The Castles of Kent No.4: Queenborough Castle

1. Site

Queenborough Castle was situated close to Queenborough Creek and hence the west coast of the Isle of Sheppey, Kent (Grid Ref. TQ 9122 7215). In Queenborough creek, there was the natural, sheltered harbour of the small fishing village called Bynne. This village became the site of the castle, which is marked on early maps of Sheppey.

Today, the site of the castle is near the centre of Queenborough. The site is bordered by the Well Road to the north, the railway to the east and Railway Terrace to the south and west. The main visible feature on the castle site is a grassed, raised mound, in the middle of which is a modern paved construction.

2. History

The construction of "the castle of Sheppey" was started in 1361, by order of King Edward III. It was completed about six years later, when Edward III wrote that it had been built "for the strength of the realm, and the refuge of the inhabitants of this island" (Hasted 1797-1801 Vol.VI p.233). The castle is described as being the only completely new, royal castle built in the later Medieval period. After its construction, it was not until the coastal forts of Henry VIII that any new major fortifications were built in England (Thompson 1987 p.18). Concurrently with the building of Queenborough Castle, the existing royal castle of Hadleigh in Essex was also being improved. Although the years 1360-1369 were a time of temporary peace with France, it has been suggested that both these castles would have guarded the Thames Estuary from enemy attack (Platt 1982 p. 111). Queenborough Castle could also have guarded the sea-going route, to and from London along the Swale, its own sheltered harbour, and presumably prevented the use of Sheppey as a base for enemy attacks on London or into Kent.

The construction of Queenborough Castle, at Bynne, was preceded by the upgrading of a roadway from King's Ferry to allow improved transport links with mainland Kent (Castle 1907 p.4) The royal accounts for this castle included the cost of building eleven houses nearby. These houses formed the nucleus of Queenborough, named after Edward III's wife Queen Phillippa, and regarded as the last Medieval "planted" town (Beresford 1970 p.57). The new town was vital to the castle's viability, both defensively and as a royal residence. Settlement and the town's economic prosperity were encouraged by a royal charter of incorporation in 1368, the granting of market rights and in 1371 by the elevation of Queenborough to staple (exclusive wool market) status (Castle 1907 p.5).

As a royal castle, there are detailed accounts of its building materials, construction and maintenance in the Pipe Rolls of Edward Ill and of successive monarchs until its demolition in 1650 (Colvin 1976 Vol.2 p.793). After the death of Edwardlll, the castle was generally the residence of a series of Constables. It was held against Jack Cade in the Kentish uprising of 1450 and it was repaired as part of Henry Villl' s chain of coastal defences. It was used as a prison in 1588 (Tyler undated p.59). In 1650, Cromwell's Parliamentarian Commissioners reported on the state of Queenborough Castle. Their findings were that the castle was out of date, in serious disrepair and that it should be demolished. Demolition followed, the recoverable materials were worth almost £1,800 (Hasted op. cit. p.232). 2 3. Design: There are two primary sources of evidence for much that is written about the castle's design. One is a sixteenth century plan of the castle from Hatfield House and the other is a seventeenth century drawing by W. Hollar which is in the British Museum. The castle was of a concentric, circular, stone design. A moat enclosed approximately three acres. In the outer wall was a main gate guarded by twin towers and a smaller postern gate. The inner bailey wall was higher than the outer wall and had six round towers which were higher still. The gateway to the inner bailey, which was also flanked by two towers, was diametrically opposed to the outer wall gateway. Cross passageways divided the outer bailey (Brown 1954) (fig.2). The residential quarters were against the inner face of the inner wall, surrounding a circular paved courtyard with a well. The six towers of the inner wall were roofed in lead and, in the reign of Edward Ill, certain of them contained the King's Privy Wardrobe and his clock. There were fifty two rooms, one of which was later recorded as being a grand dining room (Hasted op. cit. p.235). The Pipe Rolls of Edward Ill gave cost details for windows, fireplaces and latrines. This showed the emphasis placed upon making it a comfortable royal residence (Colvin 1976 Vol. 2 p.793). The design of the castle at Queenborough has been said to be "so advanced as to be unique" (Brown 1954). Examination of such a claim requires comparisons to be made between. Queenborough, the castles which preceded it and the coastal forts of Henry VIII which superseded it. Queenborough castle continued the dual role of castles as defensive and residential sites. Harlech and Beaurnaris castles in North Wales were seen as having had complex, concentric lines of defence. Queenborough's design could apparently be seen as a logical development of the concentric castle, to its fullest extent with a circular plan and narrow passage cross walls (Gascoigne 1975 p.22), but this view needs further consideration. The castle is known, from the Pipe Roll accounts, to have had pre-gunpowder artillery when it was built. Whilst Queenborough had circular lines in common with Henry Vlll's forts, the greater strength of circular towers had been in use for nearly two hundred years. The thirteenth century shell keep of Restormel Castle, Cornwall, although without towers and a smaller size, provides a similar layout of buildings and open yard on the inner face of a defensive wall. Bolingbroke Castle, Lincolnshire, dated to c. 1225, had a polygonal curtain wall and seven towers and so also seems to have some similarities with the inner curtain wall of Queen borough. A French source for the Some original of design Queenborough' is also a possibility. s inner towers had residential functions • e.g. The King's Wardrobe, whilst the squat, semi-circular bastions of Henry V lll's forts provided separately defensible gun platforms. Henry's forts had narrow areas between the inner and outer walls. Queenborough had a wide bailey. It has been questioned whether defenders on the inner walls would have been able to support those on the outer wall in the event of attack, in fact whether it could actually be said to have had concentric lines of defence at all. An alternative hypothesis is that this wide outer bailey was a way of distancing enemy artillery fire from the towers and inner curtain wall (Thompson 1991 p.173). Since completion of the original essay, Alan Ward has made some comments about the defences of the castle. An attempt at summarising these suggestions has been made and included here with his permission. Using hypothetical inner and outer wall heights (10m. & Sm. respectively), the firing line of artillery, mounted on the inner wall, would have gone far beyond the water defences leaving a large distance (approx. 30m.) to be defended by the outer wall alone (fig. 1.) Although the towers would have provided good fields of vision, it seems unlikely that late 14th century gunpowder artillery would have been able to traverse at such a steep angle, caru1on on the towers, would then have been able to fire little better than horizontally. Torsion artillery QUEENB0R0UGH CASTLE would probably have been more effective, but wheU1er hollow towers could have witl1stood the strains of the use of tl1e bigger weapons, such as trebuchets, is questionable. Of course, Profile of walls etc. projected from plan. The heights of the walls and towers are purely speculative. Two conjectural heights (see text) are given for the inner defences the inner and outer walls could have been higher which would have improved the defensive capabilities, but might also have contributed construction problems on marshy ground. There is also an apparent discrepancy between the Hatfield House plan and the original building accounts. The latter suggesting that the moat could have been twice the width and the outer wall foundations five times the width of those shown on the plan. If the accounts rather than the plan were correct, and the edge of a large feature (possibly the moat) was discovered by excavation, then the outer wall defences would have been considerably strengthened. A wider moat would have resulted in the outer Line of fire from the inner wall Line of fire from tower. Moat. 25 so Metres Plan (based on that in the History of the King's Works - Vol. III). \ Main gate wall being placed nine metres further inwards and the outer courtyard would then have been Line of Railway Terrace• f°'that much narrower (Pratt 1992 p.20). The outer walls, at either width (4m. or 20m.), could have supported the relatively small gunpowder weapons of the times. The fort, dating from 1610, in Queenborough Church shows a carving of the castle with cannons in place and this is used as evidence for the castle having had gunpowder weapons by that date. It has been suggested that the castle could have been designed originally to use and withstand gunpowder weapons (Whitehead), but this remains open for discussion. It is important to recognise that all castles were unique responses to a variety of physical, psychological, military and civil circumstances (McNeill 1992 p.108). Queenborough had an unusual, circular ground plan, and was a specialised response to a flat site, the need for an imposing royal residence and a castle which could both use and withstand �tillery of whatever form. 4. The Architect: William of Wykeham is often recorded as having been responsible for the construction of a strong castle at Queenborough. He was Surveyor of the King's Works, Keeper of the Privy Seal and Lord Chancellor to Edward ill (Hasted op. cit. Vol. VI p.234). Henry Yevele(y), as King's mason, is suggested as the innovator who may have had sufficient authority to gain approval for the building of Queenborough Castle. Whilst acknowledging that Yevele(y)'s involvement has not been authenticated, one writer suggests that Yevele(y) was capable of designing a castle for gunpowder weapons prior to the development of their effective use (Whitehead). John Box was Chief Mason working on the construction of Queenborough Castle and as such could have influenced the de.sign. This view has William of Wykeham in a largely administrative "Oerk of the Works" role (Colvin 1975 Vol. II p.796). 5. Orientation: There are variations in the suggested orientation of the castle and its main gateway. The plan given in the Victoria County History of Kent (Vol.1 p.409) shows a single probable entrance, 3 Profile of castle assuming the outer wall is moved inwards by 9 m. (see text) and the moat doubled ln width. Line of fire from Tower. facing south-eastwards. The Swale Borough Council site display board shows the main outer wall gateway facing the northwest, aligning with the High Street which follows the creek towards the coast. The smaller postern gate in the outer wall accordingly faces south-east, which may be the gateway shown in th� V. C. H. Kent plan. The plan presented in the History of the King's Works (Vol. 11 p.795), and widely produced in other texts, is from the Elizabethan plan at Hatfield House. The plan is presented below a small map of Queenborough showing the castle site and a north compass point. If the Compass point relates also to the castle plan, then the main gateway and the pastern gate are on the west-east alignment. This is recorded in a number of other texts, some of which pre-date 'The History of The King's Works" e.g. Brown 1954. The V. C. H. Kent plan with a single entrance, does not accord with the evidence of the sixteenth century plan. Either of the north-west/south-east and the west/east alignments of the main outer wall gateways seem feasible. The strong main entrance in either case had ready access to the creek, the town and the sea, presumably the directions from which any attacks or seaborne arrivals were most likely to have come. (N.B. These views seem to concur with those in an article found after completion of the original essay -Pratt 1992 p.19). The study of Quee.nborough Castle then, presents a number of intriguing questions. Some of which have been touched upon here, whilst others such as the relationship (if any) between the castle and other features shown on the V. C. H. Kent plan (Vol.1 p.409) remain elusive. It seems likely that only extensive excavation would advance our knowledge further. Christine Hodge (precis of a11 essay submitted, in January 1998, as part of the Certificate course i11 Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology, to course tutor Ala11 Ward-to whom thanks are due for his encouragement and advice). Bibliography Beresford M. W. "Medieval New Towns & Villages" in Geographical Magazine July 1970. Brown R. A. English Medieval Castles 1954 Batsford (typed extract - Sheerness Library) Castle J. Queenborough and its Church 1907 Allen & Co. Colvin H. M. The History of the King's Works Vol.2 & 3 1975 H. M. S. 0. Gascoigne C.&B. Castles of Britain 1975 Thames & Hudson Hasted E. The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. Vol. Vl 1797 - 1801 [1972] E. P. Publishing McNeill T. Castles 1992 English Heritage - Batsford Platt C. The Castle in Medieval England & Wales 1982 Secker & Warburg Pratt S. "Queenborough Castle Sheppey" in C.A.T. Annual Report 1991-2 1992 (not used in original essay) Thompson M.W. The Rise of the Castle 1991 C.U.P. Tyler L. The Decline of the Castle 1987 C.U.P. The History of Sheppey undated Fitch Victoria County History of Kent Vol. I Whitehead J.G.O. "Henry Yeveley, Military Engineer" Royal Engineers' Journal undated extract - Sheerness library.