Westenhanger Castle - a Revised Interpretation

WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN Westenhanger Castle, also known as Westenhanger House and in architectural terms more a fortified manor house than a castle, lies threequarters of a mile south-south-west of Stanford parish church and three miles north-west of Hythe (NGR TR 123 372). It is one of Kent's forgotten great houses. Most who have written regarding it have concentrated upon its role as a castle, but this is only one of a number of ways the site can be viewed - in its earliest surviving form it was a moated house, it developed into a castle, became a royal residence (albeit for a short time) and was in its later years one of Kent's greatest mansions. The fine barn, with its attached stable range, is quite undeservedly little known. The site is best summed up by Newman in The Buildings of England: 'The fragment of a large fortified house of the fourteenth century is intriguingly sandwiched between the railway and the grandstand of Folkestone Racecourse. Its present state of pleasing decay is on the point of developing into active ruination, and a large chunk of the wall on the north side has recently [ 1969] fallen'. In 1998, as part of the present owner's determination to arrest this trend, the ruins were systematically recorded as a prelude to an extensive programme of restoration. This article summarizes the results of that study. 1 Historically there were two manors here, the one called Westenhanger and the other Ostenhanger [i.e. Eastenhanger]. They were formed by the partition of 'Le Hangre' before 1199. Around 1300 Nicholas de Criol, the eldest son of the owner of Ostenhanger, married Joan, only daughter and heir of William d' Auberville of Westenhanger, and thus the two manors were in effect reunited. However, a share ofOstenhanger passed to Nicholas's younger brother, John, and this share had by 1337 descended through marriage to Sir Thomas de Poynings. The remainder of Ostenhanger, together with Westenhanger descend with the Criol family and was at various times known by either name. Sir John de Criol obtained a licence to crenellate the 203 so $CAI.£ 122 I I 372- _ .!. 1 I 371- - - L _ I 122 .. M .... $ N 123 .........., u-- Ashford• I -•«<"􀀔-s:; '4>W',$> .§:' • . -,- - - - - - ,oo ... , o· I Outhne . "' - - - - - ... . site plan sh . - - -s11 Ry􀀆 􀀅o . ---- owmo th 1 • • ,,, e ocation of b "ld" ·-·: Ul m"'os and earth works, 2000 / WESTENHANGER CASTLE -A REVISED INTERPRETATION site in 1343. The last Criol, Sir Thomas, was slain/beheaded during the second battle of St Albans in 1460 where he supported the Yorkist cause. Westenhanger/Ostenhanger then descended through the female line to John Fogg, esq. of Repton, whose son sold the estate soon after 1509 to Sir Edward Poynings, the owner of the other moiety of Ostenhanger, thereby reuniting the original manor of Le Hangre.2 THE EARLIEST REMAINS (PHASE ONE) It is all but certain that there were important buildings at Westenhanger prior to the granting of the licence to crenellate in 1343. Pottery dating from the early-thirteenth century onwards has been recovered from deposits cut by the northern curtain wall, though to date no evidence of earlier medieval domestic activity has been found. Given the date of the licence, it is possible that the Black Death caused a delay either in commencing or completing the fortification works. Unfortunately the pottery recovered from layers associated with the construction of the curtain wall cannot be dated more accurately than to the period mid-fourteenth to mid-fifteenth century, nor do the standing medieval remains incorporate any closely datable features. Regardless of any possible delays, the works appear to have been well advanced, if not completed, by 1381, for in October of that year the building was described as a castle in reports of the attempted abduction of Sir John de Criol' s widow, Lady Lettice. Her son, Nicholas Criol had recently died leaving as his heir a baby son. The would-be abductor, Sir John Cornwall, evidently saw profit in forcibly marrying Lady Lettice and administering the estate during the minority of the heir. Having besieged the castle, he, with the help of a small force of companions, scaled the walls by night with the use of ladders. Lady Lettice hid and, despite a close search, remained undetected. The intruders eventually left taking horses, jewellery and other valuables. Nearly two years later one of the culprits received pardon 'for having with others broken the gates, doors and window shutters of the Lady of Kiriel 's Castle of Estrynghangre and besieged her there .... '. 3 The site is located on the northern side of a low spur of land which extends towards the valley of the East Stour River. It surrounds an enclosure which is trapezoidal in plan, the south and west sides being at right angles to one another whilst the northern and eastern sides are canted (Fig. 1). The enclosure is of above average size, measuring 59.0m and 56.7m (193ft 6in. & 186ft) on the southern and western sides, increasing to 66.8m and 58.8m (219ft lin. & 192ft lOin.) on the 205 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN northern and eastern sides. There is today no obvious geographical reason for the irregular shape and thus it is possible that the alignment of the angled eastern and northern sides was dictated by pre-existing structures upon the site. This supports the hypothesis that the moat may have been excavated to encompass a complex of existing buildings, as too do the thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century occupation layers cut by the foundation trench for the northern curtain wall. Such an explanation would also account for the otherwise inexplicable bend in the line of the northern curtain wall and would explain why the enclosure was not positioned astride the crown of the low spur of land. A location in this latter position would have avoided the need for an external earthwork dam to retain the moat water, for although the east, south and much of the western arms of the moat are cut into the natural ground, the north-eastern corner projects high above the low-lying floor of the river valley. Although now effectively destroyed at the extreme north-western corner, the external dam survives in good condition with evenlygraded banks and a wide top which falls very slightly along its length. A plan of the site made in the mid/late-seventeenth century indicates that the north-western corner of the moat was occupied by a substantial overflow sluice which returned the water to the East Stour River. It was probably this sluice that powered the watermill described in 1559 as 'adjoining the moat' .4 Because of the local topography there is no natural drainage to feed the moat, and no known natural springs within the moat floor. It would therefore appear that the only means by which the moat could have been fed was via a !eat tapped off the river at some point up stream. Part of a possible !eat runs along the contour to the north-east of the site. The earthwork takes the form of an apparently silted ditch defined on its north-western (downhill) side by an artificial bank. The area where this earthwork would have joined the moat has been badly damaged, whilst the north-eastern end has been entirely obliterated. However, the 1871 25in. O.S. plan indicates that at that date the earthwork's junction with the moat still survived, confirming that the ditch did indeed 'flow' into the moat. Despite the disturbance at its north-eastern end, it seems likely that this earthwork represents the head !eat serving the moat. It is clear from the surviving structural remains that the base of the gatehouse incorporates masonry which predates the curtain wall. It is possible that this earliest phase represents work which was interrupted by the Black Death and that when resumed the plans were revised to incorporate a curtain wall rising direct from the waters of the moat. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the site may already 206 WESTENHANGER CASTLE • A REVISED INTERPRETATION by 1343 have been moated, being entered via the first-phase gatehouse. If so, the licence may indicate an intention to surround the earlier moated enclosure with a curtain wall and associated towers. Like its immediate successor, the early gatehouse appears to have comprised two parts - a projecting outwork with to its rear a short range aligned north-south, parallel to the moat (Fig. 2). The remains from this phase comprise walling faced in finely dressed ragstone ashlar blocks with tight, accurately cut joints. Much of this walling is today buried, the moat at this point having been backfilled. The visible masonry is mostly set below the level of the enclosure, but a section within the southern wall of the outwork rises almost 2m above the ground and must represent superstructure walling. At a distance of 7.4m (24ft 3in.) north of the outwork the wall terminates in a neatly-formed quoin which excavations have shown extends down to the base of the moat. It indicates the northern extent of the phase- I gatehouse - beyond this point the moat probably lapped against an earthen bank. There appears to be a similarly placed quoin at the southern end of the ashlar work. It is possible that this early walling was nothing more than a retaining wall or fagade to an otherwise timber-framed gatehouse. Certainly the present foundation of the gatehouse's north wall appears to be contemporary with the phase-2 curtain wall, being straight jointed to the phase-I work. This would be consistent with the wall having been rebuilt at the same date as the curtain wall was constructed: a necessity if intended to carry the more substantial walls of a replacement masonry gatehouse. Two low-level stone projections towards the western end of the outwork incorporate sockets in their upper face and represent supports for the timber bridge which spanned the moat. The height of the moat's external dam, taken with the details of the phase-2 curtain wall, indicates with a high degree of certainty that the intended original level of the moat water was approximately 750mm below the bearings of the bridge. PHASE TWO (c. 1343 or second half of fourteenth century) (Fig. 3) As already noted, the phase-2 work may either represent the addition of defensive walls to an already moated site, or could represent the completion to a revised plan of an aborted scheme commenced in 1343. If the latter, it is possible that much of the moat was not dug until phase 2. The interpretation which follows is written based upon the assumption that the curtain wall, with its associated corner towers, was added to an existing moated site. 207 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN 1 Age of doorway ,° nce \ rtaln Assumed Assumed\ Bank Bank IL, -----z---. FZ􀀂 Hidden MOAT MOAT OJoln s Ashlar facillgs = - = i MOAT !- I I Age ol bridge supports uncertain- - -􀁑 Brid I I ge PL.AN SHOWING THE EXTENT OF EARLY SURVIVING MASONRY :; __ Crossbeam of Of idge ";----Bridge RECONSTRUCTION GROUND-FLOOR PLAN MOAT AS DURING MID/LATE-14th CENTURY (Part Conjectural) 10 0 10 􀀊===--====--==-c=--====--------- S CALE METRES Fig. 2 Reconstruction plans of the gatehouse 208 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION The Gatehouse ( Fig. 2) Regardless of whether the early gatehouse was completed or not, it was now replaced. Of this new gatehouse only the entrance passage and front wall survives, all else having been demolished when the western range was constructed during the early-sixteenth century (see Phase 3 below). Foundations for the northern and eastern walls of the phase-2 gatehouse discovered during excavations in 2000 show that the gatehouse was of similar plan to that either built or envisaged during phase 1. Extending through the phase- I projecting outwork and phase-2 gatehouse is an entrance passage, the walls of which are canted on plan so that the passage widens towards its eastern end. It was barrel-vaulted in five bays, the bays being divided by ribs (now lost) supported by semi-octagonal wall shafts with moulded caps and bases. The opening at the eastern end of the passage was destroyed when the passage was extended during phase 3, but at the opposite end, between the projecting phase- I outwork and the passage, survive the remains of the castle's main doorway. In front of the doorway is the groove for a portcullis which was operated from a room above the entrance passage. The location of this portcullis, between the outwork and the gatehouse implies that the outwork was only single storeyed, otherwise the raised portcullis and its winding mechanism would have prevented access to any first-floor chamber in the outwork. Therefore, it seems likely that the outwork was nothing more than a pair of flanking walls similar to those which protect the postern gate at Bodiam Castle and, on a much more impressive scale, formerly at Tonbridge Castle gatehouse too.5 Adjacent to the main entrance, sited within the north wall of the passage, is an altered doorway of uncertain date. It allowed easy access to the main entrance from the adjacent room, which almost certainly served as the porter's lodge. Lying upon the excavated surface of this room was a layer of West-Country slate, demolition debris from the roof. The Curtain Walls Although the available evidence suggests that - at least on the western side - an earthen bank initially divided the moat from the enclosure, during phase 2 a ragstone curtain wall was constructed which rose direct from the waters of the moat, doubling as a retaining wall holding back the enclosure. The lower part of the wall is battered, but above the original water level the faces rise vertically. It should always be borne in mind that only a relatively small proportion of the 209 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN COURTYARD GATEHOUSE 50 0 50 SCALE METRES Fig. 3 Reconstruction plan of the site as during the late-fourteenth century wall survives - high-standing remains are limited to the northern half of the site, with some low remains to the south. Photographs exist which show the fallen section of north wall which linked the north and north-east towers. By 1999 much of that section between the recently fallen part and the northern tower had developed a serious 210 WESTENHANGBR CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION lean and was in imminent danger of collapse. In consequence, in 2000 it was carefully recorded, dismantled and rebuilt. The work indicated that this section of wall had caused problems previously - much of the superstructure in this area had been entirely rebuilt upon the original base during the early-sixteenth century. As they survive today the tops of the walls vary somewhat, ranging in height above present internal ground level from c. 4.15m (13ft Sin.) adjacent to the gatehouse, to c. 5.70m (18ft 8in.) on the eastern side of the site. The height measured from the base of the moat would, of course, have been much greater, adding at least 3m more, though a considerable part of this would have been hidden below the water. Despite its not inconsiderable height, the wall is surprisingly thin, averaging only 920mm (3ft). Adjacent to the north tower the wall appears to stand to near its full height, for here an internal offset is visible which appears to mark the division between the curtain wall and a much thinner parapet. Below the offset the wall is fully bonded to the adjacent tower, the parapet wall above is not, and thus it is impossible to ascertain the height of the (assumed crenellated) parapet. The level of the offset compares favourably with the top of the bonded masonry where the north curtain wall butts the north-eastern tower. In contrast, the surviving section of eastern curtain wall stands 1.20m higher. Even allowing for the fact that the inner face of the wall is today plastered and thus part of a parapet offset could have been infilled, the level of the rear arch to a surviving, albeit intruded, medieval window indicates that any parapet offset must have been at least l .0m above that of the northern curtain. The implication must be that the heights of at least some of the sections of curtain wall varied. The Towers Virtually every commentator who has discussed Westenhanger has noted that the south-east tower is exceptional in that it is not circular, but almost all fail to discuss the equally obvious variation in design between the north-east tower and those at the two western corners. Not only are the two western towers noticeably smaller in plan than the north-eastern tower, they hardly project externally from the alignment of the curtain walls. Instead each forms a slightly-projecting rounded corner. The bulk of these two towers is located internally (Fig. 3). As a result they encroach awkwardly into the site and must have projected into the courtyard rather than been flanked by buildings - their plan would otherwise have been modified to improve their practicability. Both towers are ovoid (rather than circular) 211 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN in plan and are small, measuring between 2.8 - 3.4m across. They are lacking stair turrets and were served by arrow slits, one of which still survives within the north-western tower. Excavations undertaken within this tower in 1999 revealed the base of a garderobe chute incorporated within the thickness of the wall. Only the lowest stones survived but, given the thickness of the wall, the garderobe itself must have been of the same 'alcove' type as within the northern tower (see below).6 The entrance to the north-western tower is via a ground-floor opening which never incorporated a door and thus the ground-floor internal area always stood open to the enclosure. This suggests that the tower fulfilled nothing more than a purely functional role. In contrast, the south-west tower was fitted with a fully-formed doorway with chamfered external surround and closing rebates for a door, and thus this tower may have had a secondary non-defensive role, though possibly nothing more than secure storage. Little of this tower survives, but in all other respects it appears to have been similar to its counterpart at the north-western corner. In contrast to the two western corner towers, that at the north-east corner is both larger and more impressive, projecting boldly into the moat. Still roofed, this is the most complete of the corner towers. Despite being of similar height to the north central tower, it is of only two, rather than three storeys, the upper of the two being of double height. This tall upper storey houses a dovecote, the pigeon holes of which are of brick and almost certainly date from the sixteenth century, though probably replacing earlier nesting holes. It is surely no coincidence that, as at Bodiam, this tower is located adjacent to the kitchens. Although the windows have been modified to give increased light, the phase-2 layout of the tower's ground-floor room is recoverable. It was entered by a barrel-vaulted opening in its western side. As with the opening leading into the north-west tower, it shows no signs of having been closed by a door, though this may be the result of later alterations, for the original outer face has gone. The space within is lit by three windows, all of which retain their simple dressed-ragstone two-centred rear arches and splayed jambs. Only the central window retains a medieval external surround, which, unlike the openings within the other towers, is chamfered and incorporates bars to protect its 260mm wide opening. Prior to modification, the other windows were similar. Whether the design of these windows was varied from those in the other towers from the outset, in response to this tower's domestic use, or whether the outer surrounds were subsequently modified from arrow slits is unclear. Of the four corner towers that in the south-eastern corner is except- 212 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION ional in that it is square and projects diagonally into the moat. Only the base now survives and this contains no architectural features of note. Its northern wall is fully bonded to the eastern curtain wall suggesting (but not proving) that the two are contemporary. The reason why this tower is square rather than circular is unknown, though its plan may have been influenced by its location at the 'high' private end of the medieval house. Two seventeenth-century plans show details of the tower, though the only feature which is likely to be of medieval origin is a projecting garderobe in the angle between the tower's north-east wall and the eastern curtain wall. The fact that there are today no indications of this in the extant remains suggests that the garderobe was corbelled oi.lt from the alignment of the wall at ground-floor level. The Central Towers Ignoring the gatehouse outwork (for which see above) of the three central towers only the lower foundation courses of the south tower remain, whilst the east tower stands to a height of only 1.5m above the level of the enclosure. The east tower still incorporates a splayed return between its north wall and the curtain wall, evidently indicating the position of a canted entry to the tower. As with the similar feature within the north-east tower, this canted section of wall only commences at ground level, being carried by a large ragstone block which serves as a supporting lintel. The present floor level within the tower is located approximately l .0m above the level of the enclosure and although the ground within the tower could have been raised, this seems unlikely. The north tower is easily the most complete and still stands to near its total height (see Plate I and Fig. 4). It has a low basement with three lofty storeys above, each housing a single small room. There is some doubt as to the level of the original ground floor, though there is sufficient evidence to show that, as with the eastern tower, it was located well above the ground level within the courtyard. This was apparently necessary in order to allow room for the low basement, the floor of which had to be located above the highest water level of the moat. All three chambers within the tower are lit by slit windows only, a point which at first suggests that they would have been very dark. However, the first-floor doorway has no evidence of having possessed a door and thus additional light would have entered through this opening. Details of the original ground-floor doorway have been lost, but the same may have been the case here too. Both lower chambers 213 DA VTD AND BARBARA MARTIN PLATE I Central north tower viewed from the north, c. 1900, showing extant render and false quoining, now mostly fallen (detail from postcard) 214 10 SCALE WESTENHANGER CASTLE· A REVISED INTERPRETATION ? ? WEST WALL NORTH WALL EAST WALL SOUTH WALL 0 10 METRES Fig. 4 Reconstruction sections through the central northern tower as during the sixteenth century 215 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN were served by very basic garderobes which took the form of shallow sitting alcoves rather than separate rooms. They shared a single chute which issued out through the external face of the east wall in a square opening close to the curtain wall. The lintel of this opening was set at approximately the same level as the estimated original water level. The uppermost chamber must have been reached via a trap door and ladder from the chamber below. It did not incorporate a garderobe and is likely to have been used only occasionally. The use of undressed stonework within both the first-floor and second-floor chambers is further indication of the low status accorded these areas. The ground-floor chamber is better finished in that its openings have roughly-dressed masonry surrounds, although even here there are no indications of the walls having been plastered until the early-sixteenth century. Because the uppermost courses of the tower have been lost, the form of the roof is not known - it may have been flat with a surrounding parapet, or may have had a pitched cap, either with or without parapets. The Medieval Domestic Buildings upon the Enclosure (Fig. 3) What now seems certain is that the oft-quoted analogy of Westenhanger with Bodiam, as a courtyard house with ranges of continuous buildings against all four sides of the curtain wall, is false. Although by the seventeenth century Westenhanger had developed such a plan, this was the result of piecemeal addition and reconstruction. It is likely that in its initial phase-1 form, before the present curtain wall and towers were constructed, the main house stood isolated upon the enclosure. This house was probably temporarily retained during the construction of the phase-2 work. A similar sequence is known to have been adopted when Glottenham, Sussex was rebuilt in a fortified form early in the fourteenth century.7 Existing buildings at Westenhanger would, perhaps, account for the irregularities in the line of the curtain wall and moat referred to earlier and would be consistent with the earlier occupation layers encountered in the excavations. There is at present very little firm detail regarding the layout of the medieval buildings within the circuit of the walls. It is known from excavations that the ground within the courtyard was less level than it is today, the present levels being the result of re-grading carried out in the sixteenth century. As already noted, the structural remains indicate that the medieval gatehouse did not form part of a continuous range. Furthermore, the lack of either wall scars or windows - even in the form of arrow slits - in the extant section of western curtain wall, 216 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION taken with the way in which the western corner towers encroach into the enclosure make it all but certain that these two towers were not initially intended to have buildings abutting them. A blocked alcove and window incorporated within the northern curtain wall a little to the east of the central tower represent sixteenth-century intrusions. No evidence, either architectural or archaeological has yet been found to suggest medieval buildings against the northern curtain wall, indeed the available evidence suggests to the contrary. The structural evidence along the southern side has gone and thus the situation here is currently unknown. Along the eastern side of the site - opposite the gatehouse - the evidence indicates a different picture. Here, within the curtain wall can be seen the jamb of a tall, hall-like medieval window, whilst further north is a surviving first-floor medieval window. The latter has been inserted and is of fifteenth-century design. Some distance to the south of the hall-like window is visible the wall scar of a probably medieval partition jointed to the curtain wall. This, taken with the canted sections of wall apparently for angled high-level entrances to the north-east and east towers (a feature absent from the north tower) suggests that substantial buildings were always intended against this section of wall. Indeed, it is probably no coincidence that the remains of the hall-like window are sited within the hall shown in the seventeenth-century plans, suggesting that the then extant hall represented the upgraded phase-2 hall. The picture of medieval Westenhanger which emerges is of a house extending either part way or wholly along the eastern curtain wall with an open courtyard in front of it, the whole enclosed by a tall curtain wall interrupted by towers and surrounded by an impressive moat. The sole means of access was a gatehouse located centrally within the western side of the curtain wall. Apart from minor structures, the available evidence suggests that there were probably no other buildings constructed against the curtain wall. The accounts of the attempted abduction of Sir John de Criol's widow in 1381 indicates that by that date Westenhanger was regarded as a castle. But it was never intended as a premier stronghold - like comparable Kentish sites such as Scotney Castle, built by Sir Roger Ashburn ham in c. 1380 or Sir John de Cobham' s Cooling Castle built in 1381, it was of the next order or rank. It was constructed mainly to proclaim the wealth and honour of its owner and to afford limited protection during a time of increasing civil unrest and enhanced threat from France. Together with Bodiam ( 1385) these castles are the product of Military men desiring a house which reflected both their strength and chivalrous ideals. These buildings rely upon design - rather than strength - for their effect. Despite being thin and 217 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN relatively weak, plain expanses of curtain walling interrupted by towers give the impression of sombre strength, whilst the surrounding moat waters add to the feeling of in-accessibility. In fact, even the moats were something of an illusory barrier. At Westenhanger, as at Mote in Iden, Sussex (licensed in 1318) and Bodiam (licensed 1385) the moat waters on one side are held back by a high dam, a dam which would have proved little obstacle to any serious attacking force intent on gaining access to the walls. At Scotney the site is better moulded to the natural contours, but here too the water is impounded on one side by a similar external dam which holds it back against the course of a stream. PHASE THREE (Early-Sixteenth Century) (Figs 5 & 6) A somewhat later south-eastern 'castle' -Herstmonceux (1440)-has similarities with Westenhanger in that it too was constructed by a warrior from a relatively modest local family (though in this instance Sir Roger Feinnes rose to hold high office and, as 1st Lord Dacre of the South, his son was raised to the nobility). Herstmonceux was never seriously considered a castle - it was in truth a palace dressed in military finery. This was the direction in which Westenhanger was to move during the early-sixteenth century. In or soon after 1509 Sir Edward Poynings, the owner of part of the partitioned manor, acquired the other part and merged the two. Sir Edward was greatly in favour with both Henry VII and Henry VIII and under the latter was a member of the Privy Council, governor of Dover Castle, Lord Warden of the Cinque Port and a knight of the garter. Hasted specifically states that Poynings began to build magnificently, but died in 1522/3 with the works incomplete. He was succeeded by his natural son, Sir Thomas, who was equally in favour with Henry VIII. The early-sixteenth century improvements were perhaps a little too lavish, for in 1540 the property was exchanged with the king for other lands. Research undertaken for the History of the King's Works suggests that, although he improved the park, Henry undertook very little building here. Even so, by 1544 the house was sufficiently extensive to incorporate separate suites of rooms set aside for the use of the King and his Queen respectively. It therefore seems likely that Sir Edward's programme of rebuilding was completed by Sir Thomas and that Henry VIII effectively took over a fair mansion in good condition. It is thought that Henry wished to acquire a house in this part of Kent in order to oversee the improvements being made to local coastal fortifications. In 1559 the buildings upon 218 50 SCALE WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION 0 NOTE:- DETAILS OF DEMOLISHED SECTIONS ARE BASED UPON THE MID/LATE-17th CENTURY DRAFT PLAN .-----·-· 50 METRES Fig. 5 Reconstruction plan of the site as during the late-sixteenth century 219 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN 5 0 SCALE METRES Fig. 6 Section through the north-east tower looking east 220 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION the site were described as covered with lead, tile and slate, being in .good repair.8 The surviving remains indicate that the early sixteenth-century reconstruction work undertaken by Sir Edward and his son around 1525 involved the construction of a west range (incorporating part of the earlier gatehouse) and major modifications to the principal accommodation within the east range, including the reconstruction of the rooms at the low end of the hall in the form of a three-storeyed crosswing, the remodelling of the dovecote in the upper storey of the north-eastern tower, the rebuilding of the adjacent kitchens, and the reconstruction of a large part of the northern curtain wall's eastern end. Documentary sources indicate that work was also undertaken beyond the high end of the hall where Sir Edward built an elaborate chapel. Whether the south range shown in mid/late seventeenthcentury plans was added during this programme of building works, or whether it formed part of the late sixteenth-century phase-4 alterations is unknown, though the latter seems the more likely. The south range will here be considered under phase 4. The West Range The new west range, built against the phase-2 curtain wall, was designed to encompass within it the projecting phase- I outwork and the vaulted entrance passage of the phase-2 gatehouse, though the entrance passage required extending eastwards in order to take into account the greater width of the new range. Otherwise the earlier gatehouse was entirely destroyed by the Poynings family. Only that part of the range to the north of the gatehouse survives, and this in fragmentary form only. The range was of two storeys and had ground-floor rooms with lofty storey heights. It is likely that the first-floor chambers would have been equally lofty. The phase-2 western curtain wall equates in height to the ground-floor storey and would therefore have needed heightening very considerably. Given the even upper surface of the present remains it is likely that the heightening was of timber-framed construction. The eastern groundfloor wall (facing into the courtyard) rises from a hollow-chamfered ragstone plinth and is faced in roughly-squared ragstone blocks with neatly-galleted joints. All light, at least at ground-floor level, was from windows located in this wall, for the curtain wall remained un-pierced by windows. Parts of three of these windows survive, although only one remains in reasonable condition. This has jambs of brickwork supporting a four-centred arched head and was probably originally of two lights. The location of this window hard against the 221 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN curtain wall, coupled with the fact that the plinth continues to the end of the wall, indicates that at this date there was no adjacent north range, though there was perhaps an elevated first-floor gallery. The window was later modified (probably in the late-sixteenth century) to square-headed form and was given a rendered surround indicating that even at that late date no north range existed. The mid/late seventeenth- century plans show a turret rising against the west range towards its northern end. Probably forming part of the phase-3 work, this presumably gave access to the first-floor chambers. The existence of the turret probably explains the cramped location of the window immediately to the south of the surviving doorway. There are sufficient structural remains to indicate that on the ground floor that part of the range to the north of the gatehouse was divided by substantial brick partitions into four rooms of varying length. The southern room was accessed from the gatehouse passage and was almost certainly the porter's lodge mentioned in an inventory of 1635 (see below, page 231).9 The lodge was heated by a fireplace intruded into the west wall. The next room northwards was the largest in this part of the range and was heated by a fireplace at the southern end of the west wall. This fireplace survives in good condition, complete with its four-centred brick arch. The means of access to this room is unknown, as is also the case with the unheated room next north. A stone doorway with four-centred head led into the northernmost room, which may have acted as a lobby or ante-room. Because of the north-west corner tower, this room is narrower than the others and is somewhat irregular in plan. It gives access into the adjacent tower. Excavations have shown that the two central rooms within this part of the range were set above a low un-lit newly-formed basement. The existence of the basement area explains the elevated nature of the ground floor within this section of the range, for the hearths of the two fireplaces are located well above the present ground level. The hearth-level of the southern fireplace shows that the ground floor within the porter's lodge, adjacent to the entrance passage, was at the same elevated level and was therefore presumably also of raised timber construction, but without a basement beneath. The surviving remains allow nothing to be said about the ground-floor layout of that section of the range to the south of the entrance passage. Neither does the mid/late seventeenth-century draft plan add anything - it merely shows the range in outline. The fair copy of similar date is more useful in that it depicts a single large room extending from the gatehouse passage to the south range and lit by four two-light windows in each wall. Access was from the 222 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETA TrON courtyard via a corner turret which also served the south range. Despite these details, it must be noted that there is strong evidence to suggest that this plan shows proposed alterations to the building, alterations which were probably never carried out. The first-floor layout of the range is unknown, though two first-floor fireplaces located towards the northern end are evidenced by corbels and suggest the existence of at least two chambers: there would have been a further one or two fireplaces (serving a further one or two chambers) sited within the main chimney further to the south. A chute in the thickness of the wall immediately to the south of the southern ground-floor fireplace served a first-floor garderobe, though the chute was later modified to fulfil an alternative use. The East Range (Plate II & Figs 5 & 6) During phase 3 the buildings against the eastern curtain wall housed the heart of the mansion, including the hall and kitchens. The only part to survive is the three-storeyed crosswing at the low end of the hall, and even here the remains are very fragmentary, having been reduced in height and integrated into the present much sized-down house. Neither of the mid/late seventeenth-century plans of the site Detail from an engraving showing the house and north-eastern tower viewed from the north-east. Engraving by Godfrey Sculp dated 6 December 1777; published 25 August 1784 by S. Hooper 223 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN show detail in this area, but there are extant drawings made before the third storey was removed (see Plate Il). By combining the standing remains and the documentary sources it is possible to gain an impression of the crosswing. From what remains it seems safe to conclude that the crosswing was entirely rebuilt during phase 3. The south wall was again rebuilt in the eighteenth century when this wall became the front fac;:ade of the new sized-down house, at which date the western end of the range was completely destroyed. The ground-floor area appears to have been unheated, for the present fireplace represents an eighteenth-century insertion. During the early-sixteenth century there were no windows of any size or note at this level, whilst the extant timberwork indicates that the ceiling incorporated heavy 210 x I I 5mm 'medieval' scantling joists which were intended to be exposed to view. Given that the contemporary ceilings on the first floor had narrow, deep joists which were always masked by plaster ceilings, it seems safe to conclude that the ground floor of the crosswing fulfilled a service function. Apart from the joists (visible from above where floorboards had been raised) the only surviving ground-floor phase-3 architectural feature is a four-centred arched-headed brick opening in the north wall. In contrast to the ground floor, the chambers on the first and second floor were of high status. At the eastern end on the first floor was a large and lofty chamber lit in the east wall by a high-quality six-light moulded stone window of French design and heated by a brick fireplace with moulded timber lintel. The jambs of the window are formed of dressed blocks which extend through the full thickness of the wall, whilst the cill incorporated a moulded projecting nosing. Despite the very obvious high quality of the window, it fits badly into the wall thickness with a resultant poor joint between it and the wall plaster. The length of the chamber is unknown, but in the northern wall are the remains of a badly mutilated brick doorway, the jambs of which are canted as if squeezed in beside a partition immediately to its south. Immediately to the west of the doorway, in the same wall, are a pair of wide single-light brick windows (cills later lowered) each with four-centred heads similar to that of the doorway. A little to the west the broken end of the wall shows the eastern jamb of a destroyed mural fireplace with rounded back. The early illustrations (the best an engraving by Godfrey Sculp dated 6 December 1773 - see Plate II) make it clear that the six-light stone window in the east wall was replicated on the storey above and that this second-floor chamber was also heated. Above was a steeplypitched crow-stepped gable incorporating two tiers of single-light openings with arched heads, two on the lower tier and one in the apex. 224 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION This second storey, together with its gable were formed by raising the curtain wall in brickwork, the lower courses of which still survive. The two arch-headed brick doorways in the northern wall of the crosswing - one on the ground floor and one on the first floor - led to a range (now largely rebuilt) which extended northwards from the crosswing, against the internal face of the curtain wall, forming a link to the kitchens adjacent to the north-east tower. The lack of any scar in the cross wing's wall suggests that, at least at first-floor level, the western wall of the lost range was of timber-framed construction and may have been jettied. The first-floor chamber within the link was lit by an arch-headed brick window (now much rebuilt) cut through the curtain wall adjacent to the crosswing, whilst to the north of this was intruded a garderobe recess of probable phase-4 date. The lower part of this recess was all but destroyed a few years ago, but the first-floor section still survives complete with its wooden double seat. The kitchen stood immediately to the west of the north-east tower and used the phase-2 curtain wall for its northern wall. In this area the inner (southern) face of the curtain wall was pared back and rebuilt in brick. Remains of the kitchen still survived until the early 1980s, when this section was totally rebuilt. Even so, scars in the brick face of the extant north wall and adjacent tower indicate that the phase-3 kitchen included a wide fireplace set against the curtain wall. Issuing through the wall at ground-floor level is a drain outlet. Although of early sixteenth-century date, an alcove with a four-centred arched head at the eastern end of the fireplace's rear wall represents an intrusion, apparently to accommodate some form of water-boiling furnace. The chimney is shown in various early illustrations (including the 1773 Sculp engraving reproduced in Plate II) where it is indicated rising within a now lost crow-stepped brick gable built above the curtain wall. Some illustrations show the brickwork elaborated with diaper decoration. Towards the eastern end, close to the tower, is depicted a single-light window with an (apparently four-centred) arched head. A plan made by the RCHME in 1982 shows a fireplace still surviving upon the site at that date, but it had by then been much narrowed with new jambs to east and west and a new false rear wall. More importantly, the RCHME plan also depicts a blocked brickarched 'arcade' in the west wall of the building. It shows a narrow arch adjacent to the curtain wall with a much wider arch to its south, the two being separated by a chamfered pier. It is surely no coincidence that the wide arch corresponds in width to the fireplace evidenced against the curtain wall, whilst the distance from curtain wall to the southern face of the pier is likewise identical to the depth of that fireplace, as indicated by the scar in the adjacent wall of the 225 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN tower. Thus the arch depicted by RCHME appears to be the arched opening of a second great fireplace set at right angles to the first. The narrow arched entrance to its north would have given access to the angle between the two fireplaces. Several features survive within the brickwork in this area, but the remains are now too fragmentary to allow an interpretation to be attempted. Repairs carried out within the ground-floor room of the northeastern tower, immediately adjacent to the kitchen, have revealed that in the sixteenth century a large oven was intruded into its western wall, immediately adjacent to the kitchen's northern fireplace. The front of the oven has been destroyed, but formerly projected into the tower. Above the entrance a flue extended up through the wall to tap into the main flue of the kitchen fireplace. The lower storey of the tower was therefore now transformed into a bakehouse. Above is the lofty double-height dovecote which still incorporates 411 pigeon holes, mostly of brick and almost certainly sixteenth-century reconstructions. At floor level a further tier of nest boxes have been blocked. The tower retains its much-repaired, probably sixteenthcentury, conical timber roof which rises to a timber ring beam upon which was supported a louvre arrangement allowing access for the birds. This upper part has been lost, but a louvre (not necessarily the original) is shown in Sculp's engraving reproduced in Plate ll. The entrance to the pigeon house is from the first floor via a phase-3 brick doorway with four-centred arched head. Presumably this replaces a predecessor, for incorporated into the angle between the tower and the eastern curtain wall is a phase-2 canted section of wall, the only purpose for which is to accommodate the doorway. The pigeon house was originally unlit, but now has an intruded window of late sixteenth or early seventeenth-century date. The present dovecote floor belongs to the twentieth century, but is supported on corbels which appear to represent part of the sixteenth-century remodelling, for they are of similar design to those which support the phase-3 chimneys intruded into the western curtain wall. Within the eastern section of the north curtain wall, between the kitchens and northern tower, is an intruded window which appears to date from the seventeenth century. During the reconstruction of this section of curtain wall in 2000 the remains of two further openings were recovered. One was a window, the other an alcove. Both date from the reconstruction of this part of the curtain wall in the earlysixteenth century and imply the addition of a building extending westwards from the kitchens, adjacent to the curtain wall. Although no early foundations were discovered within the narrow strip excavated, such an interpretation is in other respects consistent with 226 WESTENHANGER CASTLE· A REVISED INTERPRETATION the excavated evidence which shows a major and deliberate build-up in ground level in this area during the early-sixteenth century, followed by very little activity until the late-seventeenth or early-eighteenth century. This may suggest that the area was within a building during this period, protecting it from disturbance. If so, drains discovered during the excavation imply that the building fulfilled a service function - hardly surprising given its location next to the kitchens. At the opposite end of the phase-3 house, immediately to the south of the low-end cross wing and built against the curtain wall, was the hall - perhaps the remodelled medieval hall. Of this, only the jambs of two windows now survive, one dating from the medieval period and the other a new phase-3 opening. The hall is shown in both mid/late seventeenth-century plans as a large rectangular room with a screens passage at its northern (low) end entered by a porch. At the opposite end of the hall is indicated an oriel-like projection linking to the main staircase and high-end rooms beyond (see below). As is usual, the fair copy shows greater detail, including a pair of windows in the front wall between the porch and oriel, and a triple-entrance screen (with the opening divided by circular columns) between the cross passage and the main body of the hall, though whether these details can be trusted is highly doubtful. Both plans show the east tower positioned differently in relation to the hall and in this instance the extant remains show the fair plan to be more accurate than the rough draft. Further detail regarding the hall is recoverable from Hasted and Cheyney, clearly quoting from an earlier description. 1 ° Cheyney specifically states that the hall measured 50 x 32ft (15.25 x 9.75m); Hasted confirms the fifty feet length and adds that there was a music gallery at one end [ over the cross passage] and at the other end a range of cloisters [a passage issuing out of the oriel] which led to the chapel and other apartments of the house. All this detail is consistent with the information shown in the seventeenth-century plans. Hasted adds that 'Over the door of entrance into the house [i.e. porch] was carved in stone the figure of St George on horseback, and under it four shields of arms; one of which was the arms of England, and another a key and crown, supported by two angels'. Beyond the high-end of the hall were the inner private apartments of the house, shown in the mid/late seventeenth-century plans as a cross wing with beyond it a further wing built against the curtain wall. All that survives visible of this part is the stub of the curtain wall and (very importantly) the scar left by the south wall of the crosswing. This gives a fixed point which can be compared with the seventeenthcentury plans. As Hasted and Cheyney confirm, a passage (they call it 227 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN a cloister) linked the hall to these rooms, which on the ground floor comprised two parlours with a room beyond. The date of the arrangement at the southern end is uncertain - it could represent a phase-4 modification or extension. The date of the crosswing, on the other hand, seems more secure, for on the first floor this housed the chapel, either created or remodelled by Sir Edward Poynings in 1520. 11 Measuring 33 x 17ft (10.05 x 5.20m) and reached from the cloister/ passage by a flight of freestone steps, this was richly decorated and, according to Hasted, was 'curiously vaulted with stone'. In his day it was still standing, though in use as a stable. He states that 'At each corner of the [east?] window of this chapel was curiously carved in stone, a canopy. There were likewise in it several pedestals for statues, and over the window stood a statue of St Anthony, with a pig at his feet, and a bell hanging in one of his ears. At the west end were the statues of St Christopher and King Herod'. Discarded Caen stone fragments from an elaborate early sixteenth-century canopy/screen, perhaps intended for the chapel and apparently damaged during fabrication, were found during the 2000 conservation works associated with the early sixteenth-century reconstruction of the kitchen. Other Phase-3 Modifications In addition to the reconstruction of the eastern end of the northern curtain wall referred to above, the sixteenth-century (and subsequent periods) saw some refacing and perhaps partial reconstruction of the earlier walls. Some of the areas of refacing are galleted, a feature also noted in the facings to the early-sixteenth-century west range and associated corbelled chimney and in the sixteenth-century outbuildings. Within the northern tower internal plasterwork was added to the ground-floor room and the garderobe chute was blocked. The level of the ground floor was lowered slightly, though apparently retaining an exceptionally low basement-like area beneath the floor. The groundfloor doorway was re-formed to suit the revised floor level, the new opening being of a higher standard, probably incorporating a fourcentred arched head. The motive for reforming the doorways appears to have been one of aesthetics, aimed at improving the tower's external appearance, for most - if not all - of the windows within the tower were now blocked. Observations made during the excavations suggest that it was during this period that the water level in the moat was lowered by around a metre. This was probably a response to the building's changing role from fortified site to non-defensive mansion and would 228 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION have been necessary in order to allow the formation of the basement area within the new western range. Along the northern and eastern sides of the site the external perimeter of the moat takes the form of an earthen bank. In contrast, the southern and western edges are formed by a stone retaining wall. Although shown in the mid/late seventeenth-century plan, that section of wall along the northern part of the moat's western side is hidden, for here the moat was filled when the adjacent farmyard was extended eastwards. The visible parts of the retaining wall are of at least two phases - probably more - and have been raised in height. The lower section is constructed of squared ragstone blocks, has a battered face and extended above the original level of the water within the moat. There are no features to suggest a date, though it is unlikely to pre-date the sixteenth century and was probably constructed when gardens were formed along this side of the moat during phase 3. A raised garden terrace was subsequently added - perhaps during phase 4 - giving the reason for increasing the height of the wall. Incorporated into the angled section of wall at the south-western corner are the grooved jambs of a sluice gate. This must have fed a ditch or leat (now backfilled) running westwards, perhaps towards an extant pond. The date of the sluice is unknown. PHASE FOUR (Late-Sixteenth Century) (Fig. 5) Following the major early sixteenth-century building campaign the house entered a period of relative inactivity and was probably only occasionally used. As far as is known, Henry only stayed at Westenhanger twice. Around 1550 the property was in the hands of Edward Fienes, Lord Clinton, but in c. 1552 it passed to Sir Richard Sackville of Buckhurst in Sussex, Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations. A man with a good number of mansions to choose between, Sir Richard certainly used Westenhanger on occasions, for in 1565 a royal messenger rode from London to his principal home at Buckhurst, only to be told that Sir Richard was in residence at Westenhanger. Whether Sir Richard was tenant or owner is unclear, though during a progress through the county in the summer of 1573 Elizabeth I is said to have stayed at her own house of Westenhanger, the keeper of which was then Thomas, Lord Buckhurst - Sir Richard's son. In 1585 the site was acquired from the crown by Thomas Smythe Esq, farmer of the customs of the port of London and a successful entrepreneur. Between that date and his death in 1591 he is said to have 'greatly increased the beauty of the mansion [and] made magnificent addit- 229 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN ions' . 12 All this is consistent with the surviving architectural remains which confirm that modifications were indeed made. It seems likely that the south range was added during this time, as too an adjacent terrace formed within the moat and retained by a fragmentary sixteenthcentury brick wall. Its surface was set considerably below the level of the courtyard and adjacent buildings. The recognizable late sixteenth-century alterations to the upstanding remains tend to be cosmetic. Within the west range the northernmost window (and probably the others too) was modified to make it square headed and the surround was rendered to imitate stone. In the principal east range a large square-headed six-pane ground-floor brick window was cut through the northern wall of the low-end crosswing, and here too the hood and moulded surround were rendered in order to imitate stonework. It was also during this phase that the exterior of the curtain walls and towers were rendered, thereby considerably 'beautifying' the mansion. The remains of this rendering can be seen on all extant towers and curtain walling, but is particularly clear on the northern central tower where it survives complete with false quoining (Plate I). The additions referred to in the documentary sources probably relate to the construction of the south range, perhaps with associated modifications to the southern ends of the east and west ranges. The south range is shown in the mid/late seventeenth-century plans with a turret in the angle between it and the west range. The fair copy of the plan also shows another turret midway along the southern side of the courtyard, opposite the south tower, but this is omitted from the draft copy and was probably never built. Both plans show the same basic internal layout, though the fair plan shows the cross partitions towards the western end re-positioned. The western partition in the draft plan does not incorporate a doorway and thus the rooms to the west were separately accessed from the courtyard and probably served as lodgings. All detail westwards of this are omitted in the plan. PHASE FIVE (Seventeenth Century) In 1635, upon the death ofThomas's grandson, Thomas Smythe, First Lord Viscount Strangford, an inventory was made of the Viscount's goods and chattels housed both at Westenhanger and in his other houses at Court Lodge, Sturry, Kent, and in London. The rooms and chambers at Westenhanger are individually identified, confirming the large size of the mansion at that date. Indeed by the mid-seventeenth century it may have rivalled in size any house in south-east 230 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION England, for in 1664 his son, the Second Viscount, was assessed for Westenhanger at 60 hearths, together with a further 20 hearths at Court Lodge, Sturry. In Kent only the Earl of Dorset's h.ome at Knole had more hearths. 13 Despite this, there are major difficulties in fitting 60 flues within the building as currently known and the possibility of the assessment being for the Viscount's entire Westenhanger estate must be considered. Even so, this is unlikely to have reduced the assessment on Westenhanger itself by any appreciable amount. There are insufficient clues within the 1635 inventory to identify more than one or two rooms on the ground. The inventory starts in the hall and clearly moves first southwards and then westwards along the south range, but it appears to switch between storeys. In the area of the south range there is mention of an armoury gallery 'upon' which were a series of chambers. The inventory then moves abruptly to the low (northern) end of the hall with reference to 'chamber over the buttery' [i.e. the first-floor chamber within the phase-3 low-end crosswing]. This is followed by the inner chamber, chamber by the kitchen passage (towards the northern end of the east range), three further chambers (named) and a passage, before moving to the 'upper chamber to the buttery chamber [i.e. the second-floor chamber within the phase-3 low-end crosswing]. The 'linen wardrobe over the hall' is perhaps over part of the hall's screens passage. The next group - upper beer cellar, lower cellar [both probably above ground] kitchen, larder and backhouse - were on the ground floor in the northern end of the east range and north-eastern tower, perhaps extending a little way along the north curtain wall. The 'inner room' next mentioned could be located anywhere, but the 'porters lodge' is presumably the room immediately north of the gatehouse, within the west range. If so, then the spicery, scullery, cheese house, wash house and hen house could be located within the same range, but are more likely to be outbuildings located either against the northern curtain wall or outside the moat, in the outer courtyard to the west. Certainly the 'back lodgings to the maids hall, coach stable and grooms chamber' must have been within the outer court, for it is unlikely that coaches would have been able to enter through the gatehouse. These are followed by the 'great stable' and various other rooms and buildings, including the barn. Given the above, it can be concluded that the inventory lists between 38 and 46 rooms and chambers within the moated enclosure, mostly upon two floors. A further important source of information for the seventeenth century are the two plans - one in draft form and the other a fair copy. The date of both of these documents has always been quoted as 1648, but in the History of the King's Works this assumption is challenged 231 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN and the suggestion is put forward that they were drawn in the late-seventeenth century. Whichever is the case, they are likely to have been made during the property's ownership by Phillip Smythe, Second Viscount Strangford, who inherited in 1635 and was still in possession in 1664. As has already been noted, there are a number of differences between the draft copy and the fair copy, much of which relate to revised fenestration and the more regular placement of chimneys, but include revisions to the location of some internal partitions as well as minor revisions to the external shape, particularly at the low end of the hall. The revised fenestration is particularly interesting in that wide windows shown in the draft are substituted by symmetrically-placed pairs of two-light windows, an arrangement increasingly popular in work of the seventeenth century. Windows are also shown piercing the curtain wall where no windows are indicated in the draft. Sufficient survives on the ground to be all but certain that in some instances features (particularly windows) shown in the fair copy but not in the draft have in fact never existed. From these observations it would seem that the draft plan is an on-site sketch made to assist the draughtsman/builder in preparing proposals for alterations and improvements, a programme which appears never to have been put into effect. Even so, excavations indicate that it was about this date that the moat was thoroughly scoured, perhaps heralding the commencement of the intended works. In the event, in 170 I the building was sold for its materials and largely demolished. The Outbuildings and Surroundings (See Fig. 1) 14 Approximately 50m to the west of the Castle stand a group of substantial outbuildings, now in separate ownership but forming part of the same scheduled monument. Although these fall outside the scope of the present paper, it is felt necessary to include a brief description in order to better place the castle within its context. Although the present access to the castle is from the east, this is of relatively recent date and until the eighteenth century the sole means of approach was from the west. Thus the extant outbuildings were located in front of the castle and were passed by all visitors. They were, in effect, part of the castle's base court. Nothing which survives upstanding in this area predates the sixteenth century, though a now-destroyed range which projected southwards from the western end of the existing outbuildings is likely to have been earlier. In addition, Hasted notes that the parish church of Westenhanger was situated just outside the entrance to the castle, on the northern side of the approach, between the bridge and the surviving late sixteenth-century barn. It was de-commissioned by the Crown in 1542 when the parish was united 232 WESTENHANGER CASTLE- A REVISED INTERPRETATION with neighbouring Stanford. Its survival up to this date must have caused problems in developing a base court in front of the castle, a factor which may have been paramount in the decision to remove it. As the outbuildings survive they comprise two adjoining ranges forming an 'L' plan, the earliest of the two being a substantial stonebuilt two-storeyed 'stable' block. Constructed against the northern end of a now destroyed earlier structure, this building dates from the early-sixteenth century (phase 3) and was in all probabilities erected either by Sir Edward Poynings, or his son, Sir Thomas. Added at right angles to the eastern end of the 'stable' and extending northwards from it is a large eleven-bay stone-built barn dating from the latesixteenth century (phase 4). Having an internal span of 7.80m (25ft 7in.) it retains a plain, but impressive in-line butt-purlin roof with hammer-beam trusses (Plate III). This substantial building is likely to have been erected either by Thomas Smythe Esq or his son, Sir John Smith, who owned it from his father's death in 1591 until his own death in 1609. Projecting from each of the east and west side walls are a pair of wagon porches incorporating three-quarter-height wagon doors. The barn extends northwards beyond the course of the East Stour, which flows beneath the northern end within a two-centred barrel-vaulted culvert. Extending eastwards from the northern jamb of the north-eastern wagon porch is a stone boundary wall. Although now lengthened at its eastern end, this formerly linked the barn to the external dam of the moat, thus forming the northern boundary of a yard. The wall is straight-jointed to the barn, and is therefore of more recent date. Nonetheless, features incorporated within the design of the barn suggest that the wall was always intended. It incorporates the remains of two substantial buttresses in its northern face. To the south of the stables is a pond which may have been linked by a culvert and sluice to the south-western comer of the moat. Almost certainly the mansion as embellished by Customer Smythe would have incorporated a formal garden - a garden of some sort existed before this period, for a survey of 1559 mentions 'The Manor Place of Westenhanger and Park, that is to say the manor of Westenhanger with all edifications thereto belonging ..... with gardens, orchards, ponds and waters to the same appertaining ...' .15 The raised terrace of a formal garden survives running along the southern side of the moat, the edge of which is upheld at this point by a stone retaining wall supporting a parapet. The terrace has now been truncated to west and east. This is the typical location for a privy garden, overlooked as it was by the private apartments of the house located within the southern range of the mansion. The house, outbuildings and gardens 233 DA VLD AND BARBARA MARTIN PLATE Ill Interior of barn looking north 234 WESTENHANGER CASTLE - A REVISED INTERPRETATION were surrounded by a park, which the 1559 survey estimated at 400 acres in extent. The northern boundary of the park is clearly visible as a curving line in the field boundaries shown on the 1839 and subsequent plans. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The architectural and archaeological research upon which this article is based was jointly funded by English Heritage and G. Forge (Civil Engineering) Ltd. Thanks are due to Graham, Mu and John Forge (the owners of Westenhanger) for their help, encouragement and enthusiasm throughout the project, and to Graham Forge for making available the extensive catalogue of documentary references he has collected. A considerable number of these were translated and transcribed by Duncan Harrington, including details regarding the 1635 inventory. The assistance of John Forge, the staff of G. Forge (Civil Engineering) Ltd and of the various conservation contractors who have worked on the monument is acknowledged, without whose cooperation the completion of the archaeological work would have been an arduous task. Thanks also go to Peter Kendall of English Heritage for discussing features as they came to light, to Robert George (architect for the project), Christopher Whittick for supplying documentary references housed at East Sussex Record Office and elsewhere, and the staff of the National Monuments Record, Swindon, and the Centre for Kentish Studies, Maidstone. Finally, thanks go to Casper Johnson and our other colleagues at Archaeology South-East for all their help throughout the project. NOTES 1 For the full report see Report on Selective Archaeological Recording and Excavations at Westenhanger Castle, Stanford, Kent (1998, Revised 2001). Archaeology South-East unpublished report ref. 909. Copies of this report are lodged at the National Monuments Record, Swindon, and at the Centre for Kentish Studies, Maidstone. 2 All documentary sources used within this paper are fully referenced in the main report (see note l ). For general references see Hasted, E., The History and Topographical Survey of the Cou111y of Kent, 8 (1797-180 I, reproduced 1972), 63-68; Cheyney, A. D., Home Counties Magazine, 6 (1904), 114-120; Wadmore, J. F., 'Thomas Smythe of Westenhanger, commonly called Customer Smythe', Archaeologia Cantiana, 17 (1887); Clinch, G.; 'Notes on the Remains of Westenhanger House, Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana, 31 (1915), 75-81; Colvin, H. M. (ed.), The History of the King's Works, 4, 1485-1660, part 2 (HMSO 1982), 283-285; Saul, N., Scenes from Provincial Life, Knightly Families ill Sussex 1280-1400 (1986), 35-37, 42, 144. Where relevant, individual references are separately noted within the text of this paper. 235 DAVID AND BARBARA MARTIN 3 Coulson, Charles; 'Some Analysis of the Castle of Bodiam, East Sussex', in Ideals and Practice of Knighthood IV (1992), 101; PRO CPR., I 381-5; 133, 3 I 9, 548. 4 There are two mid/late seventeenth-century plans of the site, one a sketch, probably made on site, the other a fair plan of probable proposed alterations. Both are held by the British Library, reference B.L. Harl 7599 fo. 93. A redrawn and modified compilation of both plans (but principally based upon the fair copy) is reproduced in Clinch' s Archaeologia Cantiana article (see note 2). For the 1559 survey, see Centre for Kentish Studies, U269 E34 l fo.56v. 5 For the evidence for the lost outwork at Tonbridge Castle see Report on Selective Archaeological Recording at Tonbridge Castle Gatehouse, Tonbridge, Kent - Parts 1-3 (1997) - Archaeology South-East report 546. 6 An interim note by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust reports a similar garderobe chute within the south-western tower, but upon further investigation this proved to be a drain. It is located immediately to the east of the tower. 7 Martin, D.; 'Three Moated Sites in North-East Sussex -Part I: Glottenham', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 127 (1989), 89-122. 8 Colvin 1982, op. cit. (see note 2). 9 British Library, ref. Harl Roll BBl 7: to be published in Kent New Records Series, Volume 3, Part 5 (2001). 10 Hasted; Cheyney 1904, op. cit. (see note 2). 11 Frampton, T. S., St Marys, Westenhanger, rectors and Patrons quoting Dr Harris, History of Kent (1719) 295. In Gothic Architecture (7th edition) Rickman states that the date of 1520 was recorded by an inscription, formerly at Westenhanger, referred to in Stukeley's /tinerarium Curiosum. The writers are grateful to Graham Forge for making available these and other references. 12 Wadmore 1887, op. cit. (see note 2). 13 Pers. comm. Sarah Pearson, to whom the writers are grateful for checking the Kent hearth tax returns. 14 The outbuildings at Westenhanger have been the subject of a separate study for which see Martin, D & B, Report on Selective Archaeological Recording of the oiit· buildings at Westenhanger Castle, Stanford, Kent (1998). Archaeology South-East unpublished report ref 979. For a published account of the outbuildings see Wade, Jane (ed.), Traditional Kent Buildings. No. 3. 15 Centre for Kentish Studies, U269 E34! fol.56v. 236