Florence Worcester (d.1118) was another contemporary who knew pretty much the same story as Symeon Durham.  He recorded events in quite similar terms which suggests that they may have copied the same source or one plagiarised the other:

the king... assembled his army from all England and besieged the castle of Earl Robert [Mowbray], which was situated near the mouth of the River Tyne [Newcastle], for 2 months; and meanwhile having stormed a certain fortress [Morpeth], he made prisoners of nearly all the best soldiers of the earl and put them in confinement.  Then he took the besieged castle [Newcastle] and placed into safe custody the brother of the earl and the knights whom he found within.  After this he raised a castle before Bamburgh... into which the earl had fled and this he called Malveisin and having garrisoned it, he returned to the south of the Humber.  After his departure, the watchmen at Newcastle promised Earl Robert that they would allow him to enter if he would come secretly.  And he joyfully acceded and went out by night to accomplish this with 30 knights.  This becoming known, the knights who kept the castle [Malveisin] followed him and sent messengers to the guards of Newcastle to inform them of his departure; [Robert] being ignorant of this, on Sunday he made his attempt, which failed, for he was detected.  Wherefore he fled to the monastery of St Oswin, king and martyr, where, on the sixth day of the siege, he was severely wounded in the leg... while resisting the enemy many of whom were killed and wounded... he himself taking refuge in a church from which he was brought forth and placed in confinement.

Others too recorded these events.  The monks of Peterborough compiled a new Anglo-Saxon chronicle for their house around 1121 after they had lost most of their possessions in a great fire during 1116.  This new work recorded that after Pentecost 1095 the king went against the earl of Northumberland:

and immediately he came there he conquered many and well nigh all the best men of the earl's court inside one fortress (faestene, ie. Morpeth) and put them in captivity; and then besieged Newcastle upon Tyne castle (castel aet Tine muthan besaet) until he conquered it and in there the earl's brother and all those who were with him.  Afterwards he travelled to Bamburgh and besieged the earl in there.  But then, when the king saw that he could not conquer it, he ordered a castle to be made before Bamburgh and called it in his language Malveisin, that is in English ‘Evil neighbour' and set it strongly with his men and afterwards went southward.  Then immediately the king had gone south, the earl travelled out one night from Bamburgh towards Tynemouth (Tine muthan), but those who were in the new castle became aware of it and went after him and fought against him and wounded him and afterwards captured him and of those who were with him, some they killed and some they took alive.

According to Geoffrey Gaimar, who was writing before 1155, Earl Robert was penned up in Bamburgh when:

...the earl of Northumberland...
At a castle on the sea,
Which was called Bamburgh,
There he went in.
The king [Rufus] with his host went thither.
The new castle [on Tyne] he then built [besieged?].
Then he took Morpeth, a strong castle,
Which stood on a hill.
Above Wansbeck it stood.
William Morlay held it.
And when he [Rufus] had taken this castle
He advanced into the country.
At Bamburgh upon the sea
He made all his host stay.
Robert Mowbray was there...

With the siege of Newcastle ongoing, Rufus for part of the time would seem to have personally waited outside the walls of Newcastle as copies of a series of charters suggest.  The word suggest is probably important here considering the amount of forged charters that Durham priory manufactured to cover their territorial claims during the next century.  This group of charters may well fit into this category, but were forged by the monks of St Albans abbey to counter the forgeries of Durham!  These 3 charters only exist in the St Albans chartulary and all have Eudo Dapifer as witness, 2 of them being recorded as made apud obsidionem Novi Castri and all of them related to confirmations and grants to Tynemouth priory.  The first runs:

William, king of England, to the justiciaries, barons, sheriffs and ministers, as well as all his faithful servants in England, greetings.  Know that I have given and granted to God and Sts Mary and Oswin and the monks of Tynemouth to hold freely and quietly and honourably all their possessions in lands, waters, tithes and churches, in the forest and in the plain and in all things.  And I order that Saint Mary and Saint Oswin and the monks of Tynemouth have their court as freely and fully in all matters with soc and soke, toll and theam, and thief-taking (infangenetheof) and wreck, and with all the customs and liberties as I myself have.  And I will and firmly command that you defend and maintain the church of Sts Mary and Oswin, which is my alms of Tynemouth, and the monks and men and all things of the same church as my own alms, and do not allow anyone to do them any injury in any way at risk of forfeiture from me.  Witnessed by Eudo Dapifer at the siege of Newcastle.

The second reads:

King William of England, to Bishop William of Durham and Robert Picot and to all his barons French and English of Northumberland, greetings.  Know that I have granted and given to Sts Mary and Oswin and the monks of Tynemouth fully and completely their court, as I myself have, with my other customs.  And I will and command that you should behave well and honourably and that no one should do them an injury on this account.  Witnessed by Eudo Dapifer at the siege of Newcastle.

It was possibly after the capture of Newcastle by Rufus that he established a new castle guard for the recently captured fortress.  Around 1211 a royal survey was made of the counties of England.  In Northumberland it was recorded that the barony of Bywell owed 5 knights' scutage although he owed 30 knights to the new castle upon the Tyne at the order of William Rufus (1087-1100).  This is expanded in the Testa Neville to:

Hugh Balliol holds in chief of the king the barony of Bywell with its appurtenances by the service of 5 knights.  And further there is due to the ward of the New Castle upon the Tyne 30 knights that all their predecessors held by the same services after the time of King William Rufus who feoffed them and nothing was alienated from that feoffment or given by marriage or alms or in any way from which might lessen his service to the king.

Possibly such knowledge is what caused Gaimer to think that Rufus founded Newcastle when he wrote up the 1095 campaign during the reign of Henry II (1154-89).  Alternatively, and possibly more likely, a scribe blundered, substituting built for sieged.

In the same Testa Neville it was recorded that:

Nicholas Byker held his lands to make districts for the guard of the Newcastle and for the debts he owed the king as well as carrying the king's writs between the Tyne and the Coquet.

There is also a list of those owing castle guard at the honour of Newcastle as was taken from old Memoranda Roll in the Exchequer.  This listed the various fees owed to Newcastle.  John Balliol (d.1268) owed 30 fees; Gilbert Laval (Seaton Delaval) 2 fees; the Ballon barony 3 fees; Ralph Gaugy (Ellingham) 3 fees; John Fitz Robert (d.1241, Warkworth) for Whalton barony 3 fees; Dilston (Divelstone) owed a third of a fee; Ralph super Theysam owed two thirds of a fee for Gosforth (Gosefor); Richard Bertram of Bothal (d.1239, Bathle) owed 3 fees; Jordan Heron (Hayrun) a fee; the barony of Bolbec 3 fees, Roger Merlay [the first Roger of Morpeth died in 1188, his son in 1239 and his grandson, the last Roger, in 1266] 4 fees; Thomas Munderville a fee; Seaton in Hartlepool a fee, Middleton on Tyne the third part of a fee and the fee of Coniscliffe (Cunesclive) another fee.  In total 58 fees were owed of which 48  responded to the sheriff of Northumberland and 10 to the bishop of Durham in Sadberge Wapentake.  This made a large and powerful barony, supported by 3 other mentioned lesser baronies, viz Bywell, Ballon and Whalton.  Generally baronies were supported by a number of knights, 5 or 10 being popular in the Welsh Marches.  In the early days of the Norman invasion a random number of knights seem to have been given service at various early castles.  Whether the knights of Northumberland were assigned their duties at Newcastle by Prince Robert in 1080, Earl Mowbray (1086-95) or William Rufus (1087-1100) is a moot point.  What is beyond doubt is that the castle guard at Newcastle in 1265 was worth £33 per annum, while that at Bamburgh was a mere 5m (£3 6s 8d) for 5 fees, although the sum is just 6s 8d more than a tenth of Newcastle's value.  The going rate for guard at Newcastle seems to have been 1m (13s 4d) per knight's fee.  Whatever the case, this made Newcastle the most powerful barony in Northumberland.  As a case in point, the castlery of Windsor had a castle guard of 74 knights, each paying £1 for scutage.

In the reign of Henry III (1216-72) the ward at Newcastle was further defined.  Lord Balliol owed his service worth 5m (£3 6s 8d) on the Sunday after 13 December; a further service worth £1 on the Sunday after 11 November; and similar worth £4 on after 1 January; £4 after 1 September and 5m (£3 6s 8d) after 10 February.  Others who owed service included: from Copum [ie. Carham or Wark] 1m (13s 4d) also after 10 February; Bolam 40s on the Sunday after 20 March; Laval for 1 term at the same time 2m (£1 6s 8d); the fee of Whalton 40s after 1 May and the fee of Caugy 40s for the same term; the fee of Heron 1m (13s 4d) after 11 June with the fee of Bothal owing 40s for the same term and the fee of Dilston and Gosforth (Divelistun and Goseforde) 1m (13s 4d) similarly.  Finally, the fee of Bolbec owed 5m (£3 6s 8d) for the Sunday after 25 July and the fee of Merlay [Morpeth] 4m (£2 13s 4d) for the same term.  This was worth £33 in all.  Indeed, between 1220 and 1230, the sheriff regularly accounted for an income of 5m (£3 6s 8d) against Bamburgh and £32 4s 5d for Newcastle.  In the latter year it was recorded that the sheriff had the wards due at both castles for having the custody of them and the county.  In 1236 Sheriff Richard Grey reported quittance for 5¼ fees in respect of which John Balliol [Barnard Castle] was attorned to the bishop of Durham by the king's order.  Consequently the bishop owed this amount from 11 April 1234 unless he could show the king that he is quit by royal charter.  No further action was taken over the matter by either party with the result that by 1307 the bishop was in arrears for the payment to the tune of 330¾ marks (£220 10s).  Due to inflation the income of £33 was of course much greater in 1095 than in 1235 and indeed 1307.

The North of England was mainly peaceful after Rufus' campaign, with mostly friendly client kings ruling Scotland after 1093.  Consequently, not much is recorded of Newcastle during the reign of Henry I (1100-35), other than Gospatric of Newcastle (Novo Castello) paying 20m (£13 6s 8d) to be allowed to clear himself by the ordeal of iron.  This period of quiet ended with the seizure of the throne by King Stephen (1135-54).

As discussed under Bamburgh, the Scots held Northumberland for most of the reign of King Stephen (1135-54).  Early in 1136 King David of Scotland (1124-54) marched south through Lothian.  According to various chroniclers the king, cynically remembering his oath to King Henry I (d.1135), invaded the kingdom of England swiftly taking various garrisons in Cumberland and Northumberland and advancing on Durham.  During this campaign the northern border fortresses like Alnwick, Norham, Wark and Newcastle upon Tyne all fell to David.  King Stephen, when he was staying at Oxford at the end of the festival of the Nativity in 1136, was told how:

"King David of the Scots, on pretence that he was coming with peaceful intent for the purpose of visiting you, has come to Carlisle and Newcastle and stealthily taken both".  To this the king is said to have replied, "What he has taken by stealth, I will recover by victory" and without delay the king moved forward his army, which was so mighty and valiant and so numerous that none in England could be remembered like it.  However, King David met him at Durham and made a treaty with him restoring Newcastle, but retaining Carlisle with the king's consent.  David did not do homage to King Stephen because he had previously, as the first of the laity, promised on oath to the Empress... to maintain her in possession of England after the death of King Henry.  However, Henry, the son of King David, did homage to King Stephen on which he was presented with the borough of Huntingdon by way of a gift.

Other sources state that King Stephen came to Durham on 5 February and after 15 days received David in Newcastle castle where they made peace with David's son, Henry, paying homage to King Stephen at York for the honour of Huntingdon without Doncaster (Dunecastra) or Carlisle (Karleol).  Simultaneously the other castles, viz. Alnwick, Norham, Wark and Newcastle were returned to Stephen's control.

After the battle of the Standard on 22 August 1138, another treaty was negotiated in April 1139 between kings David and Stephen.  In this Stephen granted both Northumberland and Cumberland to Scottish control, although he retained Bamburgh and Newcastle in his own hands.  Despite this, both castles soon passed under Scottish control with King David's son, Earl Henry, making a charter at Tynemouth in 1147.  Possibly after Henry's death in 1152, King David made grants in his town of Newcastle that were still valid in the reign of King John on 12 February 1201.

The story of what happened in the North can be partially reconstructed from using chronicle evidence.  However, the trouble with relying on later chronicles is again emphasised when the chronicler Hoveden's account of the treatment of Newcastle in the Anarchy is examined.  According to him Henry Fitz Empress (1133-89), the grandson of Henry I (d.1135) and claimant to the throne against King Stephen, being 16:

and having been brought up at the court of King David of the Scots, his mother's uncle, was dubbed knight by David in the city of Carlisle, having first made an oath to him that if he should become king of England he would restore Newcastle and all Northumbria between the rivers Tweed and Tyne to him.  After this Henry, by the advice and assistance of King David, crossed over into Normandy and being received by the nobles was made duke of Normandy.

In reality Henry had been in Normandy for much of his youth and was not brought up at the Scottish court, or had even been there before 1149.  In that year Henry made his way to Carlisle where he was dubbed knight on Whit Sunday.  To this ceremony came Earl Ranulf of Chester (d.1153) and there the earl made his peace with King David, accepting the latter's control of Carlisle.  In return David granted Lancashire to Ranulf.  The allies then made an abortive attack upon York and Henry retired to Normandy.  Hoveden reasonably well knew the facts of the story, but he obviously made some unlucky guesses in trying to fill in some of the gaps.  Whether Henry ever promised to grant Newcastle and Northumberland to King David is also uncertain in reality, although the Scottish kings always asserted such a claim and in 1153, it was to Newcastle that the barons of Northumberland were summoned to pay homage to Earl Henry's successor, the future King William the Lion (1153-1214).

King David's death in 1153 at Carlisle was followed a year later by that of King Stephen at Dover.  Stephen's successor, Henry Fitz Empress (d.1189), wished to turn the clock back to 1135 when his grandfather had died.  He therefore required back from the Scottish king, David's grandson, Malcolm IV (d.1165), the northern counties of England.  Consequently in July 1157, King Malcolm surrendered Northumberland and Cumberland with the castles of Bamburgh and Newcastle upon Tyne to the king when the 2 met at Peak castle.  As a result of this, from Michaelmas 1158 onwards Northumberland appeared in the pipe rolls as a royal county.  It is also noticeable that although Wark castle had over £20 spent on it in 1158 and over £100 the next year, nothing was accounted for Bamburgh or Newcastle.  The obvious implication of this is that Wark castle had been destroyed under Scottish occupation, but that Newcastle and Bamburgh were kept in good repair.

Newcastle gets its first mention in the pipe rolls in 1166 when the sheriff was allowed £5 for work on the gaol at Novum Castellum supra Tinam.  This shows that the prison already stood within the fortress.  It should also be noted that £5 was the annual sum often drawn by northern sheriffs for general maintenance of royal castles as has been explored under Carlisle.  In 1167, £13 14s 1d was charged for taking lead from Caen (Cadomum) to Newcastle.   It is possible that this lead was later used at the castle, for in 1168 the sheriff accounted for £80 10s and 47s 4d that had been spent on the works of Newcastle upon Tyne castle by the view of Richard Lucy (d.1179) and Roger Fitz Richard (d.1179).  The knights of Northumberland also helped in the works at Newcastle, with Walter Fitz Main and William Vescy (d.1183) paying 53s 4d each under the writ of Richard Lucy.  Similarly the burgesses of Newcastle paid 20m (£13 6s 8d) towards the same work for their misdeeds.  This came to a total of some £101 10s 4d, probably sufficient funds in those days to build a simple wall enceinte.

Whatever work was done at Newcastle, it seems only to have occurred this year, although in 1171 it was recorded that William Fitz Walden gave the county 40s for works at the castle. Which castle is not mentioned, but the implication is that it was for ‘the' castle, in other words, Newcastle.  This also suggests that other unrecorded work may have been going on in the meantime.  Alternatively, this may have been an advanced payment for the real work which was recorded the next year.  In 1172, the sum of £158 13s, plus £8 and £18 12s were spent on the work of the castle keep by the view of Guy Tison, Robert Dilston (Deuelestune), Goscelyn Ruffi and Robert Fitz Eue.  This gave a total expenditure of £185 5s on the keep.

The work continued in 1173 with £167 14s 5d, £18 and £54 10s 11d being spent on the work of the tower by the view of the same men.  This totalled to £240 5s 4d spent on the keep this year. The castle was also provisioned at a cost of £5 which suggests that the castle did not need a keep to be functional.  Despite the ongoing Young King's War of 1173-74, work on the keep continued into 1174, but only £7 15s and £5 10d [total £12 15s 10d] was spent under the supervision of the same 4 men.  This drop in funding was undoubtedly due to the war as the next year, 1175, funds increased once more with the keep works being accounted for at £50 under the supervision of Robert Dilston and Ralph Baird.  Further amounts are then noted as having been spent on the keep, £125 13s 6d and £11 1s 10d under the same 2 men.  Further, Maurice the mason (Maur' Cem'tario) received 20s as a loan from the king.  Without Maurice's loan this totalled to a castle expenditure of £186 15s 4d at Newcastle. 

Work on the keep continued in 1176, although it was noted that the fortress was now in the custody of Roger Glanville (d.1192+), who had been paid £30 for guarding it.  There then follows an account for £133 7s 6d being spent on the work of the keep under the same 2 men as last year, but this entry has been underline for deletion.  This is followed by an entry for £5 1s being spent on work on the castle gaol under the view of the same 2 men as above, the cost of the keep works is then entered again, but this time only for £20 23s 6d.  Later the subwarden accounts for £17 1s 4d spent on the work of the same tower under the same 2 supervisors.  It is therefore uncertain whether the £133 was spent on the keep or not, for nothing else seems to gel with this amount.  Perhaps this sum was covered by the sheriff from unrecorded income.  Therefore the works on the keep this year amounted to either £150 8s 10d or merely £38 4s 10d, with the latter figure being far more likely as the former had been underline for deletion.  In 1177 Roger Glanville received another £30 for his custody of Newcastle upon Tyne castle and £141 12s 11d was again accounted for works on the keep under the supervision of Ralph Baiard and Robert Dilston.  The keep would seem to have been finished this year, for at the next financial year end of Michaelmas 1178, the following entry was made:
   
In the work of the New Castle on the Tyne and the gate of the same castle, £97 1d at the king's writ and by the view of Roger Glanville similarly by the king's command.

This appears to mark the finishing of the castle enceinte as the keep is not mentioned.  This means that in total £804 19s 3d had been spent on the keep between 1172 and 1176 [using the lower figure for 1176] and £200 10s 5d on castle works between 1168 and 1178, plus £5 1s on the gaol in 1176.  This ended all recorded work at Newcastle until 1188 when £16 was spent on building a house of stone which was amongst the escheats in the king's hands.  Presumably this was one of the houses of the barons who guarded the castle.  Possibly this was the new hall mentioned in the thirteenth century.  One thousand pounds seems to have been a ‘normal' sort of figure for Henry II building a castle from scratch, cf. Orford castle and for a comparison already extant Peak castle where Henry spent of £1,800.  Dover keep cost in excess of £3,000.

In the middle of this building period the Young King's War and the invasion of the king of Scotland virtually brought building work to a halt with Roger Fitz Richard of Warkworth (d.1179) claiming £20 for keeping knights in Nouo Castello supra Tina by the writ of Richard Lucy in 1173.  In that year, King William the Lion (1153-1214) had invaded Northumberland, but, when he came before Newcastle, he baulked at attacking the place:

Of this Roger Fitz Richard, I must certainly tell you.
Of Newcastle upon Tyne was he master and lord....
Thither came the king of Scotland with armed people and naked;
The hills and the valleys dread his coming....
But the barons... will endure and wait...
They will not surrender their castles though they suffered great damage.
Well sees the king of Scotland that he will never succeed
In conquering Newcastle upon Tyne without stratagem...

With this the king abandoned thoughts of taking Newcastle and set off from Newcastle to attack Prudhoe castle, but was subsequently persuaded by his barons to try to force Carlisle.  After failing in this project too, King William returned to Northumberland and was seized at Alnwick in 1174.  The news of this was rushed south to King Henry II, who is alleged to have greeted the messenger with the impatient demand, "Has the king of Scots entered Richmond?  Is the fortress of Newcastle upon Tyne seized?  Is Odinel Umfraville taken or driven out and all my barons ejected from their lands?"  His mind was soon put to rest and Newcastle was promptly reprovisioned.  In the meantime King William was only held in Newcastle overnight, on his way further south to the safer prison of Richmond keep.  Perhaps this short stay may have been due to Newcastle's incomplete nature rather than its relative nearness to the Scottish border.

From this documentary evidence there seems little doubt that Henry II built this keep.  It should therefore be compared with other nearby keeps and those attributed to the same king or at least to being built in his reign, viz Appleby, Bamburgh, Bowes, Brough, Carlisle, Dover, Peak and Scarborough.  It should also be kept in mind that in 1174 Fantosme made no mention of a tur when describing Le Noef Chasteau sur Tyne, which is odd, considering King Henry had virtually finished building one at the time.  Perhaps once again this points to the fallibility of chronicle sources which were always composed a long way from and often a long time after the action they describe.

In the aftermath of the 1173-74 campaign Roger Glanville (d.1192+) was made constable and received £30 for the custody of Newcastle from 1178 until 1189.  The arrival of King Richard I on the throne in 1189 caused some upheaval in the old order, with Osbert Longchamp being appointed constable in place of the disgraced Glanvilles.  Osbert was brother to Bishop William Longchamp of Ely (d.1196) and Henry Longchamp, the lord of Wilton castle in Herefordshire.  Similarly Longchamp was replaced by Hugh Bardolf and then, with the fall of King Richard in 1199, William Stuteville (d.1203).  All of these men and their successors were receiving £30 a year for having the custody of Newcastle.

In the meantime the castle continued to be maintained.  In 1194 the sheriff spent 28s 2d on work on the king's houses within the castle, while in 1195, 40s was spent on amending the king's houses in the fortress as well as 4s 5d on amending the gaol.  King Richard also allowed a small sum, 37s, to be spent on amending the keep in 1197 and 40s on repairing the castle in 1198.  In 1199 King John refurbished the castles of the North, with Newcastle and the houses within it having £18 19s 9d spent on them by the writ of Geoffrey Fitz Peter.  Ten shillings was also spent on amending the fortress.  Further work occurred in 1200 when the houses of Newcastle and Bamburgh castles were repaired at a cost of £5 by the writ of Geoffrey Fitz Peter.  A further £10 was spent on the work of Newcastle gaol.  Further both royal Northumberland castles were stocked with 60 tons of wine split between them at a cost of 34s.

King John often made use of this great Northern castle, the River Tyne and its fortress being much used for naval matters.  In 1202 some knights captured at the battle of Mirebeau were imprisoned at Newcastle, while the same year amending the king's houses in Newcastle and Bamburgh castles cost the king 72s 6d.  In 1203, £7 7s and 4d or 9d was spent on amending Newcastle under the view of Nigel Bedford and Adam Selby.  Robert Fitz Roger (d.1214, Warkworth) was then allowed £33 4s 3d to repair the castles in his custody by view, as well as 17s 7d for amending their houses.  The castle was also stocked with food this year.  On 18 July 1205, Robert Fitz Roger [Warkworth] was ordered to deliver to Geoffrey Fitz Peter the prisoners he was holding in Newcastle.  The same year just 15s was spent on repairing the king's houses and in 1206 another 26s was split with work on Bamburgh.  In 1207, a further 75s 9d was spent in repairing the king's house of Newcastle, while in 1208, 25s 4d was again split between Newcastle and Bamburgh for the amendment of their royal housing, while 35s was spend on amending Newcastle gaol.  Further amendments were carried out to the houses of Bamburgh and Newcastle in 1210 and 1211 at a cost of 25s and 43s 5d respectively.

Substantially more work was undertaken at Newcastle and other northern castles during 1212.  At Newcastle the king spent £133 18s 11d on the works of the castle keep and the ditch by the view of Luke the tailor, John Fitz Ralph and Martin his half brother.  The castle constable was also allowed 10m (£6 13s 4d) for guarding the fortress.  On 5 February 1213, King John confirmed the charter of Newcastle upon Tyne and all their liberties and returned to them rents to the value of 110s 6d they had lost by the digging of a ditch and the making of new works under the castle towards the river, ‘so that those who had lost more would have more, and those who had lost less would have less'.  Later the same month, the king gave to Philip Oldcoats (d.1222) the vills of Nafferton, Matefen and Lewarleter and the houses in Newcastle which pertained to them.  Two years later on 13 August 1215, the king ordered Philip Oldcoats to give Robert Vipoint (d.1228 of Appleby and Brough) the custody of Durham (Dunholm) castle and its lands between the rivers Tyne and Tees.  Further, knights, serjeants and crossbowmen were to be stationed at the castles of Norham, Bamburgh and Newcastle.  Later in 1216, it was recorded that if Philip Oldcoats should die, Hugh Balliol was to take over Newcastle.

As settled conditions returned to the North after the end of King John's wars, the sheriff noted in 1219 that the burgesses of Newcastle town had received land in exchange for the ditch of the castle.  The castle then proceeded to have a less military outlook for the subsequent years.  On 25 November 1220, it was recorded that 100 quarters of wheat [some 1 and a fifth tons] which had belonged to Philip Oldcoats were stored in the castle.  It was probably around this time, early in the reign of King Henry III (1216-72) that a scutage was charged on the guard of Newcastle.  From the Balliol barony this raised 5 separate payments bringing in £22 6s 8d.  The other members of the ward only made single payments as follows, from Copum [ie. Carham or Wark] 1m (13s 4d); Bolam 40s; Laval 2m (£1 6s 8d); Whalton 40s; Caugy 40s and Heron 1m (13s 4d); Bothal 40s; Dilston and Gosforth 1m (13s 4d), Bolbec 5m (£3 6s 8d) and Merlay [Morpeth] 4m (£2 13s 4d).

The defences of Newcastle and Bamburgh castles were obviously thought of during this period and on 25 March 1221, it was ordered that the constable of Newcastle was to send to Bamburgh castle 3 crossbows of horn and a crossbowman who were in the custody of William Stratton together with 3 wooden, well strung crossbows.  It was further recorded on 22 June 1221, that the croswbowmen in Newcastle and Bamburgh castles were to be paid 7½d per day.  The next year, 1222, 39s 3d was spent in amending the king's crossbows and quarrels in Bamburgh and Newcastle, while 1223 saw £5 spent in repairing Newcastle.  Minor maintenance was then carried out at the fortress over the next few years.  On 26 April 1225, the sheriff of Northumberland was ordered to repair the houses in Newcastle keep by the view and testimony of lawful men.  Decay was obviously occurring at the castle for on 24 March 1226, Sheriff John Fitz Robert (of Warkworth, d.1241) was ordered to make repairs to the breach (breccam) at Newcastle.  This he had done by 12 February 1228, when he was allowed £34 7s 8d for his expenditure in repairing a breach (brecca) at Newcastle by the king's order.  Some days later on 21 February 1228, he was further allowed monies from the time when he received the custody of Newcastle upon Tyne for the ward due to that castle, namely 28m (£18 13s 4d) yearly for the time that he had held custody.

With the king taking control of his kingdom and deteriorating relations with Scotland, more money was spent on Newcastle.  During 1234 the sum of £22 was allocated to castle works, while on 3 September 1236, the king announced from Pontefract that he and his court were coming to Newcastle on 13 September.  The king was certainly in residence by 12 September when letters were dated from there.  He remained for some time, but by the 27th he was at Doncaster.  The defences of the North would seem to have been discussed during the king's visit for on 8 November 1236, the king allowed 200m (£133 6s 8d) to Sheriff Hugh Bolbec for having custody of Bamburgh and Newcastle castles together with the county.  Further, on 20 January 1237, the bailiffs of Bamburgh were ordered to give Hugh Bolbec the costs expended by him in making the bridges of Newcastle and Bamburgh castles.  This new urgency concerning the defences of Northumberland were emphasised on 14 May 1237, when Robert Newham and Hugh Burneton were appointed overseers of the work at Newcastle.  Simultaneously Thomas Wrancham and Thomas Wetwood were appointed to Bamburgh castle.  These new works were defined on 16 May 1237, when the sheriff was ordered;

to cause the chamber of Newcastle upon Tyne castle, at the head of the king's old hall, and also his chamber in the old tower, to be repaired without delay by the view and testimony of Robert Newham and Hugh Burnton, whom the king has appointed for this purpose.  And to cause the king's new hall and new chamber of the said castle to be re-roofed with lead by the view and testimony of the said Robert and Hugh.  And to cause the breach of the wall over the postern of the castle and the palisade before the gates of the castle and next to the old tower to be repaired by the view of the said Robert and Hugh.

The new hall was probably that which lay along the castle's eastern enceinte and was demolished in 1809.  That it was ‘new' against the keep's ‘old' opens up questions as to what was the real age difference between them and who had built this new structure and when?  The old hall was likely the great second floor chamber within the keep.  Possibly then, the new hall was the work of King Henry II (1154-89) in 1188.  Alternatively this must have been unrecorded work at the end of the reign of King John (1199-1216), although it would appear odd to be building such a secular structure when military considerations were to the fore in the rest of John's works.  As such the ‘new hall' was barely 12 or some 36 years younger than the ‘old hall' which it supplanted.  Such terminology was obviously relative and simply for the use of differentiation, unless of course there was another tower in the enceinte that was even older than the rest of the castle.

The renewed activity at Newcastle was undoubtedly due to the king's state of mind in distrusting the intentions of the Scottish king, Alexander II (1214-49).  However, his mind was put to rest on 25 September 1237, when the treaty of York was made between the two.  In this the king of Scots resigned his claim to the 3 northern counties of Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmorland and accepted the current boundary between the 2 kingdoms which was perambulated to confirm its validity in return for the grant of land worth £200 per annum in those counties.  One consequence of this agreement was Henry III instructing his sheriff of Northumberland on 28 September 1237:

Because a firm peace was made between the king and the king of Scots, so that there is no need for the king to be afraid for his castles as he was before, it is not necessary for such a great expense to be spent on the king's castle at Bamburgh and as was intended at Newcastle upon Tyne; so we command Hugh Bolbec that he adds as few expenses as he can in guarding the aforesaid castle, that the castle itself might be kept at his own expense as long as the king provided for them.

Despite this, work was undertaken at the castle.  On 10 September 1239, a writ was issued to have the keep of Newcastle upon Tyne roofed with lead, the ponds of the king's stews at Bamburgh repaired anew and a gaol to be built at Newcastle.  That Michaelmas £43 4s 9½d was claimed at the king's writ for repairing the mills, barbican (baribute?), king's chamber and old hall at Newcastle as well as the king's kitchen and the wall from there to the hall.  A further 44s 9d was spent on amending the king's houses within the fortress.  The work was obviously ongoing for at Michaelmas 1240, a further £40 11s 8d was charged against roofing the keep with lead... and making new repairs to the gaol at Newcastle upon Tyne.  Two years later in 1242, mention was made of the castle chapel and amendments being made to the king's houses in Bamburgh and Newcastle at a cost of 71s 11d.  By this time the castle with its guard were been farmed out by the king at £20 pa.

Once more politics intervened with the running of Newcastle and on 13 May 1244, the king wrote to his barons of England that he planed to meet them at Newcastle on 1 August to chastise the king of Scotland for certain transgressions committed by him unless he makes amends.  The king duly arrived for his muster on time and was still there on 10 August.  In the meantime he had set the fortress on a war footing.  On 13 June 1244, he had ordered his bailiffs of Newcastle to pay Master Gerald the Engineer what he needed for the king's engineering to be done there.  Then on 24 July 1244, the king ordered that Newcastle should be stocked with 400 quarters of corn and 500 quarters of oats, 200 bacons, 100 live pigs and 300 barrels of wine, ready for when the king arrived.  He was there on 1 August and remained there until the 14th when he moved on to Durham.  While he was there a parliament was held outside the town which resulted in the king ordering 100 quarters of corn to be sent to the town in recompense ‘for their corn trodden down on the occasion of the parliament between the king and the king of Scotland'.  This parliament may have occurred on 6 August when Henry gave King Alexander II a safe conduct to Newcastle.  By 10 August peace had been agreed between the 2 kingdoms and Henry ordered the selling off of his supplies.  The same day the sheriff of Northumberland was ordered to let Master Gerard the Engineer have what he needed to repair the crossbows of the king's munition in Bamburgh and Newcastle and then to carry his tools to Nottingham when he had finished.  On 15 August 1244, the king further ordered the sheriff:

to make a barbican before the postern of the hall of Newcastle to the east... and to repair where necessary the outer gate of the castle, the barrier (jarulium) in front of it and the king's own houses within the castle and the tower, the cost to be credited by view.

On 1 April 1246, Sheriff Hugh Bolbec of Northumberland (1236-46) was ordered to let Eustace Laval, Roger Bertram [Mitford], Richard Maltalent and William Heron enter Bamburgh castle to see the state of the fortress when Hugh Bolbec (d.1262) delivered it to Roger Fitz Ralph to whom the king had granted its keeping at pleasure.  They were further to report what type of arms and necessities were needed in the castle.  The same were to report on the condition of Newcastle and ordered Hugh to pass both castles to William Heron.  Two years later in 1248, £514 15s 11d was accounted for the building of a new gate and £36 8d in the repair of the gate of Newcastle upon Tyne.  This new gate is currently named after its seventeenth century owners, Patrick and Barbara Black.  Around the same time the King's Tower or keep was repaired at a minimal cost of £3 7s 5d.

With this the castle became more of a domestic setting with, on 30 December 1251, Henry III ordering that in future the king of Scotland was to be entertained in the castle to the extent of 2 barrels of wine and meat or fish coming and returning from seeing the king.  Some years later the king himself stopped at Newcastle, being confirmed there on 24 August and 24 September 1255.  During his visit on 25 September 1255, the king ordered the defects in the castle chapel to be repaired, namely the books and vestments in the chapel were to be replaced up to the value of 40s at the discretion of the chaplain.  Quite obviously the very religious king had not been impressed by the state of the royal chapel.

On 20 February 1256, the royal council was ordered to meet at Newcastle in the week after Easter which was on 16 April.  Presumably the king then inspected his refurbished chapel.  It was probably around this time that the new prison called the Heron Pit was built.  This is suggested as it was probably named after one of the Heron's of Newcastle, William Heron being noted as sheriff of Northumberland from 1246-56; while Eustace Heron was noted as a royal pensioner in Newcastle in 1272.  William Heron still owed £782 6s 4d from his time as sheriff in 1272.  Two years later on 2 April 1258, Hugh Bolbec, Roger Merlay [Morpeth], Roger Bertram of Bothal and John Haulton were ordered to examine the castles of Bamburgh and Newcastle to see what state they were in regarding the houses, buildings, walls and ditches as well as armour and munitions, when Robert Neville received them.  This resulted in the expenditure of the grand sum of 1s 2d spent on amending the king's houses within the castle.

On 16 June 1263, the king allowed the castle constable, Adam Gesemouth, any reasonable costs he might run up in munitioning his castle due to the disturbed state of the realm.  The order was repeated on 18 September in regard to any victuals he might need to purchase for his garrison.  When King Henry III (1216-72) was captured at Lewes on 15 May 1264, it is obvious that Adam and other garrison commanders in the North stayed loyal to the king.  Consequently on 6 October 1264, Earl Simon Montfort of Leicester (d.1265) and the whole royal council ordered Adam and others, to abandon their royal fortresses to the newly appointed baronial sheriffs and come to the king with horses and arms ‘if they wish to remain in the king's peace and as they love their lands and goods in the realm'.  Further, if Adam did not surrender Newcastle castle to Sheriff Robert Insula of Northumberland the bailiffs and good men of Newcastle were to aid Robert in recovering the castle.   Adam obviously refused this order, for on 2 December 1264, ‘by the counsel of the barons, Robert Insula of Newton was again granted the custodianship of the new castle on the Tyne and Adam was ordered to make a chirograph of the armour, victuals and other things within the fortress when he handed it over to Robert so that he could answer for them at the Exchequer'.  This obviously happened and Robert took possession, for on 26 November 1265, he was ordered to hand the castle with the county of Northumberland over to John Haulton.  The castle doesn't seem to have suffered too greatly during the disturbances, only needing £14 16s 6d worth of repairs in 1268.  In 1271 a further £67 5s was accounted for on repairs to the keep at Michaelmas.  Finally, on 26 July 1272, the king granted the bailiffs and good men of Newcastle a murage for 5 years for ‘walling their town'.

In 1275, £15 was allowed to the sheriff for enclosing a breach in the castle wall with a wooden enclosure.  The same year it was noted that the allowance for the castle chaplain, was £3 2s 6d for a year and a quarter and that this had now been stopped at the king's order.  Instead he was to be paid £8 11s 4d for 1,624 days which included 134 days paid for once and 54 days paid for twice.  It was also noted that £5 had been spent annually on the repair of the king's houses in the castle.  This is the same amount charged at Carlisle castle and was obviously a standard amount claimed by sheriffs in the North for maintaining the domestic buildings of royal castles.  Despite this, the sheriff later claimed a further £2 2s 6½d on emending the king's house in the castle.  The sheriff also accounted for the ward of the castle rendering £32 4s 5d for 1275 and twice that amount for the previous 2 years as well as noting that 5¼ fees held by John Balliol (d.1268) were now answered for by the bishop of Durham.  Finally the sheriff accounted for £28 14s 5d for the custody of the castle and county for this year and £64 8s 10s for the last 2.

The castle's next claim to fame comes in 1292 when John Balliol, the son of the lord of Bywell of the same name who died in 1268, did homage for Scotland to Edward I in the great hall.  Four years later a state of war existed between the 2 kings and at Michaelmas 1296 it was recorded that the king had put Newcastle in a state of defence.  This had involved building a brattice over the chapel, the protection of the walls from bombardment by hanging wooden ‘targes' over them, the placement of tree trunks on the battlements and the purchase of 1,000 small jars filled with lime which could be thrown at the enemy.  The next year, 1297, the castle was ordered to be munitioned and safely guarded.  Meanwhile the fortunes of war swung back and forth in Scotland and the North.

On 1 February 1311, an order was issued to change the planned route of the town wall and ditch from Westgate hospital to the River Tyne.  Later, between 1318 and 1324, the castle and town was said to be the main supply base for the war against Scotland in the North-East.  As such, after the execution of Earl Andrew Harcla of Carlisle in 1323, one of his quarters was set on the castle walls as a warning to others who took too independent a line.  The war with Scotland petered out with the Treaty of Northampton in 1328, but not for long.

On 12 August 1332, a rebel army in Scotland with the approval of King Edward III (1327-77), smashed the Brucite forces at the battle of Dupplin Moor.  Before this, on 30 May 1332, the sheriff of Northumberland had been ordered:

to distrain all the men of his county who hold lands charged with repairing and maintaining house and buildings within the castle of Newcastle upon Tyne to repair and maintain the same, as the king has learned that divers lands are so charged and that the houses and buildings are very ruinous through lack of repair.

It would appear from this, that the king was beginning to refortify the North in preparation for future hostilities.  Despite the order of May 1332, it was not until 24 April 1333 that a survey was taken of these houses within the castle.  This found that:

Ralph Neville and John Lancaster ought to repair a house within the castle of Newcastle upon Tyne called Bolbec Hall for the barony of Bolbec; the defects thereof can be repaired for £20; William Montagu ought to repair a house there for the barony of Wark; Robert Clifford, Richard Emildon, and William Kibbilsworth ought to repair a house there for the barony of Caugy; the place thereof is entirely waste; it can be built for 60s; Robert Delaval ought to repair a house there for the barony of La Vale; the defects thereof can be repaired for 40s; Geoffrey Scrope [Bolton] ought to build a house there, the place whereof is entirely waste; Thomas Surteys ought to repair a house there for the barony of Gosford; it can be repaired for £4; the countess of Pembroke ought to repair a house there for the barony of Balliol; it can be repaired for 2m (£1 6s 8d); Robert Bertram ought to build a house there, the place whereof is entirely waste; it can be built for £4; John Darcy ought to repair a house there for the barony of Hadston; it can be repaired for 4m (£2 13s 4d).

This seems to have had little affect and in an otherwise undated document of 8 Edward III [25 January 1334 to 24 January 1335], Sheriff Roger Mauduit of Northumberland wrote to the king's council:

that the castle of Newcastle upon Tyne is so decayed and left to neglect that there is not in all the castle a single room wherein one can be sheltered, nor one gate that can be shut, of which the council of our lord king will please to advise for the ordering of a remedy, seeing that all the country is now, as it were, at war.  Also shows that the said Roger cannot go into the country to perform his duty as sheriff, except by force, with armed men.  Wherefore he prays that the council will be pleased to order that he may have men at arms out of the issues of his bailiwick for the maintenance of the said office.

On the back of this document is the statement that this had gone before the king and the answer was to:

Let him have a writ to expend £20 of the issues of his bailiwick in the reparation of the said castle, &c.

On 8 January 1335, an inquisition found that the cost to remedy the castle's dilapidation would be £300.  A further inquisition of 6 July 1334 was much more forthcoming about the repairs thought necessary to the castle.  This found that:

the bridge outside the gate was sufficient enough except for its covering which needed 16½' of boards valued at 20s, some 180 nails costing 7s 6d with the value of the resulting carpentry estimated at 20s.
They say that the Heronpit is of no value and would need 20 joists costing 30s and some 50' of boarding costing 20s, 180 nails at 7s 6d and 20s worth of carpentry.
The house called the Exchequer (Eschekier) was quite sufficient, but needed roofing with lead at a cost of 10m (£6 13s 4d).
The king's chamber is defective in needing a window to the west of 4 panes (foilles) and the gable needed 7 pairs of chevrons at a cost of 20s and 26s 8d for carpentry.  Iron, nails and the smith would cost 10s.  A pane for another window would cost 6d and the carpentry 6d.  Ironwork and nails would cost 12d.  Covering with lead was estimated at costing £5 for 2lbs of lead.  The 2 windows in the 2 gables needed glass at a cost of 26s 8d.  Other work was valued at 26s 8d.  Rectifying faults in the lead and woodwork was also estimated at 26s 8d.  Lead to cover the roof was reckoned at £25 and 6s 8d for the plumber, while carpentry would cost another 13s 4d and the nails 13s 4d.
Further work in the king's chamber needed £10 of carpentry and about 200 lbs of lead as well as new masonry at a cost of £6 together with £20 to repair the masonry. 
The kitchen (Qwycine) was totally decrepit and needed to be made anew at a cost of 10m (£6 13s 4d).
Also defects in the pantry and buttery needed repair immediately which would cost 40s.  This would also require 100 lbs of lead costing £3.
The granary needed 20s of work and the chapel needed strengthening on all sides for £10.
The Gannte tower needed repairs to the lead estimated at not less than 20m (£13 6s 8d) and the masonry 6m (£4).
There is another house reached via a covered way which would cost £10 in carpentry.
All the defaults around the castle, towers and walls could be repaired for £16 10s.
The house of Bolbec barony, in the hands of Ralph Neville and William Hercle, could be repaired for £10.
Other houses, viz that of the barony of Balliol in the hands of Countess Mary of Pembroke, needed repairs to the value of £5.  Wark barony house needed £20 spent on it; the barony of Gosforth and Dilston held by William Montagu needed £20; the house of Caugy barony in the hands of Robert Clifford needed 10m (£6 13s 4d); the house of the barony of Whalton, now in the hands of Geoffrey le Scrope [Bolton], 10m (£6 13s 4d): the house of the barony of Heron, in the hands of John Darcy le Cosyn, 10m (£6 13s 4d); the house sustained by the Delaval barony, 10m (£6 13s 4d) and the house of Bothal barony, which was in the hands of Robert Bertram, 10m (£6 13s 4d).
It was further reckoned that it would cost £5 to repair all the king's other houses and this needed 2 stone of lead.
Finally the jurors complained of the chairs and carts which should have been returned to the castle after the battle of Bannockburn in the times of various sheriffs.

Quite clearly the castle buildings had suffered a great amount of decay, but the main defences seem to have been in pretty good repair.  A year later on 13 January 1336, a further inquisition was made.  This listed all of the 11 sheriffs of Newcastle since the battle of Bannockburn.  It then got down to the state of the castle claiming that in their times:

the great tower and lesser towers of the castle, the great hall with the adjacent King's Chamber and other chambers below the Queen's Mantle (Quenesmantle), with the buttery and the bakery and the royal chapel below the castle as well as a house beyond the gate called Exchequer House (Chokerhouse) with the bridges before the gates and 3 more beyond them and a postern had deteriorated to the value of £300.  Also there remained in the custody of Roger Mauduit, late sheriff, 420 lbs of lead.  Also they say that the lord of Bothall should build a house in the castle, likewise Robert Vale, the lords of Haddeston and Whalton, Robert Clifford, the lords of North Gosford and Dilston as well as the barons of Balliol and Bolbec, while the latter's house should be called le Bolbeckhait.  Also they say that Emma Jargoun made an enclosure (purpresturum) encroaching over the castle ditch, being 10' in width and 20' in length which had a postern.  Others who's enclosures have encroached on the ditch in a similar fashion included Matilda Knight, John Parlebien, John Ingilwod, Henry Bonmarch, John Baty, Adam Ayer, Benedictus Sutor, John Thewe, John Castro Bernard, William Hextildesham, Thomas Tinclier, William Grys and Adam Neddreton.  [Also] John Carlisle had built a postern.  Others who had encroached on the ditch included Hugh Littester, John Byry, Thomas Norreys and Robert Taverner. 

The last part of the document is somewhat decayed but reads:

... to conceal belonging to the castle of the lord king of the town of Newcastle upon Tyne by Thomas Frismar and his heirs for a certain plea... 4s for a year.
From William Acton for a certain house against the motte/moat (mota) 16d. for a year.
From the land formerly of Thomas del Hays for one ... per annum.
Likewise, from the heirs of Nicholas Scotus, for 2 messuages against the castle mound (hogam Castri), 5d.
Also, from the land of Robert Jolif 2½d....

This section is very interesting for it seems to confirm the existence of a castle motte.  Presumably this had been built by Prince Robert in 1080 or William Rufus in 1095.  The statement concerning the building built against the mota is ambiguous as motte or moat would suit the translation, but the statement that Nicholas Scot held 2 messuages against the castle hoga is pretty conclusive.  Hoga is an old Latin word, noted in use from at least 1086 until 1459.  It is perhaps best translated as how or mound.  In Domesday Book hoccus was used for a salt drying mound.  Pretty certainly here it is best translated as motte for such an Old English word is unlikely to have been used for a ditch or a rampart.

In response to this inquiry, the sheriff of Northumberland was ordered on 28 January 1336:

to distrain the lord of Bothale, Lord Robert Laval of Haddeston, Lord Robert Clifford of Newstead, the lords of North Gosford and Dilston, the lord of Wark, the lord of the barony of Balliol and the lord of the barony of Bolbec, each of whom is bound to repair, maintain and if necessary newly construct a certain house within the castle of Newcastle upon Tyne as found by an inquisition.... of all their lands, goods and chattels...  unless they carried out their maintenance duties to these houses in the castle before Michaelmas.  If the distrain was not carried out the sheriff was to be likewise distrained.  In any case the sheriff was to report back to chancery by Michaelmas concerning what had been achieved in respect to this order.

Further, on 13 February 1336, the king appointed his clerk, John Thyngden, to repair at the king's charges Newcastle, where some buildings, bridges and turrets are in a ruinous state as has been found by an inquisition taken by Archbishop John of Canterbury, the chancellor and Geoffrey le Scrope [Bolton].  The same day, William Scurueton, the bailiff of Countess Mary of Pembroke at Bywell, was ordered to deliver to this John Thyngden 12 oaks fit for timber, from Bywell wood, while the mayor and bailiffs of Newcastle were ordered to pay John by indenture, for doing the said works, £30 of the farm which they were bound to render yearly to the king for their town.  Similarly the sheriff of Northumberland was ordered to pay £30 from the issues of his bailiwick.  Judging from later documents John immediately began work and also reported back various failures to the king.  Consequently on 8 July 1336, the king ordered the sheriff to have all those who had houses in the castle and who ought of right to repair them, to have them repaired with all speed so that they were ready and roofed before Michaelmas.  The same day the mayor and bailiffs of Newcastle were ordered:

to cause all the dung, offal and other refuse before the castle gate and in the ditches and upon the motte, to be taken away with all speed and to cause a proclamation to be made in that town that no one shall make paths upon the motte, or use them, or permit pigs or other beasts to go there; and that no dung or other refuse shall rest upon the motte, or in the ditches, or before the door of the castle, upon the penalty which befits, because the king has been informed that the men of that town throw dung, offal and other refuse before the door of the castle and into the ditches and upon the motte; and that there are many bad smells made there by the pigs and other beasts and that certain of these men have made paths upon the motte for no modest time, as if it was a high road and they use them hitherto to the king's prejudice and that of his ministers dwelling in the castle and to the infection of the air there.

Despite this it was only on 15 October 1336, that the king ordered that John Thyngden should be paid 3s daily for his work as surveyor of the king's works at Newcastle since he began the works!  Thyngden seems to have had his work cut out with bringing the castle up to scratch for on 28 January 1337, the king asked the sheriff of Northumberland to again assist in the refortification of the castle, stating:

Whereas divers men of the realm, who hold their lands of the king by barony as of the castle of Newcastle upon Tyne and otherwise, who are bound, by reason of such tenure, to repair and maintain certain houses and buildings within that castle, will now cause those houses and buildings to be erected and repaired, as is said, a part of which is ruined and another part totally fallen down, and the king has learned that fitting windows and doors still remain to be placed there, he therefore orders the sheriff to compel such tenants, by distraints or otherwise, to add such windows and doors, and that the doors are provided with locks, enjoining the tenants, when the buildings have been thus closed, to deliver the keys of the said locks to John Thyngden, surveyor of the king's works in that castle, or to him who supplies his place there, to be kept until further orders.  Further, the king has ordered John to receive the keys and keep them as aforesaid.

Further disquiet is noted at Newcastle on 12 April 1337, when Sheriff John Kirby of Northumberland, keeper of castle and town in a time of war, before the town was enclosed by a wall, was accused of ‘pretending that the houses of the messuage might harm the castle, [and so] destroyed them'.  Further work on Newcastle upon Tyne town defences was carried out later that year.  On 10 Oct 1337, the mayor and bailiffs were ordered to allow £40 of their farm;

for the repairing and building of that gate called the Westgate, and the drawbridge there, which indeed is situated in the weakest part of the enclosure of the aforesaid town, and is in a great part broken down and wrecked, with the speed with which it can conveniently be done you will do...

Much work was subsequently carried out by John Tyngden as is made clear by his report concerning his works at the castle in the 1343 pipe roll.  This ran:

Account of divers works by John Thyngden, clerk, 25 February 1336 [10 Edward III] to 7 July 1338 [12 Edward III] as well as his receipts as of divers works by done by him in the king's castle.

Because divers houses and certain bridges and turrets within the castle had become ruinous and were in great need of repair and because certain other houses there which the king ought to repair and amend, for default of good keeping had become ruined, the king assigned the said John surveyor of the works for the repairing and amending of the said houses, bridges and turrets and making other houses in place of the ruined houses.  From 25 February 1336 [10 Edward III] to Michaelmas following [1337], account for timber including beams, chevrons, Wyndebemes and other necessaries, as well for repairing and mending the king's chamber, namely for the chapel and belfry and the kitchen called ‘Dressorium' in the king's chamber, £19 18s 4d.  In laths, boards, tign de fyr and empty barrels bought for repairs in the said kitchen, chapel, belfry and kitchen and for making windows, doors and louvres for the same, £8 13s 4d.  In iron for ironwork and nails for making the doors and windows of the said chamber, chapel and kitchen and lead bought for the roofing of the chapel, £9 15s; and for stone, lime and mortar and plaster bought for repairing and making the walls of the aforesaid chamber, chapel and kitchen, 113s 4d.  For glass for the 2 great windows of the chapel of which the glass was altogether wasted and destroyed, 66s 6d.  For the carriage of the stones and digging of the sand with the carriage of the same, 40s 5d.  For divers men, roofing the chapel and chamber of the queen called le Mantell; the passage between the king's chamber and le Mantell and the kitchen called Dressorium with the stones thereof and the king's chamber with lead as well bought as in store and covering, pargeting (perjaccione) and daubing (dealbacoe) of Mantell and the king's chamber aforesaid, £13 15s 6d.  And for wages of divers plasterers, carpenters and plumbers to repair and effect the defects of the said chapel and houses, £23 11s 11d.
From Michaelmas 1336 [10 Edward III] to next Michaelmas, the same accountant renders account for timber for making and repairing the king's hall in the castle aforesaid and covering the same hall with empty casks beneath the lead, for Eastland boards for the windows, doors and louvres of the same hall, £8 10s.  For stone for the velsura in the hall and for repairing and amending other defects in the same hall, 32s 8d.  And in iron for making the ironwork, nails and other necessaries for the same hall and for stagnat nails for the windows of the hall, 103s 4d.  And in 10 cart loads of lead for roofing the hall, £26 13s 4d, ie. for each fother 53s 4d.  And in the wages of divers masons and carpenters, making and repairing the same hall and for sawing the timber for the hall, £57 10s.  And in carting of the aforesaid timber as well by water as by land from the wood called Chapel Wood, where it was felled, to the castle, 26s 8d.  And for a certain plumber for founding lead and covering the hall with the same, together with 20s to a certain plasterer for plastering the hall with plaster, £17 13s 4d.
From Michaelmas 1336 to 7 July next following (1337).  The same renders account for timber as well as for repairing and making a certain chamber at the head of the hall above the offices and a certain turret beyond the outer gate of the castle, as for a certain new chamber there for the king's wardrobe, £23 6s 8d.  And in lathes, boards and beams for making the said chamber and turret, 101s 6d.  And in stone and mortar and plaster for repairing the turret and chamber and iron for making the ironwork thereof, as well for the chamber and turret as for the doors and windows of the same, £16 3s 6d.  And for making a certain chamber above the said chamber at the head of the hall for plaster for the same and for covering with slates the aforesaid chamber and 2 other chambers above the principal gates of the keep (turris) and for pargeting (perjactand) with plaster of the same chamber and cellar, £7.  And in 2 casks, 1 bucket and 4 masts of fir, for making thereof 2 stairs(?), 12 flails(?) and 3 iron shovels, 3 picks (pycois), 1 large table and 2 small tables, bought for founding the lead upon, 16s 10d.  And in wages of the carpenters, masons, plumbers, sawyers and other workman, for the works and repairs of the chambers and turrets and for gutters during the time aforesaid, £44 17s.  And to a certain smith for ..., bellows, hammers and other utensils and necessaries hired from the same for the making of ironwork for the same works, 6s 8d.  Paid for 10 chaldrons of seacoal bought for the said works, 56s 8d.  And in fees of the same smith and his boy, for making all the ironwork and the nails for all the works aforesaid and for repairing the tools of the masons and other workmen for 470 working days, £11 15s, namely to the smith 4d and his boy 2d a day.

From this it appears that John Tyngden had spent some £307 on his works at the castle - not bad considering the estimate for the works had been £300.

The work on the castle would appear to have been successful, for Froissart  relates that in June 1342, King David II (1329-71) attacked Newcastle on his way south to his defeat at the battle of Neville's Cross near Durham.  This assault was said to have been repelled by John Neville (d.1388) the captain of Newcastle who later took part in the main battle.  Froissart only arrived in England in 1361 or 1362 and his account of the battle generally follows that of Jean le Bel, who had fought in the wars of the 1320s and wrote a rather fictional account of the battle from his home in Flanders, apparently not having returned to Britain since about 1327.  It has been argued that Neville would have been too young to have command of such an important base as Newcastle, but his parents had married on 14 January 1326 and John had campaigned in Gascony in 1345.

The battle of Neville's cross left King David II (1329-71) as an English prisoner, while the centre of fighting moved much further to the north into Scotland from this point onwards.  However, this did not mean that Newcastle was totally neglected.  Between 1353 and 1355 part of the castle curtain wall was rebuilt.  On 4 November 1357, the sheriff entered an account of the various expenses he had run up in repairing the houses (domorum) inside the castle.  This work consisted of repairs to the prison called the grand pit (le graunt pit) in the square tower next to the gate as the loft floor (Leftfore) needed replacement due to putrid joists (putrefaccoe gista).  It took 5 timbers for 5 joists to repair this for 7s 6d, plus 10d for carrying the joists to the castle and 6s for 12 floorboards (plaunchours) and 200 spikenails for 20d.  On top of this was the wages of the carpenters etc, for 24s.  For having the prison and latrine remortared, 11s 1d; for making the lime etc, 19s 11d.  For repairs to the Heronpit prison, 4s 8d and 19s 6d.  For repairs to woodwork utilising 200 spikenails, 28s 11d.  For repairs to 44' of wall to a height of 2' near the prison, 18s 4d.  For timbers for repairs 38s 4d and for workmens' wages, 18s 4d; for lime 5s.  For work on the barbican and keep, 18s 4d.  For timber for joists, 41s 8d and for works in the keep, 19s 6d.  For works on the barbican beyond the gate, 18s 4d.  For lathes and other woodwork including windows for the house above the Heronpit prison, 25s 3d.  For ironwork in the same house and lead for this and the walls as well as 2 great crokis and 2 bandis for the great turret and bandis and crokes for 5 windows and le chemeney in the room, 21s 1d.  For works on the chimney south (infra) of the kitchen, making the doors and windows and covering the house etc, 64s.  For 42 daubyngstours for 2 walls beneath the house and between the kitchen and the prison and other chambers in the said house and 100 thaknails for making the walls, 16s 7d.  The total spent for this was £21 3s 5d.

After his stint at Newcastle, Chaplain Thyngden was replaced by Gilbert Whiteleye as master and surveyor of the king's works in all his castles on 16 June 1358.  That day the king ordered his sheriff of Northumberland to pay £56 by indenture to Gilbert ‘so that the works which lie near to the king's heart may not be delayed for lack of payment'.  Despite this, no works are apparently recorded.

The next building phase at Newcastle occurred towards the end of the reign of Richard II (1377-99).  On 15 May 1392, Earl Henry Percy of Northumberland (d.1408) entered an account for the cost of repairing the king's chapel and other buildings within Newcastle upon Tyne castle, which had taken place between 15 May 1392 and Michaelmas.  This amounted to £6 13s spent on lathes, nails, stone called sklact gemewes, sand, earth and other necessaries bought for the works and carriage of the same to the castle as well as workmen's wages coming to £6 13s.  Between 1 June 1394 and Michaelmas he also rendered account for an unprinted expenditure on divers defects in the bridge and gates of the castle and on the roofs (tectur) of divers houses within the fortress, namely for timber, sand and gemewes bought and provided for the works, with the wages of the carpenters and other labourers.  During this latter work phase, on 12 May 1396, John Mosdale, king's serjeant at arms, was appointed to employ any necessary masons, carpenters and other workmen and labourers for repairing the castles of Newcastle and Scarborough at reasonable wages.  This he seems unable to have done, for on 11 July 1394, the king appointed John Mitford and John Mosdale, king's serjeants at arms, to repair by the control of Thomas Etton, the defects in those walls and buildings of Newcastle which the king should have repaired at an expense of 150m (£100), viz 100m (£66 13s 4d) from the king and 50m (£33 6s 8d) from Earl Henry of Northumberland.  They were further instructed to take masons, carpenters and workmen to do this work and were granted power to imprison any contrariants.

Whatever John did, there was obviously still further work to be done for when King Henry IV took over the country in 1399 he ordered John to take stonecutters, carpenters and other workmen to repair Newcastle and Scarborough castles.  This, however, was the last known work at the castle for a while.  It was next on 20 October 1458, that a commission was granted to Alan Birde to arrest stonemasons, mason, plumbers, tilers, smiths, plasterers and all other workmen necessary for the building and repairs within Newcastle and to purvey stones, timber, iron, lead, glass, tiles, laths, shingles, boards, nails and all other necessaries and carriage therefore, for the next 2 years.  Subsequently much fighting occurred in the 1460s during the Wars of Roses, but Newcastle was apparently never assaulted.

Some 80 years later, with deteriorating relations between Henry VIII (1509-47) and Scotland, the king, on 13 April 1537, ordered the repair and furnishing of the border fortresses of Alnwick, Bamburgh, Berwick, Bewcastle, Carlisle, Harbottle, Newcastle upon Tyne, Scarborough and Wark or some other fortress in Tynedale.  Further, Barnard Castle, Knaresborough, Middleham, Pontefract, Sandal and Sheriff Hutton castles were to be repaired to receive the king in person, while Cockermouth, Conisbrough, Dunstanburgh, Penrith, Pickering, Prudhoe, Richmond, Tickhill, Warkworth, Wilton and Wrestle were to be repaired.  This resulted in a claim for £66 13s 4d being made for repairing the walls and windows of the hall, great chamber and the chapel of St Peter within the fortress of Newcastle.  Despite this work the castle in 1589 was described as ‘old and ruinous' and in 1618 Alexander Stephenson, page of the King's bedchamber, was given a lease of the castle precincts.  Under him, houses were erected within the bailey and externally right up to the castle walls.

With the commencement of the English Civil War (1642-49) the castle was garrisoned by the royalists duly besieged by the Parliamentarians in 1644.  Before this the castle was fortified by building a series of earthwork defences including breastworks and redoubts.  These probably lay along the western side of the castle and were levelled soon after the war ended.  Excavation in 1976 uncovered the remains of part of a stone built V shaped bastion immediately northwest of the keep.  This faced northeast across the front of the Black Gate and consisted of a ditch some 20' wide with an inner face revetted by a stone wall some 4' thick.  One short surviving length of wall stood 6' high.  A rectangular stone lined pit about 20' long and 13' wide was also made within the North Gate.

After the war the castle site was once again neglected and in the eighteenth century the roofless keep was made a part of a garden.  In 1819 it was re-roofed and rebattlemented before being refurbished again by the Society of Antiquaries in the late 1840s.  Finally, between 1967 and 1989, about half a million pounds was spent by the local council on restoring the keep and converting it into a museum.

Description
The castles sits on a precipitous promontory, which is about 420' north to south by some 340' across at its widest extent.  The site is only easily approachable from the west.  It is divided from the main plateau to the north by a tributary of the Lort Burn in a deep ravine.  The Lort itself lies in a deep gorge to the east, whilst on the south side the land falls steeply to the River Tyne.  The castle was therefore surrounded by running water on 3 of its 4 sides.  Upon this plateau the first Roman fort was built and later the Anglo-Saxon cemetery overlaid this and some of the surrounding area.

The Roman Fort
The fort is thought to be of an irregular plan and utilised the triangular shape of the promontory.  Its northern defences were uncovered by excavation in 1985 on top of the steep slope of the northern edge of the promontory, following the contours near the Black Gate.  The south wall is thought to lie on the edge of the steep river cliff, but no excavation has been made where its east and west walls supposedly lie.  Several buildings have been excavated within the fort, including the headquarters building (principia), part of what is thought to be the commanding officers house (praetorium) to the west and other buildings to the south.  Some of these have been outlined in cobblestones to the north and west of the current keep.  Excavation south of the principia in 1929 found further Roman buildings, some retaining the sills of doors and windows.  North of the central range of the fort, 2 granaries were uncovered on opposite sides of the main north-south road, the Via Pretoria.  This excavation showed that a loading bay lay at the east end of the eastern granary and that this was re-modelled in the third century.

The First Castle
The castle of Prince Robert (d.1134), founded in 1080, probably occupied the same site as the later castle with a motte in the southwest corner of the enceinte, just south of Henry II's keep.  A cross ditch is thought to have been dug across the northwestern side of the promontory dividing it into 2.  Part of this boundary was excavated and found to be a broad ditch with a bank to the south constructed of upcast from the ditch and composed largely of clay with Roman remains and bones from the Saxon cemetery.  Unfortunately the remains had been disturbed in post-medieval times so that its original height and profile were uncertain.  What could be seen was that the ditch was flat bottomed and some 6' across.  Such would fit an early and rapid fortification of the site in 1080.  No trace of the motte has been uncovered, but it seems to have lain in the southwest corner.  The mound mentioned under the current Moot Hall at the south eastern corner of the bailey was supposed to chiefly consist of ashes which could be removed at little expense.  This hardly sounds like a great motte, like that demolished at Worcester in the early nineteenth century.

The Stone Castle
It seems possible that the stone castle was only constructed under the auspices of Henry II (1154-89) in the 1160s.  Certainly the graveyard seems to have been operational until this point.  Most of the enceinte was destroyed in the modern era, but portions of the north, east and south walls remain both above and below ground and the rest can be tentatively reconstructed from the sixteenth and eighteenth century depictions of the fortress.  Some 200' of the east curtain wall has been uncovered by excavation.  This portion ran from the destroyed rectangular east postern gate in the north to the also destroyed round, or half moon tower at the southeast corner of the enceinte which now lies under the Moot Hall.  This east wall was slightly thickened when a new hall was built against it, with its chamber to the south and kitchen to the north. 

This great hall was aisled and was uncovered in 1906 when the basement for the county council offices, now the Vermont Hotel, were dug out.  The aisles were supported on columns with the king's chamber set across the width of the southern end.   The main entrance to the hall was in the north wall, set centrally between 2 chambers which were presumably the buttery and the pantry.  The kitchen probably lay to the north and was probably a separate building in case of fire.  It should be noted that the 1335 inquisition refers to the pantry, buttery, kitchen and the king's chamber or solar.  This suggests the whole were in close proximity - and obviously the keep was too small to accommodate all these buildings.  The hall itself was 44' wide externally, with the central aisle making up 22' of that and the aisles 9' apiece.  The cylindrical aisle columns had moulded bases and were located, probably 3 to each side.  This would have made the hall somewhat similar to that found in the bailey at Oakham castle.

The south wall ran from the destroyed round Half Moon Tower to another rectangular postern, the south postern.  From here the wall ran to the southern corner of the site where there was a square tower.  From here the enceinte made several doglegs to another rectangular tower.  All this section has been destroyed, the doglegs possibly existing as a method to enclose the southern and eastern sides of the motte.  From the destroyed tower the wall ran directly north, passing the keep, to another rectangular tower.  This section of the enceinte is now under the modern St Nicholas Street.  From this tower the wall proceeded at an angle of some 20 degrees to the east.  It terminated in another, larger square tower at the northen apex of the site.  Immediately south of this tower lay the main north gate which was later extended into the Black Gate.  Supposedly an east-west wall divided the bailey in half, but no trace of this has been found in the last excavations.

The surviving ruins of the east curtain consists of some 25' of wall running southeast from the north tower.  It consists of a sloping plinth of 3 courses with up to 4 courses of masonry above.  This masonry, internally and externally, is faced with those regular, possibly square blocks of masonry which have been suggested elsewhere to possibly be reused Roman work.  This would have ended at the east postern, of which little now remains, but a fragment of its southern portion connected to another short section of curtain under the railway viaduct.  This wall is some 40' long and is up to half a dozen courses high.  The rest of this side of the enceinte has been swept away and any surviving traces must lie under the Vermont Hotel and the Moot Hall.

The best surviving section of the enceinte, however, is certainly the surviving portion of the south curtain.  This stretches for some 175' along the south side above the river and was 6' thick.  Perhaps not surprisingly considering its position above the river, it had foundations some 8' deep.  At the west end are the shattered remnants of the east side of the square tower.  Towards the other, eastern end of the south wall is the odd, rectangular postern.  This appears to have been much altered and rebuilt.  Externally is a rounded arch of 2 orders standing some 15' high and resting on imposts.  The exterior of the postern shows much evidence of rebuilding and possibly of originally having pilaster buttresses.  Some 6' within the internal arch are the remnants of a pointed gateway which has been walled up and a much smaller postern inserted below.  Originally this could well have been a major twelfth century entrance into the fortress from the south.  Just west of the interior of the gate is a well.  The rest of the south curtain underpins the postern and is obviously of a later build.  The excavators thought that the latter wall was probably contemporaneous with Henry II's keep.  East of the postern excavation in the 1960s for the County Council car park found much pottery and a rough stone foundation of uncertain date along with clear traces of 2 Roman occupation levels which were rich in pottery.  Also uncovered was a flagged Roman floor which was utilised as part of the stairs running up to the enceinte wall parapet.  Pottery associated with this feature was thought to be thirteenth century.

The bailey wall was said to be 6' thick in 1620 and that its western side had been destroyed by a dungheap of long accumulation.  The survey runs:

Within the site and circuit of the said castle the inhabitants of the town of Newcastle upon Tyne have made a certain dunghill or leastall in and against the outer wall of the said castle, on the west side of the said wall, and have located, placed, and cast much rubbish and other dirt and nuisances there, and have suffered and still suffer the said dunghill, &c., so located, placed, and cast, to lie there.  The length of which dunghill contains 98 yards, the height 10 yards, and the breadth 32 yards.  And by reason of the weight of the dunghill, &c., in and against the wall of the said castle on the west side of the same wall there located, &c., a great part of the said wall, containing in length 40 yards, in height 10 yards, and breadth 2 yards, was and still is totally subverted and prostrated, to the very great diminution of the state and strength of the said castle, so that in the opinion of the jurors the sum of £120 will scarcely repair the same wall.

A fragment of the north gatehouse remains, which shows that this rectangular gatetower lay within the enceinte and as such may well be part of the earliest eleventh century castle.  The 1974 excavation revealed that this had been inserted into a clay bank which presumably belonged to the first castle.  The mass of masonry to the east side of the North Gate presumably represents the last remnants of the north tower of the enceinte.  In the 1240s King Henry III (1216-72) added the odd, doglegged projection to the North Gate to make the Black Gate.  The exterior of this is oval with a central gate passageway - making it somewhat similar to the Dublin Gate at Trim castle.  This single tower is about 50' in diameter.  The exterior of the gateway is flanked by 2, slightly projecting buttresses with trefoil doorways at their summit.  These would appear to have been doorways onto the wallwalk of a destroyed barbican.  Above these the 2 walls join to make a slightly projecting large buttress through which the gate passes. 


The main tower, divided in 2 as it is by the gateway, had chambers to north and south equipped with large crossbow loops.  The southern tower also has a fine buttress whose string course is integral with the rest of the tower.  Behind this tower was a garderobe block which emptied into the ditch.  Next to this, under the dogleg leading to the North Gate is a pointed, inset archway acting as a postern.  Within the passageway is shoulder headed postern - a door style that dates to around 1250 to 1350.  Finally, before the North Gate is reached, stands another garderobe turret with the large square Heronpit behind it.

The north gatetower is of a similar design to its southern counterpart, but there are no garderobes in the dogleg behind.  Within the gate passageway are rounded portcullis grooves, followed by a gateway and 2 blind arcades of 2 trefoil arches each with doorways into the towers to each side.  The archways to front and rear are triangular and most resemble those at Goodrich castle main gatehouse, while the passageway is barrel vaulted.  The gatehouse was heavily remodelled in 1611 and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and this has removed all above ground trace of the drawbridge, whose abutment was found on the other side of the ditch by excavation together with three ashlar holes for the counterweights at the base of the gatehouse.  These holes and the ditch produced fifteenth century pottery.  Further excavation in 1983 found ‘the remains of a substantial stone structure, incorporating a stone-lined cess-pit' under the footings of the Black Gate on its north side.  This was interpreted as the back wall of a house which ‘encroached into the castle ditch' and had been ‘deliberately demolished to make room for the new gatehouse'.

An eighteenth century print shows a further gatehouse immediately southeast of the keep set in a ruined elongated building that stretches down the south side of the keep.  Close study of the etching suggests that this is in fact is most likely to represent the poorly represented remains of the forebuilding with its Romanesque entrance gateway.  It would appear that this has been interpreted as a gatehouse with a wall dividing the bailey in half south of the keep.  There is no other evidence that such a gate or dividing wall existed.  Therefore the first interpretation seems the most likely.  That said, the sixteenth century sketch of the castle does seem to show such a dividing wall and the possibility of a gatehouse in this position.

Keep
The great tower is approximately square being some 62' east to west by 55' deep, including the forebuilding which takes up the entire east side of the keep and is about 20' deep.  The tower was originally of 3 storeys and stood over 80' tall.  However, the roof section was later converted into a room when a flat lead roof was inserted in place of the original steep roof, probably by King John when he spent some £133 at the castle in 1212.  The tower is built of rectangular sandstone blocks laid in regular courses with an instep at first floor level.  The whole structure is highly irregular with turrets and buttresses attached to the tower in a hodgepodge manner.

The tower is obviously of one build and was integral with the forebuilding.  The whole is enclosed by a sloping plinth of chamfered courses similar to those found at Middleham and perhaps the exemplar for the possibly Elizabethan ones found at Kenilworth keep.  It is noticeable here that the plinth is totally missing between the southeast turret and the south buttress on its south face.  Possibly this indicates that the plinthing here is secondary, although there was a lean-to building here in the eighteenth century which may have altered the plinth layout.  Excavations into the basement of the castle at the end of the nineteenth century went some 6' deep and found that there were no cellars under the structure.


Entrance to the keep is reached from the south via a set of steps running up the keep's east side through the long forebuilding.  At the top of the first flight of modern steps is a Romanesque doorway, although note the sallyport from the chapel covering the bottom of these steps from the basement to the west of the entrance.  In 1814 the main doorway was reached via means of a wooden ladder.  Beyond the main gate the steps continue up to a doglegged turn which leads to the main door into the keep at second floor level.  The northeastern corner of the forebuilding is taken up with a guard room at this level.  Under these steps, unusually, are a series of chambers making up the castle chapel with some fine Romanesque windows to the exterior - windows that are far too large to be defensible.  This is the opposite of the usual manner of having the chapel over the castle/keep entrance with the portcullis blocking the gate being set before the altar to make sure the castle is secure if a service is in progress, cf. Caernarfon, Rochester etc.  Another odd feature is the postern above the main forebuilding gate.  How this would have been used is intriguing to say the least.  Generally the forebuilding can be compared to others, like those at Castle Rising and Dover.

The floor plan of the keep consists of 3, roughly 15' square turrets to all sides but the northwest.  Here lay an odd turret with 8 external sides.  At different levels these 4 turrets contained various rooms, while the exceptionally thick walls contained many wall passages and small chambers, similar in design to those found at most such great towers, viz. Dover, Rochester and the Tower of London to name a few.  On each front there is a central pilaster buttress, although that to the west is largest and contains a twin garderobe. 

In the centre of the keep are the main rooms, starting with vaulted chambers on the lower 2 floors, the lower one of which, with a central pillar supporting the vault, was at some time fitted out as a prison with iron rings to hold the prisoners.  The room above has been much altered, but originally had a fireplace in the south wall whose flue passed up through the south buttress to the battlements.  Sadly the upper part of this was much altered, probably in 1811 and its layout and plan is uncertain after the buttress fades out at third floor level. 

The vaulting in the lower sections of great towers only exists elsewhere in Britain at this period at Richmond, where the great tower overlies an earlier gatehouse.  At Ludlow keep the vaulted chamber was originally part of the original gate passageway.  At Newcastle, above the vaultings, is the great hall on the third floor with a fine twin light Romanesque window to the north.  To the south are a pair of single, large Romanesque windows under a joint rectangular hood mould associated with an external instep at this level.  The main entrance from the forebuilding was on this level.  Externally the keep rooms are generally lit by narrow loops or small rectangular windows, except for the large Romanesque windows which have already been mentioned.  The southwest turret is occupied by the newel stair that linked all the floors to the battlements.  The well as in the east curtain, just south of the northeast turret and supplied different floor levels as again was standard, cf. Rochester.  It was cleared out in 1919 and this found that the shaft was 89' deep and still had 40' of water in it.  The shaft was also found to be 2½' in diameter and lined with excellent ashlar.

Sadly the battlements of the tower and forebuilding were destroyed in the Civil War and have been replaced in the nineteenth century during restoration.  Eighteenth century prints suggest that there might have been a projecting string course under the original battlements.

Town Walls
According to Leland (d.1546), during the reign of Edward I (1272-1307) a nameless Newcastle inhabitant of great wealth was captured by the Scots.  On his being ransomed he began the financing of building the town walls with the aid of his fellow citizens.  Consequently by the time of Edward III (1327-77), the strength and magnificence of the walling of this town far surpassed all the walls of the cities of England and most of the towns of Europe.  Against this, the fifteenth century chronicler, John Hardyng (d.1465), stated that King William II (1087-1100):

built Newcastle upon Tyne to gainsay the Scots and to defend and dwell therein, the people to enclose the town to build and wall as did append.  He gave them ground and gold full great to spend to build it well and wall it all about and franchised them to pay a free rent out.

This may well be true, for on 28 January 1216 a charter of King John (1199-1216) mentions the town walls (muros burgi Novi Castelli), which obviously therefore existed nearly a century before Leland thought them constructed.

The original town walls would seem to have resembled the shape of a squashed tomato with the castle being in the enceinte to the south, surrounded by extensions to the south and west.  These extensions took the defences down to the River Tyne.  Examination of the ruins suggest that the rectangular, southern ‘extension' was the earlier part of the defences.  Certainly the destroyed Pandon Gate is drawn as having a fine Romanesque arch which just might have been late eleventh century.  The Sand Gate and Sally Port also had fine Romanesque gateways, while the Sally Port or Wall Knoll Postern which still survives, although somewhat subsidence damaged, still retains its Romanesque gateway.  The other gates in the northern enceinte were pointed and therefore likely later in conception.

The section of town walls most heavily fortified with towers lay to the west.  This included 10 round towers and the West Gate.  The projecting extension to the southwest included 2 more towers and the Close Gate.  The relatively straight north side contained only 2 towers, but also 2 gates, the Newgate and the Pilgrim St Gate.  The east front had only 2 towers and no gates, although its extension to the southeast contained another tower and the Pandon and Sand Gates. The south extension front along the River Tyne included the Bridge End.

The walls have not survived too well, with less than a fifth of their circuit surviving.  Starting by the castle in the southwest only a stretch of curtain exists around the railway line.  The northwestern corner of the defences survives best.  Here the wall runs from the site of the destroyed West Gate to the destroyed Newgate and includes Durham, Heber, Morden and Ever towers as well as the back of the Andrew Tower.  To the east survives little walling, but the Plummer and Corner towers stand alone on either side of the railway line.  Finally, towards the eastern extreme of the defences stands the much modified remains of the Wall Knoll or Sally Port.

The defences themselves obviously date from different periods.  This can be seen in many ways, from the composition of the wall through to its differences in height.  In some places the wallwalk was as low as 14' above the footings, while in others it was as high as 22'.  The wall thicknesses all varied greatly between 6' and 11', while the battlements above the wallwalk varied in height from 5' to 5½'.  The entire wall contained 17 projecting towers as well as some 40 intermediate turrets.  These latter were normally flush with the outer face of the curtain wall but overhanging the internal face on a series of corbels.  Entrance to the town was gained at 6 main gates, Closegate, Newgate, Pandongate, Pilgrimgate, Sandgate and Westgate, as well as the smaller Sallyport and 2 or more posterns - particularly Blackfriars and Whitefriars.  In front of the wall was a 30' wide berm and then a massive ditch up to 65' wide and 15' deep.  Work was still being done on the King's Dykes, as they were called, in 1316.

At the eastern junction of the walls at the Corner Tower it can be seen that the lower section of the walls is made of worn ashlar that could be reused Roman work.  Next to this is another, better built, probably later section of wall using similar, but slightly larger blocks.  Above this are the remains of the tower built onto the wall and in a different style, having longer rather than more square blocks.  Within this is a shoulder headed passageway which probably dates to the period 1240-1350.  To the west the D shaped Durham Tower is built of a mixture of ashlar stones, again possibly all reused.  Internally the ground floor of the tower had 3 crossbow loops, as apparently did all the other small, about 15' diameter, D shaped towers.  The curtain next to the Durham Tower has a single chamfered course at its base.  The tower is of 2 storeys and had impressive projecting stone machicolations.  North of the tower the plinth consisted of 2 or 3 chamfered courses and these occasionally are stepped to take into account changes in the gradient under the enceinte.  The Herber Tower had an impressive twin chamfered plinth and again projecting stone machicolations.  An old photograph shows the Pink Tower was similar as do the remains of the Plummer Tower.  Again the Morden Tower is similar, but also had a projecting moulded string course at first floor level.  Excavation has shown in places that the wall was built in a narrow foundation slot, either set immediately on the original ground surface or on a raft of sandstone blocks.  Further excavation at the Morden Tower showed that the tower was constructed before the curtain wall.  This again reinforces the fact that the defences had been constructed at different times - although how much time passed between builds is a different matter.

During the Napoleonic threat the parapet of the curtain was raised in some places as can clearly be seen by the blocked embrasures of the former parapet, visible between the Ever and Morden towers.  The section of curtain between the Morden and Heber towers cut across the precinct of the Dominican Friary and was mentioned as completed in 1282/3.  Excavation has shown that the wall was constructed over traces of ridge ploughing indicating that this area was under cultivation prior to the wall's building.  In the wall here is a small postern which allowed egress to the friary lands beyond the wall.  It was known as the `friar's postern' and it can still be seen in the external wall facing as a 6' by 3' doorway, repaired with a flat lintel.  On the internal face of the wall the postern is visible as a blocked opening.  Another smaller postern stands between the Morden Tower and the friar's postern. 

The turret between the Morden and Heber towers is well preserved, showing a rectangular structure containing a narrow chamber with a loop facing west.  The chamber is accessed via 2 doors linking it to the parapet walkway.  It also sports an external staircase, supported on corbels projecting from the inner face, which gave access to the roof.

This brief survey of Newcastle shows that the remains still have many secrets to be revealed, which only excavation could hint at.





Why not join me here and at other Northern English castles this year?  Please see the information on this and similar tours at Scholarly Sojourns.


 

Copyright©2020 Paul Martin Remfry