History of the Castle
The recorded history of Tutbury castle begins in 1071 with an account of the transfer of the Castle from Hugh d’Avranches to Henry de Ferrers when Hugh was promoted to Earl of Chester where he founded Chester Castle (Hislop et al., 2011, p.88), (Anon., 2012). It is also speculated that the first castle at Tutbury was built by Hugh d’Avranches in the wooden Motte and Bailey style c1068 (Hislop et al., 2011, p.88). However it is also stated that there may have been a castle or settlement already occupying the site, although there is an archaeological gap in history between Roman occupation and the late 11th century (Hislop et al., 2011, p.88). Mosley suggests that because of the location providing such natural advantages for a military position that it would not have gone unnoticed by the nations that surrounded it, namely the two Celtic tribes ‘Cornavii’ and ‘Coritani’ and it is possible that it might have been a hill fort protecting the formers’ borders (Mosley, 1832). If there was a castle already occupying the site it would probably not have been built upon the great earth works that exist today, as the motte and bailey castle design only came into existence in the first half of the 11th century. Even the term “castle” pre-1066 could have been applied to a simple walled enclosure formed by a ditch and a bank (Prestwich & Coulson, 1980, p.44). However if the settlement was in fact a borough, or burh as they were known as at that time, then the settlement would have been fortified with walls of wood or palisades. These burhs were originally initiated as a system of national defence primarily against Viking Raiders in the 10th century, and were strongholds or fortresses for the ’folk’ of the countryside: basically walls for them to take shelter behind if their lands were raided (Kightly, 1979).
These new fortified structures became necessary as the feudal system came into effect at the end of the dark ages. As the Feudal system grew, so did the size and dominance of their fortified residence (Libal, 1992).
It is not known for certain whether the village of Tutbury was already a borough by 1071 or even if it had a castle, yet in 1086 it is stated in the Domesday Survey that “42 men live only by their trading” (West, 1983, p.56). The book simply titled “Tutbury Castle” goes one step further and suggests there was a total population of around 200, further supporting the fact that there would have been an early castle of some sort (Somerville, 1960).
If Sir Hugh d’Avranches did in-fact build the first Castle at Tutbury, then it is probable that the castle must have been superior to other nearby castles of its time, as according to Somerville (1960) it was the main residence of its second owner Henry, who was “one of the greatest men in the country” with “over two hundred lordships” (Somerville, 1960, p.6). This is further supported by the 1832 book titled “History of the Castle, Priory, and Town of Tutbury” which states he had 210 lordships (Shaw, 1976, p.38). This castle was undoubtedly built in the Motte and Bailey style as the evidence suggests, however there are no surviving remains other than the great earthworks so one has to look at other Motte and Bailey castles of the time to get an understanding of what it may have looked like.
Motte and Bailey Castles were constructed like a sandcastle would be, by digging a large circular ditch and throwing the excavated materials inwards to form a mound. This Mound was called the motte and upon the motte was a fortified enclosure, sometimes only encircled by palisades, but more often than not, a wooden keep or donjon was built inside the enclosure. Usually standing around two or three storeys tall, the main accommodation was usually located on the first floor accessed via a ladder (Libal, 1992), and the upper storey could be used to rain arrows down on to attackers (Kightly, 1979, p.73). Below the motte was the bailey. Surrounded by large ditch, wooden palisades and sometimes earth banks, the bailey was a largely flat fortified space which contained the life-force of the castle, stables, stores and garrison residence. Larger castles sometimes had two or three baileys connected to it, usually by a drawbridge, bridging the motte ditch. It is also said that the motte and bailey design castles were so quick and easy to construct that some only took a matter of weeks to erect (Kightly, 1979, p.74).
The next possible stage of construction was the replacement of the wooden donjon with a stone keep upon the motte between the dates of 1068 and 1175, as numerous sources have stated such as (Williams, 2006) in the Tutbury Castle guide book, and the artist reconstructions. However Williams (2011) then suggests there is no archaeological evidence of an early stone keep before the construction of the round donjon after 1175 (Hislop et al., 2011, p.88). If there was a stone keep then it was probably constructed by Robert de Ferrers or his son Robert II de Ferrers, or “Earl Ferrers the Younger” as he preferred to call himself (Mosley, 1832, p.8). However, Williams does not specify how he came to that conclusion. If it existed, it may well have been built by Henry as he was exceptionally wealthy, and especially as Tutbury Castle was his principal residence.
The only circumstantial evidence for a stone keep before 1175 is an account written when the castle was besieged by Robert of Leicester, Ranulf of Chester and Henry, c 1153 during the latter's military expedition, which described the castle as “a castle of wonderous art had been impregnably fortified.” This account seems to suggest that there was something more than just earthworks and timber at the time as many major castles of the age were in fact built of stone (Hislop et al., 2011, p.90). If there were stone-built structures there, they did not last long as in the year 1175 King Henry II ordered the castle to be demolished due to the actions of Robert’s son William de Ferrers, when he joined the King’s son in a rebellion due to Henry not accepting William as the Earl of Nottingham.
William eventually surrendered when he saw his castle at Tutbury besieged by an army of Welshmen on behalf of the King, with his own army also marching towards Tutbury. William eventually redeemed himself by joining the next king, Richard the first, on a crusade to the Holy Lands where he died at the siege of Acre in 1190 (Mosley, 1832, p.9).
The round keep ‘High Tower’ (later named ‘Julius Tower’) was said to have been erected during the rebuilding of the castle by William II de Ferrers, William I’s son, at some time during his earldom in the early 13th century, as he was in a much better position politically than his father as he built lasting bonds with King Richard and John (Hislop et al., 2011, p.92). Shaw (1976) states that William II de Ferrers was “one of the most powerful men of his time”, also the heir to William Peverel Earl of Nottingham as his grandmother was the Earl of Nottingham’s daughter. Therefore he came into a large estate, made even bigger when he returned from the Holy Land and was made governor of the Castle of Lancaster, where he also served as sheriff for three years, further increasing his wealth and status (Shaw, 1976, p.38).
Throughout his life, William II De Ferrers was gifted the control of many castles and estates owned by the king such as Bolsover Castle, Pevril Castle and Harestan Castle, along with inheriting estates when he married Agnes, sister to Ranulf, the Earl of Chester, further extending the family’s holdings (Hislop et al., 2011). With such a vast collection of castles and manors at his disposal it is clear that it was William that commissioned the rebuilding of Tutbury Castle, but it does not say anything of what it may have looked like. Did he want to make a bold statement and show off his wealth, or was he more occupied with expanding his estates?
When William II de Ferrers died of gout in 1247 the earldom passed to his eldest son William III de Ferrers along with Tutbury castle, however it was his castle at Chartley that he favoured as his permanent residence (Hislop et al., 2011, p.92), (Mosley, 1832, p.11). His time as earl was pretty uneventful; it was not until the coming of age of his son Robert III de Ferrers that the family’s fortunes took a turn for the worse.
When Robert was 9 years old, his father William was involved in an accident where his carriage was overturned in Huntingdon. He died later at the village of Evington near Leicester in 1254 (Mosley, 1832, p.12). In 1264, partly due to growing up without the wise guidance of his father, as soon as Robert turned the age of 21 and gained the control of the majority of his inheritance, he joined the ‘Barons War’ which broke out into open rebellion against the current king, Henry III, and pillaged and plundered the city of Worcester. Robert then went on to reinforce Henry de Montfort at Gloucester but Henry made a truce with Edward, the son of the king, and the siege was broken. This truce led to the collapse of the alliance between Robert and the Montforts. As retaliation for Robert’s actions, Henry III sent Edward to sack Edward’s lands personally and the country around Tutbury was laid to waste and his castle partly destroyed (Hislop et al., 2011, p.96), (Mosley, 1832, p.17).
Robert refused to join Simon de Montfort when he defeated Henry III and his son Edward, taking them captive at Lewes, and continued to act alone raiding Edward’s lands. During captivity the King was forced to draw up terms for peace, and he and his son were held for the duration of the fulfilment. When the King finally regained power of the country, the Earl of Derby was made to answer for his actions (Hislop et al., 2011, p.96). “His wilful trespasses were so patent that he submitted himself wholly to the king’s grace” (Powicke, 1962, p.199). Because of Robert’s confessions the king showed him mercy and offered a royal pardon on condition that he paid a large fine of fifteen hundred marks and a “cup of gold” along with the understanding that if he should ever rebel again he would be completely disinherited. However in the spring of the following year, Robert rebelled again, forcibly taking Chesterfield from the king (Mosley, 1832, p.18). Robert was defeated and imprisoned in the Tower of London for 3 years and his lands were confiscated and given to the new Earl of Lancaster, Henry’s son Edmond. When Robert was finally released he was offered terms by which he could regain his lands from Edmund, which was a fine of £50.000 to be paid to Edmund within fifteen days of the feast of St. John the Baptist (Mosley, 1832, p.19). Williams (2011) stipulates that it was never the intention of the king to restore the de Ferrers lands as raising such a sum was near impossible, and so this saw the end of the de Ferrers in Tutbury (Hislop et al., 2011, p.96).
Under the ownership of the Earls of Lancaster, Edmund and later his son Thomas, the castle was restored and repaired, with a larger hall and “other buildings” such as a chancel added to the existing chapel. The purpose of Tutbury Castle was changed from a residence to administrative headquarters for his estates while he resided at his principal castle in Pontefract (Hislop et al., 2011, p.96). Thomas carried on his father’s legacy of improving Tutbury Castle and it is said that for a time under the rein of King Edward II, Thomas was a rival power to the King and had a great household. Somerville also states that he was a “great builder, putting in handiwork at Dunstanburgh and Kenilworth Castles” (Somerville, 1960, p.7). This is very useful information as the two castles mentioned might give some clues as to Thomas’s handiwork and what the new buildings at Tutbury Castle may have looked like.
It is written that in the year 1313-1314 Thomas built the gatehouse seen today as he spent £100 “on a new tower beyond the gate” (Somerville, 1960, p.7), however Brown (1963, cited in Williams, 2011, p.134) suggests it was “on a new tower above the gate”. In the defence of Somerville (1960), the gatehouse does appear to jut out from the main curtain wall, so the building of a new tower in front of the old gate is very plausible. However William’s (2011) research also makes sense as it is clear by the change in quality and the style of stonework above the pinkish coloured gatehouse was added at a different time. It is also clear from the 1562 image (figure 2) that there is an extra floor above the original gatehouse block which this research could be referring to. However, £100 sounds like a high amount just for a tower extension when considering that the North Tower itself cost only £155.10.2 (Hislop et al., 2011, p.105). In a report published in 1963, the same year as Brown’s book, the construction is described as “on a new tower above the gate” however, this quote was directly taken from Somerville’s 1960 publication where it is written “beyond the gate”: it can be concluded that for the report at least, it was a misquote. Further research shows that Williams’ quote might also have been sourced from Somerville’s publication, making it likely that Thomas, Earl of Lancaster actually built the gatehouse beyond the gate.
Around the same time as the gatehouse, it is written that Thomas erected the medieval south range comprising of the great hall and great chamber at the end. This range apparently still stood in the 16th century after the castle rebuilding of the 15th century (Williams, 2011, p.97) (Somerville, 1960, p.7). There is also a mention of repairs to a second hall, probably an earlier existing hall built during the ownership of the de Ferrers. This hall is said to have been located near the well and connected in some fashion to the chapel (Williams, 2011, p.97). It is not known whether the chapel mentioned is the chapel that had been excavated. It is possible that there were two as suggested by (Williams, 2011, p.97).
Being the wealthiest man in England, second only to the King, Thomas’s ambitions eventually led him to open rebellion against King Edward II in 1322. He was eventually beaten at the battle of Burton Bridge, a few miles south of Tutbury Castle, which he retreated to, only to flee north upon realising his reinforcements were defeated. He was executed at his family castle of Pontefract on March the 22nd and Tutbury Castle was claimed by the King along with the rest of the Earl of Lancaster’s estates (Stone, 2004, pp.24-25), (Somerville, 1960, p.6), (Williams, 2011, p.98).
In the following months, Tutbury Castle was appointed as the administration centre charged with the task of establishing all of Thomas’s estates for reclamation to the crown. It is from around this time that the great hall with the great chamber at the end, along with a hall near the well, steward’s chambers, and receivers lodging was referenced (Somerville, 1960, p.8), (Williams, 2011, p.99). The full list will be explored in chapter 2.
Within three years the Barons rebelled again against Edward II, this time joined by Henry, Thomas’s younger brother whose goal was to reinstate his family’s inheritance including the Honour of Tutbury. In December that year he succeeded and Edward II was replaced by his son Edward III.
Upon Henry’s death of the plague in 1361, his estates passed to his younger daughter Blanche and her husband John of Gaunt, third son of the King. As John was of a close succession to the throne he was expected to attend court, so his principal residence was in the South; however that did not stop him from improving his estates. For Tutbury Castle a new wall was constructed in 1399 (Somerville, 1960, p.8). Williams (2011) states it was the northern part just south of the gatehouse. It is also likely that the tower was built upon the gatehouse around this time, thus starting the great phase of construction that saw the replacing of the curtain wall and towers of the old castle to what is seen ruined today.
This phase of construction continued under John’s son the new King Henry IV and Tutbury Castle was then classed as a royal residence. The construction started around the gatehouse circa 1400 and continued anti-clockwise around the Inner Bailey, building the wall from the gatehouse to the motte, with a new tower known as “les portes”, the location of which has been lost to history. The construction continued around the motte, possibly including the wall around the old keep, and then southwards to where the South Tower now stands, the latter being constructed around 1450. The last stage of construction was the North Tower ten years later (Williams, 2011, pp.103-05).
In 1487, soon after the completion of the new castle, work began on replacing the interior buildings, the east range was built and work carried out on a “new hall” (Williams, 2011, p.105). This Hall was described as “faire and stronge, bounded and knytt to the wall… and a faire stagehall of tymber… ” (Colvin et al., 1975).
Repairs and work continued on the castle until the 16th century when the castle, now just an administrative centre, began to be neglected and decay set in. In 1523 it was reported that many of the buildings had broken roofs and there was a 100 foot hole in the curtain wall (Somerville, 1960, pp.9-10). It is said that this was the portion just north of the North Tower which in 1561 was repaired with a section of wall less than half the width of the original (Williams, 2011, p.106).
In the years following, the castle came back into the spotlight and repairs were made all over the castle in preparation for the imprisonment of Mary Queen of Scots in 1569 for a year. After bitter complaints about the condition of the castle she was moved to various other stately homes and castles for 15 years until her return to Tutbury. Throughout the intervening period the castle was further neglected, the North-West wall collapsed and fell down the bank and was replaced by palisades in 1575. When Mary returned for her final stay in January 1585, Sir Ralph Sadler drew up the plans of the castle (figures 9 & 10) (Williams, 2011, p.109). Mary left Tutbury castle in the following December, never to return (Somerville, 1960, p.11).
For around 45 years following the departure of Mary, the castle was further neglected and fell into ruin. It was reported that the North Tower had cracked down the middle and would cost more than £200 to repair. In 1637 a new hall and great chamber was built in the red bricks seen today, replacing the old medieval range, however this building didn’t last long as just over a decade later the civil war broke out and the castle was brought back into service. Following several sieges the castle commander surrendered. One of the terms of the surrender was that the castle be slighted, thus from 1647 until late 1648 demolition was carried out, the results of which can be seen today (Williams, 2011, pp.112-15). The castle was left in ruins until 1751 when the 1630’s south range was demolished and red brick house built in its place. Around this time the folly was erected upon the motte and a fake doorway was placed upon the south tower for aesthetic purposes. The house was then converted into a farmhouse and the castle became a working farm up until 1950 when the castle became a visitor attraction (Williams, 2011, pp.116-17).