Tynemouth
Tynemouth has a long, if not particularly eventful history.
The site was certainly a priory, but one that always seems to have had
a defensive aspect. This is due to the fact that it stands upon a
cliff of Magnesian Limestone that projects boldly into the North Sea
and guards the northern side of the Tyne estuary. The rock it
stands upon has precipitous falls to east and north, but a less abrupt
slope to the south that leads, via a now destroyed cliff, to a small
harbour. To the west, sand and soil appear to have accumulated to
mask the precipitous approach to the castle rock on this front.
The summit of the rock was duly fortified and within these defences a
monastery was also constructed, forming three distinctive features of
the site, priory, castle and parish church. These 3 elements are
so entwined it is impossible to tell the full story of one without
delving into the history of the others. Briefly, excavation has
proved that a prehistoric settlement stood on the site with 2
roundhouses having been uncovered, one being pre-Roman the other from
the second century AD.
It has been suggested that a Roman fortlet stood here to complement Arbeia
on the southern bank of the Tyne. The only evidence for this is a
Roman altar, possibly reused as a foundation block. This was
found 6' below the ground surface north of the priory church in
1782. However, the altar appears to have originated from Segedunum
judging by its inscription. The next year, near the same place, a
slab was found bearing an inscription suggesting that it came from a
temple. Possibly such a structure stood on the site - a Roman
tile inscribed Leg VI v having been found in a trench before the castle
in 1856 as well as coins of Constantius II (337-61) and Magnentius
(350-53), but again no solid remains have ever been discovered.
It should also be remembered that various projections into the North Sea
have held Roman fortlets, the most well known being Scarborough. Otherwise the site has been very tentatively linked to the Roman station of Tunnocellum and the hermitage of Tunnacester, the latter being mentioned by Bede.
Whatever early works stood at Tynemouth they were superceded by the
seventh century church. Whether the fortress was always under the
control of the monks or not is open to question, but by the Norman era
this seems to have been true. Certainly the ‘castle'
withstood a 6 day siege in 1095 before the garrison was forced back
into the church. During the Edwardian troubles with Scotland the
castle was refortified and again towards the end of the fourteenth
century when raiding this far into England was still a problem.
With the dissolution of the monasteries during the reign of Henry VIII
(1509-47), the nave of the priory became the parish church and remained
so until the Civil War of 1642 to 1649. The rock girt site,
however, remained active militarily right up to its abandonment in 1960.
It can therefore be seen that the history of Tynemouth is
complex. There was once an early Medieval chronicle of Tynemouth,
seen by Leland in the 1540s. This might have expounded much of
the castle and church history, but sadly is now lost. However,
Leland did make a few jottings from the text which recorded that it was
written by an anonymous monk from St Albans (Albanensi). As his few lines are all that has survived of the text it is worth translating and publishing here.
The author of the chronicle was a St Albans monk, but his name is uncertain.
Oswin king and martyr was buried at Tynemouth.
Edwin king of the Deiras was buried there.
Henry the hermit of Coquet Island was buried there.
King Malcolm of the Scots was slain at Alnwick by Earl Mowbray and was buried there in the chapter house.
King Edwin of the Northumberlanders erected Tynemouth chapel
from wood, in which Rosella his daughter afterwards received the veil.
St Oswald made the monastery of wood and stone.
Tynemouth monastery was twice destroyed, once by Ivar and Hubba (Anger and Hubon) and again by the Danes in the time of King Æthelstan.
The Danes used Tynemouth as a stronghold and even a shelter when crossing from Denmark and Norway into England.
On the island of Coquet is the convent of the monks of Tynemouth...
Next to Tynemouth was a city destroyed by the Danes called Arbeia (Urfa on the other side of the Tyne), where King Oswin was born.
The place where the convent of Tynemouth now stands was anciently called Benebalcrag by the Saxons. Penabalcrag is the correct form, meaning The Head of the Valley on the Rock; for near this place was the end of the Severian Wall.
Judging from the above, the Tynemouth chronicle was possibly late
eleventh or twelfth century in composition, but probably utilised older
works or folk memory for the Saxon era. If correct, Leland's
notes on the chronicle would suggest an early seventh century date for
the founding of the religious establishment. To support this
contention, fragments of Anglo-Saxon crosses have been excavated both
in and just outside the priory church. Further, excavations in
1963 and 1980 uncovered the postholes of 5 rectangular timber
buildings. These have been interpreted as part of undefined
wooden buildings of the early monastery. Sadly no datable finds
were recovered and, possibly significantly, no certain trace of the
early monastery. This may suggest that the masonry is in fact
much older than twelfth century as the chronicle fragment indicates.
Of great importance to the later Tynemouth, King Oswin was murdered on
20 August 651, and is then supposed to have been buried at
Tynemouth. King Edwin of Deira, the claimed founder of Tynemouth
and uncle of King Oswin, reigned from about 616 until his death at the
battle of Hatfield Chase on 12 October 633. That he was buried at
Tynemouth and that his daughter is alleged to have taken the veil here,
again suggests the close link with his family and their likely
foundation of this house. It should also be noted that Edwin was
the first Christian monarch of the district, being converted in
627. Presumably the wooden Tynemouth was built soon after this to
be replaced by Oswald, the eventual Christian successor to Edwin, with
a building of stone and wood. Quite what this meant, stone walls
and wooden infrastructure, or even wattle and daub construction, cannot
now be ascertained. Oswald ruled from 633 until 5 August
641/2.
Against the tradition recorded above, Lindisfarne
monastery, some 50 miles to the north, is only alleged to have been
founded in 634 at the request of King Oswald, while between 651 and
661, a timber church is said to have been built there ‘suitable
for a bishop's seat'. This has often been taken as the first
Christian church built in the north. The Venerable Bede bemoaned
the fact that the church was built of oak and thatched with reeds
rather than being a proper stone building. Abbot Eadbert is later
said to have removed the thatch at Lindisfarne
and covered the whole building, walls and roof, in lead! The
early foundation of Tynemouth is mitigated against by Bede himself who
states that no church was ever built in Northumbria until King Oswald
raised his cross at Heavenfield in 633. If this is correct, it
seems most likely that Tynemouth was founded by King Oswald (633-41),
perhaps initially as a stone church. Bede later writes of
Herebald (d.745) as abbot of the monastery at the mouth of Tyne. This
of course would mean that the Oswin and Edwin stories were later
inventions. In 792 King Osred, returning to Northumbria, was
waylaid and murdered, being buried at Tynemouth on 14 September.
Quite obviously it is impossible to tell which of these stories were
true and which later invention.
In the eighth century Viking attacks began on the coasts of
England. Even what happened here is problematical. Two
attacks are said to have been made on Tynemouth in the chronicle.
The text, as copied by Leland, apparently missed at least one attack on
the monastery which, according to Matthew Paris (d.1259), happened in
800.
The army of the heathen cruelly plundered the churches of Hackness (Hertenes) and Tinemutha, and returned with the spoils to the ships.
Possibly the church was sacked then, if any attack took place. A
coin of Ethelred II of Northumbria (841-844) was excavated from the
hilltop in the 1963, which suggests that the site continued in
occupation. Other than this, the first recorded destruction of
the monastery in its chronicle can be reliably dated. It must
have happened after 865, when the 2 brothers mentioned appeared in East
Anglia and 870 when Ivar left Northumbria for Ireland. Ivar died
in Ireland in 873, while Ubba died in 878. The Durham chronicle
records under the year 867 that the Great Pagan Army followed the
Humber from York laying waste everything to Tinemutham.
Again it is only Matthew Paris (d.1259) who notes the destruction of
Tynemouth and the other monasteries in 870 after Ubba's Scottish
campaign. As this campaign only occurred in 874/75 and is linked
to the brutal evangelism of Abbess Ebba of Coldingham, like the early
foundation of Tynemouth, it is probably a fabrication.
Before this second alleged sacking, there are modern claims that the
monastery was able to defend itself against a Viking attack in
832. Where this information has come from originally is hard to
judge, but there seems to be no substance to the contentions.
According to the Tynemouth chronicle a second destruction of Tynemouth
monastery occurred during the reign of King Æthelstan
(925-39). This implies that the church was rebuilt or at least
still operational during the 50 odd years since 870. It is also
plain from the chronicle that it was thought that the place was
fortified by the Danes after they occupied the site, presumably as a
base above the harbour. Possibly then, the Vikings were the first
to fortify the site. Against this is the possibility that a Roman
fortlet stood upon the site which had earlier been a hillfort of
sorts. Again this parallels what seems to have gone on at Scarborough.
Tynemouth church must have been repaired after the alleged Viking
destruction, but only had a single custodian until the
‘discovery' of the body of St Oswin on 11 March 1065. Two
stories exist about this event. One twelfth century account
states that it was found in a Tynemouth oratory after a standard
miraculous dream and allegedly at the urging of Countess Judith
(d.1094), the wife of Earl Tostig (d.1066). This tale of the
finding of the saint was compiled at St Albans in Hertfordshire after
1111 when the author himself, a former prior of Wymundham, was at
Tynemouth recording the rather mundane miracles of St Oswin at his
leisure. In this account the body of Oswin was translated on 11
March 1065 at which time the church was obviously serviceable.
Further, the calamities that befell Earl Tostig (1055-65) on 3 October
1065, when he was ousted from power, were said to have been caused by
his neglect to attend the translation of the saint. Despite these
claims, Simeon of Durham recorded how a semi-professional saint finder
from his own monastery, their sacrist Alfred Westou, is said to have
found the saint's remains under the church floor. This is surely
more likely. Also, the fact that the church was still standing
and functional in the reign of the Confessor (1042-66) helps give the
lie to the idea that the Vikings destroyed all the churches of the
North. This seems to be a myth peddled by twelfth century
chroniclers, but not recorded during the time of the Viking attacks and
settlement.
Tynemouth church was definitely standing and made of stone in 1070. In that year the Vita Oswini states that William I (1066-87) was camped at Monkchester - later to become Newcastle upon Tyne
- when one of his foraging parties came to Tynemouth and seized the
provisions there before burning the church. Simeon notes that
Tynemouth church had been roofless for 15 years in 1085.
At that time count [Waltheof] himself was at Tinemuthe, which place he entrusted to the monks [of Jarrow], themselves to be disposed of together with the aforesaid little one [church].
Between 1065 and 1085 the earldom Northumberland went through many
vicissitudes and damaging military activity. The monastery at
Tynemouth is said to have been refounded by Earl Robert Mowbray of
Northumberland. According to Matthew Paris, the St Albans'
historian writing midway through the reign of Henry III (1216-72):
Concerning the monks first introduced to Tynemouth
[Robert Mowbray], with the advice of his friends, Abbot Paul
of the church of Saint Albans, summoned an assembly... At whose
request the aforesaid abbot, agreeing with them, appointed some of the
monks of St Albans to that place; which the aforesaid earl, when he
himself had sufficiently provided it with manors, churches, rents and
fisheries, with mills and all things, which he confirmed with his
charters all the aforesaid things, free from all secular service, and
completely free; he gave the church of Tynemouth, with all its
appurtenances, to the aforesaid Abbot Paul, his successors and the
protomartyrs of the church of the blessed Alban of the English, for
their own health and for that of all their ancestors or successors, to
possess eternally; in such a way that the abbots of St Albans who were
in that time, with the advice of the assembly of the same place, had
free disposal of the priors and monks, such as to place them or to
remove them from there, as they saw fit.
Although this statement by Paris may have contained a cornel of truth
such charters by Earl Mowbray probably did not exist, or if they did
they were destroyed in 1174 when Tynemouth surrendered their charters
to bring an end to the hostility with Durham priory. In any case
in 1292 a monk from Tynemouth priory commented in the St Albans'
register ‘God knows what has become of it'. The
falsification of non-existent charters was quite a boom industry in the
twelfth century when literacy was becoming more important to
landholders.
The early history of Tynemouth priory is therefore entwined with the
career of Robert Mowbray. He did not become earl of
Northumberland until 1086, when Aubrey Coucy probably resigned control
of the district to the king. The most likely series of events is
that Tynemouth was at this time thought of as a daughter house of Jarrow
and that the latter and just possibly the former, had been refounded in
the early 1070s. A suspect copy of a single charter of Earl
Waltheof (d.1076) survives about this, although there is a distinct
possibility that this is a twelfth century forgery by the monks of Durham.
Certainly this only exists amongst the Durham priory charters and the
Durham monks had a history of forgery to support their territorial and
political claims. That the text is not a true copy is confirmed
by one of the witnesses being Earl Aeldred, a man who had died in
1038. Further, the confirmations of Durham's lands by William I (1066-87), which precedes the Tynemouth confirmations mentioned above, are also reckoned forgeries.
If there is any truth in the Tynemouth charter, it was probably made
soon after 1072 when Waltheof was appointed earl, and probably 2 years
since the Conqueror's troops had burned the roof off Tynemouth church -
a roof said to have been repaired by a monk from Jarrow, possibly at the bidding of the brethren of Durham
during the Conqueror's reign. The charter runs that Earl Waltheof
of Northumberland (1071-75), in the presence of Bishop Walcher
(1071-1080) and the entire synod of the bishopric of Durham, gave to
Prior Aldwin (1073/4-83) and his brothers at Jarrow,
the church of St Mary of Tynemouth, with the body of St Oswin resting
in that church, with all places and lands etc which pertained to it,
free and quit forever. And with this he offered the boy, Morkar,
to the church in the service of God. There is then a long closing
clause confirming this gift and then no less than 22 witnesses to it,
about double those of any other charter. Earl Waltheof is also
said to have founded Durham castle in 1072,
so attempting to repair the damage of the Harrying of the North may
have been paramount in local minds. At this time the religious
reformers Aldwin, Elfwine and Remfry, were beginning their
administrations in the North settling first at Monkchester and then at Jarrow
whose church they repaired after being granted it by Bishop Walcher
(1071-1080). This again fits in quite well with a grant of
Tynemouth to the newcomers at Jarrow between 1072 and 1074. The
gift is alleged to have been confirmed by Bishop William St Calais of
Durham (1080-96) on 27 April 1085. This instrument pretty much
copied the same terms as the previous charter, but added the fact that
his predecessor, Bishop Walcher (1071-81), had confirmed this gift in
his synod and that Count Aubrey Coucy (1080-85/6) had also confirmed
the same in Bishop William's presence. This document was alleged
to have been witnessed by Bishop William, with 7 men recorded as
priests of various places, one man who should probably have been
recorded as a priest and a single cleric. The odd priest out in
this list is Merwin who is described as the priest of Chester (Cestre).
Presumably he was in the entourage of Earl Hugh of Chester (1071-1101)
who held lands in the North, but quite what Merwin was doing in the
Durham chapter is another matter. That this was another Durham
forgery is likely.
Similarly the abstract of charters from the lost Liber Ruber
of Durham probably contained at least some forgeries although much of
it appears based on solid history. It is also interesting in that it
states that the Conqueror burned down Jarrow, no doubt in the Harrying of the North and that King Malcolm III burned Monkwearmouth (Weremouth).
This tends to support the fate of Tynemouth church in 1070. An
abstract of this lost work also mentions the charter recording the gift
of Tynemouth church to the Jarrow monks.
If the rather contradictory accounts of the state of Tynemouth recorded
at Durham are ignored, it is suggested that the church was ruined when
it was given as a daughter house to St Albans abbey by Earl Robert
Mowbray (1086-95). This gift is supposed to have led to the long
and acrimonious dispute with the monks at Durham. The first recorded act in this dispute occurred in 1093.
This Paulus [abbot of St
Albans, d.1093] entered the church of Tynemouth, which they had
possessed against the prohibition of the monks of Durham, through the
violence of Count Robert, and being struck with sickness there, on his
way back, he died in Setterington near York...
Soon after his death on 13 November 1093, the priory became the
apparently brief resting place of yet another king, this one having
been killed on the same day at Alnwick.
But the body of the king [Malcolm],
when there was none of his people left to cover it with earth, two of
the natives laid it in carts and buried it in Tynemouth.
Although Malcolm's body is said to have been later taken to Dunfermline abbey by King Alexander (1107-24), who also granted his protection to the church, his and the bones of Malcolm's son Edward, who died with him at Alnwick,
are said to have been uncovered in the church during 1257. It is
also stated that Robert Mowbray (1086-95) had not only killed Malcolm
when he invaded England, but that Robert had also built Tynemouth
church. The latter is certainly untrue. Matthew Paris
(d.1259) has this to say about the king's body going back to Scotland:
Concerning Robert Mowbray, the founder of Tynemouth.
Because of his royal excellence, he [Robert] caused the body of the slain king [Malcolm] to be honourably buried in the church of Tynemouth, which the same earl had constructed.
The Scots, however, later demanding the body of their king,
were granted and given the body of a certain plebeian man from Seaton
Delaval (Sethtune) and thus the impiety of the Scots was deceived.
Certainly in 1257 two coffins were uncovered, one containing the
remains of a large man, the other of a smaller one. Possibly
these are the 2 well carved stone coffins still found in the modern
room made in the eastern corner of the north aisle. As ever such
suppositions are unprovable.
During the rule of Earl Robert, the priory, or at least its precincts, were still defensible and indeed the writer of the Vita St Oswini explicitly states:
Here [Robert Mowbray] began
the church of the holy king and martyr Oswin of exceptional devotion
and in which his most holy body rested; because it was contained within
the confines of his castle of Tynemouth, he enriched it with a great
deal of lands and estates.
This was shown up in 1095 when, during the reign of William Rufus
(1087-1100), a conspiracy was hatched against the king by Earl Robert
Mowbray of Northumberland, William Eu, Stephen Aumale - the king's
cousin - and many others. However, the plot was frustrated by King William
forming the English army and mounting a campaign in Northumberland
which eventually involved Tynemouth castle. The main events that
involved Tynemouth have been related under Bamburgh and Newcastle,
but for completeness the end of one account more concerned with
Tynemouth is repeated here. The Durham chronicler Simeon notes
that after the siege of Bamburgh had reached a stalemate:
So he [Earl Robert], having become joyful, went out one night with 30 soldiers to accomplish this [retaking Newcastle]. When this was discovered, the knights who guarded the [siege] castle [of Bambrugh] pursued him, communicating his departure by messengers to the keepers of Newcastle.
Which he [Robert], being unaware of, attempted to accomplish what he
had begun on a Sunday. But he could not do this, for he had been
caught.
For this reason he fled to
the monastery of St. Oswin, king and martyr [Tynemouth], where, on the
sixth day of his siege, he was severely wounded in the leg while he was
resisting his adversaries, many of whom were killed and wounded.
Of his own men some were wounded, but all were taken prisoner; but he
fled into the church; from which he was extracted and placed into
custody.
This quite clearly shows - if the recording is correct - that the earl
and his men defended the perimeter of the rock and then fell back on
the church when those defences were penetrated. This implies that
there were defences on the rock capable of being defended for 6
days. Other accounts of the siege are printed under Bamburgh and do not need repeating here, though it should be noted that there has been much confusion over the 2 castles of Newcastle and Tynemouth.
There are several similar contemporary accounts of the action at
Tynemouth which all tell the same story, but the Durham accounts are
undoubtedly the best - even if they are patently biased in favour of
the monks of Durham and their brethren at Jarrow.
There is a second Durham account which mentions the siege, but more
importantly the events before the siege, namely the earl taking
Tynemouth from Durham, giving it St Albans abbey and his alleged reasons for doing so.
Robert Mowbray, fierce in
spirit and vigorous in arms, when the earl was in possession of the
honour [of Northumberland], to the detriment of the honour, he was
driven by hatred against Holy Church. For in the first place he
made as much effort as possible to oppress her with slanders and
insults. No matter how he tried to harass and destroy her rights;
whatever he could do to his enemy he did and he threatened to do more
than he could. And therefore Tynemouth church, that was truly the
right of the church of St Cuthbert, as the whole province knows, became
the first victim of his violence. Hence, in short, those who had
long lived as monks, nay, among the monks, including the saint himself,
were driven out with insults, and it was transferred to the possession
of a certain Abbot Paul, who lived in a distant place. However,
that abbot, lest he should do injury to the purpose and rank of the
church, the monks of Durham by letters of legation through themselves
and by other religious men, warned, implored and forbade him from
receiving such robbery, but they endeavoured to get him to disavow the
grant in vain. He was not swayed by the elegance of anyone, nor
even by the venerable Confessor, nor by the respect for his order,
which forbade him from undertaking robbery; true, but not with
impunity. As for the outcome of the matter stated, each of them,
that is to say, the rapist and the possessor of the rapine, paid the
penalty for their rashness to the avenger. For the abbot, a long
time ago came before the monks, where, once he had seen the church
itself for the first time, was seized with a sudden illness, and he who
had arrived safe and sound was brought home dead. But the earl,
in the intervening time was surrounded by the king's evil followers, so
surrounded in every direction by the advance of the enemy, he could
neither proceed nor retreat, so he entered Tynemouth as a
stronghold. For this place presented itself as inaccessible on
the eastern side and on the northernmost cliff above the ocean and
elsewhere is in a higher position which makes it an easy defence.
He, trusting to this protection and the proven hands of his soldiers,
promised a far different end to what was to come to him and to his
enemies. For two days the siege continued, the enemy, with the
intention of either conquering or falling in the attempt, fighting from
above, attacked with sword and fire. Nor do I mourn; for they
took a difficult, but not too difficult position. For they broke
in without any loss to themselves, cut others down, weakened others by
wounding them, then kidnapped them, dragged them, and forced the earl
himself, wounded and already despairing of what was happening, into the
church. O righteous judgment of God! Behold, as the
scripture sings, "The sinner is caught in the throes of his
acts." And, "He opened the pit and dug him out." And "He
fell into the pit which he made." It is certainly in the same
church that the earl himself was now made a prey to his enemies, as we
have said before in St. Cuthbert's presumption. In the same way,
I say, as the proud man had snatched away from the saint, now the
pitiful man himself is snatched away, dragged, and led to the king,
whose death he was trying to bring about; and to this day he is kept in
the chains of custody.
Robert Mowbray was said to have lived for 30 years as a prisoner and
then as a monk of St Albans, ie to about 1125, so presumably this
account was written before that time. Regardless, it does state
that no attempt was made to defend the church, but all the fighting was
done outside it, presumably along the rock defences, even though they
only lasted 2 days in this account and not 6. The account itself
was recorded to justify the Durham monks reclaiming the church in the
1120s. Again, what is given is a probably partisan account of
events which advances no facts to support their claim to Tynemouth,
merely rhetoric, other than the alleged grant by Earl Waltheof of
Northumberland (1071-76). The claim is expounded in a court case
from 1121.
The monks of Durham brought a
claim concerning the church which is in Tynemouth to the chapter of St
Peter of York in the presence of the aforesaid bishops, Thurstan [of
York, 1114-40], Ranulf of Durham (1099-1128), a man of Sancti Ebroini
and many others; complaining that this was their right from the
concession of Earl Waltheof, when he gave his cousin, that is his
aunt's son, the little child called Morka, to be nursed by them and by
God in the monastery of Jarrow. He [Morka] was thus commended to them in the church of Tynemouth, the monks themselves taking him by boat to Jarrow,
endeavoured to nurture him diligently and to educate him in the service
of God. From this, they say, at the time when our brothers, the
monks of Jarrow, assumed the care of that place [Tynemouth], Edmund and
then Eadred, their monks, served the church themselves, together with
the priest Elwald, who had also been a canon of the church of Durham,
from whence he was wont to go to Durham as often as his duty allowed,
to celebrate mass for the week. They also remembered Wulmarus, a
monk of their congregation, and other brothers in their turn, who were
sent to perform divine services there [in Tynemouth], being sent there
from Jarrow.
The bones of St Oswin also, as it pleased them, their brethren carried
from time to time to Jarrow, and brought them back to their former
place when they pleased. Finally, when Aubrey [Courcy, earl from
1080 to ?1086] had accepted the honour of the earldom, he also gave
them the same place [Tynemouth] when they were transferred to Durham.
Wherefore soon, by the resolution of the whole chapter, their monk
Turchill was sent thither, who, having renewed the church roof, dwelt
there for a long time, until afterwards by Earl Robert Mowbray, because
of the hatred which he had against Bishop William, he would be
violently expelled by the earl's servants, Gumerum and Robert
Taca. Not long after that, Abbot Paul of St Albans monastery
obtained the aforesaid church from the earl, whom he was going to see
when he came to York. Turgot, who then held the priory church of Durham,
sent monks and clerics thither and in the presence of Archbishop Thomas
the Elder, and many persons of great reverence, he forbade him by
canonical authority from usurping the rightful place of the church of Durham,
and thus made him the violator of the sacred canons and fraternal
charity. But he [Paul] unworthily answered that his forbidding
was worth naught. But when he arrived there, he was seized with
sickness and while he was returning, he ended his life in Settrington,
not far from York. Thus [the Durham
chapter] lost the church of Tynemouth [apart from in Wikipedialand
where Turgot's speech was successful].
This complaint was made at York, about the middle of Lent and was repeated a little later in the week of Easter, the fourth of April, in Durham,
before a great assembly of the principal men, who had then, perhaps on
account of some business, flocked thither, namely, Robert Bruce, Alan
Percy, Walter Espec, Forno Fitz Ligulf. Robert Whitwell, Sheriff Odard
of Northumberland, with the elders of the same county and several
others. In the face of these multitudes, when the monks were
pouring out their complaints, behold, Arnold Percy, a man known for his
family and riches, and standing in the truth of what he asserted, rose
up and affirmed in witness of the truth before all, and that he had
heard and seen the earl repent of this injury which he had violently
inflicted on St Cuthbert. He said, "When the earl, being taken
prisoner in the place which he had taken away from St Cuthbert, was
brought to Durham on account of the wounds
which had been inflicted on him, he begged that he might be allowed to
enter the church oratory to pray." When he was not permitted to
by the barons, he broke down in tears, and looking towards the church
with a groan, said, "Oh St Cuthbert, I justly suffer these calamities,
because I have sinned against you and yours. This is your revenge
on the wickedness of my life. I pray thee, saint of God, to have
mercy on me."
Hearing this, they all said that an unjust act had been committed against the church of Durham;
and although the matter could not be rectified at present, yet they
prudently asserted that this slander could be put right at a future
time when there would be many men in attendance to witness it.
The tale told above, full of sound and fury, but no real legal
substance, also contains several contradictions. If Turchill had
renewed the church roof and dwelt there a long time, why was the church
said to have been roofless for 15 years in 1085, ie. since 1070?
What were the real reasons for Earl Robert granting the church to St
Albans? The enmity claimed with William St Calais (1080-96)
probably only really started with the 1095 campaign when the bishop led
troops against Robert. Before that Robert may have sold, possibly
under royal pressure, his authority south of the Tyne and north of the
Tees to Bishop William. Quite certainly the monks of Durham
wanted this story believed in the twelfth century and quite happily
forged a number of charters alleging to concern the founding of the
palatine county of Durham. Quite possibly if the removal of Durham
from the earldom of Northumberland did occur in this way, it may have
led to Mowbray seizing Tynemouth from Durham as it lay north of the
Tyne. Some of the documentation concerning this is referred to in
the lost Liber Rubus of Durham which recorded the concord made between
Bishop William St Calais of Durham and Count Robert of the
Northumberians by William the Conqueror (1066-87). Further, that
this charter of the transaction was likely forged, is proved by the
fact that Bishop William is referred to as the first bishop of that
name. This suggests the charter's provenance no earlier than 1226
when a second William became bishop. A forged charter was also
seen and recorded by Rymer. This records the peace made between
Bishop William St Calais of Durham (1080-96) and Earl Robert of
Northumberland (1086-1095). This is jauntily signed by King William
(1087-1100), Bishop William (d.1096) and Earl Robert in 1100, despite
the fact that one of them was dead and the other imprisoned - indeed
the king himself was killed on 2 August 1100. Perhaps it is best
to say that this charter might contain a later encapsulation of the
original concord between bishop and earl, or with less charity, that it
is simply another Durham forgery and not a very good one at that if the
monks didn't even know the obit of their own bishop. A further
charter of this affair existed in the Durham archives on which Rymer's
charter seems to have been based. It certainly carries the same
core material, but omits the erroneous dating clause. In its
place it has an impossible witness list, one of them being Bishop
Walcher, who died 7 years before the charter could possibly have been
made. As such it seems probable that all these charters
concerning the establishment of the principality of Durham are
forgeries. It therefore also seems inevitable that the events of
1121 as reported by the Durham chronicler are similarly biased.
Judging from the above it seems best to assume that the gift of
Tynemouth to St Albans had only occurred shortly before the earl's
discomfiture as the 2 events and St Cuthbert's vengeance seem so
closely intertwined. Certainly the earl retiring there when he
failed to surprise Newcastle suggests
that he was hopeful of a positive welcome and had some confidence in
the place's defensive strength. Such confidence would not have
been likely to be placed in any Durham monks. Certainly by the
twelfth century they were obviously hostile to him and his memory,
especially as they [or at least Simeon] claimed that the problems were
‘because of the hatred which he had against Bishop William' St
Calais of Durham (1080-96). In 1083 the bishop had transferred
the reformed brethren of Jarrow and Monkwearmouth to Durham
to make a new chapter after he expelled the married clergy from his
cathedral. Possibly this is when Earl Robert transferred the
allegedly neglected Tynemouth priory to St Albans and when the Tyne was
established as the border between the counties of Durham and
Northumberland. Simeon's account suggests that Robert's
ministers, Gumer and Robert Taca, only expelled Turchil from Tynemouth
due to his hatred of Bishop William, which would point towards the
event happening near to 1095, but this woud make a nonsense of Abbot
Paul arriving at Tynemouth in 1093 before Turchil had been
expelled. Probably the most likely time for the introduction of
the St Albans' monks into Tynemouth is around 31 December 1091.
After King Malcolm III paid homage to King William Rufus, it is recorded in a St Albans' chronicle that:
At this end of this year and
the beginning of the next, both being contiguous, the church of St
Oswin of Tynemouth was established and formed by the monks according to
the regular rule of Saint Benedict, under Abbot Paul of St Albans.
This is not contradicted by the more detailed account of the affair
kept at St Albans, except in so far as they added the dead Archbishop
Lanfranc into agreeing the gift as translated below.
Considering all these contradictions and downright forgeries, it is
worth spending some time examining the career of Abbot Paul of St
Albans (1077-93). He was a kinsman and it was thought even the
son of Archbishop Lanfranc (1070-89). He first came to notice in
1077 when Lanfranc made him abbot of St Albans on 28 June, after the
abbey's lands had been wasted by the king. As abbot he undertook
the rebuilding of the church and undertook the monastic reform demanded
by Lanfranc. This became the pattern for reform in all the
Benedictine houses in England. He also set St Albans apart by
rebuilding the scriptorum and causing many books to be copied there by
well supported scribes. He also personally acquired some 23 fine
vellum volumes as well as psalters and service books for the abbey
library. As a consequence of his works, his church received many
gifts from admirers of his reform. Further, Abbot Paul was known
to be contemptuous of the English monks who he regarded as unworthy,
lazy and ignorant. He was also horrified that some were totally
illiterate.
On some of the new lands granted him, Paul founded reformed cells as
advised by Lanfranc. These were ruled over by priors sent from St
Albans. Such places were founded at Belvoir in Lincolnshire,
Binham in Norfolk, Hertford, Wallingford in Berkshire and of course,
Tynemouth. Sadly the record concerning Tynemouth is not very
informative.
This Note Concerning the Cell of Tynemouth
At the same time [during the same abbacy, 1077-93], Robert
Mowbray, an illustrious man, an earl, that is to say, of the
Northumbrians, having been made certain of the religion of the church
of St Albans by Abbot Paul, caused the monks of the church of St Albans
to be placed in the church of St Mary of Tynemouth, in which the body
of the Blessed Oswin, king and martyr, rests; and it, with all its
appurtenances, was established by the benevolence of the king and
Archbishop Lanfranc [1070-89] to be the cell of St Albans.
This adds little to the story, other than the fact that Earl Robert
granted Tynemouth to St Albans for it to be reformed in the new manner
- not out of hatred for Bishop William St Calais. Further, the St
Alan's work mentions nothing of the manner or place of Abbot Paul's
death. It would appear that the monks of Durham were not being
totally honest in their entreaties, relying on bluster and forgeries,
rather than honesty and facts.
Despite the Durham monks' protestations, Tynemouth priory remained with
the monks of St Albans. One of the major reasons for this were
the actions of King William Rufus (1087-1100). When he was besieging Newcastle upon Tyne
in the Spring of 1095, the king passed 3 notifications in favour of
Tynemouth and St Albans. In the first he confirmed to St Mary and
St Oswin and the monks of Tynemouth their court with sac and soc, toll
and team and infangthief and wreck and with all the customs belonging
to himself. In the second he informed Bishop William St Calais of
Durham, Robert Picot and all the barons of Northumberland of the same
thing. Finally and presumably at the same time as this document
was witnessed by Eudo Dapifer (d.1120) who had witnessed the previous 2
notifications which were recorded as being made during the siege of Newcastle,
he notified Archbishop Thomas of York and Bishop William of Durham that
he had granted to St Albans the church of Tynemouth with its
appurtenances both north and south of the Tyne, together with all the
gifts made by Earl Robert of Northumberland and his men before the earl
had incurred forfeiture. This last document was also witnessed by
Peter Valognes (d.1109+, Eudo's brother in law) and all 3 were copied
into the chartulary of St Albans abbey. Funnily enough they do
not appear in the Durham account!
With the fall of Earl Robert in 1095, Northumberland had escheated to the Crown. It was therefore either Rufus or more likely King Henry I
(1100-35), who granted various Northern vills to Tynemouth. These
were recorded as being given to the priory during the time of Abbot
Richard of St Albans (1097-1119) and consisted of Monkseaton (Settona), Whitley Bay (Witeleia), North Shields (Sehihala), Stanton (Stantona), Old Bewick (Bewik), Lulburn (Lilleburna), Eglingham (Egulvingham), North Charlton (Chertona), Earsdon (Ardesdona) and Coquet Island. Around the same time it was decided that the revenue from Amble, Coquet Island and the churches of Bywel
and Woodhorn should go directly to St Albans. Of these lands, of
which not all are mentioned in the St Albans' list above, Tynemouth,
Preston, Amble and Hauxley seem to have been granted by Mowbray
himself. Queen Matilda (1100-18) granted Bewick, Lilburn,
Harehope and Wooperton around 1105/06 and Henry I
Whitley Bay, Monkseaton and Seghill in the period after that, but
before 1116. Possibly this royal grant took place in 1110 when St
Oswin was translated from Jarrow to Tynemouth. King Henry
(1100-35) certainly confirmed Tynemouth to the abbot of St Albans with
all its tithes in Northumberland which Earl Robert and his men had
granted them, namely the tithes of Amble, Bothal, Callerton, Corbridge, Disington, Elswick, Newburn, Ovington, Rotherbury, Warkworth
and Wooler. The rest of the priory lands, Backworth, Bebside,
Chirton, Cowpen, Denton, Earsdon, Flatworth, Murton, Welton, Westgate,
West Hartford, Wolsington and Wylam were acquired from lesser men or
from persons unknown, although some were men of the earldom like Guy
Balliol (d.1112/30), Robert Bruce (d.1142) and Gospatric
(d.1138). There were also a variety of rents, some of which were
lost to other institutions, namely St Albans, Durham and the
archbishopric of York.
It was probably in the first half of the reign of Henry I
(1100-35), that Abbot Richard Aubigny of St Albans (1097-1119), with
the unanimous consent of his monks, decreed that Tynemouth priory
should annually pay St Albans 30s and be free of all other demands,
with the abbot keeping in his own hands Amble, Coquet Island and the
churches of Bywell
and Woodhorn. Further the Tynemouth monks were to support him and
up to 20 attendants when they came to the priory for 15 days, unless
the visit were in support of the priory in which case Tynemouth was to
pay his expenses. At the end of September 1111, a workman fell
twice while working on the roofs of the church and dormitory, once some
19', but the worst ill effects he suffered was a sprained ankle.
In 1121, when Geoffrey Gorron was abbot of St Albans (1119-46), the
monks of Durham made an ineffectual attempt to regain the monastery,
based mainly on the hearsay that Earl Mowbray had repented of his gift
after his capture. This has been commented upon above.
Northumberland passed under Scottish control in the late 1130s. An initial attack by the Scots in 1136 was halted by King Stephen at Durham.
Around this time he may have issued a charter granting that Tynemouth
and its lands were to be free of all castle works in
Northumberland. It was possibly also at this time that the king,
from York, granted Prior Richard Tewyng of
Tynemouth, for the reestablishment of his priory, which had been
overthrown and wasted by the frequent attacks of the Scots, were to be
able use their liberties to this effect. Earl Henry of
Northumberland (1138-51), later confirmed the grant of freedom from
castle works.
In January 1138 William Fitz Duncan [Skipton] invaded Northumberland for King David
(1124-53), who followed him soon after and forced Tynemouth priory to
pay 27m (£18) for his protection. During this time the
value of the church increased significantly from the pilgrim trade as
well as by revenue from the lands that appertained to the priory.
These included Benwell, Coquet Island (which may have been granted by
Mowbray, ie before 1095), Earsdon, Monkseaton, North Shields, Whitley
Bay, Woodhorn, Woolsington and Wylam, as well as tithes from Corbridge, Newburn, Rothbury, Warkworth and Wooler.
In 1147 Earl Henry of Northumberland (d.1152) exempted the monks of
Tynemouth from contributing to castle works at Newcastle and all other
castles in his earldom. Then, in 1156, Northumberland was
reclaimed from the Scots by King Henry II
(1154-89). That king subsequently made a charter to Tynemouth
restoring and confirming the monastery lands which he had seized on
account of the flight of Adgar into Scotland and the war against the
king of Scots. The lands held by Adgar were Eglingham, Bewick
and Lilburn, all held by him from the priory and found by inquisition
to be the prior's. It is not certain if this refers to the
reclamation of Northumberland in 1157 or the Young King's War of
1173-74.
Despite all of these disturbances, no attempt seems to have been made
to reclaim Tynemouth by Durham until the 1170s. The resulting
case was heard before Bishop Bartholomew of Exeter (1161-85) during the
pontificate of Pope Alexander III (1159-81). Here the causes of
the old case were repeated by the prior of Durham, backed by what he
claimed were 2 authentic documents. The first was the charter
claimed to have been made by Earl Waltheof confirming Tynemouth to
Durham ‘with everything which it possessed at the time when the
confirmation was made or which it might possess hereafter'. This
was claimed to have been made in the presence of Bishop Walcher who
‘condemned by a perpetual anathema those person who, at any time
whatsoever, should presume to alienate the church of Tynemouth from the
church of Durham'. The second document was the charter of Bishop
William St Calais which was similar in outlook to the confirmation of
Bishop Walcher. It should be pointed out that both charters were
just what the priory needed to substantiate its claim and how
‘lucky' it was to have just 2 such charters surviving.
The prior, claiming that these documents were sufficient to win him his
case, then brought forward various ancient clerks and laymen who lay
witness to Tynemouth having belonged to Durham
before they were expelled violently by the lay power and the monks of
St Albans' intruded into their church. The prior also stated that
as these men were very old and now infirm it would be difficult to make
them come forth and repeat these claims a second time without risking
their lives. Considering that the church had been lost to Durham
around 1091 and they were discussing events happening as early as the
1060s these men in the 1170s must have been very old indeed!
After the prior had presented his case, various monks and clerks from
St Albans came forth and presented letters to the effect that their
abbot was detained in the South by illness. The prior spoke out
against this and demanded justice as both sides had had 6 months to
prepare. The judges then decided to refer the case to the pope,
which brought proceedings to an end.
The pope returned proceedings back to England where 3 judges, the prime
of whom was Bishop Roger of Worcester (1164-79), determined the case on
12 November 1174. There the case was brought to a conclusion by
the application of a compromise. Under this Bishop Hugh Pudsey of
Durham (1153-97), his prior and the whole Durham convent confirmed
Tynemouth with all its appurtenances to St Albans abbey. In
return the abbot of St Albans gave to them Bywell
and Edlingham churches with all their appurtenances after the deaths of
the serving religious there. To confirm the exchange the monks of
St Albans handed over their muniments for the 2 churches and the prior
his for Tynemouth excepting those where the church of Tynemouth had
been confirmed to Durham along with its other possessions which were
not a party to the dispute. With this the Durham monks' vexatious
claim to Tynemouth was allowed to lapse.
It was probably in 1204 when the monks of Tynemouth paid 50m (£33 6s 8d) for a confirmation of their charter and for King John to confirm them in their possessions. These now consisted of Amble, Backworth, Bebside, Bewick, Carlbury (Carleberry), Chirton, Cowpen (Copun), Denum, Dissington [n'r Dalton], Eglingham, Elswick, Darsdon (Erdesdon), Hauxley (Hawkeslaw), Henshaw? (Helleshaw), Lilburn (Lillburne), Millington, Morton in the bishoprick, Morton, Preston, Rayless (Royley), Seaton, Seghill, Ulsington, Whalton? (Weltedon), Whitley Bay and Wylam with the churches of Tynemouth, Bewick, Bolam (Bolum), Coniscliffe (Connyscliff), Eglingham, East Hartford (Hereford) on Blyth, Hartburn (Hertburne), Whalton and Woodhorn, together with the tithes of Corbridge, Hartlepool (Hertness), Middleton on Tees, Newburn, Rothbury, Warkworth and Wooler.
Possibly during the late twelfth century an exile wrote back to St
Albans about his enforced stay at the newly completed church of
Tynemouth. His letter, a copy of it found in a St Albans'
formulary of the fifteenth century, is precised below:
Our house is confined to the
top of a high rock, and is surrounded by the sea on every side but
one. Here is the approach to the monastery through a gate cut out
of the rock, so narrow that a cart can hardly pass through. Day
and night the waves break and roar and undermine the cliff. Thick
sea-frets roll in, wrapping everything in gloom. Dim eyes, hoarse
voices, sore throats are the consequence. Spring and summer never
come here. The north wind is always blowing, and brings with it
cold and snow; or storms in which the wind tosses the salt sea foam in
masses over our buildings and rains it down within the castle (in
castrum). Shipwrecks are frequent. It is a great pity to
see the numbed crew, whom no power on earth can save, whose vessel,
mast swaying and timbers parted, rushes upon rock or reef. No
ring-dove or nightingale is here, only grey birds which nest in the
rocks and greedily prey upon the drowned, whose screaming cry is a
token of the coming storm. The people who live by the sea-shore
feed upon black malodorous sea-weed, called 'slauk', which they gather
on the rocks. The constant eating of it turns their complexions
black. Men, women and children are as dark as Africans or the
swarthiest Jews. In the spring the sea air blights the blossoms
of the stunted fruit trees so that you will think yourself lucky to
find a wizened apple, though it will set your teeth on edge should you
try to eat it. See to it, dear brother, that you do not come to
so comfortless a place.
But the church is of wondrous beauty. It has been
lately completed. Within it rests the body of the blessed martyr
Oswin in a silver shrine, magnificently embellished with gold and
jewels. He protects the murderers, thieves, and seditious persons
who fly to him, and commutes their punishment to exile. He heals
those whom no physician can cure. The martyr's protection and the
church's beauty furnish us with a bond of unity. We are well off
for food, thanks to the abundant supply of fish, of which we tire.
In 1248 the body of Earl Patrick of Dunbar, a descendant of Earl
Gospatric of Northumberland (d.1074), was brought back from his place
of death, Marseilles in France, and buried in the priory. The
castle doesn't seem to have seen action in the Baron's War, but it did
offer refuge to skilled workers. At some time towards the end of
the war a canon of Hexham wrote to the cellarer of Tynemouth stating:
I am sending you Stephen Len,
who is an honest workman and, as I have heard, is skilled in plumbing
and in laying on water. Do not think the worse of him for his
shabby clothes. He has 2 or 3 times lost his all in this war,
which is hardly yet over.
On 13 December 1264, when Simon Montfort (d.1265) was running England,
Abbot Norton of St Alban's made his visitation of Tynemouth. He
met 6 men who owed him military service and received their
homage. He then spent the rest of the month travelling the
priory's domains and taking the fealty of those men who owed it to
Tynemouth. Sometime soon after the 4 August 1265 battle of
Evesham, Sheriff John Halton, wrote to the prior of Tynemouth informing
him that John Vescy (d.1289) had fled the battle and was planning to
cross the Tyne from South Shields so the prior was to guard the ferry
and stop Vescy crossing on pain of royal displeasure. Whatever
the prior did Vescy got through with his treasure, a foot of the
recently killed Simon Montfort, to Alnwick castle.
In 1292 there were disputes between the citizens of Newcastle and the
prior, who had built a quay at North Shields, but was obliged by act of
parliament to destroy it after the men of Newcastle had already laid it
waste and beat the monks they found there. The same year the king
claimed the priory as a royal advowson against the abbot of St
Albans. The abbot, ‘knowing that he could not stand against
the royal power of the plea' threw himself on the king's grace, which
course of action caused the king, under peer pressure, to grant away
his perceived right to the advowson to St Albans. The story is
taken up by the St Albans' chronicler.
In the fifth year of the
abbacy of Abbot John (1290-1301), a rumour was brought to him that the
prior of Tynemouth, who was then called Adam Tewing, was plotting a new
and unusual thing there and, among other things, he was preparing to
resist and rebel against his abbot. The abbot, however, soon
having the matter related as if he had discovered it, as it was easy
for him to believe that he had, immediately, as secretly as he could,
set out for Northumberland; and, arriving at Newcastle,
arranged with the mayor of the said town to bring him to Tynemouth with
a multitude of armed men, secretly and by night; lest the prior should
be invulnerable during the said tumultuousness.
But this thing could not be accomplished, or at least not
accomplished, without the connivance of a certain citizen of Newcastle,
whose name was Henry Scotus. He had been one of the prior's
household and he was esteemed and accepted by all the familiars in the
castle on account of the love between the prior and himself.
Henry, however, being moved by his conversation with the abbot, as soon
as he learned that the abbot would reward him very richly if he
betrayed the prior, his friend; he agreed to do the deed and, setting
out with the abbot, he arrived in silence at the gates of Tynemouth
castle; and having summoned the porter, asked for it to be opened for
him. He [the porter], however, suspecting nothing wrong with him
[Henry], whom he believed to be his master's friend, opened the door
without hesitation.
And lo! suddenly the abbot
rushed in with the crowd which the mayor of Newcastle had gathered and
seized the keys, handing them over to a certain squire who had come
with him, entrusting the guard of the gate to him. Then he [the
abbot] went to the door of the prior's chamber and suddenly knocked,
wanting to have it opened for him. But the former [the prior] had
just come from Matins and, having only put down his hood, was resting
on the blanket on the bed. When he heard the sound of knocking he
inquired who was outside. At once the answer was that it was the
abbot; "Away", said he, "for what would the abbot be doing this
way?" And immediately they rushed into the chamber along with the
abbot and put the said prior in custody, by order of the abbot; after
which in a few days the abbot crossed the sea to the monastery and
installed a new prior in the same cell [Tynemouth]. And he
rewarded the said Henry Scotus lavishly as a reward for his treachery,
giving to him and his heirs, who were legitimately begotten of him,
many lands and liberties in the town of Elswick (Estwik), to the
detriment of the said cell.
It was reported that the
aforesaid Prior Adam of Tynemouth and John Throklow, with some others
of the assembly there, had procured that plea which the king moved
against the abbot on the advowson of Tynemouth priory; so that, when
the abbot was excluded from the right of advocacy and the king was
introduced, he could more freely make his complaints to the king, who
had been their advocate against the abbot... the sudden capture,
and the removal of the said John Thorlow and his accomplices from the
said cell, quite despicably; who, shackled and bound by the bonds of
art, were sent to the monastery [of St Albans].
As it turned out, this was just a minor inconvenience compared to what
was about to happen to Tynemouth. In 1296 the Scots raided as far
south as Hexham which was sacked before the battle of Dunbar brought
the war pretty much to end on 27 April. After the successful
campaign the king, who had by then retired from a subjugated Scotland
to Berwick on Tweed, granted the prior and
convent of Tynemouth a royal licence to crenellate their priory on 5
September 1296. The full text in the pipe roll reads:
For the prior and convent of
Tynemouth. The king sends greetings to all. Know that we
have granted for ourselves and our heirs, to our beloved in Christ
prior and convent of Tynemouth that they themselves may strengthen and
crenellate their aforesaid priory with a wall of rock and stone, and
that they may hold it thus fortified and crenellated to themselves and
their successors without risk or hindrance from us or our heirs or our
justices, or our other bailiffs, or our ministers, or whomsoever.
The earlier descriptions of the site make no doubt that the site was
already a castle before this grant was made. Indeed, it is
specifically mentioned as a stronghold or castle from 1095.
Formally fortified monasteries are rare, certainly compared to normal
castles or religious houses, although churches were often put in a
state of defence when necessary - usually in cases of the utmost
necessity, viz. Wherwell abbey in 1140, Hereford cathedral in
1138. The most obvious examples of fortified priories are to be
found in frontier areas like Kells in Meath, Ireland, Ewenny in
Glamorgan, Wales and Loarre in Castile, Spain. Most
‘fortified churches' in the West hardly count as castles,
especially when compared with the 3 places mentioned above. Most
claimed ‘fortified churches' are pretty pathetic as military
structures, viz. in Ireland the churches of Clonmel, Tiperary;
Hospital, Limerick; Newcastle, County Dublin; Taghmon, Westmeath.
In Portugal there are Coimbra, Guarda and Lisbon, with Flor de Rosa
being a notable exception in being better fortified. Along the
Scottish border with England a few churches like Boltongate, Burgh by Sands,
Great Salkeld and Newton Arlosh are described as defensive and the same
has been claimed of Garway church in Herefordshire. Mostly these
are simply battlemented churches and the battlements probably are of no
great antiquity. Further the claimed thickness of the walls may
have more to do with sustainability of the building, rather than
defensive measures.
King Edward I (1272-1307)
obviously liked Tynemouth, returning there and staying in early
December 1298 and 1299 and finally for a week at the end of June 1301
when the king confirmed the charters of St Albans. His new wife
obviously liked the place too for she stayed there from June to October
1303. The king's final visit was for nearly a fortnight in mid
September 1304, when, with the queen's meditation, Tynemouth fair was
restored to the priors for a full fortnight from his feast day.
Tynemouth's next foray into historical literature occurred during the
ongoing war against the Scots. Around Christmas 1311, the king's
favourite, Piers Gaveston, had returned from exile into the North of
England where he met Edward II (1307-27). Gaveston's return had provoked a baronial uprising and on 4 May 1312, Gaveston and Edward II were surprised by baronial forces at Newcastle on Tyne,
causing the pair to flee to Tynemouth. There they left the queen
and took ship in stormy seas, despite the queen's pleas not to be
abandoned, to Scarborough. The
rebels had no interest in besieging the queen in Tynemouth, where in
1322 she claimed to have been left in mortal danger, and instead set
off to Scarborough after the king and his hated favourite. The story is succinctly told in a royal writ:
Memorandum that Edmund Malo Lacu, seneschal of the lord king's hospital..., before nine o'clock at Newcastle upon Tyne,
on Thursday in the feast of the Ascension of the Lord, in the fifth
year of the king's reign, brought with him the great royal seal, under
the seal of the lords, Adam Osgodeby, Robert Bardelby & William
Ayrmyun, to the king himself at Tynemouth. On the same day, after
midday, Earl Thomas Lancaster came to Newcastle
town with Henry Percy, Robert Clifford and many others with horses and
arms and their retinue; they entered the said town, and stayed there
for 4 days. And the lord the king, on the morrow of the said day
of the Ascension, departed from Tynemouth, and went by boat to Scarborough.
Presumably the king felt the rebels had no intention to pursue the
queen. In this assumption the king proved correct. This
seems more likely than Lancaster baulking at the defences of Tynemouth
castle.
It was soon after this that the castle was put to the test. In
November 1313 the government found it necessary to issue letters of
protection to Prior Robert Norton of Tynemouth against the Scots.
Subsequent to the English defeat at Bannockburn in June 1314, King Robert Bruce (1306-29) attacked Tynemouth, but failed to take the castle, making the place one of the few safe places in the North.
The Scots, meanwhile, engaged in slaughter and plunder throughout Northumbria and the western parts from Carlisle to York,
without any hindrance, and ravaged everything that came in their way
with sword and flame. And it must be known that no place remained
in those parts where the English could safely retreat, except for the
city of Carlisle, and the town of Newcastle on Tyne
and Tynemouth priory and the rest of the castles throughout
Northumbria, which were guarded with tiresome labour and immense
expense.
On 15 September the king issued from York another protection for Tynemouth priory as:
the king wishing to provide
for their security, whose goods and chattels are frequently wasted by
the inroads of the Scots in the county of Northumberland. Nothing
is to be taken of their corn, hay, victuals, carriages or other goods
or chattels for the king's use against their will.
Prior Robert Norton died about this time and was replaced by Richard Tewing who:
well and nobly ruled the cell
with a strong hand in a time of great distress, when for 4 years on end
no serf dared plough and no sower dared sow for fear of the
enemy. Yet nonetheless did he keep the place and not only by his
industry did he honourably maintain the monks, but during that time he
kept within the priory 80 armed men to guard the place, not without
great expense.
In 1317 a local revolt led by Gilbert Middleton, who was occupying Mitford castle, led to the fortress being used as a prison, until the rebel was subsequently caught and executed.
Of a certain treacherous soldier, Gilbert Middleton
Meanwhile it happened that the aforesaid Gilbert Middleton,
after many insults and grievances had often been inflicted by him and
his accomplices on his neighbours and also on the priory of Tynemouth,
when he kept many of his convicted prisoners in the said castle until
they paid a heavy ransom; some noblemen of the country, enduring these
detentions with difficulty and fearing that a similar injury would be
done to them, as if for the deliverance of their own they approached
him under the promise of safety; and, after many words and taunts on
both sides, having set a certain price for them, they then set some
free and handed over some as hostages until the full payment of the
money was made.
With Middleton's removal from the scene the king, with the consent of
the abbot of St Albans, ordered Tyenmouth castle to be handed over to
the custody of John Hausted, to hold at royal pleasure.
Concerning the commitment of the custody of Tynemouth priory.
The king, with the consent of the abbot of St Albans,
entrusts to John Hausted to remain in charge of Tynemouth priory, which
is the cell of the aforesaid abbey, to be held as long as it pleases
the king, for the repulse of the Scots, the king's enemies and rebels,
and for the more secure salvation of the king's people.
Around this time Earl Robert Umfraville of Angus (d.1325) threatened
Prior Richard of Tynemouth with making an example of him as a truce
breaker, unless he handed back 3 ‘poor Scottish boys' who had
came ashore at Tynemouth and been arrested.
In 1321 Walter Selby surrendered at Mitford
with William, the brother of the executed Gilbert Middleton.
Middleton then escaped from Newcastle prison and took refuge in
Tynemouth liberty where a special mandate of the king was required to
finally make the prior surrender him to royal authority on 5 July
1322. The same year, in the aftermath of Edward II's
abortive Scottish campaign, the king's illegitimate son, Adam Fitz Roy
died on 18 September 1322. He was subsequently buried at
Tynemouth priory on 30 September with his father paying for a silk
cloth with gold thread to be placed over his body. Possibly he
had been stationed there with his mother where the king ordered that
she be supported by all the constables of all the castles in the East
March while he himself raised troops and troops were sent to her
aid. In the meantime the queen fortified Tynemouth castle and
then sailed down the coast to safety. Probably immediately after
this on 18 October 1322, Earl David Strathbogie of Atholl (d.1326),
acting for the king, demanded the prior surrender 41 of his armed men
from Tynemouth at Newcastle.
Presumably the earl wished to use them to secure the county against the
Scots. The prior obviously refused this demand and wrote to the
king who on 30 December replied:
To the prior of
Tynemouth. Order to cause a sufficient garrison of fencible men,
both men-at-arms and footmen, to be retained in the priory for the
protection thereof, not permitting the garrison to leave the priory or
any of them to go outside the same, as the prior has the keeping of the
priory at his peril.
To earl David Strathbogie of Athol (d.1326). Order not
to cause any of the garrison of the aforesaid priory to come before him
outside the priory by reason of his appointment to array all the
fencible horsemen and footmen in Northumberland between 16 and 60 years
of age, and to permit the prior and others of the garrison to leave the
priory to make provision of victuals and other necessaries and to
return to the same without molestation, and to counsel and aid the
prior in keeping the priory.
To the sheriff of Northumberland. Order not to molest
the prior and garrison aforesaid by virtue of the order of the said
David to take the prior and others of the garrison and to arrest the
prior's liberty and lands and goods and the lands and goods of the
others, as the king learns from the prior that David has given the
sheriff orders to this effect without expressing any reason for the
same; taking from the prior and the others security to answer to the
king if the said David or others will speak against them in the king's
name for any disobedience in this behalf.
However, the truce made with the Scots did help matters, for now the
prior's neighbours turned upon him and inflicted losses claimed at many
hundreds of pounds. Despite these problems the prior had the
monks' dwellings slated over in 1320 and had a new Lady Chapel built by
1336. The building works probably gives the lie to the prior's
claim to the new King Edward III
(1327-77), that he needed assistance in keeping his soldiers fed, and
unless he received royal aid ‘he must abandon the defence'.
As a result of his plea on 28 September 1327, the government ordered
its receiver of royal victuals at Newcastle
to send to the prior ‘victuals to the value of £20 in aid
of keeping the priory aforesaid against the attacks of the Scotch
rebels as the king has granted this... for his costs and expenses about
the custody of the priory'.
In 1346 King David II of
Scotland (1329-71), invaded Northumberland which caused Prior Thomas de
la Mare of Tynemouth to garrison and supply his priory against
attack. The Scottish commander, William Douglas (d.1353), sent an
arrogant and defiant note to Tynemouth demanding they be ready to get
his supper in 2 days, but he was soon captured at the battle of
Neville's Cross and brought a prisoner into Tynemouth. There the
prior served him his supper, much to his chagrin. At this time
Walsingham claimed that Ralph Neville (d.1367), the custodian of the
Scottish March, was sending Scotsmen to Tynemouth castle on the grounds
that it was a royal fortress and he needed it to contain his Scottish
prisoners. As a result Prior Thomas had to go to the royal court
at Langley and prove that the castle was not a royal fortress and in so
doing retain possession. After this the prior spent £70 on
moving and improving the shrine of St Oswin as well as works on the
priory which included £90 on new brattishing (bracinae) around the dormitory and £80 on other works. There then followed a period of relative peace for Tynemouth.
In the 1380s war was resumed with Scotland and ‘the poor
chaplains, prior and convent of Tynemouth' found themselves constrained
to inform the king:
that whereas their said
priory has been long time and still is one of the strong fortresses of
the North, and now by the inroad of the sea, the walls of the said
priory are in great part fallen, and the rents of the said priory are
in no way sufficient to repair them as well as to bear their other
charges, because great part of their said rents lies near the march of
Scotland and is destroyed by the enemy, therefore the said prior and
convent pray our lord the king and his council to assign them some
reasonable aid, whereby they pray to be recovered, to the saving of the
said priory and fortress and of the country round about.
The result was the king, on 20 February 1380, granting them the right
to acquire lands and tenements amounting to £20 yearly
rent. This would hardly be sufficient for the repairs the castle
seemed to be in need of and the amount of money that was eventually
assigned to the job.
In 1384 the prior complained again that the sea walls and the priory
buildings were in decay and that they suffered a ‘constant mortal
pestilence' of Scottish invasions. In 1389 a Scottish army
reached the Tyne and eventually appeared under the castle walls and
asked to parley. The cellarer went out to speak with them, but in
the meantime the Scottish host began to fire the town.
Consequently a soldier of the garrison shot a sergeant of the earl of
Moray. In the ensuing uproar the cellerar was almost killed, but
he managed to regain the castle stating that he would heal the fellow
and return him to Scotland at his own expense. In light of this
attack and the prior's petition for aid, which was supported by the
dukes of Lancaster and Gloucester as well as the earls of Huntingdon
and Northumberland, the king assigned £500 to the prior on 23
February 1390. The full royal text ran:
For the prior and convent of Tynemouth; greetings to all from the king.
The abbot and convent of the abbey of St Albans, beloved of
us in Christ, besought us that, with the priory of Tynemouth in the
county of Northumberland, a cell of the same abbey, which is situated
above the sea port and the mouth of the River Tyne, has sustained such
and excessive destruction of its lands and possessions by our
adversaries the Scots, that the great tower and the gate and the
greater part of the walls of the said priory, facing the sea, are
prostrated to the ground by such misfortune; considering that all the
goods of the abbey and their priory are not sufficient for the
reparation of the same priory, which used to exist as a fortress and a
refuge for the whole country in time of war... we would like,
considering the damage and loss to the premises of the whole country
aforesaid if the said castle should be taken by our enemies for want of
speedy reparation, which is far off, that the aforesaid abbot, prior,
and convent, unless they have great help and succour from us in this
matter, are unable to defend and repair the same priory itself a
castle, ...to order that the same priory or castle to which the abbot,
the prior, and the assembly, as they asserted, will gradually apply
their full power to do the same, and it will be repaired with all
possible haste. We, having due regard to the aforesaid petition
and other considerations, first for the honour of God and subsequently
at the request of our dearest uncles the dukes of Lancaster and
Gloucester and our dearest brother the earl of Huntingdon and to our
dear kinsman the earl of Northumberland, by our special grace have
granted to the same abbot, prior, and convent to have £500 by a
sufficient assignment to be paid within the next 2 years in aid of the
repair of the aforesaid priory.
The grant was summarised in Walsingham thus:
The Subsidising of Tynemouth
At the same time, the king, through the solicitous mediation
of the dukes of Lancaster and Gloucester, as well as the earl of
Northumberland, and with the help of the counsel of the venerable
father Lord Abbot Thomas of St Albans, granted as much as possible, as
it is thought, £500 to repair the ruin which had happened at
Tynemouth, at the gate of the priory, the previous year. To
accomplish this work, the said duke of Lancaster gave £100 out of
his own treasury, and the earl of Northumberland contributed 100m
(£66 13s 4d).
The implication of this could well be that although the king
‘assigned' £500 for the work the prior only received
£166 13s 4d from the 2 nobles. Assignments were an attempt
to pretend the royal treasury went further than it really did and those
poor souls who had an assignment, often had great trouble in converting
the tallies into cash. It is claimed, not unreasonably, that this
money allocated by the king was used to build the new castle
gatehouse. That said the arms of a certain Robert Rhodes, claimed
to have been prior of Tynemouth around the middle of the reign of Henry
VI (1422-71), are said to have been displayed upon the gatehouse until
taken down by Governor Villiers in 1705 and sent to Dr Ellison, the
vicar of Newcastle. This may suggest that the completion of the
gatehouse is somewhat later than the 1390s.
The fifteenth century was generally kind to Tynemouth castle. In 1415 it was recorded in the Nomina Castrorum et Fortaliciorum infra Comitatum Northumbrie as having been:
built upon ye remains of ye
Tunnocellum of ye Romans. It is at present a garrison and in it a
company of Foot and 60 Invalides, a master guner and a store
keeper. In it is ye ruins of the old parish church and an abby -
the latter very beautiful...
Half a century later Margaret of Anjou landed briefly here in 1462 as part of her campaigns around Bamburgh castle,
but she didn't stop. A strong garrison seems to have been
retained at Tynemouth and when Prior Stonywell greeted Princess
Margaret in 1503, when she was on her way north to marry the king of
Scotland, he was ‘well appointed and in his company had 30
horses, his men in livery'. Despite this, both castle and priory
were in a state of some ruin by the death of the prior. On 3 July
1527, it was reported that there were many;
decays within the castle
walls of the priory which are numerous and expensive... the necessary
repairs for this year [being] especially the glass windows and leads of
the church and the barns and garners for the corn.
At some point between 1528 and 1536, the castle was attacked by Henry
Ewer and Richard Bellyees, esquires. Just before Christmas they
entered the priory gate with force and arms and held court within the
abbey precincts. There they were joined by the knights John
Delavale and Thomas Hilton (d.1559) who claimed stewardship of the
place by right. They seized the priory bursar who was out on his
rounds and detained him for 2 days, while Thomas More was virtually
besieged within the priory itself, fearing to be murdered by the
attackers. Consequently he wrote to the king for help. The
result was Henry VIII (1509-47) in Star Chamber writing to all 4
insurgents, but nothing further is recorded of the matter.
Possibly this was all to do with the dissolution of the
monasteries. During this, it was found that Prior Gardener and 7
of the 15 Tynemouth monks were in need of removal, while the church
itself had a rental value of £509. Found within it were the
shrine of St Oswin, the cup of St Cuthbert, the finger of St
Bartholomew and the girdle of St Margaret. The attack on the
monasteries helped lead to the Pilgrimage of Grace in October
1536. During this, the local population stripped the priorless
priory of its sheep, cattle and corn, withheld their rent and
threatened to enter the priory by force. Interestingly Thomas
Hilton was asked to help restore order, with the aid of the duke of
Norfolk, who appears through a confusion of the Mowbray surname, to
have regarded himself as founder of the priory. The monastery was
finally handed over to the king on 12 January 1539 and the shrine of St
Oswin desecrated and his alleged bones cast away. Hilton was then
assigned the monastery site and various of its lands and rents for
£163 1s 5d yearly rent. The term of this was to be 21 years.
King Henry VIII (1509-47) ordered the castle to be fortified as a
supply base for war against Scotland and in 1544 the fleet assembled
here for the war of Rough Wooing. This resulted in an apprisal of
the castle defences in January 1545 with Richard Lee being ordered to
view the castle and carry out what fortifications he thought
necessary. The following report stated that Tynemouth was
‘a place so needful to be fortified as none within the realm
more'. The plan consisted of fortifying the south side of the
harbour and joining that to new outworks west of the castle gate by a
wall and also by fortifying the landward castle wall for
artillery. The report stated that the spades, shovels, mattocks
and baskets to allow the work to go forward were already within the
fortress, stored there since the start of the war last year. With
great speed work began on 21 February 1545 and continued until 19
July. For this work 1,000 workmen were impressed with
£2,118 6s being spent on general wages and £233 8s 6d on
masons and other artisans. Nails, boards and ironwork were also
purchased bringing the total expenditure up to £2,633 4s
3d. This suggests that the old castle and priory were the source
of the stone for the new defences.
The new fortress was sufficiently completed for thoughts of garrisoning
it to be broached on 30 April 1546, with the earl of Shrewsbury sending
a letter to the king which stated that if he understood correctly he
should appoint someone captain with:
200 or 300 men to lie in
garrison at Tynemouth for the defence and safeguard of your highness'
new fortifications there: for the accomplishment whereof, considering
that there be at Tynemouth at this present about a thousand workmen or
more, whereof, as we be informed, may be picked out about 400 able and
tall men, we have thought mete to take order for the sending thither of
harness and weapon to furnish a good number of them, which shall both
supply the works and remain there as soldiers for defence of the said
fortress, as the case shall require, without putting your majesty to
any further charge for the wages which they have already as
workmen. And for the better order of them in case of defence, if
enemies shall approach, we have not only taken order with one John
Norton of Clydderowe, who is a hard gentleman and of good experience of
the wars, to repair forthwith unto Tynemouth, to reside there and to
join with John Brende, your majesty's servant, who has the oversight
and order of the said works to be as captains to the said workmen; but
also we have appointed Hugh Boyfelde, master of your majesty's
ordinance in these parts, to send unto Tynemouth aforesaid from
Newcastle a cannon, a saker, 2 falcons and 2 slynges, for to be placed
for the time in such places of the said fortress as shall be most mete
for defence; and also the country thereabouts shall be in a readiness
to repair thither for defence at all times as the case shall
require. This order we have thought best to be taken in this
behalf, both for the avoiding of your majesty's further charge, and
also for that victuals be so scarce that there is much ado to get
sufficient for the said workmen which be already at Tynemouth as is
aforesaid.
Two days later a force of 1,300 Spanish mercenaries arrived at Newcastle
and some of these were placed in Tynemouth, giving their name to the
new Spanish Battery, while Francis Leeke was appointed governor, with
Thomas Hilton (d.1559) offering him, ‘not only his farm and
stewardship [of the priory], but all that he had in the world besides,
to be at the king's majesty's pleasure'. As a result Leake
received some £81 14s 10d pa in consideration of his remaining
captain of Tynemouth for life. He also disbanded many of the
garrison, finding that 50 men were quite sufficient with a reserve as
‘the footmen within the lordship of Tynemouth should be attendant
upon the castle there'. To augment his garrison 3 culverins and a
saker were dispatched to him from Newcastle. On 19 January 1546,
Leeke was given a warrant for ‘£20 towards making a church
at Tynemouth'. Presumably this involved the nave being made into
the parish church. Leake did not last that long as captain, for
on 5 April 1549 he was succeeded by the ubiquitous Thomas Hilton
(d.1559). During 1558, Captain Thomas Hilton, was ordered to
remove his ordnance ‘to the end that the inhabitants might use
the church for the hearing Devine service'. He was succeeded by
Henry Percy (1532-1585), the brother of Earl Thomas Percy of
Northumberland, who on 5 August 1561 was instructed by the earl of
Rutland:
I require you, upon the entry
of any strange ship, especially French or Scottish, into Tynemouth
haven or road, to cause some trusty man of yours to search the
same. If there be any matter that carries with it any manner of
suspicion, give orders that the ships be courteously stayed and I
speedily advertised. I do understand by special intelligence that
there is like to happen such things of importance as, being well
foreseen and stayed, may highly advance her highness' service.
Use diligence and good circumspection in this service, as the same may
lend to a good end.
The good service would have been capturing Queen Mary of Scotland who
was sailing from France back to Scotland. Would not history have
been different, if due to a Percy of Tynemouth she had not made
it. However, in 1563 he did take charge of the fugitive Earl
James Hepburn of Bothwell, lord of Hermitage castle
and future husband of Queen Mary, at Tynemouth. Bothwell remained
for a year where Percy found him ‘courteous and honourable' and
that he was ‘very wise and not the man he was reported to be... I
doubt not but that this realm will find him a friend for his usage
here'. In 1566 Henry had complained of the parish church being
within his castle as it was much visited by strangers who landed in the
port, much to Henry's annoyance. Consequently he suggested
building a new church in the town.
Captain Henry Percy's brother, Earl Thomas (d.1572), was a leader of
the Rising of the North against Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603), but Henry
distanced himself from his relatives and was seen by contemporaries as
one who contributed largely to its failure. After the failure of
the rebels in the South during December 1568, Percy mustered all the
men he could, guarded the Tyne and placed a garrison of 200 men in
Tynemouth castle, forcing the rebels to retreat west of his
forces. Despite this, in 1570 he was involved in the dubious
Ridolfi plot to free Queen Mary from Tutbury castle
and marry her to the similarly 3 times married duke of Norfolk.
On hearing of the plot's collapse, Percy hurried south to proclaim his
innocence, leaving his castle porter, John Metcalf, to hand the castle
keys over to the king's men when they arrived. They reported back
to the Crown that the ordnance with only a hundredweight of serpentine
powder and 100 shot was ‘almost useless for want of stocks,
ladles, sponges and wheels', while, ‘munition is needed and a
master gunner of skill should be assigned as the castle is destitute of
one'. As a result Percy was charged with criminal negligence, but
not treason, and he fined 5,000m (£3,333 6s 8d) for his freedom
and the privilege of retaining Tynemouth as an absentee captain, but
with the castle under a suitable deputy.
After the death of his brother Thomas in 1572, Henry was made earl of
Northumberland in 1576, but again plotted against the Crown, consenting
to the Throckmorton plot of 1583. This caused him to be stripped
of Tynemouth, despite his appeal for clemency. Again the castle
was found in a poor state with there being only 10 pieces of ordnance
in the place, with each gun having only 5 to 9 shot a piece and all to
be fed from a single barrel of powder, while there were also 16
unserviceable harquebuses. There were no calivers (an early
handgun), pikes , bills, spades, nails, pickaxes or lanterns and worst
of all, no match. Further the castle walls were in ruin with the
cost of repair being estimated at £500 ‘only for
workmanship, besides lime and stone where they have sufficient
store'. Francis Russell, it's new captain, repeatedly decried the
castle's dilapidated state, but nothing was done about it, despite the
released earl of Northumberland's new plot to unseat the queen.
Henry was arrested again and finally found in his prison bedchamber in
the Tower of London shot through the heart on 21 June 1585.
Although suicide was claimed, it seems few believed that tale. On
1 July an inventory was taken of the castles. This found:
First there is upon the mount
head a saker and 2 falcons mounted upon carriages; not serviceable in
the store house a falcon without carriage; a demi-colveryn of brass
mounted upon unshod carriage; a demi-colveryn of iron mounted upon
unshod carriage; a flanker of iron and fower chambers not serviceable;
upon the back side of the barns a demi-colveryn of brass mounted upon
carriage not serviceable; in the church yard a saker of brass mounted
upon decayed carriage; in the mather yard a saker of iron mounted upon
decayed carriage; 17 falcon shot of iron; 11 saker shot of iron; 26
demi-colveryn shot of iron: 60 stone shot; a falcon ladle; a saker
ladle; a demi-colveryn ladle; one sponge; one old decayed harquebus of
crock; more in the store house 20 harquebuses, broken and not
serviceable; 22 old plates of iron; 4 collars and traces for cart
horses not serviceable; 48 sheaves of old decayed arrows not
serviceable; 2 cressett heads; 2 bill heads; 8 cloven shot for small
pieces; 3 small pieces of webbes of lead which were parcel of a
sestern: a piece of a strake of iron for a whele; a bow chest wanting a
covering; a body of a cart not serviceable; more 3 parcels of webbes of
lead taken of the steeple; more a broad plate of iron; 3 cranes to
mount ordinance not furnished nor serviceable; in the church one old
salt pan of iron decayed; more 12 sundry pieces and a rownde bottom,
parcels of decayed salt pans of iron; in the hall 10 old decayed
corslets with burgonettes and collars; more in the store house certain
pieces of timber which were the whole frame of an old decayed house
taken down, and some other odd pieces of timber.
A month later Russell was murdered during a parley with the Scots at
Cocklaw. An inventory was then made of Tynemouth castle on 14
October 1585. This found that there were in the hall various red and black woollen
hangings, a table with a pair of trestles, 2 formes and 2
benches. The outer parlour contained a framed table of wainscot,
a table with a pair of trestles, 3 formes and benches, a plate
candlestick, an iron chimney, green hangings and a portal with a
door. Within the great chamber was a framed table of wainscot
with drawing leaves, a square framed table of wainscot in the window, 6
busset stools, a wainded screen, a pair of playing tables without men,
a spring lock on the door and a shelf with trestle. In the
[bedroom] was a bedstead of wainscot, a cupboard and lockers of
wainscot about the chamber, a table with 2 trestles with 3 locks and 3
keys. The galleries contained hangings of green sage (saies).
In the Red Chamber were red hangings, a red chair with embroidered
back, a cupboard with a soldered frame, an iron chimney, a standing
walnut bedstead and a portal with a door, lock and key. The study
contained blue sage (says)
hangings with a cupboard with lock, but no key. The blue chamber
was hung with blue woolen hangings, a chair with an embroidered blue
back, a standing bedstead, an iron chimney, a lock without tree and a
matted chair of ease. In the inner chapel chamber with greyde
hangings and an iron chimney. There were 3 other chambers which
contained a lead water spout, a great banded chest with 2 locks and a
key. There were also Edmund's chamber, the cook's chamber, a
chamber over Dune's Lodge, the high white hall, the low white hall, the
porter's lodge, the laundry house, the inner brewing house, the outer
brewing house, the baking house, the buttery, the larder house, the
kitchen and the pantry.
Ten years later in 1596 the castle was in a worse state. A report of that year stated:
Tynemouth castle, since the
decease of the late earl of Northumberland, is fallen into great decay,
and, by reason that the lead is taken off several lodgings, the timber
floors and timber above the cellars and larder and many other necessary
houses of office are like utterly to be decayed and wasted if the roof
be not forthwith covered again with slate or otherwise. The
bakehouse and other houses of office are either pulled down or suffered
to fall down, and the timber and slates thereof conveied. Also
there is munition there planted in several places about the castle,
viz: on the mount one saker of brass and 3 falcons of brass all lying
on the grass unmounted with their carriage crushed under them; in the
madder garth one saker of iron lying in like case; in the church yard
one saker of brass in like sort unmounted with her carriage rotten
crushed under her; in the bulwark in Tynemouth park one saker of brass
lying in like sort; in the storehouse 3 sakers of brass with whole
carriage and one fowler without a carriage; and not so much as one shot
or discharge of powder for any of the aforesaid pieces within the
castle at this instant if they were mounted. There is furniture
for soldiers in the armoury but 14 muskets, bandoleers, and rests, 10
petronels (petronelles, a horseman's muzzle-loader), 20 pikes, 19
halberds, but neither powder nor shot at all for the same pieces nor
training of men for present service if need required. The decay
and naked estate of this house is so corned to pass by reason that the
custody thereof has been committed unto several deputies since the late
earl of Northumberland deceased, who have rather suffered decay then
any way procured reformation, as upon view and inquisition thereof had
and made may and will appear. Also Peter Delavale, gentleman,
since Candlemas last gards the said castle as deputy unto the now earl
of Northumberland, and has several times since his entry informed the
earl of the decay of munition and want of provision and furniture for
defence of the house whereby his honour might move for reformation,
which as yet is not had. There is in Tynemouth castle of able men
attending Peter Delavale. deputy captain there, and his brother Ralph
Delavale, 20 able men, all which serve the said Peter and have
entertainment there.
By 1608 the castle cannon had finally been recarriaged, but the church
and castle were left in a state in great decay as for ‘the most
part of the houses are so ruined that without some present cost they
are not fit to lodge any person'. In 1635, William Brereton
reported of Tynemouth that although ‘the fairest church I have
seen in any castle, but now it is out of repair and much
neglected'. As a result of this the castle was abandoned and then
occupied by the advancing Scots in August 1640. They then
fortified the place and supplied it with good ordnance, before
withdrawing at the end of the Bishop's War on 21 August 1641. It
is surprising then, that a year later, when the Civil War began, the
castle was found to be ruinous and indefensible, meaning 2 little
temporary forts had to be constructed on either side of the Tyne to
control the river, until 300 soldiers and some ordnance could be
supplied. In the meantime money and goods poured into the royal
coffers at Newcastle from Holland.
In February 1644 the Scottish army appeared on the Tyne and put pressure on Newcastle
and Tynemouth, but both places held out. After the
Parliamentarian victory at Marston Moor in 1645, the castle was closely
besieged and plague struck the garrison. After 5 weeks of this
the garrison decided to capitulate on easy terms and marched out the
same evening leaving to the victors 29 or 38 pieces of ordnance, 50
barrels of powder, 500 muskets, ball and match. Scottish
garrisons in the North now included Hartlepool, Newcastle, Stockton, Thirlwall, Tynemouth and Warkworth.
After the capture of Charles I at Newark by the Scots in 1645, they took him to Newcastle
and then Tynemouth during negotiations over his future - the keys of
Tynemouth being delivered to the captive king's keeping! On
Christmas night 1646, a Dutch ship sailed into Tynemouth Bay to rescue
the captive king, but Charles could not get from Newcastle
to the ship. As the Scots returned northwards the custody of
Charles was surrendered to Parliament and in January 1647 Tynemouth
castle was quietly delivered to General Skipton who established a
Parliamentarian garrison there. Parliament then ordered that
£5,000 should be made available for the fortification of Newcastle and Tynemouth.
During 1648, in the Second Civil War, the governor of Tynemouth, Henry
Lilburn, changed sides resulting in the castle being besieged.
Yesterday between 2 and 3 of
the clock in the afternoon, Lieut-Col Lilburn, being deputy-governor of
that castle, commanded most of the officers upon several services out
of the castle, and then armed and set at liberty the prisoners, and
plucked up the drawbridge, and told the soldiers, that he would pistol
every soldier that would not be for himself and King Charles.
Whereupon many ran over the works, and a very honest and faithful
corporal, refusing to deliver up his arms to him upon those terms, he
thrust him through the body and killed him. And immediately he
shot off several pieces of ordnance, declaring that he kept the castle
for King Charles, and sent to the Shields and other adjacent towns, and
made proclamation for all that loved him and King Charles, to come to
the castle for his assistance; and many seamen and others came to him
immediately.
So soon as I heard the sad
news of his traitorous revolt, I commanded a very considerable body of
foot to be drawn out of the regiments in this garrison, under the
command of Lieut-Col Ashfield, and sent also 100 dragoons with
them. I sent also many ladders down by water and gave orders to
storm the castle that night whatsoever happened.
Between one and two of the clock this morning they drew near
to the castle. Lieut-Col Lilburn fired 4 pieces of ordnance upon
them as they came up. Major Cobbet led on the forlorn hope.
They took no notice at all of the cannon, but, when they came within
twenty yards of the works, bringing their ladders with them, they gave
a great shout and fell on. The works are exceeding high, and,
though their ladders were long, they could not easily get up; the enemy
still, as they mounted, with pikes and gunners' ladles pushed them
down. Some storming at the gunholes, the enemy were forced to
come so high upon the works that our soldiers underneath shot them into
the bellies and killed divers of them; but at last ours mounted the
works, recovered the castle, and killed many seamen and others; and,
amongst the number that were slain, they found Lieut-Col Lilburn.
Lilburn was then decapitated and his head displayed on the castle
walls. By 1650 the church was described as quite ruined while in
1659 part of the church collapsed killing 5 or 6 Parliamentarians who
were taking an oath to uphold the state. Around this time a new
church was being built in North Shields to replace Tynemouth church.
In 1663 the fortifications of Tynemouth were again overhauled and a
governor's house built just northeast of the church. During this
phase a new lighthouse was built to replace the one which had collapsed
in 1659. This was finally demolished 200 years later in
1859. By 13 April 1675, the east chapel of the old priory had
been appropriated to the new church and baptisms commenced there.
Meanwhile the castle had been refortified at a cost of some £200
in 1665. Despite this, baptisms continued within the castle until
1810 when the chapel became a powder magazine. Burials continued
within the castle on the site of the chancel and lady chapel until
1826, while the castle defences were repeatedly up to World War II and
remained in operation protecting the valuable east country ports until
1960.
Description
The current fortification consists of an irregular rock headland
projecting eastwards into the North Sea. From the south the site
somewhat resembles a legless dromedary about 500' north to south by
700' wide at its maximum extents. Centrally within this are the
remains of the priory church. Obviously the main defences lie on
the west side where the headland joins the mainland. This front
is highly irregular, dropping back to the east the further south the
enceinte runs. The bulk, if not all, of the early seawall has
collapsed down the cliff due to sea erosion. Luckily the castle
is not quite in Scotland so climate change cannot be blamed for this... yet.
The castle part of the remaining monument consists primarily of a
strong wall on top of a rampart with a ditch in front of it cutting the
neck of the headland off from the mainland. The original castle
enceinte was over 3,000' long, although, as has been noted, this has
now collapsed with its cliff into the sea. The statement in 1390:
...the great tower and the
gate and the greater part of the walls of the said priory facing the
sea are prostrated to the ground...
suggests that a keep and maybe a water gate once stood to the east,
facing the sea. Certainly such structures could feasiblely have
lain east of the priory church. Indeed, at Scarborough,
the Roman keep as well as some of its associated enceinte stand
precariously on the undercut cliffs of the rock. Similarly the
outer curtain around the rock top there has also largely
disappeared. The erosion at Tynemouth, if anything, seems far
worse than that at the later site of Scarborough.
The Mount
It has been suggested that remains of the first ‘Norman' castle
may survive in the large mound of earth known as The Mount. This
is situated at the southwest corner of the promontory and is some 20'
high, with a basal diameter of probably somewhat over 120'. Such
a structure might have been a motte and has generally been assigned as
being the heart of Mowbray's castle in 1095. However, the
accounts of the siege of that year mention no motte, but the defence of
a perimeter, rather than a main defensive structure, like a keep on a
motte. If there was a motte then surely Mowbray would have
retreated to that and not a church. Further, if the motte fell to
siege, Mowbray could hardly have fled that to the church which would
already have been occupied by the enemy who had broken into the
perimeter. Indeed the idea of building a true Norman motte on a
headland crag which is already a dominating feature seems
unlikely. More likely this was mound was constructed for Henry
VIII (1509-47) and was The Mount Head mentioned in the survey of 1590.
As it stands The Mount seems to have had its probable centre set some
50' back from the front of the gatetower. Further, the lower
slopes of the mound encase the base of the gatetower which would
suggest that the earthwork postdates the stonework. Additionally
there is no trace of a ditch around the mound. Most likely this
was a sixteenth century artillery earthwork. Certainly the base
of a wall runs down the mound to the west, probably to link up with the
seventeenth century ravelin before the gatehouse. Finally, there
is the point that mottes are not common in Northumberland, but when
they do appear they are generally impressive, viz. Elsdon, Harbottle, Mitford, Wark and Warkworth.
Starting at the northwest corner of the enceinte are the slight remains
of the possibly fourteenth century Whitley Tower, now divorced from the
seventeenth century artillery wall by some 40' of slope. This
rectangular tower, once 3 storeys high, would have covered the medieval
approach to the castle that came upon the gatehouse from the
northwest. Possibly the tower was built at the same time as the
barbican.
The main approach from the northwest led to the large rectangular
gatehouse protected by its own barbican. This in turn was
surrounded by a seventeenth century ravelin of which little
remains. The gatehouse consisted of a rectangular block about 58'
east to west by 35' deep. Slightly off centre in this is a reset
vaulted gate passageway containing 3 gates. The latter one is
probably a later addition in a single storey rectangular projection
that added a chamber above the exit of the passageway. This
chamber was entered via a narrow doglegged passageway cut into the east
wall of the gatehouse. On the outer face of the block the front
has a vague appearance of a twin towered gatehouse, but the slight
projections the reset makes hardly qualifies it for such a
description. The quoins on these projections are chamfered.
Above the main gate is a relieving arch. The stonework under that
is different to the stonework above, suggesting that this might be
later infill. Immediately above the relieving arch is a large
window. A similar one is at the floor above. Within the
passageway are 2 doorways leading into large chambers on either
side. Probably these were ordinally guard chambers. What is
missing in this defence is a drawbridge.
On the first floor was a great hall with access to a large rectangular
kitchen tower to the southeast. Set in the northeast wall of this
was a circular stair leading to the upper floors and battlements.
On the floor above was another large chamber. Centrally in the
north wall of the gatehouse was a curtain wall of which traces still
survive. At second floor level there is a very large rectangular
fissure in the wall which was either a window or a doorway. This
may have fed the ancient wallwalk. In the eastern corner is a
small, partially blocked doorway which feeds onto a slight reset in the
gatehouse wall. On the south side the curtain is better
preserved, while a gash in the top storey suggests that a door once fed
into the centre of the wall. Presumably this went to a garderobe,
but it is at a very high level and the current curtain is not very
thick at this level or lower. In the southeast corner of the
tower the remains of a round bartizan surmounts the turret. Old
prints show that there were once 3 more on the other corners. The
gatehouse was modernised in 1784 when all the remaining monastic
buildings were destroyed.
The Barbican
Fronting the gatehouse was a twin turreted barbican of which only the
lower storeys remain. This allowed for an extra 2 gates and a
portcullis to be added to the defences, but no drawbridge. The
structure was originally of 3 storeys and it's sharply pitched roof
crease can still be made out cut into the gatehouse west wall.
The Enceinte
Of the enceinte the main medieval remains lie to the south. After
The Mount the curtain runs southeast in a series of turns and dog legs
to the remnants of a projecting D shaped turret. This part of the
curtain has some crude, low battlements. At the turret the walls
divided with one heavily rebuilt section moving away to the east, the
other running south-east towards the harbour shore. The latter
has a buttress in it and ends after some 90' at the sad remnant of a
rectangular gatetower that was still standing in the eighteenth
century. Its rectangular form would tend to suggest an early
date, as too would what appears to have been blind arcading at its
summit as still apparently existed in the eighteenth century. The
sad remnant of this tower consists of small reused almost square pieces
of what may have been ashlar masonry, possibly taken from a Roman
site. It is currently roughly coursed into a rather jagged
wall. From here a wall ran off to the eastern side of the crag
above the harbour marking the outer extent of the enceinte to the
south. This portion of the crag has since disappeared.
There was once a large rectangular tower half way along this
front. Possibly this was the keep mentioned in 1390.
From the much damaged rectangular gatetower a wall ran on to the
Spanish battery on the other side of the harbour. An outer wall
ran a little distance to the west of this, coming down from the
gatehouse ravelin. However, improvements to the harbour seem to
have removed this in its entirety. Of the rest of the enceinte
most has now fallen into the sea, although some faceless revetting of
the rock face to the north, still standing some 30' high, appears to be
original.
The Lighthouse
Making the site somewhat similar to Dover, Tynemouth had one of the
earliest recorded monastic lighthouses. It would appear that it
originally consisted of a coal fire in an open brazier situated in one
of two turrets which flanked the east end of the presbytery.
The Cross Shaft
Set within the claustral ranges is an incomplete and badly worn cross
shaft, thought to have been a ninth century boundary or wayside
cross. This originally stood near Monkhouse Farm northwest of
Tynemouth, but has been moved to the priory site. It stands some
6' tall and is 1½' wide by just under a foot deep.
Detailed study has suggested that the west side has 2 panels showing a
hunting scene and 3 animals. The south side also had 2 panels
showing 2 animals on an interlaced background as well as 3 pairs of
beasts. On the north side were 2 panels with a foliated design,
while on the final, east side was a tree scroll.
The Church
Excavation has so far found no trace of any early church structures on
the site, other than possible conventional buildings. What
remains seems to date from 3 main building phases, the first
‘Norman' foundation and then additions in the thirteenth and
fifteenth centuries. The entire surviving fabric of the church is
some 300' long, mainly due to the extensions made to the east.
The whole consisted of a nave and choir, both with aisles transepts and
a thirteenth century presbytery, overlying its predecessor. To
the far east is the fifteenth century Percy Chantry and at the opposite
end is the western doorway of a similar date in another
extension. The tracery in the Percy Chapel rose window is as late
as the nineteenth century.
The rather small cloister, roughly 80' square, was entered through 2
doorways in the south aisle, one of which was a fine Romanesque
specimen. The cloisters are largely destroyed, with little but
foundations remaining. The same is largely true of the rest of
the older ‘Norman' structure with most of the surviving masonry
being later. The prior's lodgings, including hall and chapel,
stand south of the cloister.
On the north side of the priory lay the outer court. This
consisted of 2 large yards. Excavation in 1963 uncovered part of
these buildings. They seem to have consisted of store houses,
barns and stables and possibly a sacristy and a priest's house.
In the mid twelfth century a guest house and the dormitory still had
thatched roofs as a fire nearly burned the place down. In 1980
excavation found the large aisled barn, known from historical evidence
as the wheat barn.
Copyright©2022
Paul Martin Remfry