old wardour castle conservation management plan 2014 volumes 1 and 2

8/12/2019 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan 2014 Volumes 1 and 2

1/108

Nexus HeritageCommercial-in-Confidence

Old Wardour Castle

A castle that I call the wonder of the West

(Sir John Harrington, 1596)

Conservation Management Plan

Volume 1: ReportReport No: 3176.04

Final Report

July 2014


2/108

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation ManagementPlan

Report

April 2014 2

Nexus Heritage Controlled DocumentCommercial-in-Confidence

Report Number 3176.R 05

Report Status Final report

Prepared by: Gerry Wait and Keith Ray Date: completed 26/04/2014

Checked by: Anthony Martin and Gerry Wait Date: 27/04/2014

Approved by: Gerry Wait Date: 28/04/2014

Revision Record

Revs 1 -3 Rev 1 for information, Revs 2-3 for consultation

Revision No.4 Completion of text; insertion of figures; completion of Volume 2, Appendices

Revision No.5 Alterations to text

English Heritage

29 Queen Square

Bristol

BS1 4ND

United Kingdom


3/108

3176 Old Wardour Castle Conservation Management Plan Report

July 2014 1

CONTENTSVOLUME 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5

2. UNDERSTANDING THE ASSET ..................................................................................... 10

3. IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS ......................... 18

4. MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL .......................................................................................... 30

5. GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE .................................................................................................. 31

6. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 35

7. RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................ 44

7. POLICIES ....................................................................................................................... 54

8. ACTION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 577

9.

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 666

CONTENTSVOLUME 2

APPENDIX 1: GAZETTEER OF HERITAGE ASSETS .......................................................................... 69

ASSET OW1: THE TOWER KEEP ......................................................................................................... 71

ASSET OW2: THE ENCLOSURE WALL 74

ASSET OW3: THE PAVILION ................................................................................................................. 77

ASSETS OW4OW6: THE TERRACE, GROTTO, STONE SEATS, AND STANDING STONES ...... 79

ASSET OW5: THE GROTTO 81

ASSETS OW6: STONE SEATS, ENTRANCE-WAY AND STANDING STONES 83

ASSETS OW7OW10: THE STABLES ............................................................................................... 85

ASSET OW8 EXTERNAL TOWER, SW ANGLE OF PRECINCT WALLS 86

ASSET OW9 STRUCTURES WITHIN SOUTHERN LENGTH OF PRECINCT WALL 87

ASSET OW10 THE ACCESS AND SERVICE TUNNEL 89

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF CONSULTEES AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSES........................................ 90

APPENDIX 3: ACTION PLAN IN ORDER OF PRIORITY ...................................................................... 93

APPENDIX 4: INVENTORY OF ITEMS IN STORE (SUMMARY OF DATA FROM CAMERONMOFFETT) 97

APPENDIX 5: INDEX TO EH DIGITAL ARCHIVE ON OLD WARDOUR CASTLE (GERRYWAIT) 98

APPENDIX 6: LIST OF ASSETS FORMERLY IN THE ENVIRONS OF OLD WARDOUR, NOW LOST

(LUKE HUGHES) 104


4/108


July 2014 2

FIGURES

Report cover image: Old Wardour Castle tower keep (OW1) from the north-east

(Note: that the North tower is to the right of the entrance-way, the East tower to the left)

Figure 1 Location, south of Tisbury, Wiltshire (satellite image)................................................................. 8

Figure 2 Old Wardour Castle and immediate environs: direct vertical image.......................................... 8

Figure 3 Access and topography (NB incorrectly located arrow is as given by GPS referencing) ........... 9

Figure 4 Old Wardour Castle, showing the extent of the current Guardianship area in red..................... 9

Figure 5 Old WardourTower Keep as the visitor approaches it........................................................... 19

Figure 6 Engraving of 1732 by N & S Buck............................................................................................. 20

Figure 7 The banqueting House viewed from the tower keep................................................................. 21

Figure 8 Looking along the broader terrace to the Grotto....................................................................... 22

Figure 9 The terraces, viewed from the top of the tower keep................................................................ 22

Figure 10 The Grotto viewed along the axial approach from the tower keep.......................................... 23

Figure 11 The stone seats (standing stone out of sight to right)............................................................. 23

Figure 12 C19th view of Old Wardour from the south............................................................................. 29

Figure 13 Excavations in 1966 against the north face of the East Tower (MPBW; Luke Hughes)......... 32

Figure 14 View from the south: compare Figure 12 (note openings at SE angle of precinct wall)......... 34

Figure 15 Abstract from Andrews and Drury Atlas of Wiltshire (1751) (courtesy of L. Hughes) (NB

detached garden on hilltop above the castle to the E, already in existence by 1750, and therefore,contraCole, 2014, 7, unlikely to have been created as a temporary walled vegetable garden.............. 35

Figure 16 Tower Keep: south-facing elevation (Luke Hughes)............................................................... 37

Figure 17 Example of the views that guest chambers once offered....................................................... 37

Figure 18 Graffiti at Old Wardour............................................................................................................ 41

Figure 19 Gaps/evidential value: was there a c.1578 re-fronting of the North and East towers?......... 43

Figure 20 Repairs to the outer enclosure wall in 1992 (courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes); this illustrates thedanger of catastrophic collapse if not adequately monitored for movement........................................... 44

Figure 21 The first-floor Great Chamber from the north (showing the area of stonework badly affected

by water ingress following the insertion of a concrete floor).................................................................... 45

Figure 22 Visitors view of the Castles tower keep over the under-appreciated precinct wall............... 46

Figure 23 View from the west in the 1960s, courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (note MPBW scaffolding for

repairs, and newly planted forestry, now maturing)................................................................................. 49

Figure 24 (left: fissure in wall of Stables; right: tree-growth by point of 1990 failure of precinct wall)... 50

Figure 25 North tower, showing location of staircase (proposed for viewpoint insertion)...................... 60

Figure 26 East tower, second storey apartments (proposed for demountable displays)...................... 60

Figure 27 The reception hut/shop, from the tower keep: courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes (the structureadds an unwelcome municipalfeel to the site, not helped by the finger-post; a rationalised and more

sympathetic structure is needed)............................................................................................................. 64

Figure 28 Parking overcrowding at entrance to site (courtesy Luke Hughes) (a full strategy for

rationalising parking is needed at the site, not least to improve the setting of the precinct wall)............ 65


5/108


July 2014 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Old Wardour Castle, Wiltshire. It wasprepared between November 2013 and April 2014 by Nexus Heritage (sequentially Directors Dr.Gerry Wait and then Dr. Keith Ray) for English Heritage, and was finalised in July 2014.

The purpose of this report is to consider the significance of the property, to identify gaps inknowledge, and to specify (where possible) risks and opportunities for the buildings andlandscape. The aim also is to develop an action plan for future conservation and managementworks that takes into account both necessary and desirable works, including those that mayimprove the visitor experience.

Old Wardour Castle has an interesting place in English history, as a rare example of a designwith clear continental antecedents, built in its present hexagonal form originally by the Lovellfamily when at the height of their influence on the periphery of the royal court of Richard II in the

late 14

th

century. It was subsequently remodelled into a fine fortified country residence on behalfof the Cornish Arundell family around 1578, at least in part by the famed Elizabethan mason-architect Robert Smythson who was working at the same time on Longleat House nearby.

Each of these major construction episodes was accompanied by the creation of a designedlandscape of gardens and parkland extending outwards from the main house and enhancing itssetting. However, a third major significance of the site concerns its role as the landscapecounterpoint to new Wardour Castle mansion from the 1760s, as a picturesque ruin within apleasure ground that included a number of architectural set-pieces and that was associated withdesign and planting by the designer Richard Woods.

Key findings of the characterisation and assessment aspects of this study are that neitherstructural/embellishment details of the tower keep nor the forms and function(s) of theprecinct/curtain wall are as well-understood or recorded as well as they might be; and that the

terraces within the latter wall on the north-eastern side of the castle could be of greatersignificance to the overall understanding of the site than has hitherto been appreciated (withpossible origins as medieval gardens/prospect terraces).

Previous interventions and repairs to most of the buildings have mostly been donesympathetically and with consideration for the historic fabric. However, some structural problemsare identified, that have not yet been fully addressed, and that may need some intervention in thenot too distant futureespecially in respect to the precinct wall of the late 16

thcentury (founded

upon the late 14thcentury curtain wall).

The castle as visited today is authentic and easy to understand, with a more than acceptableimmediate setting and with a fine example of historic parkland and Wessex countryside as awider setting. However, more can and should be done to explain the role of the precinct/curtain

wall and early gardens; to achieve a more sympathetic treatment of the monument in respect toits immediate environs; and to re-integrate the castle within its wider former parkland setting.

Interpretation and understanding could be enhanced by better use of some of the spaces withinthe tower keep, notably two rooms on the ground floor which are nearly weatherproof and couldbe improved, and two rooms in the south-east tower which could be partially-weatherproofed andused for modest interpretive displays. There are a few other demountable structural additionswhich might significantly improve a visitors appreciation, and changes to site office/shop thatwould be highly beneficial. As is common to such sites, increased / improved site interpretationpanels could be installed, but at the risk of becoming increasingly intrusive and thereby detractingfrom visitorsoverall appreciation of the castle.

Consultation included discussions with site staff and in-depth conversation with local residents

and adjacent landowners. The concerns of the latter in particular about utility services and sitemanagement, and especially parking, and the relationship of the castle to the surrounding


6/108


July 2014 4

parkland, are noted in (both volumes of) the report. Recommendations are made concerning thewider landscape setting in terms of both conservation management and presentation.

Volume 1 of the Conservation Management Plan contains the principal sections of the report thatcharacterise and evaluate the site, and identify options for conservation and other actions.Volume 2 contains Appendices, and in particular a Gazetteer of the major site components andheritage assets.


7/108


July 2014 5

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Old Wardour Castle. This first volume (oftwo) provides an overview of the history and development of the site, notes gaps in knowledge,describes past and present management regimes, has at its core a statement of significance,and provides also an Action Plan to guide potential future approaches to the site.

A second volume comprises a Gazetteer that gives a more detailed account of the principalindividual heritage assets under English Heritage Guardianship at Old Wardour (presented asAppendix 1), along with a series of further Appendices detailing consultees and providingsupplementary information. Each heritage asset described in this document has been given aunique number (with the exception of parkland features) and this is used as a point of referencethroughout this document.

Site location and scope of work

Old Wardour Castle is located in the parish of Tisbury, in the south-west of the county of Wiltshire(Ordnance Survey NGR ST 938 263). It is located 3 km to the south-southwest of the village ofTisbury. The property is owned by The Hon. Richard Arundell (in succession to Lord Talbot ofMalahide), although the adjacent Old Wardour House and nearby Ark Farm are each separatelyowned. The castle itself and the ruins of the Stables (the latter within the curtilage of Old WardourHouse) are in the care of English Heritage and the castle (but not the Stables) is open to thepublic.

The location of the site and the current extent of English Heritage Guardianship are shown inFigures 1-4.

The Conservation Management Plan will consider the Guardianship area of Old Wardour Castle,but will where appropriate consider issues from a wider area as they affect the monument.

Aims and objectives

The Conservation Management Plan has three principal aims. They are:

to understand the heritage assets of Old Wardour Castle, in the context of both the history ofthe site and local, regional and national planning policy and frameworks

to understand the significance of the asset as a whole

to highlight how and why the significance of the sites is vulnerable and to suggest ways inwhich the management of the site can be enhanced in the future.

To consider the presentation and interpretation of Old Wardour Castle and make

recommendations where appropriateThe specific objectives for the Conservation Management Plan are to inform the:

management of the monument in order to continue to protect and sustain its significance

long term sustainability of the site

maintenance of the site to an exemplary conservation standard

management of current levels of public access and enjoyment and where appropriateidentify additional opportunities in line with current feasibility studies

explanatory interpretation of the site to the public in a way that enhances the visitorexperience without adversely impacting on its significance.


8/108


July 2014 6

Methodology

This Conservation Management Plan has been prepared by Gerry Wait and (then) by Keith Ray,

of Nexus Heritage. The process has been divided into several stages, which are reflected in thestructure of this document.

Understanding heritage assets/historical development of the site (Section 2 ofthis Plan)

Background historical research (readily-available secondary sources) was carried out and sitevisits made in order to understand the Heritage Assets of Old Wardour Castle, and how the sitehas developed over time. The setting of the site within the wider landscape has also beenconsidered. No new measured survey work has been undertaken on either buildings orlandscapes. Originally it was intended to include the Gazetteer of Historic Environment assetswithin this section, but instead there is simply a primary characterisation of the identified assets.For ease of reference (and to more readily enable the transmission and storage of digital

documents), the Gazetteer has instead been presented as part of a separate Volume, as notedabove.

Management appraisal(Section 3 of this Plan)

Past and current management regimes on the site have been appraised in outline rather than indetail, using information supplied by English Heritage. The results of this appraisal are presentedin Section 3.

Assessment of current state of knowledge, and identification of gaps inknowledge(Section 4)

This has assessed the extent of current knowledge and research, and has identified a series ofquestions and has specified areas of doubt based upon what is currently known.

Statement of significance (Section 5)

This section is organised into two parts:

The first part is a succinct headline statement that seeks to capture the essence of theimportance of Old Wardour Castle in its own right in the national setting.

The second partfollows the scheme set out in the English Heritage Conservation Principles,and expresses significance in terms of four key values, or sets of values. These are:Evidential Value, Historical Value, Aesthetic Value and Community Value, and OldWardour Castle is formally assessed here in respect to each set in terms of the individualsite components and groups of site components.

The preparation of the Statement has involved professional analysis by the authors of this Planand both formal and informal consultation and discussion with English Heritage staff and otherstakeholders. A full list of consultees is presented in Volume 2, Appendix 2.

Assessment of risks and opportunities (Section 6)

This section provides, firstly, an overview (only) of risks, and of opportunities for enhancedmanagement of the site. Secondly, there is an asset-by-asset appraisal of issues, constraints andopportunities.

Action Plan (Section 7)

This section identifies a series of possible options for conservation and management action. This

hopefully provides the basis for prioritising and carrying out management decisions concerningthe various different spheres of site conservation and visitor management. The Action Points are


9/108


July 2014 7

itemised in a table, along with their recommended priority. A further final part of the Action Planexplains the reasons for the various recommended actions and for their priority status.

References (Section 8)The bibliography provided in this report is a select one. A considerable number of references toboth primary and secondary sources were encountered during Plan preparation, and it soonbecame obvious that there would not be scope to provide an inclusive (let alone exhaustive) setof references. It also became clear that the compilation of a comprehensive reference archive isa worthwhile objective in its own right. While it may seem to be of peripheral interest, this isnonetheless an important task.

Reporting

This has been undertaken in several stages, in order to enable the results from the variousconsultation processes to be fed into it.

A first draft was prepared by Gerry Wait in January 2014, following research carried out betweenOctober and December 2013, a field visit in November, and compilation in early 2014. This wascirculated for initial comment, and a second draft was prepared.

Before the production of a third draft, and following a meeting and agreement with EnglishHeritage, Keith Ray took over primary responsibility for the completion of the Plan. Following areview meeting organised by Win Scutt, Assistant Properties Curator for the West Territory, inBristol in mid-March, two site-based consultation meetings were arranged in late March and inearly April 2014, and a further (penultimate, fourth) draft report was produced.

Following a final consultation meeting with English Heritage regional staff in Bristol, a series offinal-stage drafts was produced. Most of the document was finalised in the period 14

th 20

th

April, following receipt of further information and comments upon the fourth draft version. The

present, final, version (July 2014), arose from further consultation responses and minor editorialcorrections and suggestions (by Win Scutt) received in May and June 2014.

The report has been written with reference to the following key documents:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011-2015(2011)

English Heritage National Heritage Protection Plan(NHPP) (2011)

English Heritage Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the SustainableManagement of the Historic Environment (2008)

Kate Clark, Informed Conservation, London: English Heritage (2003)


10/108


July 2014 8

Figure 1 Location, south of Tisbury, Wiltshire (satellite image)

Figure 2Old Wardour Castle and immediate environs: direct vertical image


11/108


July 2014 9

Figure 3Access and topography (NB incorrectly located arrow is as given by GPS referencing)

Figure 4 Old Wardour Castle, showing the extent of the Guardianship area in red.


12/108


July 2014 10

2. UNDERSTANDING THE ASSET

This section comprises two parts. The first part describes the historical and archaeologicaldevelopment of the site, in its local, regional and national setting. It identifies the persons andevents associated with the Castle through time, and what impact they had on the fabric. Thesecond part identifies each asset at Old Wardour Castle and provides an outline characterisationeither individually or in aggregate.

Outline historical development of the site

This is presented as a chronologically-framed narrative, drawn from existing secondary sourcesand some previous survey work and other research. It is not intended to provide a full history;

rather it informs the management issues discussed in subsequent sections. The conventionalunderstanding of the chronological development of the site is described engagingly in the fullrecent site guidebook (Girouard, 2012).

The place-name Wardour appears in a charter of 899-925AD as weard oran, and in Domesdayas Werdore. The name is a compound of Old English weard, watch and ora, slope (Goveret al.1939 The Place-Names of Wiltshire).

There was a Domesday manor at Wardour, but so far, the site of the early settlement has eludeddiscovery. 12th-13

thcentury pottery has been found at the site, and the deer-park is recorded

from this era. A settlement appears to have existed and was occupied in the fourteenth century,and possibly earlier, in a location just to the north of the recent New Wardour Castle.

However, the well-documented story of Old Wardour Castle effectively begins in the later 14th

century. The tenure of the Lovell family at Wardour, circa 1386 1485 represents the period ofmajor development here, with construction of a hexagonal tower keep with a pair of projectingtowers forming a prominent north-east facing front. This stood within a presumed concentrichexagonal curtain wall, but little is certain about this latter structure including where itsgatehouse was located. Other details about this medieval Wardour Castle are also obscure, suchas the nature of presumably service buildings within or attached to the curtain wall; the nature ofany associated gardens; and of other facilities beyond the curtain wall.

From 1485-1547 the Castle was held by the Crown and was variously occupied, but it was thengranted to Sir Matthew Arundell whose descendants, despite two brief (but very dramatic)periods of interregnum during and after the Civil War, held the Castle until the Second World Warand it is still owned by their successors. Sir Matthew was responsible for a major refurbishmentof the tower keep, a thorough rebuilding of the curtain wall, and quite probably the elaboration of

formal gardens in the outer ward.

In the period after 1660, when the property was restored to Henry Arundell, it remained as a ruinand was no longer the preferred family seat. The buildings to the south of the curtain wallbecame an occasional residence of the Arundell family, who gradually added to theaccommodation there, eventually resulting in the creation of what is today Old Wardour House.

Henry, 8thLord Arundell, inherited the property in 1756, and immediately began drawing up plans

for the rebuilding and restoration of Old Wardour Castle; he followed his father in commissioningdesigns for a landscape park to surround it. By 1764 he had decided, however, to build anentirely new Wardour Castle on an eminence to the north-west with a much broader, south-facing, prospect than Old Wardour enjoys. The new house (begun in 1770), and its landscape,were conceived on a grand scale, and within this landscape Old Wardour Castle was retained as

a key feature: a picturesque ruin (nonetheless in its own, at first formally-designed, leisureground), and a Gothic counterpoint to the new neo-Classical mansion.


13/108


July 2014 11

The history of Wardour is well-researched and well-published at least in summary and inaccessible format in the present guidebook. Consequently, no attempt is made here to provide adetailed historical account, and instead a brief tabular summary is presented. There are a fewaspects of the site which are poorly understood: in particular, the detailed configuration of theouter ward either in the medieval period or in the late 16

thcentury, and of the early curtain wall

and associated structures, is almost completely unknown. These and other less well understoodaspects are discussed further in Section 4, below.

Dates Who Events at Wardour

Phase 1:

1086 Wardour manor mentioned inDomesday Book, held by nuns

of Wilton Abbey, of the King

No known remains

1386 Sold by Thomas Calston,nephew and heir of LawrenceSt Martin, to John, 5

thLord

Lovell (linked to Richard II viahis marriage to Maud deHolande)

No known remains, but excavations haveproduced C12-13

thceramics; suggests

possibility of an earlier manorial sitebeneath the present buildings, if notnecessarily a predecessor castle.

Phase 2:

1393 John, 5th

Lord Lovell grantedlicence to crenellate Wardour.Lord Lovell was married to anheiress, whose cousins werethe half-brothers of KingRichard II; he was in directcontact with the royal courtand, within two generations,the Lovells were amongst thewealthiest families in England.

John Lord Lovell was never inthe Kings inner circle like hiswifes cousins, but henonetheless benefitted from

the relationship in terms ofgrants, perquisites and jobs.These Royal connections ledto presence of royal master-masons at Wardour.

William 7thLord Lovell focuses

attention on Minster Lovell1431-1442

During the fifteenth centurythe Lovells took theLancastrian side in the Warsof the Roses. As a result the

castle was confiscated in 1461when Francis 9

thLord Lovell

Builds the basic Castle as found, inhexagonal plan.

Continental inspirations inconcentric/geometric form, e.g. EmperorFrederick IIs Castel del Monteof 1246+ inItaly, Belleverin Majorca (1310); alsoEdward IIIs concentric circularQueenborough Castle in Kent (1361-77)and Chateau de Concressaultin Cher (builtsometime in the 1380s).

Master Mason William Wynford (Windsor,Winchester and Wells)

The tower keep of Old Wardour is a

hexagonal structure, approximately 40m inoverall diameter and may have copied aFrench design. The symmetry of the overallplan is broken by the two towers, survivingto almost full height, which flank theentrance on the north east side. Within thekeep is a central hexagonal courtyard,which is little more than a light-well for therooms which surround it.

The surrounding wall stands at least in parton top of an original Curtain Wall but this isnot immediately obvious; nor is it well

explained on site.At least 1 large underground


14/108


July 2014 12


sided with Edward of York

became King Edward IV.

In 1547 the castle was sold toSir Thomas Arundell.

The Arundell familytemporarily lost it in 1552 forsupporting the Duke ofSomerset (executed that year)but they then recovered it in1570.

passage/tunnel extends to the southeast,

and a second almost certainly extendedwest to drain into the Swan Pool to north ofthe Pavilion.

Swan Pool probably is located on the site ofthe medieval fishponds.

.

Phase 3:

14851547 Wardour held by the Crown orothers under the Crown

Little or no documented activity at Wardour

Phase 4:

1547 Sir Thomas Arundellfamilyof Arundells of Lanherne andTrerice in Cornwall. MarriedMargaret, niece of Duke ofNorfolk. Later linked to LordSomerset, Protector duringminority of Edward VI, and this

led to his being attainted fortreason (with the loss ofWardour) in 1552

Buys Wardour

1570 Sir Matthew Arundell buysWardour back from Earl ofPembroke (of Wilton House)who had held it briefly

1578 recovery of Wardour by Arundellfamily marked by inscription on plaqueabove entrance.

Hexagonal planthis pleased theElizabethan fancy and Arundell set aboutcompletely modernising the structureandby doing so he in effect created the OldWardour Castle we see today.

The castle, which by the late sixteenthcentury would have looked very old-fashioned, escaped being demolished andrebuilt but was remodelled in anarchitectural makeover more in keepingwith contemporary taste.

Specifically, among other things Arundellsubstituted Tudor 3-light windows for theexternal slits, added the new door at thefoot of the main staircase in the Courtyard,remodelled the main north-east doorwayplacing a bust of Our Lord over the Arundellcoat of arms, and re-fronted mostfireplaces. Robert Smythson, then buildingLongleat for Sir John Thynne, was also


15/108


July 2014 13


employed by Arundell to oversee the work

at Wardour.

The refurbishment, which providedclassically-inspired fronts to the mainentrance and also involved the replacementof many of the windows, may be attributedto Robert Smythson.

The bailey, or outer courtyard, is very large:a maximum of 152m by 175m. The shapereflects that of the keep and its towers. Thethin enclosing curtain wall survives for mostof the circuit, and retains the ground levelswhich have built up within the bailey.

Soil levels within the bailey are known frompartial excavation to have been raised,probably in the 18

thcentury when the lake

was greatly increased in size, therebyeffectively sealing the medieval occupationdeposits beneath them. The wall belongs tothe 16

thcentury alterations but is known

from partial excavation to be (at least inpart) on the line of the original curtain wall.

Sir Matthew died 1598.

Sir Thomas Arundell (son ofSir Matthew) was openlyCatholic and also fought wellas a soldier in wars against theTurk in Hungary, fell out offavour with Elizabeth I.Regained favour under James1 and in 1605 was createdBaron Wardour.

Died 1639 and succeeded byhis son, also Thomas, who

held Wardour until 1642.

No known works at Old Wardour. However,service structures south of the curtain wall

could have been built at this time, and theformal gardens recorded in the 18

thcentury

were probably in existence by the early 17th

century.

As virtual head of the English Catholics thefamily was persecuted repeatedly forrecusancy and fell deeply into debt (Keen,1967, 69) at this period, and this mayexplain why there were no furthermodifications to the structure both at thistime, or indeed subsequently.

1643 Sir Thomas (2nd

Lord Arundell)supported King Charles atOxford (where he later died).His wife Blanche held Wardouragainst a Parliamentariansiege in May 1643.

The sixteenth-centuryremodelling of the house hadreduced its ability to resistattack and after a siege ofabout a week, Lady Arundel

(her husband was away withKing Charles I at Oxford)

Castle damaged in siege and then pillagedby the Parliamentarian army whichcaptured and occupied the castle.

After the Civil War damage, in 1643 and1644, no attempts were made to put thecastle back into a fit state for occupation. Itsruined state and old fashioned appearancemeant it was never reoccupied. In the 18

th

century it became a scenic attraction in thenewly landscaped park, which surrounded anew house.


16/108


July 2014 14


surrendered the castle to

Parliamentary forces.

1643 (December)March 1644

Sir Henry Arundell (3rd

LordArundell) besieged castle. In1644, the son of Lady

Arundell, recaptured the castlebut accidentally destroyed ahuge part of it.

Siege involved a large mine, created bylead miners from Mendips, under the SWside of the castle. Mine was accidentallyfired and this caused an explosion thatdestroyed much of the castle. Second mineresulted in surrender.

Despite the extensive damage caused tothe south west side of the keep during theCivil War, the layout of rooms at bothground and first floor level could still be

appreciated, including focal elements suchas the hall and apartments in North andEast towers.

1649 Execution of Charles I, andHenry Arundell is attainted.The castle was confiscated byParliament but was recoveredby the Arundells in 1660.

No works at Wardour Castleleft as a ruin,but with formal gardens retained or newlylaid out around it.

Phase 5:

From 1650 - Under Charles II Henryeventually became Lord PrivySeal. Sir Henry rentedBreamore in Hants. He died in1694.

Henry built the small house c.1685, againstthe south side of the Curtain Wall and hisyounger son Henry lived there until 1721.

Old Wardour House was built beyond thewalls to the SW, fitted and used by SirHenry and then by Catholic priests andestate bailiffs on an occasional basis. Theelder Henry was succeeded by Thomas,who died in 1712 at Breamore.

The Stables were probably also builtaround 1685, possibly on the site of earlier

stables cleared away during (or after) theCivil War siege.

1732 Samuel and Nathaniel Buckengraving

Castle had been prettified by formaltopiary gardens in surrounding grounds

Phase 6:

1756 Henry 8thLord Arundell inherits

(his father the 7thLord had

married well, back to theArundells in Cornwall andthrough them the Panton

family heiress. Married heiressMary Conquest in 1763.

Decided to build New Wardour, havingdecided that restoring Old Wardour was notfeasible. Retains Old Wardour as a ruin asa major feature in a new Parkland.

Building of New Wardour Castle was begununder James Paine (a well know architectto the Catholic gentry) 1770 and finished


17/108


July 2014 15


1776.

Two surveys of Old Wardour were carriedout under this Henry Arundell. One of them,a plan of 1753 shows a bowling green onthe upper side of the castle and pleasuregarden(it is not clear whether this was inuse, or planned).

Also, against the South Curtain wall arelocated several structures: the house &stew court &c. with stables, granary anddogkennel to the north and west.

1754 7thLord Arundell had

commissioned a parkland planfrom CapabilityBrown butdied without starting works.

Browns park wasnever realised. Brownsplans survive.

1764

1773

Henry, 8thLord commissioned

a parkland plan from RichardWoods

James Paine, building NewWardour, is the likely designerof the banquetinghouse/pavilionat OldWardour, built c.1773, that is,between the variouscommissions of Woods (1764)

and the apparent return ofBrown in 1774-5.

(James Paine inherited thearchitectural practice of DanielGarrett in the 1750s. The latterhad built the GothickBanqueting House for anotherCatholic family at Gibside Hall,Northumberland, a buildingthat also still survives: inf, LukeHughes).

Woods plan of 1764 survives. Woodsmaincontribution, apart from ensuring survival ofthe ruins as picturesque ruins in a widerdesigned parkland, was to lay out a seriesof prospect walks from which the ruined OldWardour Castle could be admired.

Much of his wider plan was notimplemented, but he did extend the Swan

Pond (where an older rectangular fishpond/lake had been). He also built an icehouse and gothic temple (neither survives).

A cold bath-house survives in part as therelocated rusticated portico attached to ArkFarm.

The Banqueting House/Pavilionis not inWoods plans, but was built at about thistime (payments listed in the estate accountsfor 1773), replacing the older banquetinghouse which is also shown on the Buckprint. The Gothic banqueting house is

rectangular in plan with canted ends. It hasalso been speculated that the banquetinghouse could have been built on the remainsof a gatehouse. On the south east angle ofthe curtain wall, close to the pavilion andsharing detail with it, is a (three-seater!)privy, or `necessary house'.

Around the remains of the tower keep atOld Wardour, Woods probably removed theformal gardens and laid the lawns, Thecedars were probably planted at this time(mentioned by Colt Hoare in 1829). To theeast he probably built the prospect terrace

and the rustic archway.

The present entrance into the bailey is


18/108


July 2014 16


through an 18th century gateway, the

ragged piers of which are probably the workof Josiah Lane, the builder of the grotto.South of the bailey, outside the curtain wall,lies the ruined shell of the stables built by1686. The building has two gable walls,each standing to first floor ceiling height,linked on the southern side by a wall whichincorporates a series of wide archedopenings. The northern side of the buildingis formed by the curtain wall.

In the early 18th century the castle ruinswere still surrounded by formal gardens.

After the construction of New WardourCastle between 1769 and 1776, the baileywas laid out in the `picturesque' mannerand the grounds about it were landscapedand planted.

The most prominent feature of thelandscaping within the bailey is a series ofterraces, facing the entrance to the keepand running the full width of the bailey. AnEnglish Heritage Ancient MonumentsLaboratory geophysical survey in the late1990s recorded anomalies that would seemto reflect garden features.

1773-1780 Capability Brown wasapparently brought back whenHenry (8

thLord) Arundell and

Woods fell out

A second Brown plan of 1773 may havebeen implemented only in the areaimmediately around New Wardour. Thebreakfast parlour-house of 1753 is now abanqueting-house and there are formalgardens laid out within the Curtain/baileywall. Three terraces are shown behind thecastle (only one now remains)

1792 9thLord Arundell inherits as

cousin of 8thLord (and

husband of the 8

th

Lordsdaughter) but is impoverishedby 8

thLords debts.

Old Wardour Castle remains as a romanticruin, creeper clad, open to public and

popular as a tourist attraction.The centrepiece of the lower terrace is anelaborate stone, brick and plaster grottobuilt in 1792 by Josiah Lane of Tisbury. Tothe north of the grotto, close to the mostnortherly point of the curtain wall, is aminiature 'Avebury' stone circle, the stonestaken from a stone circle by Place Farm,Tisbury andincorporating two rustic alcoveswhich reuse decorative details from thecastle. Additional stone settings lie alongthe rear of the terrace. Attribution to J Lanehas recently been questioned (by Prof T

Mowl see below) but marks the end ofconstruction at Old Wardour.


19/108


July 2014 17


1936 15

th

Lord transferred the OldWardour castle into theGuardianship of the State,although retained ownership.

1946 John 16thLord Arundell served

in WWII but died 1944unmarried and childless - theBarony of Wardour becameextinct.

Most of the Wardour Estatewas auctioned in 1946, withthe exception of Old WardourCastle

2014 Old Wardour owned by theHon. Richard Arundell,successor to Lord Talbot ofMalahide (in turn successor toLord Arundell) and still inGuardianship.

Surrounding parkland nowmostly returned into ownershipof the Arundell family, andfarmed by them or let to

tenants.


20/108


July 2014 18

3. IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OFHERITAGE ASSETS

Identification

The Heritage Assets at Old Wardour Castle can, in the simplest terms, be identified as individualvisible structures (or groups of structures) and remains:

1. Tower keep (OW 1 below, and in Appendix 1)

2. The extended-hexagonal precinct (formerly curtain/bailey) wall and enclosed bailey(OW2)

3. Banqueting House/Pavilion (OW3)

4. The elongated terrace(s), to the north-east within the garden (OW4)

5. Grotto (OW5)

6. Stone seats, entrance gateway and standing stones (OW6)

7. The Stables (OW7)

8. The external tower attached to the south-west corner of the precinct wall (OW8)

9. Structures incorporated into the southern stretch of the precinct wall (OW9)

10. The access and service tunnel (OW10)

It is important to list additional assets buried below-ground or existing out with the Guardianship,

either individually or in groups, to improve awareness of their information potential and theirfragility. As such, a further 10 assets or asset-groups are enumerated here and described below.

Old Wardour House, not including the ruined stable-block (OW11)

The medieval curtain wall and associated structures other than the gatehouse (OW12)

The medieval gatehouse, or site thereof (OW13)

The buried stone-lined drain (OW 14)

Renaissance modification of the medieval gatehouse, or replacement thereof (OW15)

The documented mine and other (unknown) Civil War siege-works (OW16) Former formal garden features in the Guardianship area, of 16

th-17

th century origin

(OW17)

Picturesque landscape features, including terrace, grotto and stone seat (OW18)

Pre-medieval deposits and buried remains, if present (OW19)

Designed landscape and parkland features out with the Guardianship area (OW20)

The first 10 visible assets (above) at Old Wardour Castle are clearly capable of fullcharacterisation, whereas those not in Guardianship, or that are below-ground elements, canonly be described in outline. They have (at best) only been glimpsed in ground-penetratingexercises in the past, or are inferred as present (or formerly present) either from documentary

evidence or from limited archaeological investigations of one kind or another. In Appendix 1,therefore, it is only assets OW 1-10that are formally assessed in the Gazetteer in Volume 2 of


21/108


July 2014 19

this Plan; the remaining assets are described in outline below. Assets mentioned within OW20represent only a surviving fraction of what was once present in the surrounding parkland (SeeAppendix 6), and are more fully described in Cole, 1999 (see section 9, below).

Initial characterisation

The Heritage Assets at Old Wardour can be characterised as follows.

OW1 Tower Keep

This is the main surviving standing structure at the site, and is what is generally envisaged asthe castle when visitors think of the site. It comprises what was the central (and principal)building within the curtain wall, and is ranged on several storeys, with the top-most largelymissing. This building housed a series of reception and domestic apartments, ranged around asmall courtyard serving simply as a light-well. The most distinctive feature of this building is itshexagonal inner court, and its external hexagonal plan with a rectangle added to one side

(Girouard, 2012, 4).

Survival of the structure is generally better on the north-east facing side, which was the leastdamaged side during the Civil War. It is often referred to as the keep, but it belongs to aparticular class of tower keep dating from the late 14

th and early 15

th century in which all the

accommodation was contained in one mass, unlike earlier castles where the rooms weredispersedin separate towers set at intervals along the curtain wall, or in other buildings (Keen,1967, 67).

Figure 5 Old WardourTower Keep as the visitor approaches it.

A more extended, though by no means exhaustive, description of this building is provided in thefirst Gazetteer entry of this Plan (Volume 2, Appendix 1). One aspect (query) not mentioned there(or in the guidebook) is where the medieval chapel serving the castle was located. Varioustheories have arisen that suggest possible former locations for this chapel, such as the room onthe ground floor currently designated wine cellar (the chapel is inferred here by some on thebasis of its east-west orientation; however, it is highly unlikely that a domestic chapel would havebeen located on the ground floor). It is more likely that a private chapel formed one of the familysdomestic chambers in the west apartments, and that the castle chapel was a free-standing

building located within the curtain wall, perhaps to the north of the tower keep.


22/108


July 2014 20

OW2 The extended-hexagonal precinct (formerly curta in/bai ley) wal l and

enclosed bai ley

The wall that encloses the outer court of the castle is, in plan, a close mirror of the tower keep. Itis not simply a boundary wall, but was (in origin at least) the curtain wall that surrounded thebailey, or outer ward, of the castle: at least from the late 14

th century. It was entirely rebuilt,

apparently as part of the refurbishment of the tower keep, c. 1578. The wall as visible aboveground today, seemingly of one build, has been shown during excavations by Laurence Keen in1965 (and a watching brief in 1991) to have been founded upon the medieval curtain wall,certainly along its south-western length (Keen, 1967, 71-2). As such, the wall that is visible todayis better described as a precinct wall rather than a curtain wall.

Just why the medieval curtain-wall was swept away to be replaced by a structure apparently of asomewhat lighter build is uncertain. One possible explanation is that it resulted from a decision,around 1578, to clear the outer court of service buildings and to plant a garden in the spacethereby created. Since the north-east facing part of the enclosure was still presumably the

ceremonial approach to the inner castle precincts (see OW 13 and OW 15, below), it is notsurprising to find ancillary service structures placed not only along the exterior of the southernlength of curtain wall, but formerly against the north-west facing and north-facing lengths also.These several buildings constructed against, or integral with, this precinct wall in the late 16

th

century, or added subsequently, include a brick-vaulted tunnel inserted into the south-easternmost angle of the curtain wall, with an architecturally-impressive Vanbrugh-styleentrance portico. The Buck engraving of 1732 shows another elongated gabled building, possiblya barn, sited against the external face of the wall on the north-west facing length, and alignedalong it and possibly integral with it.

Figure 6 Engraving of 1732 by N & S Buck

The bailey of the castle is large (around 150m at maximum north-south extent by 175m east-west). In the late medieval period it was probably largely devoted to domestic and servicefunctions of the castle (and possibly the site of the chapel), but it may also have contained thedomestic castle gardens. In the period from 1578 to c.1760, the space was largely or whollydevoted to providing the formal gardens and walks within the precinct wall, and the immediatesetting for the refurbished tower keep. In the period thereafter it was heavily-planted with treesand shrubs, and laid to lawn (possibly initially with some planted borders remaining) to dramatise


23/108


July 2014 21

the romantic ruins in the Picturesque style: comp lete with the complementary new gateway,stone seats, stone circleand Grotto (OW5, OW 6, below).

Richard Woods was probably responsible for the re-landscaping that is attested archaeologically,whereby the ground-level within the outer ward/bailey, and against the inside of the precinct wall,was raised. An instruction entered as a memorandum on 15

th March 1766 described works

designed to level down the slops in the Castle Garden (Laird, 1999, 229-31). While the focushas in the past been strongly upon how this action has potentially preserved earlierarchaeological deposits by sealing them, two more negative consequences need mention. Thefirst is that, because it is known that such deposits contain building rubble, it cannot be assumedthat the dumping and settling process has not in fact damaged those earlier deposits. Secondly,the build-up of soil involved has apparently compromised the stability of parts of the precinct wall.

OW3 Banq uet ing House/Pavi l ion

This neo-Gothic two-storey building is located at the mid-point of the south-west facing side ofthe precinct wall. It is accessed both at the raised intra-mural level within the line of the wall, andat a lower level externally. It is an elongated rectangular rendered brick building oriented north-south, with a pair of canted ends north and south, consciously mimicking the angular form of thetower keep. It served also as a prospect building, overlooking the lake and parkland in onedirection, and well situated to view also the ruined tower keep in the other direction.

Figure 7 The banqueting house viewed from the tower keep

The banqueting house as seen today was probably designed by James Paine, and was builtalmost certainly in the period 1772-3. It replaced an older dining room in the same location, andsome authorities have suggested that this was also the site of an original gatehouse. Its use asan informal tea-room for visitors led to its being termed a Pavilion. The older dining building ismarked on an early 18

thcentury map, but there is no evidence to support the notion that there

was ever a gatehouse here.

OW4 The elong ated terrace(s) to the north -east with in the garden

There is certainly one broad terrace, and there are traces of two other narrower terraces attacheduphill, at the furthest north-east end of the outer ward precinct. They were a feature of thepleasure grounds laid out within the immediate precincts of the tower keep, apparently (and

according to 18th

century plans) within the precinct wall. They are visible on the ground. The


24/108


July 2014 22

lower terrace was apparently adapted as the platform for the construction for the Grotto (OW 5,below).

The terraces conform closely to the plan of those shown as extant in this location on the surveydrawings of 1753 and 1773, and the lowest of the terraces is still, as shown on the 1753 plan(Laird, 1999, Fig 135), the broadest. On that plan this broad terrace was identified as a BowlingGreen.As such, it is closely similar to the still-extant bowling green on the terrace above, and tothe east of, the main house at Trerice near Newquay in Cornwall, another Arundell property.

Figure 8 Looking along the broader terrace to the Grotto

The origin of the terraces may be medieval: as noted below (Section 4, Gaps in knowledge),they may have parallels elsewhere, even in moderately close proximity in another Wiltshiremedieval castle. Their form may have been planned integrally with the north-east facing entrance

faade of the tower keep, and so could be one of the original features of the site.

Figure 9 The terraces, viewed from the top of the tower keep

OW5 Grotto

The Grotto comprises rough-cast, but quarried stone. It was built by Josiah Lane, of Tisbury, in

1792. Its apparent informality of construction is an artefact of its dilapidation in the later 20

th

century. Its structure instead possessed a definite symmetry, but it survives today in anythingnearing its complete form only on its southern flank (to the right when viewed, as intended, from


25/108


July 2014 23

the west). Its presence here from 1792 must mean that the bowling green was abandoned at, orby, the time of construction of the Grotto.

The exact appearance of the Grotto as originally built is uncertain. At its base there are extensivetraces of the former plaster frostwork that once covered the structure, and this plasterwork(remains of which are also held in store at Atcham) indicates that the structure once had a verydifferent appearance to that which it has today.

Figure 10 The Grotto viewed along the axial approach from the tower keep

OW6 Stone seats, entrance gateway and standing sto nes

A pair of rustic stone recessed alcove seats is situated in the extreme northern limit of the castleprecinct, to the north of the Grotto. The seats were built by a local stonemason, Haydock, in

around 1770. They are built facing towards the north-east faade of the tower keep, but couldalso have been intended to provide seated viewing for the bowling green on the lower terrace.The simple entrance flanked by ragged piers may also be the work of Josiah Lane. Other stones(one standing, others scattered about) located to the south of the seats were, according to theaccounts of visitors in the early 19

th century, part of a once-elaborate setting that has been

referred to as a mini-Avebury, although not enough stones survive in their original position toenable a reconstruction to be made of the original form of the setting. Some of these stones weretaken from a stone circle that stood near Place Farm, Tisbury. These may reflect the late 18

th

century and early 19thcentury explosion of antiquarianism.

Figure 11 The stone seats (standing stone out of sight to right)


26/108


July 2014 24

OW7 The Stables

The Stablesis a stone-built ruin of the former stable-block, within the curtilage of Old Wardour

House. Built c.1685, the former elongated rectangular building was aligned east-west, and itsnorth wall was formed by the exterior face of the southern-most length of the precinct wall. Thetwo (east and west) gable walls survive to first floor ceiling height, and these are linked on thesouthern wall which incorporates a series of wide arched openings.

OW8 The external tower attached to the south-west corn er of the precinct wal l

the privy

This diminutive two-storey building projects southwards from the most south-westerly angle ofthe precinct wall. This was described as a necessary house in the 19

th century, and was

presumably originally designed as a privy. At the lower level it is accessed externally from a

doorway facing east. At the upper level, like the banqueting house, it was accessed from theraised internal ground within the precinct wall. This access allowed for its main use, especiallywhen the banqueting house was being used in the 19

th century as a tea pavilion. The three-

seater privy itself survives intact as built.

OW9 Structures incorp orated into the southern stretch of the precinct wal l

A number of structures did once form, or do now form, an integral part of the precinct wall at thelower level along the southern stretch of that wall. They may originally have been accessed fromwithin the outer court/ward of the castle. What is of interest about these structures is that two ofthem feature simple barrel vaults in stone that, given their integral build with simple equilateralpointed arches, appear nonetheless to be of medieval origin.

OW10 The access and service tunn el

This is a stone-lined tunnel that extends south-eastwards from the cellar beneath the East towerof the tower keep. Largely due to the fact that this connects directly with the castle kitchens, it ispresumed that this was built as a service tunnel. It is now blocked, to prevent access from thetower keep ruins. If, as seems likely, it was medieval in origin, it would have emerged withinbuildings that formerly existed against the interior of the curtain wall, within its south-easternangle. As and when these were removed to the exterior of the outer ward of the castle, the tunnelcould have been extended beyond the line of the curtain wall (there is an opening visible in theright location today). Although it is clear what direction the tunnel extends in from the tower keep,

and it is certain that it extended some considerable distance outwards from this point, no sign ofit was traced in the geophysical survey (Linford, 1997, p.3) which may raise questions concerningthe usefulness of that survey.

OW11 Old Wardou r House, exclud ing the stable-bloc k

The impressive 18th century house that now lies parallel with the southern-most length of the

precinct wall was built during the period when the Arundell family, no longer in residence atWardour, nonetheless needed an occasional base, or wished to provide lodgings for visiting (orhiding) Catholic priests, or for stewards/bailiffs of the estate, in the period before the building ofNew Wardour Castle in the late 18

thcentury. The exact development of the site and its buildings

is uncertain, and there may have been a building here in the medieval period (See OW2,

especially in the Gazetteer entry description). The Buck engraving of 1732 shows a building here,against the external face of the southern length of precinct wall.


27/108


July 2014 25

A modest dairying complex, with house and yard, is shown on the 18thcentury estate maps as

once existing a short distance to the south of Old Wardour House. The foundations of thebuildings of this complex are now buried, but have been observed in situ beneath the turf (L.Hughes,pers comm).

OW12 The med ieval curta in w al l and ass ociated structu res other than the

gatehouse

The medieval curtain wall surrounded the outer ward of the late 14thcentury castle. Very little is

known about its original form, however, or even the exact disposition of its lengths of walling. Itappears to have been broader than the existing precinct wall (built in the late 16

thcentury), but

nothing else is known about its character. So, for instance, it may have featured supporting orprojecting buttresses, and angle- or interval-towers. It is likely, on analogy with otherconcentrically-organised castles developed for display in the late 14

thcentury, such as Bodiam

and Raglan, that this outer wall would have been designed to mirror the flamboyant designevident in the main focal structure. Nor is it clear whether any ditch existed beyond the curtainwall: no trace has apparently been observed in the various recorded interventions.

The associated structures, about which nothing whatsoever is known, are likely to havecomprised a mix of lean-to, integral or free-standing structures in stone (and also in stone-and-timber) placed up against, or close to, the interior elevation of the wall. Such structures wouldmost likely have included ancillary kitchens, stores, workshops, wash-houses, armoury andstables: as well as the castle chapel.

OW13 The medieval gatehouse, or site thereof

There was almost certainly a late medieval gatehouse contemporary with the tower keep. It ishighly likely that such a structure would have been modest in size but architecturally-elaborate. Alogical view would be that it was directly aligned with the outer door of the passage between thetwin north-east facing towers of the tower keep. As such, the most likely location would be justover halfway between the outer door of the passage and the Grotto. However, a significant factorto be considered here is the location and design of any gardens associated with the tower keep.In the gaps in knowledge section below, the suggestion is made that these may have beendesigned integrally with the form of that structure, and this has potentially important implicationsfor the site of the gatehouse.

OW14 The buried s tone-l ined drain(s)

Two stone-lined drains were mentioned in accounts of the first Civil War siege in 1643, along withthe access and service tunnel, since explosives were set off by the besieging Parliamentaryforces in the latter and in one of the former. A stone-built relieving arch (with an opening beneathit) is visible at the base of the curtain wall close to the angle of its north-west facing and south-west facing lengths. This indicates the likelihood that one of these drains debouched into thefishponds in this location, having descended from a point close to the western apartments,downslope to this point. This is likely to be the same substantial drain that was observed in approximately this location during the watching brief carried out by Jill Kerr in 1991, anddescribed as being a continuous barrel-vaulted channel built of mortared rubble, 1m high and0.9m wide (Medieval Archaeology 35, 196). Another drain was revealed in the 1960sexcavations, leading south-westwards from the castle, its course possibly traced by an anomalyin the 1997 geophysical survey.


28/108


July 2014 26

OW15 Renaissance mod if icat ion of the medieval gatehou se, or replacement

thereof

Modification of an existing gatehouse, or its demolition and replacement by a more contemporarystructure was common enough at minor castles as well as at manorial sites in the Renaissanceor early modern period throughout England and Wales, and beyond. An example is the elaboratetimbered gatehouse at Stokesay in Shropshire. Given the extent and nature of the 1578remodelling at Wardour, including the near-total rebuilding of the medieval curtain wall, it ispractically inconceivable that Matthew Arundell would not have been similarly lavish with thecreation of a redesigned set-piece gatehouse. If such a structure was once present, its exactlocation is unknown. It would have been a primary target of both sieges in the Civil War, andwould consequently have suffered considerable damage.

OW16 The docum ented mine and other (unk now n) Civi l War siege-works

Mendip miners under supervision of an engineer were brought in by Royalist forces under Henry,3

rd Lord Arundell, early in 1644, seeking to recapture the castle from the occupying troop of

Parliamentary cavalry under command of Edmund Ludlow.Arundells minersdug a shaft beneaththe curtain wall, which apparently extended up to the walls of the tower keep. It was packed withexplosives, which were ignited accidentally by a shot fired by one of Ludlows men. Ludlowhimself was awoken by the explosion, to find that a chunk of his bedroom wall (and much of thewest-facing external elevation of the castle) had been blown down by the force of the blast. Thebreach in the curtain wall was then unsuccessfully stormed, and a further mine dug, causing theoccupants to surrender. The location of neither mine is known with any certainty, though againthe geophysical survey may provide clues. If negative anomalies (representing softer deposits)provide a relevant indication, there may have been two further mines dug from the east towards,and in one case up against, the East Tower. A diversion northwards in the more southerly of

these linear features (anomaly 23) may indicate that those directing the miners had someparticular knowledge of the castle (which, given Henry Arundells family ownership of theproperty, would hardly be surprising): it heads towards the south-eastern side of the tower keep,and then diverts northwards towards the front of the East Tower. The other mine in this area, ifthis is indeed what is represented by the second linear anomaly (not numbered), heads moredirectly towards the south-east (corner) angle of the East Tower, which it meets (Linford, 1997,Plan C, refers).

OW17 Form er form al garden features in the Guardians hip area, of 16th-17

th

century or ig in

That formal gardens were laid around the tower keep when the late 16th

century refurbishmentstook place is surely not to be doubted. The Buck engraving of 1732 presents a view of OldWardour Castle as seen from the east. It shows the precinct wall in the background, but theformer outer ward of the castle within this wall is shown laid out as a formal garden with walks,low topiary hedges, and parterres on all sides of the ruin. These were presumably maintained atthat time as part of the environs of Old Wardour House. Subsequently, these gardens wereredefined but retained, albeit in a less formal manner: as is already apparent in James Cantersengraving of the late 1760s or early 1770s, from the opposite perspective (from the west) although the drawing itself is informal in style. The survival of at least some of these features(albeit buried) into the present day is surprising, but is clearly evident from the results of thegeophysical survey of 1997. Indeed, it is remarkable how closely several of the anomaliesrecorded in the close vicinity of the North and East towers reflect details of the Buck drawing. So,

for example, what can be interpreted as light wall-lines extend at the perpendicular from thecorners of the towers: and indeed one of these walls was also revealed in Trench III of Keens1966 excavation. Other anomalies appear to indicate the presence of narrow framing walls


29/108


30/108


July 2014 28

To the west, the Swan Pond was developed in the 18thcentury as an extension of an existing

rectangular pond. The massive bund or dam along the western margin of this Pond served as aprospect walk that appears to have been designed deliberately to facilitate what are today thebest views of the castle from the west. This Pond is turn was likely to have been created in the16

thcentury from original, and perhaps simpler, medieval fishponds (although the prior existence

of a lake complementing the extravagant late 14thcentury castle cannot be discounted). As part

of the creation of the pleasure grounds in the late 18thcentury, a Bath House, presumably fed at

least in part by water drawn from the Pond, was built to the north-west of the latter, tucked inbeneath the northern end of the bund. This had a neo-Classical faade with rusticatedstonework, now re-set within the east-facing elevation of Ark Farm, which is built out from theremains of the bath-house itself.

To the east of the castle, on the west-facing slopes, the line of The Great Terrace (Cowell, 2009,232) created as part of Woods landscaping scheme is closely traceable. This was built as aprospect-walk leading out from the New Wardour mansion, across the landscape park and

continuing past the Old Wardour castle ruins towards the south-east corner of the park and thepark lodge. As followed from the south-east, it was designed to afford continuous views over OldWardour, with a gently curving line descending the hill-slopes known as The Hangings,continuing on towards New Wardour around the flank of the west-facing slopes:

At a few yards beyond the Lodgewe enter the Terrace, consisting of a level grasswalk, formed upon the side of a declivity, well clothed with shrubs and trees (and) at intervals the transient views obtained of the park and its contents (includingthe waters near the Castle, the remains of that ancient edifice partially shaded bytress and covered in ivy) add new charms to its more general features ofmajestic greatness and privacy(Rutter, 1822)

A carefully-contrived set-piece structure here indicates the way in which the designers sought tomanage the experience of viewing the old castle and its landscape. At the point where a track orpath ascending from the Old Wardour ruins becomes a hollow-way, the sides of the track werecut back and lined in stone. Where the Great Terrace approached this sunken track, a massiveRock Arch (or curving vaulted tunnel, also attributed to Josiah Lane) was created to carry thatterrace-way over the sunken track:

On the hill above to the east, a detached garden appears on the 18thcentury plans close to the

edge of the scarp. This has been assumed to have been a kitchen-garden built as an interimmeasure, although its internal design suggests rather more formality, and in origin it wasconceivably the site of a medieval pleasaunce.


31/108


July 2014 29

Figure 12 C19th view of Old Wardour from the south

(Courtesy of Mr. Luke Hughes): (note Fonthill House on the horizon, prior to its demolition)


32/108


July 2014 30

4. MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL

The site was taken into Guardianship by the then Ministry of Works in 1936. The area ofGuardianship included the Castle within its hexagonal surrounding wall, and was later extendedto include the ruined stables adjacent to Old Wardour House.

Old Wardour Castle has clearly been well conserved over much of the 78-year period 1936-2014.During site visits in December 2013, January 2014, and March 2014 no obvious major structuraldefects were observed and the site staff (Sally Hughes and Greg Bastin) confirmed that yearlyfabric inspections have been conducted, including at high level. Records are kept on site of anyrock-falls occasioned by winter frosts or rains, but there seem to have been few, testifying to agenerally good conservation condition of the standing fabric. There are, however, localisedconservation problems that were identified in the most recent condition survey (Caroe andPartners, AMP survey 2008: see Risks, Section 6, below).

The insertion of concrete floors in various locations, and especially above the Lower Kitchen (in

the North-West tower), and on two floors in the East Lodgings (East tower), created wateringress problems. These have only in recent years been addressed and further damageprevented. Also, there is some continuing climatically-induced erosion of surface fabric,particularly where once interior surfaces have subsequently been exposed, as for instance in thestairway of the North tower. Moreover, the condition of the surviving lengths of the curtain wallneeds some re-assessment: there have in the past been some catastrophic failures of parts ofthis wall, as in 1990 when an approximately 30m length immediately east of the Swan Pond andnorth of the Banqueting House/Pavilion collapsed downslope westwards and had to beunderpinned with a new concrete foundation, and rebuilt (achieved in 1992).

The enclosure wall may not be in as reasonable condition as currently supposed: some lengthsbow outwards, and although a significant crack in the southern-most stretch has been patched,movement has not necessarily been arrested; see also Caroe and Partners, AMP survey 2008,

and Risks, Section 6, below). The Banqueting House/Pavilion is apparently in reasonably goodcondition. The Grotto, much of which has been removed or has decayed since its creation, isalso apparently stable, although in need of careful re-appraisal. The stone seating and decorativerock assemblage at the far north end of the terrace are decayed and in part overgrown. The ruinsof the stables by Old Wardour House are in reasonably good condition, but the curtain wall to itseast is unstable and its access-ways and their portals are in need of (urgent) attention.

The surrounding lawns are well tended and simply maintained. The Grotto area was subject tocomprehensive planting in the later 1990s. However, it has since then lost some of its plants andbecome somewhat overgrown: whilst this is not at all unsightly it does somewhat diminish itscharacter and value. Moreover, the flanking yews appear to require some attention, withoutgrown limbs vulnerable to windfall. The small stone-set viewing seats in the north corner arelikewise a little overgrown, and the growth of rhododendrons and laurels has robbed these seatsof their intended views of the Castle and more distant parkland. The planting of laurels, intendedapparently as a temporary screening device until other species such as box had grown up, hasbeen allowed to become permanent. Their continued existence needs some review, especiallywhere the root-growth and trunks have become a serious danger to undermining the fabric andfoundations of the curtain wall, and vegetation maintenance costs are considerable.

All the structures at Old Wardour Castle are, in principle, now subject to Periodic ConditionSurveys every 7 years. It is especially important that these are not limited to the tower keep(OW1), however. Maintenance of the tower keep building is undertaken according to theSchedule prepared in the most recent Asset Management Plan Survey (Caroe and Partners forEnglish Heritage, 2008).

The surrounding parkland and environs are broadly in good condition, although the close

environs to the east of the castle are badly in need of improved management and betterintegration with its overall setting. The condition of both The Great Terrace and the Stone Arch


33/108


July 2014 31

are a cause for alarm, since, once completely collapsed, it will be difficult to restore them. Therehave been losses of particular features in the parkland over a number of years (see Volume 2,Appendix 6), and others have been damaged by forestry and other operations. Meanwhile 20

th

century planting has obscured the views from historic paths, and there is a perceived need,especially from local stakeholders, for more integrated management, and where feasible,restoration, of the wider landscape setting of the castle.

5. GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

The appraisal of the present state of knowledge of Old Wardour Castle, undertaken by NexusHeritage staff early in 2014, has identified a series of shortcomings in our collectiveunderstanding of the archaeology and history of the property, and of the physical remains of theheritage assets of greater and of lesser significance. There are a considerable number of gaps inknowledge that could be identified here. However, given the limited scope of the present study,

there is a focus below only upon the four subjects, or themes, that are considered to be mostimportant to an improved understanding of the history and character of the castle. In practice,each of these subjects represents a series of inter-related queries concerning sets of features.

The early histo ry of the site, prior to the con struct io n of the late 14thcentury

cast le

This is in effect both an historical (in the sense of documentary) and an archaeological lacuna.

The early history of the area is hinted at, mostly, by surface archaeological finds. These include aconsiderable number of flint and chert worked items and debitage, retrieved by Mike Felcey in1989 from a number of locations mostly in ploughed, formerly parkland, fields to the west of OldWardour Castle and to the east of New Wardour Castle (for example, Wiltshire and SwindonHER: MW12769ST92NW051; MW12781ST92NW110). These were identified as primarily ofNeolithic origin (blades and flakes; c.4000-2500BC), but also with a few Mesolithic items (c.9000-4000BC). A substantial group of similar items was also recovered in 1976 closer to Old WardourCastle, on the hilltop to the south-east (MW12772 ST92NW101, at ST 9430 2620; DevizesMuseum 1976.55). No items of similar date have been reported from the limited excavations onthe site of the castle itself.

A large sherd of Romano-British pottery was also recovered during field-walking in 1989 south-west of Island Pond in the parkland to the west of the castle (MW12797 ST92NW307), butagain, no similar finds were recovered in excavations at the site itself.

An Anglo-Saxon charter reference of c. 900 may be to Wardour, and there are references to itsmanorial holding in the Domesday Survey (1086). There is circumstantial evidence from thelicence to crenellate of 1393 that a manorial site pre-existed the castle, and this makes perfect

sense in light of the 12th-13th century pottery that was retrieved both from archaeologicalexcavations undertaken in the 1960s and in a recent watching-brief work near the present siteentrance.

The exact form and /or s tructural d etai l of many parts of the late 14thcentury

cast le are unknown

At first glance, this is hardly problematical since, surely, enough of the early structure is visible inthe tower keep at the centre of the complex? Such a view is misguided, for two reasons: firstly,because close inspection of the standing fabric raises doubts as to whether the full extent of thelate 16

thcentury remodelling of this building has so far been appreciated; and secondly, because

so much of the fabric of the late medieval castle beyond this central structure has beendemolished and the foundations concealed from view under later debris, below-ground. The

following are key questions:


34/108


July 2014 32

In reference to th e tower k eep, there remains some doubt, for example, about theimplication to be drawn from the engraving of the east-facing elevation contained within thesurvey undertaken on behalf of the Earl of Pembroke in 1566. This depicts narrow twin towersflanking the two three-storey windows of the Great Hall, in some contrast to the elevation that isvisible today. Was this simply an error of depiction, or are the architectural features and some ofthe detailing that are assumed to be of late medieval date, in fact of Renaissance origin?Laurence Keen clearly had similar doubts, due to the evident extent of patching, especially of theNorth (but also the East) tower, and the absence of the string courses and bottom plinth alongthe north-east facing front of both towers, which he thought could have occurred if the twotowers flanking the entrance projected originally further forward (Keen 1967, 70).

Keen then tested this possibility through excavation in 1966 but, finding no foundations existingbeyond the current faade, came to the conclusion that the string courses and bottom plinth,which occur on all the other sides of the castle, were removed by Robert Smythson to balancethe decorative improvements of re-fenestration and of the new entrance. The good masonry

points to this. This is quite plausible, as is the linked idea that the irregular facing of theseelevations was due to a patching-up of the fabric (perhaps by Capability Brown) following theCivil War damage. However, there remain anomalies. Firstly, Keen noted that there was adisjuncture between the depth of the external foundations (approx. 0.4m deep) at the north-eastfront of the East tower of the tower keep (in his Trench III), and the interior face in the cellar here,which was found to be at least 2m deep (Keen, 1967, 70). Moreover Saunders excavation of1962 against the eastern end of the south-facing wall of the tower keep showed that this had anexternal batter of finely-dressed stone extending to around 2.5m, and this is absent from the eastface of the North tower.

Figure 13 Excavations in 1966 against the north face of the East Tower (MPBW; Luke Hughes)

Nor does Keens explanation account for anapparent shallowness of the interior splays of theoriginal window openings in this elevation, for example as visible from the chambers on theinterior wall of the East Tower. There was insufficient time to permit further exploration of thistentative observation on the visit of 3

rdApril 2014, but more intensive fabric investigation may be


35/108


July 2014 33

able to resolve this query, as would further more closely-targeted geophysical survey and furthersmall-scale excavation at a point, or points, along the north-east facing parts of either tower.

In reference to the cur ta in/bai ley wal l, the exact form of the medieval curtain wall isuncertain, as is the nature of any attached buildings. That the present wall is a 16

th-century

rebuilding of the medieval wall has been suggested from the results of limited excavation againstits interior face, and from the watching brief carried out in 1991 when part of the precinct wallcollapsed. However, the form (especially the ground-plan, features such as towers, and thesuperstructure) of the medieval wall, and even fully its extent, are uncertain. So, for example, it isnot certain that the 16

thcentury wall is coincidental with the medieval circuit at any point on the

eastern side. There are structures beneath the southern-most length ofthe present precinct wallthat seemingly considerably ante-date the main period of construction of Old Wardour House(that is, they are apparently of medieval origin), and their configuration raises the possibility thatthey once formed part of a medieval gatehouse or service complex (Keen noted that these wereof a style that would place them in the early 16

thcentury: 1967, 72).

Conc erning th e site of the gateway through this enceinte, the exact location where anygatehouse stood is unknown, although there is a strong presumption that such a building wouldhave formed part of the 1393 design for the castle. If this had stood in alignment with theentrance-passage into the tower keep, it is possibly odd that the 1997 geophysical surveyregistered no trace of it. That this is of more than passing interest becomes evident when thepossible location of medieval gardens associated with the late 14

thcentury castle is considered,

since there may have been significant design reasons why the gatehouse and gardens werearranged in a particular configuration (see the discussion of medieval gardens, below).

Conc erning stru ctures bu i l t against , or with in, the curta in wal l, the geophysicalsurvey undertaken by AM staff in the 1990s raises some intriguing questions as to what form thestructures were that may have preceded the medieval castle, or that were contemporary with its

use before the Reformation. So, for example, a series of high-resistance anomalies locatedtowards the curtain wall to the east of the tower keep (Linford, 1997, Plan C, 5: features 2, 3 and4) were thought possibly to be the walls of buried buildings. More survey investigation is neededto pursue this possibi

old wardour castle conservation management plan 2014 volumes 1 and 2

Documents