Scarborough
Scarborough castle stands on a prominent craggy plateau
jutting out
into the North Sea. It seems to have been occupied since the
sixth century BC although fragments of Beaker pottery found there may
date back to 2,100BC. Other items found on the headland
included
bronze axes, swords and jewellery. The pottery
sequence
excavated shows continuing usage and presumably settlement into the
Roman era. Certainly the position commands the chief shelter
between the rivers Humber and Tees and as such would have been a
trading harbour from the earliest of days. As such it may
have
had something in common with similar ancient headland sites, viz.
Tintagel.
The Romans built their own ‘castle' to command the bay and
some
of its foundations can still be seen on the eroded edge of the
headland. This ‘castle' is often wrongly described
as a
signal tower, though its precise purpose is unknown, it is certain that
they could not have been inter visible to other ‘watchtowers'
along the Yorkshire coast. Therefore these structures seem
best
to be regarded as stand alone castles in the true sense of the word,
protecting the coast from seaborn raiders, rather than signal stations
or fortlets linked to the late use of Hadrian's Wall. It
should
also be noted that the Emperor Diocletian (284-305AD) was building what
we would term castles as early as the beginning of the third
century. A good example of one of these still stands at Qasr
Bashir in Jordan.
Similar late Roman fortifications to Scarborough were constructed along
the coast at Huntcliff, Goldsborough, Ravenscar, Filey and possibly
Seaton Carew and Whitby. Other ‘stations' are
postulated
down the west coast too, while the still standing fort at Alderney
Nunnery is virtually identical in plan, although a third
larger.
Two German examples are also similar, Asperden and Moers Asberg, while
Ladenburg, Engers and Mannheim-Nckarau also bear
similarities.
The purpose of these Yorkshire ‘stations' seems to have been
to
guard the coasts against sea raiders who came to dominate the North Sea
in the third and fourth centuries AD. Further south the Saxon
Shore Forts were built far more powerfully to protect the more
prosperous lands of the south. Good examples of these can be
seen
on the east and south coasts at Burgh, Richborough, Lympne, Pevensey
and Portchester. Similar forts in the west exist at Cardiff
and
Caer Gybi. The smaller ‘signal stations' are
reckoned to be
later than the Saxon Shore Forts and probably belong to the latter half
of the fourth century, with arguments occurring as to whether they were
built by Theodosius, who restored Hadrian's Wall after the 367
Conspiracy, or by the rebel Emperor Magnus Maximus (d.388).
The series that includes Scarborough don't seem to mesh into the
defences of Hadrian's Wall and it is possible that they were stand
alone castles protecting the coast. This assumption is
somewhat
strengthened by the fact that another such castle has been found on the
Exmoor coast, overlooking the Bristol Channel and therefore commanding
the Severn Estuary. Others have been postulated in East
Anglia at
Caister by Yarmouth, Corton, Stiffkey and Thornham. Coin
evidence
suggests that Scarborough ‘station' was built around 370 AD
and
abandoned or destroyed after a relatively short life of a generation or
2. Early excavators thought they found evidence for several
of
these forts being overrun and destroyed in the ‘early' fifth
century. However, the view now is that they may have become
mausoleums as did other sites on the Rhine frontier. Sadly in
Britain at this time the coin evidence becomes rare and uncertain.
Well after the fifth century, the entire top of Scarborough hill was
fortified enclosing a rhomboid area which is now roughly 1,000' by
800', but before sea erosion was much larger. During the late
tenth century a settlement is claimed to have stood here when Knut and
Harold the sons of Gorm landed here, defeated Adalbricht Fitz Adalmund
at ‘Skardaborg' and marched on York. Possibly this
is a
folk memory of 2 Viking brothers, Thorgils and Kormac. As an
excavation in 1921/25 discovered the ruins of a chapel built into the
Roman station ruins which was dated by them to pre-1066, the building
of this chapel is often attributed to them. It is then
claimed
that this chapel must have been destroyed in the mid eleventh century,
possibly when Harold Hardrada and Tostig Godwinson invaded England on
their way to the battles of Fulford Gate and their deaths at Stamford
in 1066. It was recorded that the Viking army landed at
Cleveland
and devastated the district. The fleet then moved down the
coast
to Scarborough and met stiff resistence from the townsfolk.
Consequently they seized ‘the cliff' which appears to have
been
undefended and made a huge bale of hay which they set alight and then
tossed the burning brands down the cliff and into the houses, burning
them ‘one house after another, after which the whole town
gave
itself up'. If such a story is accurate it suggests that
there
was no castle on the hill before 1066, but there was a town below it
that was not totally destroyed or recorded in Domesday.
The above ‘history' sits rather uncomfortably with the
excavated
‘history' of the chapel on top of the Roman
station. This
is thought to have been the chapel of Our Lady first hinted at in 1331
when the parson of Our Lady was involved in a plea to Edward III on
behalf of the abbot of Citeaux concerning a grant made by King Richard
I in 1198. The excavated chapel is therefore
thought to be the
chapel existing in Scarborough castle which is referred to by the
Cistercians from 1198 onwards and described as the chapel of Our Lady
in 1538, confirming its location. The church
site on the Roman station was lost before excavation in 1921/25
uncovered the slight ruins. Excavation suggested that at some
point after 1086 the supposedly destroyed hilltop church was rebuilt as
the highly decorated chapel of Our Lady. Possibly this was at
the
same time as the cliff was fortified, although it should be noted that
Scarborough does not appear in the Domesday Book which would suggest
that there was no settlement here yet and the Viking history of the
site is fable. William Newburgh (1136-98), writing about
1196-98,
gives the most detailed story of the castle's foundation.
Concerning the site of
Scarborough castle
A rock simultaneously of stupendous height and
extent, precipitous
and nearly inaccessible on all sides due to cliffs the sea breaks upon
which surrounds the whole, except for at a narrow gorge which opens to
the west. On top is a heavenly plain, beautiful and grassy,
more
than 60 acres in extent, with a fountain of fresh water flowing from
the rock. At the very entrance, which cannot be climbed to
without effort, is situated the royal tower and under the same entrance
the town begins, spreading both to south and north, but having its
front to the west. It is fortified on this front by its own
wall,
but on the east by the castle rock; while both sides are washed by the
sea. Indeed, this place above mentioned, Earl William, when
he
was able to possess much of the county of York, contemplated
constructing a convenient castle, so he aided nature with lavish works,
surrounding the whole plain of the rock with a wall and fabricated (fabricavit) a tower
at the narrow gorge, which by the process of time had collapsed, the
king ordered a great and magnificent fortress (arcem) to be built (aedificari) there.
The above ‘history' begs more questions than it answers when
compared with the known events in east Yorkshire during the reign of
King Stephen (1135-54). Firstly, it should be noted that it
categorically does not say, as a certain government agency would have
it, ‘William of Aumale was responsible for enclosing the
plateau
of the promontory with a wall and erecting a tower at the entrance, on
the site of the present keep'. However, dismissing modern
hearsay, it should be borne in mind that as Newburgh had been born in
Bridlington, only 16 miles from Scarborough and spent the bulk of his
life at Newburgh priory only 33 from Scarborough, what he has to say
about the place is surely relevant. Taken literally Earl
William
fortified 60 acres of the rock with a wall and built a tower at the
entrance. Then comes the crucial clause of the sentence
concerning the keep, ‘which by the process of time had
collapsed'. The Latin verb used for Earl William making his
castle is fabricavit.
Although this generally means build, it is an unusual word to use with
castle works. It should therefore be strongly noted that the
root, faber,
can also mean
construct, fashion, forge or shape. The latter three verbs
could
obviously apply to a pre-existing structure, while his words about King
Henry II, ‘the king ordered a great and magnificent
fortress to
be built there' says absolutely zero about him building the keep that
he is often claimed to have built by modern
‘historians'.
The verb aedificare
can mean to built, erect, establish, create or frame, while the noun arx
generally means stronghold, castle, citadel, fortress or acropolis
rather than tower or keep. More will be said of this when the
time comes to discuss the Henrician building phase of Scarborough.
Earl William of York (d.1179), otherwise known as Count William of
Aumale, was the son of the Crusader, Count Stephen of Aumale and
Hawise, the daughter of Ralph Mortimer of Wigmore. At the
time of
William's death in 1179 he was lord of the castles of Skipsea in
Holderness as well as just possibly the 2 lordships of Skipton and
Cockermouth, through his marriage to the heiress, Cecily Romiley
(d.1188). After his death she referred to herself as Countess
of
Aumale and lady of Copeland. On the eastern bounds of
Normandy
Earl William held the county of Aumale. During the Anarchy
(1136-54) he had been sheriff as well as from 1138, earl of
York.
Up until the coming of King
Henry II into the North in December 1154 he
was also lord of Scarborough castle.
William had been an early supporter of King Stephen
(1135-54) and after
a good showing at the battle of the Standard on 22 August 1138, where
Orderic described his as the English leader, was made earl of
York. The earl pressurised the electors of York to appoint
William Fitz Herbert, a nephew of King Stephen, as archbishop of York
in January 1141. However, before this could be confirmed, on
2
February, William was one of the 7 earls who fled the battle of
Lincoln, leaving King
Stephen to his fate. With the king restored
at the end of 1141 Stephen moved into Yorkshire in April 1142 and
prohibited the tournament that was to take place between Earl William
and Earl Alan of Richmond (d.1146). That such a tournament
was
planned suggests animosity between these 2 royalist magnates.
Earl Alan died in 1146, but this hostility seems to have continued
under his son, Conan (d.1171). On 24 July 1147, the electors
of
York were forced to meet at Earl Conan's castle of Richmond due to the
hostility of Earl William at York. Certainly much hard
fighting
was to occur in Yorkshire before the reign was out. Around
this
time, some years after 1144 according to Newburgh, Earl William
attacked Earl Gilbert Gant (d.1156), apparently attempting to seize the
shrievalty of Lincoln from him. However, the battle went
against
William and Gilbert burned Hellewell, slew William's brother and seized
Castle Bytham from him. In reply Earl William destroyed
Hunmanby
castle, while he was apparently allied with Eustace Fitz John (d.1157) of
Alnwick.
Regardless of these sketchy events, in the confused politics of
Yorkshire, William was generally King Stephan's man, just as his uncle,
Hugh Mortimer of Wigmore (d.1181), was a royalist in the Welsh
Marches. William remained loyal to King Stephen to
the end of the
reign, but, when told to return the royal castle of Scarborough to the
new King Henry II,
he affronted, just like his Uncle Hugh Mortimer was
over the possession of the royal castle of Bridgnorth. The
story
is told by the chroniclers. Within a month of his accession
on 19
December 1154, King Henry marched against Earl William and brought him
to submission at York. Again according to Newburgh:
the
king proceeded beyond the
Humber and summoned Earl William of Aumale, who under King Stephen had
been more a king there, to surrender [the royal towns and villages...
extorted from King Stephen] to the weight of his authority.
Hesitating a long while, and boiling with indignation, he at last,
though sorely hurt, submitted to his power and very reluctantly
resigned whatever of the royal domains he had possessed for many years,
more especially that famous and noble castle called Scarborough...
Despite Newburgh's earlier implication that William had first fortified
Scarborough rock, the above passage suggests that a royal castle may
have stood here before 1135. In effect Newburgh leaves the
question as to who built Scarborough castle unanswered and in all
likelihood, he had no idea of what had happened there ‘in
time
beyond memory'. What is certain is that King Henry II
(1154-89)
granted Earl William the important royal manor of Driffield, worth
£68, some 20 miles south of Scarborough. Perhaps
this was
done in compensation. Certainly in 1158 William paid Henry
100m
(£66 13s 4d) of his debt and the king pardoned him his
remaining
100m (£66 13s 4d). This suggests an element of
royal favour.
Although Earl William didn't follow his uncle, Hugh Mortimer (d.1181),
into all out active rebellion, he didn't show much favour to his new
king and his defence of Aumale castle against Henry's enemies in 1173
was thought deliberately treasonable. On the count of
Flanders
attacking the town it was rapidly overwhelmed, despite its strong
garrison. With no apparent resistence Earl William was taken
captive. He then surrendered not only Aumale castle with its
royal garrison, but all his castles to the rebels as ‘he
wavered
in his adherence to the elder king' and it was ‘certainly
believed that he was in collusion with the count of Flanders'.
What could have caused such animosity? The fate of
Scarborough
castle is a possibility. If the castle was founded by Earl
William during the Anarchy (1135-54) he may have thought himself
entitled to greater compensation than a single manor.
Alternatively the castle may have been on royal land and Earl William,
as sheriff of Yorkshire, had merely upgraded a previously existing
royal stronghold built at some point after the Norman Conquest of
Yorkshire. Without further evidence it is simply impossible
to
say, although the twelfth century seal of the burgesses of Scarborough
has a representation of the castle on it which shows 2 Romanesque
gateways leading up to the square keep. The outer gate is
decorated with 2 windows and 2 round windows below the battlements.
The keep itself is recorded with 2 quatrefoil windows in a
similar position, while looking out to sea might just be a
representation of Our Lady's Chapel.
For the purposes of the following discussion, it is to be presumed that
the above figures amounted to the total spent at the castle and that
they were correctly allocated, which seems possible considering the way
the works were divided in 1159. If correct, the
£131 spent
on the keep, mainly in 1159-60, was comparable to the £131
recorded as spent on the building of the 120' diameter White Castle
inner ward curtain in the period 1185-87. Similarly
£135
was recorded as spent on the 40' square Peak keep in 1175;
£64
16s 11d on Bridgnorth keep in 1169-71 and £101 3s 4d on Bowes
keep in 1179 and 1187 - the works recorded as being spent on just the
castles in each case not being included in these figures. At
first glance these figures may appear reasonable, yet £102
18s
11d was spent on Canterbury keep in 1173-75 and although Canterbury is
a much larger keep this figure should be a warning.
Similarly,
between 1182 and 1186, the records show £2,715 9s 10d spent
on
Dover keep, while another £1,015 6s 9d was spent on both
castle
and keep in 1182 and 1187. Further £2,592 7s 1d was
recorded as spent solely on Dover castle in the period
1180-88.
Although Dover keep is a superlative structure, its cost factor of 30
times higher than the roughly £100 recorded as spent on the
keeps
of Bowes, Bridgnorth, Peak or Scarborough, makes a mockery of using
pipe roll figures to demonstrate the founding date of keeps.
Either the figures simply cannot make up the entire expenditure on the
keeps, more of the keeps existed when work began, or
the figures are incomplete with more expenditure occurring at the keeps
than is recorded in the pipe rolls. Indeed a mixture of one
or
even all of these are possible at each, individual site.
For a nearer compatible keep in size to the above 4 of Bowes,
Bridgnorth, Peak or Scarborough, it is possible to turn to Newcastle on
Tyne keep. This was recorded as costing £1,174 10s
11d in
1172-77. Again was Newcastle keep really over 10 times more
expensive than the smaller keeps? Another example used to
bolster
the idea that Henry II built these small keeps is the construction of
the 90' tall Orford keep. This is traditionally dated to
between
1166 and 1173 when £1,689 17s 9d was recorded as being spent
on
the castle in the pipe rolls. It should again be noted that
all
of this was placed against the Orford castle works with there being no
mention of the polygonal 45' diameter tower, although it is alleged
without the slightest contemporary evidence that the keep was built at
this time. As Scarborough keep was 56' square and 90' high
that
would have given it a rough volume of 282,000 cubic feet. By
comparison Bowes at 80'x60'x50' would have been a similar 240,000 cubic
feet, Bridgnorth at 38½'x35'x70' would have been only 94,500
cubic feet, similarly Peak at 40'x40'x60' would have only been 96,000
cubic feet. As all of these keeps were allegedly built from
new
and paid for by Henry II (1154-89), the price tags of £146,
£64 and £131, for Bowes, Bridgnorth and Peak, seem
far too
low when compared with Newcastle at 62'x55'x80', giving 272,500 cubic
feet for £1,190 and Dover at 98'x95'x80', giving 744,500
cubic
feet for over £3,000. The internal cubic volume of
Orford
keep would have been about 145,000 cubic feet for an unrecorded cost
allegedly amongst the £1,600 spent by Henry on the
castle.
Quite clearly the figures supplied in the pipe rolls cannot be used as
the cost of building certain or indeed any structures in any
fortress. Surely what is being recorded here is the total
expenditure on a site which could range from well digging to wallwalk
making and from keep construction to the making of new castle gates or
bratticing. Consequently the building of any of
these keeps
may or may not be included in the costs recorded and although the
entries referring to work on towers probably means the keep, it must be
accepted that this could just as well refer to refurbishment of
pre-existing keeps and that these expenditures were often lumped
together with the refurbishments of the enceintes and most often
explicitly with the building, repair or amendment of the houses within
the fortresses. Expenditures made on castles show that it was
often the maintenance and amending of the castle houses that were of
primary concern to the governments of the day. The
maintenance of
the fortifications, except in time of war, seemed a less extensive
pastime, but more expensive when it occurred. The thirteenth and
fourteenth
century inquisitions at Scarborough certainly support such an
assumption
with more detailed descriptions given of the castle houses than the
actual fortifications.
Whatever was done by Henry II at Scarborough castle, the work must have
been both successful and long lived, for the fortress drops out of the
records from 1169 until 1175. There is no mention of it being
attacked in the war of 1173-74 with Earl William of Aumale (d.1179)
surrendering himself to the enemies of Henry II rather than fighting
early in the war. Otherwise he would presumably have led any
opposition to the royal garrison of Scarborough if any local discontent
had built up during the war in Yorkshire. Certainly the king
of
Scots failed to penetrate into Yorkshire in any strength and would have
been unwise to press as far south as Scarborough with powerful castles
left to his rear, viz. Prudhoe, Durham, Newcastle and
Richmond.
In the aftermath of the war the paltry sum of £2 was spent in
works on a gate and barbican in 1175. Just possibly these
needed
work as they were damaged in an attack in the foregoing war.
Further, the minor amount spent on them would suggest that either more
was spent elsewhere, the structures were mainly sound, or insubstantial
wooden works were repaired.
Ten years later Scarborough castle was in need of some minor repairs
which caused an expenditure of £16 7s 4d in 1188.
The reign
of Richard I (1189-99) saw early disturbances in Yorkshire and this may
have led in 1190 to Gilbert Lacy (d.1212+) being awarded £20
to
undertake the custody of Scarborough castle by the writ of the
increasingly hated chancellor, Bishop William Longchamp of Ely
(d.1197). In 1192 work was carried out on the castle well at
a
cost of £9 17s 3d. This was followed the next year,
1193,
with undefined works at the fortress costing, £10 10s
11d.
At this point a struggle occurred when Prince John (1166-1216)
attempted to seize England from his brother, King Richard
(d.1199). Towards the end of this insurrection, on 30 March
1194,
Hugh Bardolf (d.1203) was removed from his 2 year old shrievalty of
Yorkshire together with the constableship of the castles of York and
Scarborough as well as the bailiwick of Westmorland (which probably
included Appleby and Brough castles). At this point the
chancellor, Walter Remfry of Coutances (d.1207), made an offer for the
shrievalties of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, but was
refused them. Scarborough castle instead with given to
William
Stuteville (Cottingham & Brinklow, d.1203). As a
royal castle
Scarborough had the minor sum of £2 5s spent on amending the
fortress in 1197. Finally, on 14 May 1198, King Richard
(1189-99)
granted Scarborough church to St Mary's abbey, Citeaux, a grant
elaborated on by his nephew, King Henry III (1216-72) in
1250.
Over 80 years later on 9 March 1284, an inquisition was held at
Scarborough on whether to demolish the old borough defences.
This
states that the old borough walls were standing in the time of King
John (1199-1216). Consequently they may have been built at
any
time before 1215 at the very latest. In 1284 a jury of 12
good
and honest men found that:
the
wall between the old and new
borough could not be thrown down without damage to the king, because,
as the annals relate, that wall, in the days of King John, when the
kingdom was depressed by many tribulations and dissensions, was an
obstacle and hindrance to the king's enemies, so that they could not
execute the injuries which many times they hoped to inflict upon the
king's castle and borough of Scardeburgh.
Moreover, when the
malevolent enemies of King Henry III, of happy memory, had arrived with
hostile intent to besiege the castle and borough, and intended to enter
easily within the said wall, they were impeded by it, though old and
partly destroyed, and often thwarted and repulsed by a ditch
surrounding the new borough; wherefore, if the wall be thrown down, the
inhabitants as well as strangers could easily enter the borough, to the
no mean damage and grievance of the king.
They also say
that the wall could not be thrown
down without annoyance to the burgesses, because the old borough is for
the greater part enclosed and strengthened by it. If it were
removed, the burgesses would have no power to resist the king's
enemies, who, a chance occurring, could more quickly consume and
pillage the borough. A further reason against its removal is
that
the king's enemies and depredators coming in hostile manner against the
borough, would find no obstacle until they arrived at the castle gates;
and so the whole town could be injured or even annihilated, and the
castle itself would be very greatly endangered, because open to siege
from a nearer point. Nevertheless, it would be advantageous
and
useful to the castle and borough if the burgesses could build a wall
over the ditch before mentioned, by the help and grace of the king, and
in place of the old wall quickly begin a new one; at which, when
completed, the burgesses, whether of the old or new borough, with
hearty union and mutual counsel could, if need were, unanimously oppose
and strenuously keep at bay the king's enemies and other malefactors
coming thither in hostile fashion.
No attack on Scarborough during the reign of Henry III (1216-72) is
recorded other than in this inquiry. Possibly the castle was
attacked in 1216-17 or in the troubles of 1263-66, but more likely this
was the burgesses adding a fiction to their desire to save their
borough walls.
King John, when perambulating the North, stayed at Pickering on 1
February 1201, before being at Scarborough by 3 February and moving on
to Egton by the 4th. He came back to the castle again during
his
campaign into Scotland early in 1216, staying at Scarborough from 12 to
13 February before appearing at Kirkham on the 15th. From the
start of his reign he had developed both Scarborough and Knaresborough
as major royal castles in Yorkshire, spending the surprisingly large
sum of £2,283 3s 10d on Scarborough. This was more
than he
spent anywhere else on any other castle in the kingdom.
Although
guide books claim where this money was spent, there is actually no
evidence as to what was done with it. Indeed some of this
cash
could even have been spent on the town walls.
At the start of the new reign in 1199 many Northern castles had work
done to them and included in this list was £2 15s recorded as
being used for amendments to Scarborough castle. On
29 March
1202, John Bully (d.1213) was given £33 for the custodianship
of
Scarborough as well as being allowed £14 to repair
the
castle. This £33 would appear to have been the
annual
stipend as Bully received the same amount the next year, 1203, as well
as an extra £33 for works at the castle. Two years
later in
1205 another £113 and £48 12s was recorded as
having been
spent at Scarborough. In 1206 the custodian's wages were
noted
for the last 2 years and another £68 15s 5d was accounted for
in
castle works. In 1207 the paltry sum of £8 15s 6d
was split
between Scarborough and Pickering castles, while in 1208 the more
respectable sum of £68 8s 2d was spent on Scarborough
alone. On 26 February 1208, Robert Vaux was made constable of
Scarborough and Pickering castles
It was after the Braose rebellion of Spring 1208 and the continuing
unrest in the kingdom that King John began the refortification of
Scarborough in earnest. In 1210, works at the castle cost
£620 1d. The next year, 1211, works at the castle
and on
the king's houses within were recorded at £542 6s.
Finally
in 1212, £780 6s 8d was allocated to the works and the king
ordered the keep roofed with 6 carets of lead which were to be supplied to Gilbert Fitz Remfry (d.1220) of Kendal who had charge of the work there. If such an amount
of
money had been spent on the keep and roofing in the reign of Henry II
(1154-89) it would definitely have been taken for granted that he built
the keep, not merely upgraded it! The king then proceeded to
munition the fortress with 600 bacons and 60 cow carcases, 14 tuns of
wine, 10 lasts of herrings, 40 loads of salt, 1,000 unfinished irons,
20 marks of corn and £10 of hay and turf at a cost of
£173
7d. King John, at nearby Tickhill on 20 September 1213,
ordered
his custodian to further stock the castle. It is obvious from
this that he was expecting trouble. The next year it was
recorded
that the custody of Scarborough castle, now held by William Duston,
went with a stipend of £50. Not long ago it had
been only
£33.
On 29 March 1215, the king ordered Geoffrey Neville (of Raby, d.1249)
to place 60 sergeants and 10 crossbowmen in the castle. On 5
July
the king sent them some pay of £19 17s 11d to Brian Insula as
well as £286 14s 7d through Geoffrey Neville. A
month later
on 11 August 1215, the king ordered William Duston to allow
‘our
loyal Earl William of Aumale' (d.1241) and his associates to be
received in Scarborough castle to take custody of the
fortress.
This Earl William, lord of Cockermouth and Skipton castles, was the
grandson of the Earl William le Gros who had died in 1179.
Despite these moves, the king obviously still felt the castle was
threatened over a year later for, on 30 March 1216, the king had sent
£100 to Geoffrey Neville (d.1249) to munition the castle and
buy
6 bone crossbows with quarrels. This was followed on 18 April
1216 with a payment of £105 17s 6d made to the knights and
serjeants in Scarborough castle under Geoffrey Neville.
Finally,
on 14 June 1216, Brian Lisle (d.1234) of Peak was ordered to send 100m
(£66 13s 4d) to Geoffrey Neville for the works he was
carrying
out in the king's garrison of Scarborough. All this
expenditure
proved fruitful and the castle never fell to the rebels, although the
inquest of 1284 mentioned above suggests that it might have been
attacked at this time.
After the death of King John on 19 October 1216, various works were
continued at Scarborough and Pickering castles, although the cost
wasn't accounted for until 25 May 1226. At this date the
Crown
recognised that it owed John Neville 1,000m (£666 13s 4d) for
the
strengthening and repairing of Scarborough and Pickering castles which
Geoffrey Neville (d.1249) had carried out. Presumably some of
this went on repairs to the keep and hall recorded in September
1224. Other elements of this large sum seem to have included
the
200m (£133 6s 8d) sent to Geoffrey Neville for his custody of
Scarborough and Pickering castles on 4 January 1225 and the
£50
sent to John Neville, in place of Constable Geoffrey Neville of
Scarborough, for the custody of the castles on 8 August 1225.
Towards the end of the year on 8 December 1225, a further
£200
was sent to Geoffrey Neville for the custody of Scarborough castle.
Quite clearly some of this sum was therefore spent on the
garrisoning and not the repair of the fortress.
On 3 May 1226, Robert Cockfield is first associated with Scarborough
when he was given £40 to repair the castle. Nearly
3 months
later on 23 July 1226, he was sent 100m (£66 13s 4d) for his
works at Scarborough castle. Presumably this was when the
Cockfield Tower was built at the southern apex of the castle as it
subsequently held his name. By September 1226 further repairs
had
been undertaken for a charge of £40 at Scarborough and
Pickering
castles as ordered on 3 May in the close rolls, while Geoffrey Neville
had received £200 for his custody of the 2 castles since 1220
and
a further £90 for works carried out in 1225 and
1226. Part
of this work may have been the re-timbering of the castle as 60 oaks
were ordered from the surrounding forests for the works and amendments
in the king's houses of Scarborough castle on 23 July 1226.
In September 1227 it was recorded that the houses, walls and other
things in Scarborough and Pickering castles had been repaired at a cost
of 50m (£33 6s 8d), while amendments to the houses had cost
£10 18s 4d. Another £14 5s 10d had been
spent on
castle works in both fortresses, while sundries totalled another
£15 12s 3d. The final allocation of funds in this
maintenance session came on 3 June 1228, when the sheriff of York was
allocated 60m (£40) to be spent by the king's order on the
castles of Scarborough and Pickering; with a further 100m
(£66
13s 4d) coming from the men of Scarborough for the works; and
£14
5s 10d in addition to the 160m (£106 13s 4d)
allocated.
Further 16m (£10 13s 4d) was allocated for the keeping of
Scarborough and Pickering castles for the year before Michaelmas 1226.
Work began on the castle again 10 years later on 3 December 1237 after
it had been damaged by ‘a tempest of wind'. The
instructions were to temporally repair the houses that were unroofed so
that they wouldn't be damaged further and then fully repair them in the
summer. Consequently £42 2s was spent on repairs to
the
keep leaded roof as well as the hall, chamber, chapel, bridge and other
buildings by Michaelmas 1239. However, the section of wall
that
had long ago slumped (pridem
corruit) was only ordered to be replaced on 20 June
1241. This was done by Michaelmas when the cost was recorded
as
£63 13s 4d. This was followed on 30 June 1242, with
an
instruction to the sheriff of York to spend £40 in repairing
a
bridge and a fissure in the castle. The same day the king
ordered
his justiciar of the forest, Robert Roos of Helmsley (d.1285), to send
the constable of Scarborough castle timbers to repair the castle bridge
as well as to make 3 gates. As a result that Michaelmas 1242,
it
was recorded that £40 had been spent on repairing the bridge
and
a breach in the walls as well as £2 10s on amending the
castle
houses. Early the next year on 27 January 1243, the sheriff
of
Yorkshire was allowed to spend up to £20 in making a tower
before
the gate of the king's castle of Scarborough. This he had
obviously half done by 19 July when the king allowed him to spend an
additional £20 in finishing the gate he had begun.
In that
Michaelmas' pipe roll it was recorded that the sheriff had spent
£40 on the gatetower as well as £5 in amending the
king's
houses in the castle. This does not appear to have been
sufficient to finish the structure as at Michaelmas 1245 it was
recorded that another £41 7s 3d had been spent on
‘completing the building of the great gateway of Scarborough
castle' and another £5 on amending the king's houses.
On 17
November 1250, the king granted to St Mary's church, the abbot of
Citeaux and the parsons of Scarborough church of the chief mansion with
the enclosure made by them in Scarborough town concerning which a plea
had been made at the king's court, by rendering 4s yearly.
This
was elaborated on 20 November when the king added that he was granting
to Citeaux for the souls of kings John and Richard, of the gift made to
them by King Richard [in May 1198] of Scarborough church with all its
chapels and appurtenances, to aid the abbots for their expenses for
their 3 days at the general chapter at Citeaux; and that any surplus
should be expended for the use of the abbey. Further, it was
the
king's wish that the abbey should hold Scarborough church with all its
chapels including the chapel within the castle... and that no one
should set up a chapel or altar in the parish.... It has been
stated that this referred to the chapel on the Roman station, but it is
not clear from King Richard's grant or this, that the chapel was not
the one in the keep forebuilding.
On 14 June 1253, keeper John Lexington/Laxton (d.1257) of the king's
manor of Pickering and Scarborough castle was allowed up to
£100
to repair the buildings, bridges and walls of Scarborough castle as
well as maintain the king's [buildings?] of Pickering castle.
Five years later in 1258, when Henry III's mismanagement of his kingdom
finally pushed his overtaxed barons to take control of the kingdom, the
custodians of 21 royal castles were changed; the reformist, Gilbert
Gant (d.1274) being sent to Scarborough on 29 March 1259. The
next year on 26 August 1259, the king ordered the sheriff of York to
repair the defects of the buildings, walls, keep, turrets and bridges
of Scarborough castle ‘where absolutely necessary out of the
issues of the county'. Despite this, nothing seems to have
been
done, but the castle was attacked before 11 February 1260, presumably
by royalists. On that day the king asked for a jury to
enquire
into:
who
came armed to Scarborough castle and the
trespasses they committed against the king as well as against Gilbert
Gant, the king's constable of that castle, after he had the keeping
thereof....
Soon afterwards, on 19 May 1260, Gilbert was ordered to relinquish his
charge to the reformist justiciar, Hugh Bigod (d.1265). Then
the
sheriff of York was asked to visit Scarborough castle to determine what
state it was in when surrendered by Gant to Bigod.
Consequently,
on 20 May 1260, his inquisition determined that:
The
large hall, vaulted chamber and garderobe are
uncovered in many places and need great repairs. The kitchen
with
the tresaunce are almost unroofed, while the stables have been
completely uncovered, the manger is broken and one guesthouse
collapsed. Further the walls of the mill house are broken and
there is no mill there. Truly the granary is weak.
The hall
in the keep ward is completely unroofed and some of the timbers are
broken and it threatens to ruin. Also the 2 bridges of the
castle
and the bridge attached to the curtain wall tower are weakened and
largely putrefied. Also the 4 panes of the 2 interior gates
are
completely defective and the walls behind the said doors and are in a
large part taken to decay. And the planking of the 4 turrets
at
the top of the keep are almost rotten and defective. Also the
curtain wall surrounding the tower is prostrate in many places and the
remainder threatens to ruin and the outer door of the tower is wanting
strength. The battlements and wallwalk of the walls of the
castle
towards the town have deteriorated in many places and need great
repairs. One of the turrets in the curtain walls of the
castle
has quite rotted away. Also the battlements and wallwalk of
the
external barbican are in many places prostrate and require great
repairs. Also the small door (postern?) of the barbican is
weak. Truly
in the said castle is a complete lack of crossbows and all manner of
arms necessary for the munitioning of the fortress.
This list proves pretty much that the castle was standing much as it is
today, but already much in ruin. On hearing the report orders
were issued to the sheriff to ‘amend and repair the bridges
and
buildings of Scarborough castle where absolutely necessary against the
coming winter'. This hardly sounds sufficient to renovate the
crumbling fortress. Later again on 1 August 1260, the sheriff
was ordered ‘to repair without delay where
absolutely
necessary
the recent breaches in Scarborough castle spending up to £12,
unless it could be done for less'. Again this hardly suggests
that any serious repairs were undertaken.
The war cast its shadow over Scarborough again on 10 July 1264, when
the prisoner king ordered Subconstable John Oketon of Scarborough
castle to deliver the fortress to Henry Hastings. However, if
he
refused this command and insisted on only relinquishing his charge to
the king in person, he had a safe conduct until 1 August to come and do
so. If he failed to do either ‘the king will betake
himself
grievously to his body, lands and goods'. John obviously
ignored
the threat and on 6 September 1264 the hostage king again directed
letters committing Scarborough castle, ‘by the counsel of the
barons', to John Eyvill (d.1291), ordering Subconstable John
‘the
knights and others in the garrison thereof, as they have not delivered
the said castle to Henry Hastings... as the king had commanded, at
which the king is amazed, that... they deliver it to John [Eyvill] by
chirograph with the armour, victuals and other things found
within'. Surprisingly John Oketon seems to have obeyed the
barons
as it was recorded that during the recent disturbances, Walter Bulkton,
the steward of Gilbert Gant (d.1274), was in rebellion against the
Crown, first with Baldwin Wake (d.1282) at Richmond and then with John
Eyvill (d.1291) in Scarborough castle. Regardless of this,
John
Oketon was back as constable of the fortress on 4 May 1266, when he was
ordered to hand the fortress over to the royalist, William Latimer
(d.1268). Possibly Eyvill had obtained the fortress soon
after 3
December 1264, when the baronial government issued a simple protection
for 49 men who were in the garrison of Scarborough castle.
This
was to last until Easter 1265. Presumably John Oketon, who
was
not named although his son and another Oketon were, made up the
fiftieth member of the garrison that had surrendered around this date.
With Scarborough castle in baronial hands, the king announced on 17
March 1265, that as the disputes between himself and his barons were
now at an end he was committing the castles of Dover, Scarborough,
Bamburgh, Nottingham and Corfe to the control of Prince Edward (d.1307)
for 5 years for the peace and tranquillity of the realm. As
Edward escaped from captivity on 28 May 1265, it seems likely that
little came of this. Certainly the castle was back in royal
control by the early months of 1266 and presumably from soon after the
battle of Evesham on 6 August 1265.
King Edward I (1272-1307) met with his council at the castle in 1275,
although on 27 March 1278, a view of the castle made when John Wesey
took over the custody of the castle from William Percy, found that the
cost of repairs would come to some £2,200. The
problems
found were very familiar - the main wooden bridge between the barbican
and the castle gate was so rotten that no cart could cross it, while
the bridge across the ditch to the inner bailey had entirely
collapsed. The main curtain was so decrepit that it could not
be
manned while 200 perches (3,300') of wall round the headland from the
gate to the chapel had fallen down. Quite clearly this would
have
included all the walls of the castle from the main gate to the northern
apex of the site and then back to the south, skirting beyond the chapel
of Our Lady built on the old Roman castle and then back around to the
site of the Cockfield Tower at the southern end of the main curtain
wall. Currently this entire perimeter is only about 2,200'
which
suggests a lot of the castle rock has disappeared into the
sea.
Finally it was recorded that the roofs of the great hall and the
queen's great chamber were in a rotten state, while the other buildings
were in urgent need of repair. This would suggest that
nothing of
note had been done to the castle since the weak efforts of the mid
thirteenth century. Once again there is no evidence that such
an
immense sum was ever expended on the castle. King Edward was
again at Scarborough on 27 September 1280, while Welsh and Scottish
prisoners were sent here in 1295 and 1311.
In 1308 the right to live in the castle was granted to Lord Percy and
his wife, so over the next 40 years they and their descendants
proceeded to build a bakehouse, brewhouse and kitchen in the inner
bailey, although the rest of the fortress was generally only repaired
when in extreme need. Regardless of this, some royal repairs
were
carried out at Scarborough castle. As early as 9 January
1312,
John Rolleston and Talifer Tilly were ordered to spend up to
£40
on repairing the king's houses in Scarborough castle. Around
Christmas 1311 Piers Gaveston had returned from exile and spent his
time in the North. By March Piers seems to have taken a hand
in
the refortification of Scarborough. His return had stoked
baronial discontent and on 4 May 1312 Gaveston and Edward II were
surprised by baronial forces at Newcastle on Tyne, the pair then fled
to Tynemouth and took ship to Scarborough, Gaveston remaining there
while the king moved to York to raise troops. At this point
Gaveston was besieged within Scarborough by Pembroke, Warenne, Henry
Percy and Robert Clifford. On 17 May the king ordered the
barons
and all their men in arms to raise the siege. However, on 19
May,
Piers decided to surrender the poorly provisioned, and judging from
later reports semi-ruined, Scarborough castle and allow himself to be
taken to York to negotiate a settlement with the king. If
such a
settlement was not forthcoming by 1 August 1312, Piers would be allowed
to return to Scarborough. Despite this agreement, instead of
the
proposed negotiation, Piers found himself waylaid and executed near
Warwick on 19 June 1312.
After Piers' death, work continued at Scarborough castle and on 27 June
1312, orders were given for timber to be carried to the fortress for
its repair by the keeper, Chaplain John Rollestone. It was
also
noted on 2 September 1312, that the town defences had been seriously
impinged upon. Some time back Thomas Uttred the Elder had
demolished 100' of the town wall and built a house that long on the
site, while William Nessingwyke owned a house similarly built over the
site of another 30' of the wall. Further encroachments had
been
made upon the town wall and the castle moat. On 24 October
1313,
it was noted that divers workmen had been working in Scarborough castle
since 1311/12. Other works were recorded as carried out at
the
castle between 8 July 1311 and 7 July 1316. These works,
however,
do not seem to have been warlike in the early stages, with an order to
provide timber to repair the chaplain's houses and other necessities
for the munition of the castle being issued on 9 March 1314.
The
same day the king complained that his men and servants bringing timber
to repair the castle had been set upon by certain persons who forcibly
took the timber from their ships and assaulted them. The work
may
have been finished by 6 March 1315, when allowance was made to John
Rolleston and Talifer Tilly for £94 spent during July 1312 to
July
1313, for the pay of workmen lately working on Scarborough
castle. They were also to receive a further £3 14s
6d which
they say
they have paid over and above the allocated £94.
Finally some work on the castle defences were undertaken and between 8
July 1318 and 7 July 1320, the castle constable stated that the
gatehouse windows, keep with its lead turret and chapel, the Queen's
Chamber (camera regine),
Cockfield Tower and the great bridge had been repaired. These
works had included the Queen's Chamber being virtually rebuilt, with a
porch with a stone foundation being added to it. Also repairs
had
been made to an old hall (vetus
aula), a middle hall (media
aula) and the hall in the courtyard (aula in curia).
Obviously these terms could be applied to a variety of
places.
There was certainly a hall in the keep, another may have stood in the
southern corner of the inner ward, while the free standing building now
claimed as the king's hall could have been the hall in the
courtyard. Quite obviously it is unprofitable to make any
plausible identification. Adjoining the chamber to the north
was
the Queen's Tower, though whether this was the attached tower or that
30' along the curtain is a moot point. This
marked the end of a period of considerable refurbishment, it being
noted on 6 March 1335, that 163 oaks had been cut down from Pickering
forest by the order of Edward II (1307-27) and used to repair the
defects in Scarborough castle.
On 2 September 1330 an inquisition on the state of the castle recorded
the deteriorations that had occurred in the times of Henry Percy
(d.1314) and his predecessors, Ralph Fitz William, John Sampson,
Talifer Tilly, John Mowbray (d.1322) and Giles Beauchamp
(d.1361). Repairs needed included the great drawbridge
between
the barbican and the castle, a wall in the castle by ‘le
Wylehole', the castle rock on the north face of the castle which had
been broken by the sea, the iron bars on the windows of the great hall
within the keep, the Cockfield Tower and the 10 turrets of the great
wall. Repairs were also needed to velvet trappings, white and
coloured haketons, a cotarium barrez with allett, cuisses of red
cendal, velvet and plate with pulley pieces, shin armour (schynbandes),
jambers, a hauberk, habergeons, corsets, collarets, shoes, gauntlets of
mail and of plate, coifs, helmets with visors, basinets, plates, pieces
of iron shaped for schynebandes, crossbows, quarrels, garroks tipped
with iron, great engines and springalds. Then, on 14 October
1330,
it was noted that Giles Beauchamp (d.1361) had received 40m
(£26
13s 4d) for himself and 6 men at arms forming a garrison at Scarborough
castle when he was custodian. Similarly on 22 March 1331, the
king ordered the keeper of the castle, Henry Percy (d.1352), to
supervise the repair of the houses, walls, turrets and bridges of
Scarborough castle spending up to 100m (£66 13s 4d) on the
job. The order had to be repeated on 25 May 1331 as the
command
had not been acted upon.
Despite all this work under Edward II, the castle had
continued to
decay and in the early 1330s it was recorded that part of the castle
rock had been carried away by the sea in the time of constable John
Mowbray in 1317. This collapse had taken a section of curtain
wall with it. It was also alleged that the reason for this
loss
was that the king refused to send money for the castle's
upkeep.
Such a statement seems disingenuous, as not even Canute could have kept
the sea at bay from this windswept fortress. Despite the
apparent
loss of all the coast side of the castle's defences, in 1337 some
£74 spent on rebuilding the great bridge in stone under the
auspices of Mason John Brumleye. With this all work seems to
have
ceased at Scarborough for the next 20 years. In 1342 another
survey found that in the time of Constable John Mowbray the great hall
and other parts of the castle had become so ruinous that they fell
down, the dilapidations during his tenure rising to
£200.
Two constable's previously, in the time of John Sampson, repairing the
defects would only have cost £100.
Work on Scarborough castle seems to have begun again in the
late
1350s. On 3 March 1361, an inquisition was made inquiring
into
the costs incurred by the repairs done by Richard Tempest at
Scarborough castle and the defects that remained after his
work.
This important document explains much of the layout of the fortress and
names several of the buildings within. It is therefore worth
quoting in full.
Two
wooden bridges, one called le
draftbridge being the common way into the castle were so
decrepit that
some trying to cross fell and others hardly escaped the
danger.
Seeing that otherwise no one could enter the castle, Richard repaired
them spending £10 on timber. A building
called le
Porterhouse by the outer gate was greatly damaged as to
the walls and
the timber decayed for want of roofing and it is necessary for the
keeping of the castle, so that it may be conveniently crossed, he
repaired it for 48s including purchase of timber and straw for
thatch. A tower beyond the inner gate called Constabletower
roofed with lead and a latrine adjoining roofed
with planks, were broken down and the roof damaged and gone; and as the
tower was specially ordained for the safety of the castle, he had the
leaden roof entirely taken off as it could not be mended otherwise and
repaired where necessary and replaced and the latrine roofed with new
planks, all at a cost of £10 including purchase of lead,
solder
and planks. The castle wall adjoining the gate on the west
side
was so eaten away by sea salt (salsuginem
maris) for a length of 60'
and a height of 16' that it fell into the sea and [the castle] was open
at that spot. Richard therefore built a new wall there of the
same length and height and 6' thick with jamb stones (shoulder stones)
bought in Scarborough town and other stones brought from a
distance. The wall on the south side of the inner gate was
eaten
away in a like manner for a length of 35' and a height of 12' and fell
into the castle becoming in its fall like fine sand; and as the castle
was laid open at that spot Richard rebuilt the wall of the same length
and height and 6' thick of new stones at the cost of
£10. A
stable in the castle was damaged and the timber decayed and, as it was
the greatest necessity because there was no other stable in the castle,
he rebuilt it entirely at a cost of 45s including purchase of timber
and straw for thatch. Qweneschambre with
stone walls and
a lead roof, newly built during the lordship of Lord Percy, was fallen
down, the roofs being much damaged; and seeing that if the king or
queen or any of their ministers had to dwell in the castle, they would
have no dwelling place but their chambers, he had them made anew and
strengthened with timber where it had decayed, the defects of the roofs
mended where most needful, new doors and windows made and the defects
in the walls of the great chamber mended all at a cost of £10.
A kitchen called Kyngeskychyn with a
small
larder attached, served both a hall called Kingeshalle which
formerly stood there and the great chamber called Qweneschambre.
The tiled roof had long been stripped off
so that the walls were decayed and threatened to fall. As it
could not be well dispensed with, because there was no other kitchen in
the castle except for in the great tower, he repaired the walls and
timbers at a cost of £6 including the purchase of timber,
tiles
and lime. A turret on the south wall of the castle facing the
town was eaten away by the sea salt and flung down by the force of the
wind into the castle ditch (pit - foveam)
and as the castle was open at
that spot, he rebuilt the turret, partly with the fallen stones and
partly with new stones bought from a distance at a cost of £9
6s
8d. The above are the only expenses incurred by him in
repairing
the walls and buildings of the castle.
A barbican before the outer gates, a
postern, the
barriers before the gates, a tower in which these gates are, a place
called the Turnpike by the tower and the walls on each side of the
entrance from the outer gates to the tower called Consabletour
in which the inner gates are, except a part new built when Lord Percy
was keeper, are eaten away by the sea salt and threaten a grievous
collapse; and a wall under the Draghtbrigg is
cracked from top
to bottom. Unless the tower and the walls are speedily
repaired
they cannot be saved from ruin; the towers, barbican and walls cannot
be repaired for less than £200.
The wall of the castle on the south side
towards the
town from the Constabletour
to a place and tower called Ledentour,
except a part rebuilt by Richard Tempest as above and [the towers]
built and covered with lead as the jurors suppose, between the 2 towers
named are eaten away by sea salt and shattered and greatly damaged so
as to threaten a dangerous collapse. The battlements of the
towers, the wall, the wallwalk (basis)
on which there was a common
passage on the top of the wall and towers and the stone steps lately
arranged to go up thereto, have quite fallen down. The leaden
roofing of the 4 towers and the timber thereof has either been carried
away or decayed, but at what time the jurors know not, as they cannot
remember seeing the towers with their roofs on. The repair of
the
wall and towers, the renewal of the battlements and the replacement of
the leaden roofing on new timber could not be done for less than
£233 6s 8d.
The castle wall on the south side
towards the town,
from the Ledentour to the tower called Cokfeldestour at
the end
of the wall on the edge of the sea, is eaten away by the sea salt and
very ruinous; and the 2 towers and the 5 towers between them, whereof
the large 3 were roofed with lead, but not the smaller, as the jurors
suppose, are broke down in like manner, except where rebuilt by Richard
Tempest and much damaged as to the leaden roofing and the timber, both
of the upper portion lately arranged to support the leaden roofs and of
the joists and the flooring of the chambers, so decayed as to be of no
use for repairs.
The leaden roofing of the chamber called
Qweneschambre
which abuts on the wall between Cokefeldtour
and
Ledentour
and was repaired by Richard Tempest, is damaged in places and
as it is much more needed than the other towers, it should be sooner
repaired. These roofs cannot be sufficiently repaired unless
the
lead is completely stripped off and melted into new sheets together
with a quantity of fresh lead and the upper framework of the towers and
the floors of the chambers that were in them cannot be repaired except
by complete rebuilding and the same with the stone and wooden steps to
go up the wall and towers and [also] the stone wallwalk along the
top. The whole of the defects in the wall, towers and
chambers
aforesaid cannot be repaired for less than 1,000m (£666 13s
4d)
including the cost of timber and lead. A tiled building
called Noricehous
annexed to the Qweneschaumbre
with a fireplace of
wood, tiles and plaster and plaster walls is quite broken down and the
timber so [decayed] for lack of roofing as to be useless for repairs,
so that it must be completely rebuilt. One of the 3 chambers
attached to the Qweneschaumbre
with a tiled roof and lime-whited clay
walls is so damaged that parts of the roof and walls have fallen down
and the timber is decayed for lack of roofing; the damage can be
repaired for 40s.
The wall enclosing the castle on the
west side
beginning from that built by Richard Tempest by the Constabletour and
extending along the sea on the north side to a place called Tristones at the
north corner of the castle is ruined both by
the corrosion of the sea salt and the cracking of the rock whereon it
is built, so that the foundations are much broken and it leans
outwards. The stone [steps] lately arranged to mount the wall
and
the stone wallwalk along it have completely fallen down and cannot be
repaired unless the wall is completely rebuilt except for some very
short sections which cannot be done for 500m (£333 6s
8d).
The wall enclosing the castle on the east side from the north corner
called Tristones
to Co[kefeldtour] at the corner towards the south,
built and supported for much of its length on a cliff on the sea-face,
is eaten away and broken down by the sea salt, together with part of
the cliff and has fallen into the sea; it can only be repaired by
complete rebuilding which cannot be done for less than £1,000.
A wall under the great tower, built
across from the
west wall of the castle to the barbican round the said tower, has in it
a third gate of the castle, through which is a common way of
entry. A tower over this gate is said never to have been
roofed. This wall is damaged in places, the battlements of
the
tower fallen, the wooden gates lately arranged to close the gateway
broken and their timbers and iron binding decayed. The
repairs of
the wall and rebuilding of the tower and the making of new wooden gates
will amount to not less than £40.
The leaden roofing of the great tower,
the 3 corner
turrets thereon and the chapel attached thereto is damaged and broken
in places, and a corner turret in which there is a building
called Waytehous
is completely destroyed; the timber of the upper
framework of the chapel and of the joists, floors etc is decayed for
want of roofing; the walls of the keep and chapel are beginning to be
damaged, both for want of repairs to the roof and because one of the
[corner] turrets is completely unroofed; the doors and windows in the
keep and chapel, of wood, bound with iron, and their ironwork,
including locks, [drawbar] slots and staples are damaged by rust and
wind. The [keep and] chapel cannot be repaired unless the
leaden
roof is completely stripped off, the upper framework of the chapel
[repaired] with new timber and the lead melted, together with fresh
lead, to form a new roof. The defects in the keep and chapel
cannot be repaired for less than 100m (£66 13s 4d) including
the
purchase of timber, lead and ironwork. A wall called the
barbican
of the keep [inner ward] built all around it is much damaged and broken
in its foundations, so that most of it has fallen and the part still
standing threatens to fall; it can only be repaired by rebuilding which
cannot be done for less than £300.
When Lord Percy was keeper 2 thatched
buildings were
put up within the barbican [inner ward] for a kitchen, bakehouse and
brewhouse, which have now fallen down and the timber is so decayed as
to be of no use for rebuilding. They can only be repaired by
rebuilding which cannot be done for less than £20.
A hall
called Kyngeshalle
said to have been roofed with tiles, used to
stand by the Qweneschambre,
but has long been entirely in ruins except
that parts of the wall are still standing and the timber is so
destroyed that nothing remains; it can only be repaired by complete
rebuilding which would cost £40. Total spent on
repairs by
Richard Tempest, £79 19s.
In total this meant that Constable Richard Tempest had spent a recorded
£59 19s 8d on the castle (not the £79 19s claimed)
and that
a further £2,902 needed to be spent to bring the fortress up
to
scratch. After this inquiry Constable Tempest was ordered on
28
February 1363, to cause the defects of houses, walls, and other
enclosure of Scarborough castle which are in need of repair to be
repaired.... As a result of this, before 1376, Richard had
spent
some £165 remedying some of these defects. These
repairs
were obviously not on a scale to cover the nearly £3,000
needed
to remedy all the reported problems. Even so, by 1393, the
estimated cost of these repairs had dropped to £2,000 after
the
prior of Bridlington and the bailiffs of Scarborough had been asked on
6 February 1393 ‘to examine the condition of the castle and
enquire into all defects both as to walls, gates, turrets, loops,
garrets, bridges, barriers, dykes, mills and other buildings and as to
the equipment of armour, artillery, victuals etc'. The
previous
day, 5 Feb 1393, John Mosdale had been made keeper of Scarborough
castle, a post forfeited by John St Quentin (constable from 1382), to
receive as wages all
issues and profits belonging to the castle together with a further
grant of 50m (£33 6s 8d) a year on condition that he spent
40m
(£26 13s 4d) yearly on castle repairs. Yet it was
only 3
years later on 12 May 1396 that Mosdale was ordered to set masons,
carpenters and other workmen to repair Scarborough and Newcastle on
Tyne castles. The order was repeated under Henry IV
(1399-1412)
on 5 May 1400. These works were still progressing on 25
December
1401 when Mosdale was granted an extra 10m (£6 13s 4d) yearly
‘for his allowances for the repairs of the [Scarborough]
castle
and long has been and still is keeper of the king's castle of Newcastle
on Tyne without fee or reward'.
This state of affairs, with the constables maintaining the castle,
proceeded for decades, with the king finally asking the sheriff of
York, on 24 July 1410, if John Mosdale, who had received 50m
(£33
6s 8d) pa from 1393 to the present day, had actually spent that money
properly, ‘or converted the same to his own use'?
Whether
John had cheated or not is unknown as King Henry IV (1399-1413) ordered
the proceedings halted. However Mosdale was allowed to remain
as
constable and was even, on 4
June 1412, given another royal commission. During his 30 year
tenure of this office (1393-1423), he may have carried out many repairs
of the fortress with the £800 allocated to him for this
purpose
during that time. Indeed, if the subsequent constables who
are
known to have held this office on the same terms until at least 22
December 1459, also were honest, some £1,813 6s 8d would
have been spent on the castle upkeep between 1393 and 1461.
During his term of office, some of the money seems to have been spent
on building Mosdale's Hall into the site of the Queen's
Chamber.
On 15 July 1423, Thomas Burgh was granted the castle on similar terms
to Mosdale on the latter's surrender of the boon. It was also
noted at the time that the issues and profits of the castle were worth
£20 a year. During Burgh's term of office (1424-29)
the
Constable's Tower was taken down and rebuilt as it was on the point of
falling. Thomas Hyndeley, master mason at Durham Cathedral,
was
sent for ‘to devise and ordain the most siker ground of the
Constable Tower'. This tower was plainly the inner gatetower,
isolated from barbican and castle by the 2 drawbridges. At
the
same time a new section of wall was made between the Watchhouse
(wacchehous
- probably now the solid turret at the top of the second
ward south curtain) and the castle bridge. Subsequent
constables
held the castle on the same terms as Mosdale, the last grant being made
being to Earl Henry Percy on 22 December 1459. He was killed
at
the battle of Towton, just over a year later on 29 Mar 1461.
Scarborough castle was last used as a royal base in 1484 when Richard
III (1483-85) prepared a fleet in the bay below to oppose hostile
landings.
When Leland passed in the 1530s he found:
At
the east end of the town, on the one point of the
bosom of the sea, where the harbour is, stands an exceeding goodly
large and strong castle on a steep rock, having but one way by the
steep slaty crag to come to it. And or ever a man can enter
the
area of the castle there are 2 towers and betwixt each of them a
drawbridge, having steep rocks on each side of them. In the
first
court is the arx and 3 towers in a row and then yoinith a wall to them,
as an arm down from the first court to the point of the sea cliff,
containing in it 6 towers whereof the second is square and full of
lodgings and is called the Queen's Tower or Lodging.
Without the first area is a great green, containing
(to reckon down to the very shore) sixteen acres and in it is a chapel
and beside old walls of houses of office that stood there.
But of
all the castle the arx is the oldest and strongest part. The
entry of the castle betwixt the drawbridges is such, that with costs
the sea might come round about the castle, the which stands as a little
foreland or point between 2 bays.
Around the same time as this in 1537, it was reported that the castle
constable, Sir Ralph Eure, had, on assuming the constableship from Sir
Walter Griffith, stripped the lead off the tower and turret roofs, sent
some to France in exchange for wine and made the rest into a brewing
vessel. Further, on 7 January 1538, it was reported that a
part
of the wall with the ground under it had ‘shot down in the
outer
ward between the gatehouse and the castle'. Presumably this
marked the collapse of the western approach wall from the main
gatehouse beyond the barbican to the keep.
Nearly 3 months later on 25 March 1538, a view was taken of Scarborough
castle by Sir Marmaduke Constable and Sir Rauff Ellerker Junior. This
found that the barbican, or as they called it, ‘the outer
ward is
in circuit 98 yds (294'), of which 37 yds (111') are clean fallen
down'. The figures given for this show that by this they
meant
the circuit of the barbican which is about 300', the outer ward being
over 1,000 long and not being a circuit, unlike the barbican.
The
111' which had fallen was obviously the rear, north side of the
defence. Beyond this was the approach, described as
‘a
second ward of 154 yds (462'), of which 38 yds (114') are fallen down,
with 2 bridges and turrets'. The gatehouse was described as
‘within the same (bridge) a turret in length 9 yds (27), in
height 13 yds (39'), in breadth 5 yds (15'). It's defences
also
included a portcullis, although all traces of this are now
gone.
Above the second ward was a small, otherwise unmentioned
‘third
ward'. This was entered ‘neither by a tower nor a
house,
but by a pair of evil timber gates 13' high and 10' broad with a place
for
a portcullis'. The ward was ‘square like a court,
22 yds
(66'), all in good repair, except the gates'. This is
obviously
the area between the keep and the Master Gunner's House, which house as
yet did not exist. Beyond this was ‘the inner or
fourth
ward' which was ‘156 yds (468') in circuit, with three
turrets'.
If the dimensions quoted are correct, they did not include the great
keep as part of the defences of the inner ward, for this and its
associated buildings would have added another 120' to the
distance. The core of the defences were then described,
‘the
dongeon or high tower of 4 stories with 5 turrets' and was 18 yards
(54') square. It would therefore appear that originally the
keep
had 4 corner turrets and presumably a fifth that contained the
forebuilding with chapel. Within the keep were ‘the
ordnance concepts of a great brazen gun, an old serpentine, four bases,
and eight chanters; but no shot or powder'.
From the inner ward there was ‘a straight [wall] that
stretches
to the sea-side towards the south-east, 207 yds (621'), and round
towers, 2 storeys high and 18' in diameter called Queen's Tower,
Bosdale Hall, Cokhyll Tower, as well as 2 others'.
Interestingly
this is the first measurement that certainly does not tally with
reality, the
real wall from the inner ward being at least 720' to the
inner ward junction from the Cockhill
or
rather Cockfield Tower. This latter has now fallen with that
part of the
headland into the sea. Also Bosdale is obviously the Mosdale
Hall
and the last before the Cockfield Tower of the outer ward had already
collapsed. Finally, of
the castle defences, it was noted that the north wall along the
headland ran for ‘140 rods (2,310'), on the sea
cliff'.
Such a distance is almost exactly the current distance around the
periphery of the castle rock - from the Master Gunner's House, round
the
back of the Roman castle and to the site of the Cockfield
Tower.
Quite clearly from this, the headland was fully fortified in 1538, even
if the wall was not in a good state of repair, it being clearly stated
that
‘there are 3 places where men may climb it, which may be
mended
for 40s'. Within this defence ‘the castle garth is
480 yds
(1,440') by 240 yds (720') [and] within it is a pretty chapel of Our
Lady and a fair well, but no bakehouse, brewhouse, nor
horsemill'. It was then estimated that the materials required
to
repair the castle would be 2,102 tons stone, 337 tons timber,
9½
tons iron and 40 foder of lead. Usefully the survey concluded
with stating that ‘stone can be had at Haburne wike, 6 miles
off;
rough stone and lime from the sea cliff; timber at Rayncliff, within 3
miles, and slate at Sawdon More, within 5 miles'.
Although it remained a royal fortress until 1619 there seems to have
been little effort made with its upkeep. The end for the
castle
came during the Civil War of 1642-51 when it was twice
besieged.
The Parliamentarian governor, Hugh Cholmley, became disillusioned and
switched to the Royalist cause after 5 months in occupation of the
castle. The castle was then seized by his brother for
Parliament,
but Cholmley persuaded him to surrender the fortress back to
him.
After the Royalist defeat at Marston Moor and the fall of York, John
Meldrum marched on Scarborough in August 1644. In January
1645
the siege began in earnest, with the town only being overrun on 18
February. A high point of the siege was when Meldrum fell off
the
cliff and plunged 200' while apparently chasing his hat on a blowy
day. Surprisingly he recovered and resumed his siege in
May. At this point a ferocious artillery duel began which
wrecked
St Mary's church and the castle keep. On the collapse of the
west
face of the keep after 3 days of fire, the Parliamentarians rushed the
castle, but were defeated with Meldrum being shot and killed.
The
new commander decided to starve the place out, with the alleged 250
survivors of the 500 strong garrison duly capitulating on 25 July
1645. Even so Mosdale's Hall was converted into a barracks in
1745. Subsequently the garrison was withdrawn in the
nineteenth
century, but Mosdale's barracks were blown up by a brief bombardment by
the German navy in
1914.
Description
According to William Newburgh, writing in the late twelfth century, the
site of Scarborough castle enclosed 60 acres. For this to be
true
the site would have to be 1,616' square. The headland
enclosed by
the castle remains is currently about a 1,000' along its south and west
sides, but to the seaward north and west only 800' and 700' which gives
an area of less than 20 acres. In the 1530s Leland reckoned
that
this area covered 16 acres, so it is apparent that there have been few
collapses since his day, while the 1361 survey makes it abundantly
clear that the entire ‘60 acres' of headland was originally
enclosed by a curtain wall. This means that a great deal of
the
castle rock has simply collapsed into the sea and also probably that
William was not very good at judging plateau sizes, which in itself is
hardly surprising. It should also be remembered that some 300
square feet of Whitby headland is adjudged to have disappeared since
Roman
times taking with it a Roman fortress perhaps similar to the one at
Scarborough. Similar losses can be seen at other Roman
fortresses
the country over, viz, Burgh, Caer Gybi, Lympne, Maryland, Reculver and
Walton to name but a few.
Roman Castle
The Scarborough Roman ‘signal station' was one of a string of
sites established in the fourth century AD along the North Sea
coast. Their original purpose is unknown as no documentation
about them has survived the 1,700 odd years since their
construction. However, their purpose has been guessed at and
varies from small castles, to protected beacons, to warning stations
for enemy sea-raids. Their distribution has been noted at the
beginning of this article. The Scarborough Roman site is
unusual
in having been largely excavated, the excavations again showing that
the site was far more complex than the relatively pathetic earthworks
at the surface suggested. An c.90AD signal tower has been
preserved in Hadrian's Wall at Pike Hill. This tower, at some
20'
square with walls under 3' thick, bares little resemblance to the
Scarborough Roman tower which is 50' square with walls 8'
thick.
It was set within a ditch enclosing what appears to have been a sub
rectangular site with sides about 150' long. Within a 50'
wide
berm was a 100' square enclosure with chamfered corners complete with
small, projecting D shaped angle towers. In the centre of
this
ward was the double-stepped plinth of the central tower. The
wall
thickness of 8' suggests that it was over 60' high. Centrally
in
the west courtyard wall was a small, internal rectangular
gatetower. Probably above this portal was the building
inscription. That above the 293/305AD gate at Qasr Bashir in
Syria still exists in situ. At Ravenscar castellum the
inscription has been found in the eighteenth century. This
appears to read IUSTINIANUS PP VINDICIANUS MAGISTER TURR[I]M CASTRUM
EFFCIASTO and translates as Commander Justinian and Magister Vindicians
built this castle tower. No doubt a similar inscription once
existed at Scarborough and named the builders.
The often pushed idea that the 8' thick tower foundations found on the
English and German Roman frontiers supported nothing more than a wooden
beacon seems as likely as it being discovered that the Roman pharos at
Dover castle is actually built of wood too. The post
foundations
within the tower probably supported a superstructure that mounted
artillery of some description. Their possible use is
discussed in
Matthew Symonds' Protecting the Roman Empire.
When the Scarborough tower had been derelict, apparently for many
hundreds of years,
a chapel was built on the site using the fortress walls for 3 of its
sides, while a new wall was made to the south. This had a
chancel, 12' square and a nave 20' long by 17' wide. These
dimensions again undermine the claim that Anglo-Saxon churches have
tall, narrow naves. That the Roman castle was still visible
is
proved by the churchyard following the enclosure of the old castle ward.
Barbican
Approach to the castle headland is difficult, but not impossible on all
but the west side of the fortress, while even the cliffs on the other 3
sides can be scaled with a little effort. The fall of Beeston
castle to such an attack in the Civil War confirms such a weakness in
similar sites.
Regardless of this, the best way for provisions to enter the fortress
would have been from the landward side, up the ridge from St Mary's
church. Here a road runs down from the north-western corner
of
the headland towards the church. At some point a masonry
barbican
with a twin towered gatehouse and 2 irregular turrets was built on the
eastern two-thirds of the summit occupying an irregular area about 50'
north to south and some 150' long. At the extreme western end
is
a rocky knoll that might have been part of an earlier defensive system,
but is now beyond the masonry barbican. In the early modern
age a gun battery stood here. Currently a path runs
along the southern side of the ridge and up to the gatehouse which is
set back at an angle so that those approaching the castle could be
viewed from the main curtain on the headland above, which lies some
200' to the east. This probably gave the name to that sold
inner ward tower, the Watchhouse.
The gatehouse, like the rest of the barbican, consists of a much
weathered and roughly laid ashlar made of the local Ravenscar Group,
golden sandstone. The wall core is made of local limestone
rubble, quarried from the castle rock, while the sandstone was probably
also quarried from the castle rock as well as nearby Falsgrave
(Whallesgrave)
and Hayburn. The entire barbican has been much
rebuilt and the summit of all the walls are obvious late rebuilds in
the post defensive era. Further there is now no evidence of
the
wallwalks so that it is impossible to guess to what height the
walls originally stood. That said, some original features
remain. At the western extreme of the work a flat headed, but
blocked, doorway still exists, but is not covered by the
adjoining turret which only protrudes gently to the south.
Apparently this was made in the seventeenth century to allow access to
the battery at the western end of the knoll. A proper
medieval
postern exists directly north of the turret and was protected from view
by a pilaster buttresses to its west. Between the south-west
turret and the gatehouse is another small turret. Such
features
bear some resemblance to the inner ward at Chateau Gaillard, but are
not common in the UK. They are more akin to the west front of
the
inner ward here, only smaller and open backed, rather than solid.
The barbican twin towered gatehouse is an odd affair, whose summit has been totally
rebuilt. There is an outer segmental arch of 2 orders holding
up
a thin wall, behind which is what appears to be a large murder hole
which takes up the entire width of the entrance and is 6'
deep.
Possibly this was once floored to make a chamber, but rebuilding has
destroyed any trace of this if it existed. The outer arch
does
not appear to have held a gate, although the inner one did.
Oddly
there is no provision for drawbridge or portcullis, indeed there is no
trace of any portcullis grooves throughout the site, even
though
at least 2 of these formerly existed according to the 1538
survey. There are
rebuilt windows on the first floor of the gatehouse, possibly in the
positions of early features. There is also an odd niche above
the
outer gate arch. Possibly this was similar in function to the
elaborate niche that carried a half effigy of King Edward II above the
king's gate at Caernarfon castle. The heavy rebuilding of the
gatehouse probably occurred in the fifteenth century, judging by the
apparent insertion of a royal coat of arms in the south face of the
west gatetower. This tower, according to the 1538 survey, was
also the porter's lodge, ‘one storey in height and covered
with
lead'. Just west of the tower are the remains of a flight of
steps that presumably once gave access to the summit of the gatehouse
and possibly a wallwalk on the southern side of the barbican.
The
wall to the north was obviously too thick to support any alure.
Behind the outer gatehouse the barbican increases in width to its
maximum and then shrinks to a gorge leading to the main
gatehouse.
First comes a pair of projecting turrets protecting the far side of a
drawbridge. After the drawbridge comes the main gatetower and
then another drawbridge which brings the wayfarer to the base of the
headland, having crossed the great gorge some 30' above its
bottom. Beyond the gutted gatehouse is another postern, this
one
facing south and leading to the bottom of the great ditch.
The Gatehouse
From the north-eastern angle of the barbican a series of 2 drawbridges
and 3 small gatehouses protected the entrance to the second
ward.
The first gatehouse, consisting of the remnants of 2 small turrets
overlooking a gorge at the end of the castle great ditch running up
from the sea to the south-east, formed the end of the
barbican.
Beyond this was a drawbridge, approached from the gateway by a sloping
roadway sunk a few feet below the level of the surrounding ground. On
the other side of the drawbridge stood the main gatehouse, apparently
built
for Henry III in the mid 1240s and heavily rebuilt in the
1420s. This sat upon a massive central
pier and consisted of 2 semicircular turrets, which have been much
rebuilt. The drawbridge to the barbican must have been
operated
from the upper storey or roof of this structure. Sadly not
enough
of it remains to comment far on its construction, although part of a
vice still remains in the surviving southern turret. The
corbel
table at the summit would seem to have supported a projecting parapet
and is probably fifteenth century in date. The 1538 survey
stated
that it was 27' across, 15' wide and nearly 40' high and contained a
portcullis. The gorge before and behind the gatehouse was
linked
by segmental arches carrying spandrel walls. Beyond the
gatehouse
were 2 further small turrets from which the second, shorter, drawbridge
was operated. This miniature gatehouse, mounted on
buttresses,
led to the second ward.
The much damaged second ward was of an irregular shape, originally
occupying a triangular area measuring about 150' by 130' and shrinking
at its western point to a mere 20' at its entrance from the main
gatehouse. The northern front of the ward is now marked by a
modern wall following the rise of the ground up to the main castle.
This section of wall must have plummeted when the cliff face
on this
side of the castle collapsed. To the east the ward was
bounded by
the enceinte of the inner ward, though this has largely
disappeared. To the remaining south side, the ward curtain
has
largely survived. This ascends sharply from the miniature
gatehouse up to a butt joint with the solid D shaped turret in the
inner ward curtain which
may have been the ‘watchhouse' of 1538. On this
inner ward
turret are the lower jamb stones of a doorway that led to the second
ward south curtain wallwalk and via the steps on this down to the
miniature gatehouse. Beneath this wallwalk are 5 crossbow
loops
covering the great ditch. Two of these still boast fine,
deeply
splayed fish tailed oillets. At the base of the wall is a
blocked, pointed opening. This may have been another
postern. It is also noticeable
that this wall is of 2 builds, the lower section being of much more
ashlar quality large blocks of stone, while the upper 10' consist of
well coursed, smaller rubble blocks. This wall was recorded
as rebuilt in 1361 and 1424-29. At the top of the slope
the path from the bridge passed
into the third ward through a simple hole in the wall type gateway with
portcullis, of which all traces are now gone.
At the top of the path from the main gatehouse was a small 66' square
ward, of which little now remains. Consequently its layout is
hard to fathom, although it certainly was not a true square.
Presumably the ward predates the walling of the inner ward as the inner
ward rampart and ditch does not continue under the north-eastern wall
of this enclosure. Its masonry remains appear to be of at least 2 or 3
different phases. To the north-west some 230' of curtain wall
runs along the cliff edge from the site of the ‘evil gate'
next
to the keep, behind the Master Gunner's House, and eventually fades out
where the cliffs have collapsed. Presumably this was part of
the
wall around the headland still mainly standing in 1538. From
just
east of the Master Gunner's House 2 fragments of the remains of a
curtain wall run south-eastwards towards the inner ward
rampart.
This wall appears to be of a unique build, containing may snecker
stones and being set upon a few irregular courses of herringbone style
masonry. Where this ward joined the inner ward to the
south-east,
there appears to have been a gate to the outer ward. This may
have been an internal rectangular tower, but only parts of its south
wall survives and these have probably been patched up. The
base
of this wall is made of small, flat slabs of grey limestone, while the
upper sections contain some golden sandstones laid in a more ashlar
fashion. What appears to be a buttress maybe one side of the
gate
jambs. Fragments protruding to the west may suggest that the
gatetower once projected beyond the curtain as well as
internally. The southern wall of the structure is used as a
retaining wall for the rampart which begins here and runs round to the
south wall of the main castle defence line.
The retaining wall divides the ward from the inner bailey and can be
followed for some 25' against the interior of the inner bailey rampart,
but nothing remains to show the position of any inner ward
gate.
If it existed it would have to have been near the west end of this wall
immediately under the castle keep. Alternatively, for access
to
the inner ward it may have been necessary to pass through this ward and
around the exterior of the great inner ward ditch and then enter that
ward via the rectangular gatetower to the south, between the King's
Hall and Mosdale Hall.
The small house at the north-west corner of the ward, attractively
decorated with
stepped gables, was purpose-built in the early eighteenth century as a
lodging for the master gunner serving the castle batteries.
As
this structure penetrates the line of the third ward it is to be
presumed it was built after this ward was abandoned as a defensive
element of the castle's plan.
The Inner Ward
The main bailey of the castle was sub ellipsoidal, being about 250'
from north to south by 150' across. The ward is a
most peculiar affair of at least 6 separate builds. Logically
the
oldest part of the structure should be its south and west walls as
these cover the approach from the main gate and cover the top of the
cliff. This length of wall is now spilt into 3
parts. To
the south, where the north curtain meets with the main south wall, are
the foundations of a small, probably solid turret, overlain by an
awkward later turret which has been numbered Tower 1 of the description
of the outer ward, although it doesn't seem to appear in the 1538
survey. Sixty feet north-west of this stands another
turret which still survives to most of its original height, some 20',
the summit having been rebuilt in modern times. This consists
of
a coursed rubble build with larger blocks of stone than the adjoining
curtain to the west and has recently had its summit converted into a
viewing platform. The internal base of this wall has a fine
golden sandstone ashlar face, while the upper layer is a rotten coursed
rubble. This ashlar work is not seen elsewhere in the
exterior
inner ward curtain, although a portion of it remains behind the rebuilt
front of the wall between this turret and Tower 1 in the interior.
The curtain to the east of the viewing platform turret has 3 narrow
pilaster buttresses on its external face against the good quality
golden ashlar on its inner face. On the exterior it consists
of
better shaped, darker stone and is possibly that part of the curtain
recorded as rebuilt in 1241-42. The curtain runs from the viewing
platform
turret to the north-west point of the inner ward where there is another
turret which has a post medieval beacon on its summit, reached by
modern steps up from the wallwalk. Half way along this
curtain
is the base of a pilaster buttress which shows that the lowest 6' of
this wall is an older build. The wall above is less well
coursed
and of a weaker, darker stone. The beacon turret has also
been
rebuilt with a masonry similar to the upper section of the
curtain. The original base of the turret is in the finely
laid,
almost ashlar quality stone and has a sloping plinth of at least 3
courses still visible. This wall and plinth continues around
the
turret to a final solid turret overlooking the approach wall from the
barbican. This seems to have
originally supported
the 1538 watchhouse. Again this wall
and turret have been rebuilt from 5-10'
above the plinth. Internally there is evidence for 2 sets of
steps running up the inner face of the wall to give access to the
wallwalk. A few yards beyond the northernmost turret the wall
ends heading towards the west end of the keep, leaving just the slope
running slightly downhill, around the west face of the keep to the site
of the evil gateway.
The eastern side of the inner ward is clearly of a totally
different
build to the western side. Here there is a rampart whose
summit
is about 10' above exterior ground level and nearly 20' above the V
shaped ditch bottom. Internally the rampart ranges from 8' at
its
northern end to nothing at its southern end, having largely died out by
half way along the enceinte. It is possible that the interior
of
the ward has been somewhat raised, certainly the main southern curtain
above the town makes a definite drop as it passes down the 6' bank of
the inner ward before heading on down to the Cockfield Tower
site. That there is no trace of a ditch or slumping where
this
main curtain passes over the area where it would be expected, suggests
that the curtain predates the ditch and that it was never dug all the
way to the headland scarp. The bulk of the east wall of the
inner curtain has
been stripped of most of its facing, although at the external northern
third of the wall there is a trace of what may have been a wide
pilaster buttress. At the southern end of the enceinte are
the
foundations of a rectangular gatetower. This is complimented
with
a bridge support at the bottom of the ditch. In the 1538
survey the tower was described as lately regated, but having never been
fitted with a roof and with its battlements decayed away.
Within the inner ward enclosure
were early rectangular buildings at the north and south ends of
the east curtain, while the foundations of various service buildings
survive south of the great keep. Between the northern end of
the
west curtain wall and the keep are the foundations of various
eighteenth century buildings and offices. Near these are a
well,
over 150' deep, the first 70' being lined with masonry. Below
this the shaft continues for in excess of another 100'.
Outer Bailey
From the junction with the inner ward curtain the main south-western
wall of the castle runs for some 850' to the site of the Cockfield
Tower. Towards its southern end the wall becomes very jagged
and
changes dramatically in width showing that it has been much
rebuilt. Along its length are the remains of probably 6
D-shaped
towers and 2 solid D shaped turrets. None of these structures
are
deeply projecting, which could either be a continuation of style of the
earlier solid turrets to the north or a fact that the wall was built so
close to the berm it was impossible to build them further out without
grave risk of their collapsing down the bank. It is at once
readily apparent that the towers and turrets are not equidistantly
placed and it is possible that they date from different building
phases. For convenience's sake the towers will be numbered 1
to 8
from the north.
Tower 1 has already been noticed as where the southern corner of the
inner ward begins. This tower is an odd affair built over the
remains of an earlier solid turret. The wall adjoining it to
the
north has 3 narrow external pilaster buttresses and is thicker than the
wall to the south. Externally the tower is difficult to see,
but
its faces are largely flattened making it half an irregular
octagon. It is also cut in 2 by the arrival of the eastern
inner
curtain roughly centrally in its rear face. Judging from
where
the D shaped turret underlies it, the wall between this and the next
solid turret to the north-west has collapsed when the berm gave way and
the new curtain with its 3 pilaster buttresses was therefore built
further back of necessity. This 'new' curtain is not aligned
to the curtain south of Tower 1. This tower was of at least 2
storeys
below the curtain wallwalk. Presumably there was another
storey
above it. Some of the curtain pilasters are deeper than
others, the
shallower ones possibly being earlier.
From Tower 1 the curtain runs some 65' downhill to Tower 2.
This
half round tower was originally open backed and has a diameter of about
32', making it rather similar to the early towers of the inner ward at
White Castle. Internally there seem to have been ground floor
loops to north, south and west. The upper storey and most of
the
upper half of the ground floor has gone, but externally, where the
loops were, the surface has been ashlared when the tower was
refaced. The 1538 survey makes it reasonably clear that this
was
the Queen's Tower.
South-east of Tower 2 is some 55' of curtain containing 4 pilaster
buttresses, with the southern 3 being equidistant, but the northern one
being a lone structure. At the end of this section of curtain
is Tower 3. This appears to have been a solid turret, but it
has been much
altered, especially after 1745 when it was refaced in brick as a
barracks. Internal to this lay the Queen's Chamber which by
1538
was known as the Mosdale Hall. This structure is currently
not aligned with the curtains on either side of it, though whether this
means the first building here pre or postdated the curtain is open to
question. Certainly this structure has been heavily rebuilt
right up into the eighteenth century when it was converted into
barracks
in 1745. This involved the structure being clad in brick,
although the lower courses of
the original masonry are visible in the main structure and the base of
Tower 3. Beyond the Mosdale Hall were 6 pilaster buttresses
and then a small
solid turret which has been added to the curtain. Seventy
feet beyond that was
another D shaped tower, Tower 4, similar in plan to, but better
preserved than
Tower 2. Despite this, its stonework seems more fine coursed
rubble than
ashlar and it has a plinth. A further 60' beyond this was
Tower 5, a
copy of Tower 4. Centrally between them was another blocked
postern in a wall with only 1 pilaster buttress, irregularly placed
between the postern and Tower 5.
From Tower 5 a further 4 pilaster buttresses led to an another solid
turret
which appears to have been added to the curtain. This is
ashlar
faced and has the remnants of deeply splayed battlements at its
summit. After this another 5 buttresses led to the destroyed
Tower 6. This exists only as foundations. Beyond
its site
lies a flight of steps leading to a sallyport which gave access to a
curtain which curves down the hill to the 1643 South Steel
battery. This structure is mostly washed away.
Beyond the
sallyport the curtain, supported by more pilaster buttresses, ran to
the Cockfield Tower which itself fell when the cliff collapsed at some
point after 1538. This and the earlier surveys make it clear
that a curtain wall then
continued around the headland, encompassing the church and the site of
the Roman castle, before returning to the ward next to the keep.
Further buildings lay within the outer bailey. Within the
much ruined and much rebuilt
structure later known as Mosdale Hall are fragments of carved masonry
from
earlier buildings. Possibly these may have come from other
buildings that once stood within the castle garth. Internally
the structure, about 90' long by 35' wide, is much gutted, but at its
southern end is a rectangular structure which may have been a garderobe
turret. Some 100' north-west of the
Queen's Chamber stands the sad remnants of the King's
Hall. This is
some 90' long by 55' wide. It is often claimed, without
evidence, to be
the work of King John. It's aisled plan looks much older and
it
is merely referred to as the Great Hall in 1278.
This, like later surveys which call it the King's Hall, of itself
proves nothing of its origin, merely its current usage. North
of the hall are traces of the kitchen.
The Keep
Scarborough has a moderately sized keep, some 56' square and with walls
varying between 10' to the north and 15' in the west wall.
This wall
also contained the central stair vice, here some 12' in diameter - an
impressive size. Now, some 80' high, the keep was originally
over 90'
tall. As such it compared with other northern keeps like
Bamburgh
and Carlisle, but was rather larger than Brougham. Externally
it
had much in common with the much smaller Peak castle, both keeps having
clasping 3/4 columns on their corners and lacking pilaster buttresses
on the side that had the forebuilding. Scarborough was also
unusual
in having a central, rather than a corner stair vice. In this
respect it
is only matched by nearby Helmsley.
The keep was surrounded by a fine ashlar plinth of 7 courses ending in
3 further chamfered courses. From these 4 pilaster buttresses
rose at the corners and originally peaked in turrets, although all of
these are now gone. To north and east there were central
pilasters and probably too to the west, although this face of the keep
has now gone. There were no buttresses on the south wall as
here
there was a 50' high forebuilding covering the main first floor
Romanesque entrance. This was reached via a flight of steps
running up the south wall of the keep and entering a small rectangular
chamber, which has subsequently been largely destroyed. Here
was
the main doorway into the keep, though this has been altered, probably
in the seventeenth century. Somewhat surprisingly, and unlike
Rochester keep, there was no portcullis protecting the entrance, though
there was a large murder hole spanning the entire width of the
forebuilding entrance. Beneath was a prison pit with attached
garderobe.
From the forebuilding chamber a short flight of steps led up
through
the wall into the first floor of the keep. Through this is a
very
narrow doorway on the right which leads up to the chapel in the
forebuilding. The narrowness and height of the doorway is
reminiscent of Anglo-Saxon church architecture. The chapel
roof
was apparently paved and this seems to be referred to as the fifth
turret of the keep. Access to it was gained through the
second
floor of the keep via a Romanesque doorway.
The keep was divided longitudinally by a north-south
dividing wall,
similar to those in other keeps, like the slightly larger Hedingham and
Rochester. In the destroyed west wall there was probably an
access to a central vice whose surviving steps still lead down to the
basement, which has 2 loops to the north. No doubt the stair
also
ran upwards to the battlements. The first floor chamber also
had 2 window embrasures to the north and east, while a small chamber
occupied the south-eastern turret. There was also a
Romanesque
fireplace set centrally in the east wall and another
chamber in the destroyed south-west turret of which slight traces
remain. The second floor had a smaller chamber in the
south-eastern turret and also its north eastern counterpart.
The
other 2 turrets to the west are utterly destroyed at this
level.
Again there is another fireplace centrally in the east wall, again
flanked by twin lights. To the south were doorways to the
roof of
the forebuilding, while to the north was a passageway and another
double window. The top floor seems to have had twin window
embrasures to north, south and east, the west wall, of course, being
destroyed. The lack of any creasing on the upper floor walls
would suggest that the roof was always flat.
Like many other keeps this one is traditionally dated to the work of
Henry II, in this case to work recorded between 1159 and
1169. In
reality the only expenditure actually mentioned on Scarborough keep in
the pipe rolls was in 1159-60 and 1169. After such a dating
claim
it is best to quote the History of the King's Works where it is stated:
The
tendency in the past has been to attribute
nearly all [tower keeps] to [the reign of] Henry II, often for no
better reason than an odd payment on the pipe roll recording a minor
repair, or a hasty refortification in the face of some temporary
emergency.
The evidence quoted above and the respective size and monies spent on
the keep could well indicate that Henry II's work here was
merely
refacing the keep, which could account for its similarity to Peak keep
with their shafted corners and of course leaves the true dating of the
keep as possibly much older.
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©2021
Paul Martin Remfry