Orleton Church
Orleton originally belonged to Queen Edith, the widow of King Edward the Confessor, who give it the second part of its name. After her death it passed to the Mortimers of Wigmore in 1075. By 1291 the church had been granted to Wigmore abbey.
Orleton church has a Norman nave, although its one surviving original window is now blocked by the building of the probably thirteenth century tower. The west door would appear to be a reset twelfth century structure. The thirteenth century south door has been blocked, while the north door is probably early fourteenth century. The chancel with lancet windows is probable of a similar date to the tower, while the roof and some fragments of medieval glass may well be fourteenth century. There is a fine early font with carvings of nine apostles.
Within the church are some extremely interesting carvings
said to relate to the involvement of Roger Mortimer with Queen
Isabella. However this and the supposed link to the Herefordshire school of sculptors is unproven.
Comments by Ian Mortimer on the Orleton carvings
These are clearly curious carvings. Often one finds royal heads like
this on tombs from the period but to find them freestanding, so to
speak, on the wall of a church is unusual.
The main question that comes to mind is 'are these Edward II, Isabella,
Orleton, Mortimer etc'. In considering this we need to be aware that
the historical associations of a place like Orleton can lead to
suggestions, which in turn lead to rumours, which in turn lead to
traditions and eventually accepted facts. As far as I know there is no
direct medieval evidence for the identity of these figures.
I doubt very much that the references are based on more than the
above-mentioned suggestion/rumour/tradition/fact model. The main reason
for my scepticism is the reference to Piers Gaveston. Patrons of
livings normally only paid for sculpture when they wanted to
commemorate someone, and though that often included the king and queen
of the day and their ancestors, such commemorations usually only
included the donor's own immediate family and ancestors. Roger
Mortimer's endowment of Leintwardine Chantry, for instance, included
prayers for Edward II and Edward III and their wives, himself, his own
wife and their ancestors and children. The only additional name to this
list was that of Bishop Burghersh of Lincoln, Roger Mortimer's closest
political ally and a kinsman of his son's wife. So, as the Mortimers
were lords of the manor of Orleton from Domesday, either the Mortimer
lord of the day or the parishioners would have needed to have some
reason to commemorate Gaveston if that face is indeed his. I cannot
think of any reason for them to want to do this, especially as he was
not local and had no strong connection with the Mortimers after Roger
Mortimer bought himself out of Gaveston's wardship in 1306. Indeed,
Gaveston was widely considered a traitor in the early 14th century, so
very few people would have wanted to commemorate him other than his own
family (who came from Gascony). He was slain in the presence (and with
the approval) of Roger Mortimer's close ally, the earl of Hereford, who
was hugely influential in the area. To put up a commemorative image of
Gaveston in the earl's territory would have been a hugely defiant and
dangerous political act for the parishioners (whose church would have
been subject to inspection by the bishop). So I very much doubt that
head has anything to do with Piers Gaveston. It is far more likely to
relate to someone for whom prayers were said locally, such as a member
of the Mortimer family.
I notice that the stones are structural in function. Those of the king
and queen seem to have been intended to hold up a vanished rood loft,
being (it seems) directly opposite one another. The smaller head above
the king's one was probably echoed in a similar structural head above
the queen's on the other side, making the rood loft safe for a choir to
stand in on such song-filled events as Ascension morning. As for the
heads on the arch of two bishops and the head at the apex of the arch:
these also are structural. The official listing on the English Heritage
website gives the arch and windows as thirteenth century. This also
suggests the two heads once supported the rood loft but mentions no
others. If this arch was indeed built about 1300, then the faces are
more likely to be Edward I and Margaret of France than Edward II and
Isabella.
Looking at the royal faces in detail, they are in some ways reminiscent
of manuscript illuminations of Edward I and his son, Edward II, when
the latter was young. That was before Edward II was married (1308), of
course. They are certainly not from much later in the 14th century for
three reasons: (1) the hairstyle of the queen is 'ramshorn'
(misleadingly painted red, it seems) and the wimple is attached to this
in a typical c.1300 way; (2) the king is clean shaven and after about
1322 most images of Edward II show the stylised image of a king with a
beard (and in the later 14th century Edward III wore a beard); (3) the
crown is distinctively of the sort habitually work by kings in the late
13th cent. The king's and queen's hair colour has presumably been
repainted over the centuries. With the caveat that these are stylised
images created by a man who probably had not seen the king close up but
rather wanted to represent the king and queen by showing a king and a
queen, one can say this. Edward I is generally portrayed without a
beard and likewise Edward II until about 1322. Henry III is generally
portrayed in his later years with a beard. So this king is probably
meant to be either Edward I or Edward II in youth. On balance it is
likely that the sculptures are 1280-1320, so there are only two options
for the kings (Edward I and II) and only three for the queens (Eleanor,
Margaret and Isabella).
It may be significant that Adam of Orleton, the most prominent person
to take his name from the village (among quite a few at this time,
presumably promoted by the Mortimers) was born about 1272. His rise to
prominence and his position thus belongs more to Edward I's reign than
Edward II's. Indeed, of all the bishops of Hereford who were unlikely
to commemorate Edward II in stone, Adam comes top, being the very man
who started the rumour that Edward II was a sodomite (when he was in
arms against him in 1326). But if Adam was commemorated in this
stonework, then the date is likely to be no earlier than 1300. So that
probably rules out Eleanor as the queen's head.
For all these reasons, I suspect that the secular head is not Gaveston
but a local notable, probably a member of the Mortimer family. The
bishops are either bishops of Hereford - probably Saint Thomas of
Cantilupe (d. 1282) and perhaps Adam of Orleton (in his own lifetime),
or, if late 13th century, Cantilupe and St Thomas Becket of Canterbury
(who was the object of widespread veneration at this time). As for the
king and queen it is possible that they are Edward II and Isabella, but
equally possible that they are stylised images of Edward I and
Margaret. It is unlikely that any accounts will be found to prove the
matter one way or the other. However, a greater accuracy in dating the
stonework might one day be possible, and this would allow us to say
with greater confidence which King Edward and which queen is depicted
here.
Copyright©2013 Paul Martin Remfry