Restormel Castle Conservation Statement

8/13/2019 Restormel Castle Conservation Statement

1/52

RESTORMEL CASTLE,

CORNWALL

CONSERVATION STATEMENT

Nicholas Molyneux

2003


2/52

2

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3-4

2.

History and Phasing 5-6

3. Constraints, opportunities and issues 7-9

4. Significance 10

5. Policies 11-13

Bibliography 14-15

Appendix I: History, Description and Phasing 16-24

AcknowledgementsSome of the interpretation and much of the description is derived directly from NigelThomass (of the Cornwall Archaeological Unit) unpublished report co mmissioned byEnglish Heritage (Thomas [nd]). Most of the medieval history comes from thearchival trawls undertaken by Anita Travers on behalf of English Heritage (Travers1995).


3/52

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This Conservation Statement has been prepared by English Heritage partly as

a response to an undertaking to the Department of Culture Media and Sport to produce conservation plans or statements for all its properties by 2002. TheStatement has also been produced because of a need to establish the futureconservation priorities for the building in the light of likely repair works. It isintended to guide the future maintenance and development of the site.

1.2 The Castle

Restormel Castle consists of an imposing late thirteenth century shell keep built on an eleventh century ringwork. It fits into a local pattern of circularcastle keeps, and was one of the principal castles of the Earldom, later Duchy,of Cornwall. The associated bailey which forms the main part of theGuardianship area is difficult to trace on the ground, because the earthworksare low and difficult to find in the woods.

In the eighteenth century the ruined shell keep became a major element of a picturesque garden of the adjoining house.

1.3 The site currently in the care of English Heritage

The site was in the hands of the local gentry until it passed to the Earl ofCornwall in the 1270s. It became a part of the possessions of the Duchy ofCornwall when it was created in 1337. They kept it in hand, even when thegrounds around it became part of the gardens of the adjoining house in theeighteenth century. The Duchy passed it into the Guardianship of Ministry ofWorks in 1925.

1.4 The Setting

The immediate surrounding of the castle is a small area of woodland with pasture beyond. To the east the land drops down into the valley of the riverFowey, with the eighteenth century brick and stone buildings of Castle Farm

between the Castle and the river.

1.5 Significance

The underlying earth work castle of the late eleventh or early twelfthcenturies, a ringwork, was partly destroyed by the construction of the shellkeep. The earthworks of the bailey are seriously eroded. Having said that, it islikely that the archaeology of the bailey is preserved as there has been littlemodern disturbance save for tree removal. It is one of five similar castles inCornwall, which in percentage terms is a very high number compared with therest of England and Wales.


4/52

4

The overlying stone castle is a significant medieval castle, and the latethirteenth shell keep is a particularly good example of the type. It fits into asmall group of castles of this period in the county.

The remains of these phases are undoubtedly of national importance.

The detectable Civil War works consist of the blocking of the east window ofthe chapel to provide a gun platform, which is, unusually, a distinct piece ofconstruction from that period.

The remains of the garden phase in the life of the structure have been eroded by the removal of the avenue from within the bailey, and the ticket kioskdetracts from the visual amenity. This element of the site is perhaps only ofRegional significance, but could be enhanced by careful landscapemanagement.

The contemporary cultural value of the site is not high, as it lies at aconsiderable distance from the local community in Lostwithiel.


5/52

5

2.0 HISTORY AND PHASING

2.1 History

The early history of the site, except for the Celtic origin of the place name, is,

as yet, undiscovered. The first documentary reference to the castle is in 1265when the castle passed from the local gentry to the Earl of Cornwall.

The historical high point was Christmas 1362 when the Black Prince, thenDuke of Cornwall, wintered here before he moved to France to run one ofEuropes most glittering courts, as the Pri nce of Aquitaine.

Thereafter the story is mainly one of decline, although Lostwithiel remainedone of the main centres for the administration of the County of Cornwall.

There was a brief flurry of activity in 1644 during the Civil War when thecastle fell, on 21 August, to the Royalists.

In the eighteenth century the gentry owners of the adjoining house (leasedfrom the Duchy of Cornwall) incorporated the ruins into their picturesquegarden.

The Castle was taken into the Guardianship of the Ministry of Works in 1925.

2.2 Phasing

2.2.1 Phase I Iron Age background An undated multi-vallate sub-rectangular enclosure lies to the east of thecastle. It may be Iron Age or Romano-British

2.2.2 Phase II Ringwork, late eleventh centuryThe earliest castle consisted of an earthen ringwork about 38m in diameter,surrounded by a ditch, with a roughly rectangular bailey. The only indicatorsof the early buildings in the keep are the three enigmatic pits dug into the

bedrock, perhaps cellars under towers. A fourth hole conta ins the castles well,an essential feature should the castle ever come under sustained attack. Therewas no large mound or motte, unlike many castles.

The building platforms within the bailey may be attributable to this or one ofthe later medieval phases.

2.2.3 Phase III Gatehouse, early thirteenth centuryThe curtain wall of the shell keep was butted up against the stonework of thegatehouse. It seems likely that the gatehouse came first, and sat within theearlier timber or stone walls. In view of the long term shortage of buildingtimber in Cornwall it seems likely that the earlier main defences were also ofstone.

2.2.4 Phase IV Keep construction, late thirteenth century


6/52

6

The curtain wall of the keep was constructed with its footings dug into the ringwork. The internal walls forming the accommodation are straight jointedagainst the curtain wall, and have putlog holes at different levels, showing thatthey were constructed as secondary activity. However, there is no reason to

believe that they were more than a few months later in date.

The gatehouse was considerably enlarged, with the addition of a newdrawbridge house to the front and by raising the earlier gatehouse.

The date of this phase is late thirteenth century.

2.2.5 Phase V Fourteenth century Royal visitors: the Duchy of CornwallThe castle was given to the Black Prince as a part of the property attached tothe new title of Duke of Cornwall, created in 1337. No fabric can be attributedto him. The documentary sources suggest that he received the fully builtcastle, and the accounts record various repairs. The Black Prince spentChristmas 1362 in the Castle, the last time the lord of the castle was to staythere.

2.2.6 Phase VI Sixteenth century: dereliction and robbingThe keep was abandoned at the close of the medieval period and robbing outof the high quality building materials occurred. The most obvious evidence isthe removal of dressed masonry; other items such as timber, lead and stoneslates are also likely to have been valuable.

2.2.7 Phase VII Civil War alterations: 1640sThere was a brief siege if the castle in 1644, when it was taken by the Royalistforces. The east window of the chapel was blocked to provide for a high leveltimber gun platform, evidenced by the shadows of the timbers in thestonework. The roofs of the main apartments were missing.

2.2.8 Phase VIII Romantic ruin: the eighteenth century There are no records which relate directly to the creation of landscape with itsdeliberately planted avenue (in the bailey) and woodland. This was apparentlyunder the direction of William Masterman who was at Restormel House fromto 1774 to 1786, or perhaps by his wifes uncle, Thomas J ones, who had thesite from 1753 to 1774.

2.2.9 Phase IX Royal visitors, again: the nineteenth centuryThe first recorded tourists were eighteenth century visitors to the adjoininghouse. In the next century the social calibre of the visitors was on a different

plane, with Queen Victoria in 1868, and in 1905 probably the first visit of theDuke since the medieval period.

2.2.10 Phase X The Ministry: after 1922In 1922 the Duchy of Cornwall passed the custody of the Castle to theMinistry of Works. The well and the cellars were apparently emptied at thistime, but there is no record of the clearance. There was some need for the

consolidation, and a sequence of photographs shows some repair andrebuilding of the outer arch of the gatehouse tower. The wall walk was


7/52

7

extensively restored, and there is evidence to suggest that the arch of thechapel was rebuilt shortly before guardianship.

Drastic measures were taken in the bailey in the 1940s, when the avenuewhich lead up to the gatehouse was cut down. This is recorded only in two

photographs, one of which shows the trees partially removed.

The ticket kiosk was built in the 1950s, with a septic tank for the lavatory.

2.3 Setting

For most of its existence the setting of the castle has been farmland with achapel to the east becoming a house and farm buildings in the seventeenthcentury. The wider setting has been agricultural, mostly now pasture, withsome woodland.


8/52

8

3. CONSTRAINTS, OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES

3.1 Statutory Constraints

3.1.1 Scheduled Ancient Monument

The Castle is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The scheduling includes thestanding fabric and the whole of the bailey, as well as a small area to the northof the bailey and keep. Works undertaken by English Heritage can thus bedetermined under the internal Class VI consent procedures.

3.1.2 Other designations

The castle lies at the extreme eastern end of the Registered Historic Park andGarden of Lanhydrock. The site is not within a Conservation Area

3.2 Other Constraints

3.2.1 The Contemporary Setting

English Heritages very limited curtilage is a constraint in that it reduces theoptions for the control of the area around the building, particularly withrespect to the landscaping.

Works which require planning permission should be reasonably wellcontrolled through the conventional planning system, but that still enables theneighbours to undertake works such as landscaping and tree planting withoutany consents being required.

The car park is leased from the Duchy of Cornwall. The area of ground whichmust be walked across to get to the castle gate is a pinch point in the field,which results in considerable churning up of the ground by cattle.

3.2.3 Tourism

The site attracts about 30,000 visitors a year, which requires the employment

of two custodial staff in the opening season. The site is interpreted by meansof a new (2003) guide book and by lectern panels around the site.

The site appears to be relatively straightforward to find, lying just out of thetown of Lostwithiel. The small car park works well for the site and issufficient for all normal visitor requirements (including coaches). The pathsare fairly steep, but some modifications have been made to make it a littleeasier for the disabled.

3.2.4 The Future

Changes in the farming regime of the adjoining Castle Farm mean that thefarm building complex there is likely to be converted to other uses. This will


9/52

9

probably mean moving the farming operation to another site with the 500 acrefarm.

3.3 Opportunities

3.3.2 Improvements to the setting

The bailey area is a remnant of the picturesque garden, although there is somenineteenth and twentieth planting which does not conform to this period.

The opportunity for a circular walk (which would need to be partly throughthe woodland still managed by the Duchy of Cornwall) could usefully beexplored.

3.3.4 Development of tourism and education

Major educational development on the site does not seem possible ordesirable. English Heritage produces an A4 information sheet for teachers.The site is not suffering from any significant erosion by visitors, and could

probably take significantly more visitors. However, the facilities are notadequate for the reception of seriously increased numbers, and would need aserious level of investment to put them in a more appropriate place (such asthe car park).

3.4 Issues

3.4.1 Repairs

The fabric of the castle is the subject of a detailed Condition Survey. It is in areasonably good state of repair. An area of new pointing on the south side ofthe castle has weeped turning that part of the wall white. The timber staircasesare rather chunky in the ministry style, but are a reasonable means of access tothe wall walk. The railings on the wall walk are up to current Health andSafety standards, and were installed in 2001.

3.4.2 Access

The small car park is not in our ownership, so there is always a slight possibility that we will lose its use. The surfacing of paths within the site is not perfect for disabled access. As identified above there is a problem of mud onthe short path between the car park and gate to the site.

3.4.3 Neighbours

Our Guardianship area is completely surrounded by land in the ownership ofthe Duchy of Cornwall. To the north and east the woodland within theGuardianship area runs into the adjoining woodland, whilst to the west andsouth there is open farm land. Close to the east side lies the main yard of

Castle Farm, which is still in use as a farm with large numbers of cattle.


10/52

10

4. SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 Buildings

The early phase of the Castle has been identified as a ringwork. There is a

concentration of this type of castle in Cornwall, with a high a percentage of allcastles in the county having been ringworks in origin. There are four otherexamples at: Bossiney, Cardinham, Veryan (Gwendra) and Week St Mary(King & Alcock 1969, 122).

This phase is undoubtedly of national importance.

The later phase, represented by the shell keep is also highly significant inintrinsic terms, forming part of an interesting group of such castles inCornwall. Again, it is of national importance.

The dominance of the Castle within the landscape was recognised in later periods as well when it was incorporated within a garden. Both the close upviews and the more distant dominance were important in this context.

4.2 Setting

The setting of the castle is open farmland to the west and south, woodlandwith more pasture beyond to the north, and river valley on the east, with thefarmyard between the foot of the spur on which the castle stands and the riverFowey.


11/52

11

5. POLICIES

5.1 The Castle

P1 The over-riding objective shall be the preservation of the fabric and

earthworks of the castle.

This policy is intended to have regard to the medieval masonry sitting on thecrest of the hill, as well as the eroded earth works of the bailey which are

partially shrouded in woodland.

The main means of achieving the policy will be through continued routinemaintenance, and by means of the quinquennial condition survey that EnglishHeritage commissions.

P2 The landscape shall be managed to maintain the current open areas,and to maintain the woodland cover.

The details of the site management need to be more carefully considered in aspecific landscape management plan for the area in the guardianship ofEnglish Heritage, preferably co-ordinated with our neighbours.

5.2 English Heritage site facilities

The existing ticket kiosk leaves much to be desired both functionally andvisually. Nevertheless, its continuance in the current location is likely as amatter of expedience. It has minimal services, including a septic tank for thelavatory, but no power. It could be moved to the entrance area, but the currentlocation enables site supervision by a single member of staff. The provision ofan electricity supply would be useful, but it would need to be underground.

P3 Maintain the current ticket kiosk as a temporary hut.

5.3 Boundaries

These are of varying significance, falling into two broad categories. Firstly,the stone revetted boundary to the south, and fencing to the west, with no

formal boundary demarcation with the woods to the north and east.

P4 The existing boundaries should be maintained as an appropriate boundary treatment.

P5 The management regime within the woodlands should beharmonised with our neighbours, the Duchy of Cornwall.

5.3 Hard surfaces and paths

P6 They shall be maintained with the current surfaces, with no

significant extension of the hard surfaces.


12/52

12

Some minor change may be necessary to provide easier access, by, forexample, laying bound gravel rather than loose. Any further intrusion into the

precinct of the castle by hard surfacing would be detrimental to the setting.

5.4 Car park

The car park is reasonably discrete and in a satisfactory location.

P7 English Heritage should maintain the car park in its current state.

5.5 Below ground archaeology

There has been no recorded archaeological activity in this or the last century,apart from the unrecorded Ministry clearance of the site in the 1920s and theinstallation of a septic tank in the 1950s. The main archaeological discoveryfrom the site is the glass which was found in the moat in about 1880.Opportunities for small scale excavations to section the defences of the baileyare important to establish their nature, and might arise if mains electricity isever installed to the ticket kiosk.

P8 Excavations within the English Heritage managed area should bekept to the minimum in order to preserve the below ground deposits, inline with the principles of PPG16.

5.6 Setting

The setting of the castle is outside the direct control of English Heritage, sothe following policy is to be pursued wherever it is feasible to do so throughthe normal processes of the planning system.

P9 The rural setting of the castle and its setting shall be preserved byresisting any inappropriate development.

5.7 Interpretation

The site interpretation is reasonably good, with a new guide book and a rangeof lecterns on the site.

P10 The site interpretation should be maintained.

5.8 Further research

Detailed survey work of the site has been undertaken by Nigel Thomas of theCornwall Archaeological Unit, which awaits publication. It is important thatthis should be published in the not too distant future, but will need some morework before it can be considered satisfactory.

P11 The research undertaken in the Castle to date should be published

in an appropriate form.


13/52

13

The research into the history of the medieval castle has been thorough, but theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries still needs some further work.

P12 As opportunity arises further research should be undertaken on theeighteenth and nineteenth century history of the site.

5.9 Recording and Archiving

Records of work to the monument since Ministry care began are split betweendifferent sites: Public Record Office, National Monuments Record, EnglishHeritage London file stores and English Heritage Regional office. It isimportant that recording of repair work is carried out and archived in aretrievable way. In an organisation where it is inevitable that personnelchange, it is important not only that full records are made, but that the natureand location of such records is easily understood.

P14 Full records of repairs and conservation work undertaken should be made to an agreed brief and stored in a retrievable location.

5.10 Use of this Conservation Statement

P13 The Statement will form the basis for future for English Heritagesdecision making at Restormel Castle.

P14 The Statement should be revised and updated regularly, at thelatest in 2007.


14/52

14

APPENDIX I

HISTORY, DESCRIPTION AND PHASING

HISTORY

OriginsThe earliest recorded history of the site is the name itself. Restormel derives from theCeltic words ros , meaning a hill spur, and tor moyl meaning a bare hill.

The early part of the castles life is shrouded in silence: it is not mentioned until 1265.It is more than likely that the castle is one of the many built as a part of the newregime enforced in England following the success of William the Conqueror at theBattle of Hastings in 1066. At the time the Domesday Book was compiled in 1086 themanor of Bodardle, in which Restormel Castle is located, was held by Turstin theSheriff, but there is no mention of a castle. It is possible that he or his son Baldwin

built the first castle on the site soon after 1086. Certainly, the castles which arementioned in Domesday seem to have been motte and baileys rather than ringworks(namely Launceston and Trematon).

A later twelfth century charter mentions a chapel beside Baldwins Bridge, which was probably the Hermitage of the Holy Trinity, which lay at the foot of the castle hill.

In 1166 Robert fitz William, Lord of Cardinham (4 miles to the north), held the manorof Bodardle, as the guardian of Walter Hay the younger. Walter died shortly after1186, and because he had no children the manor passed to Robert fitz William, whosewife A gnes was Walter Hays sister. By 1193 Roberts grandson, Robert ofCardinham, had inherited both Cardinham and Bodardle. He became one of theKings Justices and was important in the early development of Lostwithiel. Between1224 and 1227 the estates passed to his son Andrew, who was succeeded by hisdaughter Isolda of Cardinham. She married Thomas de Tracy, and the earliestmention of the castle is his temporary surrender of it to Simon de Montfort on 5 July1265:

Sir Ralph Arundel has, with our agreement and at our request, taken our castleof Restormel with its appurtenances, along with all our barony of Cardinanwith its appurtenances, along with all our barony of Cardinan with itsappurtenances, into the hands of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester and

steward of England, in order that I may avoid the danger and damages of myenemies, who wished to enter that castle, to destroy my barony as much as possible, and for that castle and the barony to remain in the Earls hands until Ishould make adequate recompense if I have harmed the lord king or Simon deMontfort in any respect.

(Original: Cornwall Record Office AR 22/2; reproduction: Yeatman1882, pl 13 facsimile 34; translation: Page 2000, 32, with Latin infootnote on same page)

In 1268 Isolda de Tracy granted Lostwithiel, including the castle, to Richard, King ofthe Romans


15/52


16/52


17/52


18/52

18

with this the princes wish; and to take such carpenters and other workmen asshall be needed for the said works, in whosever service they are found, to stayon the works until completion thereof.

(Dawes 1931, 60)

The accounts for 1354/5 reveal what is perhaps the most important element in a visitof the Lord: namely the repair of the bakehouse and the great kitchen in order toservice the Prince and his entourage.

1354/5 Accounts4 10s 10d on two bakehouses and 62s 9d on the great kitchen, repairs to the

bridge of the castle and the lead of the castle(Travers 1995, 13-14. Source: Duchy Office Roll 197, box 94)

The record of his visit is slender: we simply know that he signed various orders atRestormel Castle from 24 August to 2 September (Dawes 1931, 62, 63).

There is an indication of who came with him in a grant to the Borough of Helstondated at Restormel Castle on 2 September 1354 in the list of witnesses.

He held his court at Restormell in 1354, and appears to have beenaccompanied by several members of his Council and household, for in a grantreferring to the Borough of Helstone, dated Restormell 2nd September, 28thEd (1355), the witnesses are Dominus John de Bohun, Dominus de Dunster,John de Montacute, Nicholas de Laharrings (the Princes chamberlain), Johnde Sully, and Walter de Wodeland.

(Hext 1891, 208)

Despite the visit of the Prince and the repairs there were still problems; in 1357 orderswere issued for the repair of conduit, which the 1357/8 accounts show consumed2147lbs of lead.

8 November 1357Order to John de Kendale, receiver of Cornwall, on information that there aremany defects i n the houses, walls and enclosures of the princes castles,manors, parks and mills in Cornwall, and in the conduit of the castle ofRestormel, which urgently need repair, to cause the said repairs to be done

speedily by advice of John Dabernoun, steward of Cornwall, provided alwaysthat no works be begun this winter except those which cannot be postponeduntil summer without great damage to the prince.

(Dawes 1932, 128)

1357/8 Accounts of repairs to conduit to CastleIncludes the purchase of 1135lb of lead the previous year and 546lb two years

prior to that, and this year 466lb for the conduit. 32 days were spent repairingthe conduit.

(Travers 1995, 14. Source: Receivers Accounts Duchy Office Roll198, Box 94)


19/52

19

An order in 1360 shows a concern for the defences of the castles in Cornwall and adesire to ensure that they were in readiness for conflict, not knowing how the futurewill turn out or what perils may arise during his absence from the realm. He wantedall the castles to be supplied with food that was to be refreshed from time to time. Itwas also the case that the brattices were broken and fallen down and were to be

repaired at as small a cost as possible. These were timber structures which sat on thetop of the battlements projecting out over the wall to allow the defenders of the Castleto fire down on attackers as they got close to the wall.

14 February 1360Order, as before, to the said sheriff and receiver, inasmuch as the prince, notknowing how the future will turn out or what perils may arise during hisabsence from the realm, has by advice of his council ordained that his castlesof Tintagel, Restormel, Launceston and Trematon shall be victualled andsufficiently garrisoned, to victual and garrison the said castles accordingly,and to renew and change the victuals from time to time, so that as far as

possible no loss may accrue to the prince. The receiver shall have dueallowance on his account of the costs of such victualling and garrisoning. Thereceiver is also to cause as many standards as he and the sheriff shall thinknecessary to be made for the said castles at as small a cost as possible, ofwhich costs he shall also have due allowance. He is also to cause the bratticesof the castle of Restormel, which are broken and fallen down, to be repaired atas small a cost as possible, receiving due allowance, as above. ...By testimony of the bishop of Winchester by advice of Lacy, Spridlyngton,Debenham and others of the council.

(Dawes 1931, 168)

In 1361 we find that the Princes officials had taken from Walter Carbura by way ofloan ... 102 oaks of a shape for roof beams for the repair of the princes castle ofRestormel and that they were now to deliver to Walter similar oaks from the princeswood of Calstock. It is not possible to tell where in the Castle these would have beenused, whether in the main Castle building or in the bailey (Dawes 1931, 185).

Later in 1361 the chimney of the great chamber of the Castle was in great need ofrepair.

4 December 1361

Order to John de Kendale, receiver of Cornwall, ... the chimney of the greatchamber in the castle of Restormel ... are in great need of repair ... to cause thesame to be re-made and repaired as well and profitably as possible by adviceand testimony of John Dabernoun, steward and sheriff of Cornwall. He shallhave due allowance on his account ... Order, also, to mark and take down thewooden brattices of the castle of Restormel, and put them in safe keeping each

by itself, so that they may be ready when needed.(Dawes 1931, 185)

The next event was a high point in the history of the Castle: a long visit by the BlackPrince. On 11 November 1362 orders were issued to the faithful retainer, John de

Kendale, constable and receiver of Restormel Castle as the prince inten ds to come presently to the castle of Restormel, and stay there for Christmas. He was to deliver


20/52

20

to Hervey Hewe, the princes scullery -man underwood from the park for fuel, as wellas timber to build a house for the kitchen and scullery staff (Dawes 1931, 198).

This was to be the last visit the Prince made to his Castle, because he was preparing atthis time for his departure to France. He had been created the Prince of Aquitaine on

19 July 1362, and was taking his household with him to France to live and rule there.He had married in 1361, so we must imagine him arriving at Restormel in November1362 with a large retinue and baggage train, and settling in for some months whilst

preparations for their departure were made. There has been some doubt as to thelength of his stay, but he signed orders at the Castle on 24 November and 20December 1362 (Dawes 1932, 454; Dawes 1933, 481, 482), and then on 5 Januaryand 19 February 1363 (Dawes 1932, 454; Dawes 1933, 488). He ordered that John deKendale should be paid 12 8s 10d which he had spent by the princes order

between 24 February and 2 April 1363(Dawes 1931, 203-4). The final date on whichthe prince was at the castle was the 10 April 1363 when he signed another order atRestormel (Dawes 1933, 490). In June he sailed for France from Plymouth.

It is interesting to note how most of the historic biographies simply follow astandardised view of the Black Princes movements without returning to the sources(eg Collins 1740, 176 and James 1836, 2, 315). One of the main sources cited isFroissarts Chronicle, but they all seem to read a precise chronology from that sourcewhich simply is not present when we go back to the source (Johnes 1803, 1, 595).Only one modern biography seems to have seriously addressed the movements of theBlack Prince at this time (Barber 1978, 178).

For most of the time the castle would have been bare save for painted plasterwork,with little in the way of furniture or soft furnishings. These normally travelled withnoble and Royal households, who spent much of their time moving from one of theirhouses or castles to another. Thus the baggage train contained the necessities of theluxurious life. Hence the popularity of the tapestries which could be packed away in achest and hung up a t the next stop. Some idea of the luxury of the Black Princes lifecan be seen in his will, where his richly furnished beds are described. For example,the great bed which he left to his son was embroidered with angels, with the

pillows, carpets, cover lets, sheets and all other apparel belonging to the said bed.

The Black Prince died in 1376, after which there is little sign of much interest beingtaken in the Castle by the Dukes of Cornwall. That is not to say that they completely

ignored the Castle, for we still find sporadic attempts to keep it in repair.

In 1387/8 the roof of the hall and other houses next to the castle were repaired. There is then a long gap in the history, and the next time there are any accounts is in1447/8 in a now badly damaged document, which includes payments to Thomas Kent,carpenter, for making a new draght bryge (drawbridge). These repairs continued intothe following year when work was done to the main castle. Carpenters were at workrepairing what had become the old houses in the bailey.

Later use and decline, fifteenth and sixteenth centuriesIn about 1456-60 there was some minor stone slating work on the roofs of the houses

and the great hall, as well repairs to the hall windows and the glass of the thechambe r windows.


21/52

21

Minor plumbing works were carried out in 1461/2 and 1462/3, but these were just a precursor to major work in 1464/5 amounting to 10 3s 4d. The main work seemshave to the lodge which probably lay in the bailey. Two stairs were built leadin g totwo chambers in the lodge. The windows were made from wainscots, that is to say

boards (probably unglazed). The chamber floor was planked and three doorways tothe chambers were constructed. Two windows were created between the hall and thechamber. They then moved on the main Castle building, where they were made stairsin the castle one leading to cellar under the hall of the castle, another to cellars underthe great chamber, as well making two cupboards in the castle. Carpenters were alsoemployed making a porch for the chapel.

The last recorded expenditure on the castle was in 1469/70 when carpenters were atwork flooring the three chambers above the gate with planks.

This was in the time of Edward, the son and heir of Henry VI, who had been the Dukeof Cornwall since his birth in 1453. He was killed at the Battle of Tewkesbury on 4May 1471, and the subsequent Dukes of Cornwall took little interest in the castle.

The decay of the castle is first recorded by John Leland in his great Itinerary when heinspected much of England in the 1530s:

The Base Court is sore defacid, [but] the fair large Dungeon yet stondith. AChapel cast out of it [is] a newer Work then it, and [is] now onrofid. [There is]a Chapel of the Trinite in the Park not far from the Castelle.

(Chope 1918, 44-5)

The decay continued, and in 1584 John Norden in his Description of Cornwall laments the decay of the castle in almost poetic terms:

The whole castle beginneth to mourne, and to wringe out harde stones forteares, that shee that was imbraced, visited and delighted with greate princes,is now desolate, forsaken, and forlorne: The Cannon needes not batter, nor thePioner to undermine, nor powder to blow up this so famous a pyle, for timeand tirranie hath wrowghte her desolation

(Norden 1966, 41-2)

The Civil War, 1644There was a major alteration to the chapel, when the east window was filled withmasonry. This seems to have supported a gun platform at wall walk height. It is

probable that this was done as a defensive measure during the Civil War by theParliamentarian army of Lord Essex. They held Lostwithiel and Fowey briefly as theyretreated through Cornwall away from the advancing Royalist army in 1644. Themain forces do not seem to have been in the Castle, which was captured on 21 August1644 by the Royalist Sir Richard Grenville, as was described by a diarist at the time:

Sir Richard Grenville with 700 men pelted the rogues from their hedges between the Lord Roberts, his house [Lanhydrock], and Lestithiel, and near

Trinity (Restormyn) Castle which Castle was this morning surprised by Sir


22/52

22

Richard Grenvilles men, and some thirty of the rebels taken, and divers barrels of beefe.

(reference 19??)

This is probably the only time that Restormel Castle ever saw any serious military

action.

The Parliamentary Survey of the Manor of Restormel taken on 22 February 1649reported that by then:

Castle is utterly ruined nothing but the out Walles thereof remaining which are not(where they stand) worth the takeing downe (E317/CORN/35, p1)

The farm house, called the Trinity House, had Two halls, one kitchen, one Larder,one Pastrie & one dayrie house; below staires over the said Rooms are eight littleChambers, for lodging & other necessaries . There were also Three Barn es of 7, 6,and 3 bays and a stable of 5 bays as well as two Mault houses open to the Roofe allin greate decay (p2).

The total area of the dis-parked park was given as 549 acres and had been let byLetters Patent of 11 May 3 Charles to John Samuel for 99 years (p4).

A picturesque gardenIn 1753 the lease of Trinity House and the park was sold to Thomas Jones (PROE367/4869 & 7149). Trinity House (now Restormel Manor) stands at the bottom ofthe valley on the site of the Hermitage of the Holy Trinity. Jones spent a good deal onmoney in clearing the building from the rubbish and bushes with which [RestormelCastle] was encumbered and over-run; a laudable example he has strictly followed, bygiving great attention to the protection and preservation of this venerable piece ofantiquity, which before had, for time out of mind, been abandoned to the depredationsof the under- tenants. (Grose 1787, 1, 42). In fact, the Castle was excepted from thelease and retained in the hands of the Duke, so that this was a generous gesture.

In 1776 Thomas Jones bequeathed the lease of the park and house to WilliamMasterm an, who was married to Joness niece, MP for Bodmin (1780 -4). Mastermanchanged the name to Restormel House (See PRO E367/5705). He lived there until hisdeath until his death in 1786. Francis Gregor, and Francis Glanville, who married the

coheiresses of Masterman, sold the lease to Lord Mount Edgcumbe. It was then let toJohn Hext in 1799, and he died there on 30 June 1838. The Hext family continued inresidence until October 1876 (Hext 1891, 221).

C S Gilbert (quoted by Hext 1891) noted that about 1783 some workmen weredigging amongst the ruins of the castle, they discovered two large skeletons in onecave, locked in each others arms - some say in complete armour. W MastermanEsqre, then holding the castle by lease under the duchy, ordered the vault to be

boarded over and afterwards filled up with earth.

The garden, created by William Masterman in about 1784, was described in 1820:


23/52

23

The terrace and winding walks, which are carried through the plantations thatwave over the mount, and shelter this mouldering ruin, ... At the foot of themount, on the eastern side, stands RESTORMEL HOUSE, which is built inthe castle style, with its walls embattled, and commanding a perspective viewof a delightfully wooded valley, lined on each side with an elevated ridge of

oak; the river, after having fallen over different cascades, is seen passingthrough the Gothic arches of Lostwithiel Bridge.

(Gilbert 1820 2 pt 2, 879-81)

A more romantic description was provided just a few years later, in 1824:

The ruins are richly overgrown with ivy, and being almost embosomed inwood, are very pleasing objects to the lovers of the picturesque, as well as toimpress the mind with the most sublime ideas of the instability of humangrandeur.

Oh! what is pomp, and sublunary power?And what is man who boasts himself so high?The sport of fate - the tenant of an hour;Dust, animated dust, that breathes to die!

... The valley in which [Restormel] house is built, with the castle on theeminence near it, form for the artist a very pleasing picture, and have often

been admired.(Stockdale 1824, 43-4)

Royal VisitIn 1846 the Castle received its first Royal visit for several hundred years. QueenVictoria recorded in her journal that:

surrounded by woods, stands the circular ruin, covered with ivy, of the oldCastle of Restormell, belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall ... It is very

picturesque from this point. We visited here the Restormell Mine belonging tothe Duchy of Cornwall. ... Albert and I got into one of truckers and we weredragged in by miners ... Albert and the gentlemen wore miners hats.

(Victoria & Phelps 1868, 307)

Her son, the future Edward VII, and then Duke of Cornwall (as well as the Prince ofWales) visited in 1865, arriving at Fowey in his yacht with the Princess.

In 1925 the Duchy of Cornwall passed the guardianship of the Castle to the Ministryof Works. The castle was cleared in the manner typical of the ministry at that time,with little or no record of the details of the archaeology of the site. They strippedaway all the picturesque vegetation, allowing the stonework of the Castle to beconserved. They also seem to have excavated the three early pits and the well. Thefirst guidebook was published in 1935 (Radford 1935). The responsibility for themonument passed to English Heritage when it was created in 1984, but the ownershipstill remains with the Duchy of Cornwall.

DESCRIPTION


24/52

24

LocationThe castle is sited upon a spur at 70m OD, the keep commanding views along thevalley of the river Fowey. The site is not so easily defendable from the west, however,as the ground rises to the watershed occupied by the Bodmin to Lostwithiel road at140m OD. The castle site is also overlooked by the site of a scheduled Romano-

British enclosure located at 90m OD. With its wider field of view, it is perhapssurprising that it was not re- used by the castles builders. However, the castle has aslightly better view into the bottom of the valley at the point of the river crossing.

QuarriesOn the steep hillside to the north-east of and immediately down slope of the keep area series of quarry pits. The largest of these is nearest the castle and is shown as acutting on the OS 25 Inch Map of 1907. These pits are up to 2.5m deep and heaps ofspoil have been thrown downhill. Pits and heaps can be seen to overlap one another,indicating that the workings progressed upslope and westwards. A neighbouring field

boundary appears to respect the upper edges of the pits, suggesting that the pits pre-date the construction of the boundary. Their proximity to the castle suggests they aremedieval quarries dug to obtain stone to build the keep. This suggestion isstrengthened by the existence of a small track from the pits (just down slope from theditchs outer bank) which may have been used to cart stone to the building.

Bailey & entranceThe sub-rectangular bailey (about 111m long and 82m wide) occupies the flat part ofthe spur west of the keep. The crest of the southern bailey rampart is probably a breakin slope inside the present enclosing field boundary; this is particularly evident alongthe south side and at the south-west corner. On the west side, the rampart is very lowand has been almost entirely removed by construction of the field boundary. Thenorthern limit of the bailey is still traceable as a bank up to 1.5m high running alongthe contour above a wooded steep natural slope. This bank has been disturbedapproximately halfway along its length by small quarrying pits, shallow cuttings madefor foundations of maintenance huts and an incinerator, together with a twentiethcentury gardeners rubbish heap.

Within the area of the bailey numerous terraces or building platforms can bediscerned. Some of these have been disturbed by tree planting. Ralegh Radford (1935,3) noted in 1935 that stone foundations have been discovered in this area. Theterraces have a rather smoothed-over appearance, probably the result of by

landscaping works in the eighteenth century.

There is no visible evidence of a wall to the bailey, and it is more likely that itretained earth and timber defences when the keep was rebuilt in stone.

The gateway into the site has dressed granite gateposts probably added when thecastle became a park. If the medieval entrance was here, one might reasonably expectthat the bailey defences would be strengthened in the vicinity of the gates. There areno traces of this, however, even at the south-west corner where the rampart is stilldetectable.

At the south-east corner of the bailey, adjoining the keep defences, there is no trace ofthe bailey rampart. This may be the site of a former gateway as here the gate would


25/52

25

gain additional defence from the ringwork (and latterly the shell-keep). There are parallels for this layout at Launceston Castle and Trematon Castle where thegatehouse of the shell keep appears to have been sited to overlook the bailey gateway.Two arrow loops in the shell-keep wall directly face this part of the bailey. Theseloops cannot have protected the approach to the keep as they face away from it;

instead they appear to have defended the approach to the bailey.

To the south, outside the bailey, there is a slight depression in the field which may bea former hollow-way which approached the castle from the existing lane. The presentaccess has an easier gradient than an approach ascending the steep side of the spur; itseems that the more modern access was created to allow carriage access into thecastle, as would have been required when the site became a park.

The keepThe earliest castle is likely to have been an earthwork perhaps with timber defences,although the extreme shortage of decent timber in the county may imply that thedefences were of stone from the outset. Radford (1935) suggested that the slopingearth bank against the shell-keep wall was part of the ringwork, which was cut back toallow construction of the wall.

There are three square pits cut into the bed rock within the keep. At LauncestonCastle, similar features have been interpreted as bases for towers, having a probabledate in the twelfth century (Saunders, 1980, 6). Two of the pits at Restormel arealigned with the present curtain wall, the other faces the gateway. The purpose of thesquare pits is not known.

The well in the keep is early in terms of relative chronology. Its circular wall shaft has been cut into bedrock (1.2m below the ground surface) from a square pit. One cornerof the pit was vaulted over to provide a foundation for the courtyard wall.

Keep ditch and surrounding bankOutside the keep is a large flat bottomed moat, with an outer bank. The bank is upcastfrom the ditch and overlies the bailey defences. It is therefore probable that the ditchwas re-cut at the time the shell-keep was built on the site of the earlier ringwork.During the 1920s consolidation works, sections of the outer bank were slightly raised

by spoil tipped from the interior of the keep; this is particularly visible adjacent to thesite of the flagstaff.

The bedrock beneath Restormel Castle is a Lower Devonian mudstone (locally calledshillet or killas), which is not watertight so the moat was probably dry. It is likely thatits base was boggy and outflows from garderobes and rainwater chutes from the wallwalk emptied there.

A mechanical auger was used by Matthew Canti of the Ancient MonumentsLaboratory to examine the fill of the moat. Six holes were made in the base of theditch. Three of these were sunk in a line (running across the ditchline) in the area tothe south of the chapel. Another line was made across the ditch to the south of thekeep entrance. No waterborne silts or traces of a clay lining were encountered in any

of the profiles, indicating that the moat must always have been free draining.


26/52

26

The discovery in 1880 of the fourteenth century Venetian glass in the bottom of themoat suggests that the deposits contain substantial quantities of high quality rubbishfrom the castle, if they have not been too severely truncated by the clearance whichwas presumably undertaken in the 1920s during consolidation.

The shell-keepThe keep is 41m in diameter and 10.2m high, built of local mud stone (graphicallyknown as shillet) bonded with lime mortar. The shell wall is bonded through itssection rather than having inner and outer faces with a loose core infill. Thisconstruction method would greatly enhance its structural strength. Dressed masonryhas largely been robbed out, the surviving fragments are mostly of Pentewan stone.

Traces of render survive on interior and exterior wall faces. Sheltered areas inside thekeep bear traces of limewash coatings; this is particularly evident in the servery andthe stairwell connecting the solar with the wall walk.

The two storey range of buildings inside the keep surround an inner courtyard. The principal rooms were on the first floor, with storage and ancillary rooms below.Above the rooms is a wall walk, protected by merlons. There is evidence that theinner courtyard wall was also battlemented.

A faced plinth 250mm wide is visible at the foot of the exterior wall face. The heightof the exterior plinth roughly corresponds with the floor of the upper storey rooms.Inside the keep the ground level is considerably lower. Four large arched windows inthe curtain wall light the major rooms of the first floor. As the exterior sills of thesewindows are only about 1m above the plinth, they represent obvious points ofweakness in defensive terms.

A long and ragged horizontal chase in the higher part of the exterior wall faceadjacent to the south side of the chapel has been interpreted as a chase for the leadflashing of a roof on the exterior of the curtain wall (Radford 1935). Another shortersloping chase is sited immediately adjacent to the chapel wall.

Cracks representing slight outward movement of the shell-keep wall are visible on theexterior face between the west window of the hall and the gatehouse. There is alsosome cracking on the interior face at the west end of the hall and in the area of thegarderobe corridor south of the gatehouse. The cracks indicate some instability of the

foundations in the south west quadrant of the keep, and this part of the shell wall hashinged outward. This explains why gaps have opened up between the shell wall andthe butted radial walls of the kitchen and servery.

Putlog holesAll the walls at Restormel have putlog holes. The twelfth century shell-keeps atTrematon and Launceston do not have these; at Launceston Castle, structures builtduring the mid thirteenth century (including the bailey curtain wall and the high towerwithin the shell-keep) have putlog holes. This suggests that the shell-keep atRestormel is comparatively late.


27/52

27

The shell-keep wall is of a single build and has a fairly regular distribution of putlogholes which indicate the lifts of scaffolding used during its construction. Interior floor

joists were sometimes used in place of putlog holes for supporting scaffolding.The putlog holes are spaced at about 1m vertically, suggesting that alternate lines ofholes were used to provide the scaffold lifts. Where large openings such as windows

are positioned within the curtain wall, putlog holes are located close to their jambs, toassist construction.

The uppermost holes pass through the merlons to the wall walk; these holes do notappear to have served a construction purpose so it is possible that they may have beenused to support the wooden brattices recorded in 1360 and 1361 (Dawes 1931, 168 &185)

Construction sequenceMany of the internal walls are butted to the shell wall. Consequently it has beensuggested that the courtyard wall and radial walls post-date the construction of theshell-keep. Some interior walls are tied in and many features original to the shell wallare associated with the stone interior buildings rather than with any earlier range.

It is thus more likely that the shell-keep and its interior stone range were constructedin a single period.

The floor joist sockets were built integral with the shell wall and the courtyard wall soconstruction of the courtyard wall and radial walls closely followed the building ofthe shell. There is no evidence that the joist sockets replaced earlier arrangements.The sockets are in many places very well preserved, with imprints of the timbers. Insome cases ends of beams were fairly crudely shaped but exposed timbers were

probably well finished. In several areas, including the hall, the joists of the first floorrooms were used as a scaffolding lift as the floor joist timbers take the place of putlogholes in the scaffolding sequence.

After completion of the first floor construction of the shell wall continued to wall walk level. Corbelsfor the roof trusses were built into the shell and the slots for roof trusses were probably made at thisstage. The courtyard and radial walls were then built to full height and the roof trusses put in position.Some of the roof truss sockets were cut out further to allow for irregularities in the timbers.

Keep layoutGround floorThe ground floor rooms ranged around the inner courtyard were of comparatively lowstatus; these were lit by lancet windows and accessed through doorways with simplesegmental arches.

Starting at the gatehouse and working clockwise the first space originally containedtwo rooms, as a central partition is missing. The room nearest the gatehouse has asingle shallow lancet opening adjacent to a wide and relatively tall doorway,suggesting that it may have been a stable. The second room has a deeper window. Tothe rear a doorway leads into a garderobe built into the thickness of the shell-keepwall. The room may have served as a guardhouse.

A large room beneath the private chamber was entered by a central doorway from thecourtyard and lit by a window at each end. Its doorway has wide splays which may be


28/52

28

alterations to allow more light into the room. An original fireplace serving this roomwas in the corner now breached through; the chimney hood and flue can be seenrising from the downstairs level. The splayed hood resembles a blacksmiths forge.An explanation for this feature is that it represents a hearth for assaying tin, as may beexpected with the association of the castle with the taxation of tin. It is possible that

rooms in the castle may have served temporarily as the taxation centre before theadministrative complex in Lostwithiel was built.

The room below the antechapel has no clues as to its function: it may have been astore. The radial wall between this room and that to its west is tied into the keep walland contains alterations, particularly near the courtyard where there is a butt joint andchange of alignment next to the doorway. These represent a realignment of the door.The radial wall linking this room with its neighbour to the south is built at a peculiarangle; this may be due to the proximity of the well.

Beneath the solar a doorway leads from the courtyard into another room, the space lit by two lancet windows. As the courtyard wall foundation crosses the corner of a pitnext to the well, a vault carries the wall over the opening.

Another doorway leads into a service room, probably a buttery, below the hall. Thiscould also be entered from the kitchen/servery and from the cross passage. This roomwas lit by two lancets facing the courtyard. An arched recess is visible on the interiorface of the courtyard wall, surmounted by a shallow pointed arch. It cannot be adoorway as it does not go through the thickness of the wall and it is situated betweenthe ground and first floor. Its location suggests it is associated with a narrow stair,

probably a servants access to the hall above. This stair was evidently removed andthe recess was infilled to become another window splay.

On the other side of the cross passage a doorway gave access into the servery, anarrow room with two hatchways, one connecting with the kitchen and the other intothe courtyard. The latter was converted to a window.

The kitchen contains the remains of a massive fireplace and chimney breast built intothe keep wall. Corbel stones to support the chimney hood can still be seen, althoughone has been replaced upside-down. Access to the kitchen was by a doorway from thecourtyard and one from the servery. Tall plain lintelled windows placed high in thewalls provided light. There is no evidence of any first floor within the kitchen but a

few beam sockets represent racks for food storage.

Principal floorThe rooms on the upper floor of the keep have been more positively identified, as allcontain more evidence and some of the rooms are referred to in medievaldocumentation.

Guest chamberThis room could only be accessed from a doorway situated on the stairs to the wallwalk. It was lit by two two-light windows with window seats overlooking thecourtyard. There is no fireplace.

Private chamber


29/52

29

This room was lit by two windows overlooking the courtyard and a larger archedwindow through the keep wall. The larger window, which probably contained threenarrow lights, has a deep window seat which once had a rere arch. This window had aview north up the Fowey valley. This room was exclusive, access being from theadjoining antechapel, through an arched doorway in a radial wall with its door rebate

set within the keep wall. Another doorway from the east end led onto a short balconyoverlooking the courtyard (which adjoined another balconied doorway to theantechapel). An elaborate fireplace was once situated in the west radial wall and the

position of the hearth can still be seen. Granite incorporated into the fireback andsubsequently burned may be evidence of a medieval repair.

AntechapelThis was lit by a window in the courtyard wall. From this room it was possible toenter the chapel itself (beneath an archway in the keep wall), the private chamber andthe solar. A fragment of decorated archway and a chamfered and stopped jamb stonesurvives in the doorway to the solar.

SolarThis room was lit by a large arched window in the keep wall and probably by twowindows overlooking the courtyard. In the southern radial wall is a lintelled recess,

probably intended for a buffet. The fireplace in the radial wall is represented by thefoundations of the chimney back and broken corbel stones which supported thehearth. An unusual feature of this room is a stone stairway in the thickness of theshell-keep wall, which allowed access from the window seat area to the wall walk.Two small lancet windows light this vaulted stairway, and considerable amounts of

plaster survive on its sheltered walls.

A doorway connects the solar and its neighbouring room, the hall. The rebate into theshell-keep wall indicates the door opened into the solar. The rebate together with theremains of a dressed jamb are original features to the shell, indicatingcontemporaneity of the adjoining radial wall.

HallThis was undoubtedly the most important room in the building and was larger than allthe other living rooms. It has two large arched windows through the keep wall which

provide views across and down the river valley. There are also likely to have been twowindows facing the courtyard but as most of the upper part of this wall has collapsed

their positions cannot be traced with certainty.

A fireplace was placed centrally on the outside wall with its hearth built into the innerface of the curtain, with its flue rising in the thickness of the wall. A projection on theexterior wall face forms the back of the flue. Originally it would have had dressedstone quoins; evidence of stone robbing is clearly visible. The chimney stack is likelyto have been built as an enlarged merlon. Inside the hall a corbel which oncesupported the chimney breast can be seen above the left hand jamb of the fireplace.

The western end of the hall is likely to have been formed by a timber screen whichextended from the ground floor. Evidence for this is the change in the direction of the

floor joists adjacent to the westernmost window, a vertical chase in the courtyard wall beside the hall doorway, and the spacing of the roof trusses at this end of the room.


30/52

30

The main access to the hall was through a wide first floor doorway from thecourtyard, which led into the screens passage and through another door into the hallitself. Floor joists penetrate the courtyard wall along the length of the hall suggestingan external platform. A chase for lead flashing of a roof above the balcony suggests

that the balcony had a steeply sloped canopy roof over the hall doorway.

The cross passage divided the hall from another small room above the servery. Thisspace was lit by a tall widely splayed plain window opening. Floor joist socketsvisible in the servery area generally run across the width of the lower room althoughthere are also sockets visible in the shell-keep wall. These may represent an alteration,

perhaps a post-medieval re-use of this space, as a small window has been cut throughthe masonry in the higher courtyard wall.

ChapelThe chapel forms a north east extension to the keep and juts out towards the ditch.Many authors, mostly quoting John Lelands comments in c1540, have regarded thechapel as an addition to the keep. Structural evidence, however, tells a different storyand there is strong evidence to indicate that the chapel is contemporary with the keep.

Masonry on the interior faces of the chapel side walls is coursed through to theshell-keep (below the Pentewan stone major archway).

The upper surface of the Pentewan stone archway (which allows access fromthe keep and antechapel into the chapel itself) protrudes through to the wallwalk and serves as part of the shell- keeps drainage arrangeme nts, indicating itis an integral design feature.

There are no breaks in the rubble masonry build of the curtain wall that would be evident if the archway and chapel were additions.

The earliest features within the chapel are a blocked opening or niche in the northwall, a similar one in the south wall, and the piscina. The majority of the east wall isalso likely to belong to the original build but the window has been blocked.

The east window of the chapel is unusual in that it was made of wood. Clearimpressions of the mullions (with chamfers and rebates) are preserved where thewindow was blocked with masonry and the timbers subsequently left to rot in situ.There are no traces of ragged masonry around the edges of the window, as would beexpected where dressed stone jambs have been removed. This was a three-lightwindow, and remains of the arched tops of the two outer lights can still be traced.

The east window lies almost flush with the interior face of the east wall, rather thanthe normal practice of being set in a splay. The window is slightly misaligned, as ifthe window frame was moved inwards before being blocked with masonry.Horizontal and vertical timber slots in the interior face of the wall and surrounding theeast window are probably traces of a sill and interior jambs.

The upper side walls of the chapel bear evidence of considerable alterations. A blocked niche or opening to the west of the south window and another similar featureeast of the north window have both been truncated with the tops and parts of the sidesof these features removed. This appears to have been done during the course of


31/52

31

enlargement of the windows. It is also noticeable that the upper courses of stoneworkin the side walls (that is, the builds of masonry around the windows) are not bonded tothe keep wall in the same way as the lower walls. Putlog holes within the upper partsof the walls do not align with those in the lower sections; this also points to theaddition of masonry after the positions of the original scaffold construction lifts had

been obscured.

Masonry in the exterior walls of the chapel has a fairly uniform appearance and a veryregular pattern of putlog holes, showing a single period of construction. It is likelytherefore that the side walls of the chapel were thickened to 1.52m to strengthen the

building at the same time as new windows were incorporated. The east wall was probably similarly treated and supported by heavy buttresses.

The result of all this modification is that the external wall faces of the chapel abut theshell-keep whilst the lower parts of the interior wall faces are contemporary with it. Itis likely that the appearance of the outer walls in the 1540s with, presumably, newerwindow designs and fresher looking masonry, may have caused Leland to commentthat the chapel was a newer work.

The major arch forming the entry to the chapel is part of the original design and buildof the keep wall. An offset minor arch (which is roughly centred on the antechapel),originally finished with dressed masonry, is also integral to the keep wall.

Hext (1891) and Toy (1933) indicated that a space beneath the chapel floor wasvisible. Toy suggested that the present chapel might be a conversion of an earliertower. C S Gilbert (quoted by Hext 1891 ) noted that about 1783 some workmenwere digging amongst the ruins of the castle, they discovered two large skeletons inone cave, locked in each others arms - some say in complete armour. W MastermanEsqre, then holding the castle by lease under the duchy, ordered the vault to be

boarded over and afterwards filled up with earth. Hext recorded that the vault wasnow almost filled with rubbish and bushes. The floor surface of the chapel is nowlevelled and gravelled.

A major problem of the possible existence of a vault below the chapel is how it mayhave been entered and how it was lit. No windows are visible that could have

provided light to a space beneath the floor. Access to a lower room may have been bya winding stair from narrow (blocked) openings in the chapel side walls. Any access

by these openings was lost when the chapel side walls were rebuilt. An alternative andmore direct way into this area might have been through a doorway from the room below the antechapel, through the keep wall. Walling in this area has been rebuilt andnow supports a wooden stair access to the chapel. The extent of rebuilding, however,does not appear sufficient to mask a doorway.

Wall walk levelThe merlons are largely intact, the only one missing is one that which served as achimney stack for the hall fireplace. This is likely to have been built of dressedmasonry and probably disappeared through stone robbing.

Access to the wall walk was by three stairways. Two flights of stairs are locatedadjacent to the inner gatehouse; these not only provided access to the wall walk but


32/52

32

also allowed entry to rooms within the gatehouse, to garderobes and arrowloops sitedaround the keep entrance and to the guest room on the first floor. The other stairway,located on the east side, provided access to the wall walk from the solar.

On the south side of the castle, lines of slates can be seen in the bases of the merlons.

These are the remains of a flashing or weathercourse which undulates along the lineof the wall walk, indicating that rainwater from the parapet and adjacent roofs waschannelled into radiating gutters and escaped through drain holes or gargoyles set atintervals along the base of the parapet.

RoofsThe roofs at Restormel Castle represented a considerable feat at the time, particularlyin Cornwall where few buildings were larger or more complex. The roofs not onlyspanned a considerable building width but also had to follow the curved shape of the

building.

The roof trusses appear to have been an arch-braced design (presumably a kind ofraised cruck). The trusses sprang from two tiers of slots originally containing dressedstone corbels in the curtain wall. The common rafters were carried on wall plates,following the curve of the building, supported on smaller moulded corbels. The wallwalk displays much evidence of the way that it carried water away from this roof tospouts at intervals around the shell. None of the upper part of the courtyard wallsurvives to show either wall sockets or parapet but it is likely to have followed asimilar theme to the outer wall with wall sockets for the massive principal trusses andincorporating an embattled parapet gargoyles for drainage.

Long straight lengths of timber were probably not available locally for this sort ofspan and a method was devised so that shorter curved lengths could be linked togetherspringing from lower down the walls so as to share the lateral thrust with the thickwalls. It is likely that, as with known later examples, the principal blades of thetrusses rose only as far as the collar beams as crucks but that the upper parts of thetrusses were separate pieces of timber of lighter scantling. This roof type alsoincorporated a square -set purlin , that is a purlin lying flat and housed in a jointcombining a birds beak of the principal truss with a vertical mortised strut and thereduced principal. Below the principal blades of the trusses, and carrying weight yetlower down into the wall, were arched braces mortised into both the principal trussesand the lower side of the collars. It became a west country type and late medieval

examples survive both in Devon and Cornwall.

Examples of raised base cruck trusses are known to survive at the following buildings in Cornwall:

Penfound Manor, Poundstock Penellick Farmhouse, Pelynt Methrose, Luxulyan Food for Thought Restaurant (formerly part of Frenchmans Creek), Fowey (A

13.10m long roof with crown posts incorporated into one end of the roof and withridge purlins under the common rafters bearing on small collars and with

provision for wind-bracing. See Mercer 1975.)


33/52

33

Truthall, Sithney. Cargoll Farm, St Newlyn East barn (Square-set purlins and trusses with curved

feet with alternating large and smaller principal trusses.)

The roof structure at Restormel can therefore be reconstructed based upon a backward

chronology and development, with the assumption that it was the forerunner of theearliest surviving roofs in Cornwall. All the surviving early roof structures inCornwall relate to open halls with central hearths. At Restormel Castle, the mainrooms had wall fireplaces. Berry Court at Penhallam, a moated manor house of asimilar date to the main phase of Restormel Castle still had central hearths to its hallswith a wall fireplace gracing only the fi rst floor hall or camera.

The building known as the Duchy Palace in Lostwithiel precedes this phase ofRestormel Castle and the roof span of the hall was larger than that achieved at thecastle.

Guest chamberThe best indications of the main roof pattern are within the guest chamber. This roomhas a gable, with an impression of a horizontal timber, probably a collar, on itsinterior.

Kitchen and serveryThe roof of the kitchen varies from the usual pattern, and probably had a simple A-frame roof which rested in deep slots on either side of the chimney. Within theservery area there are two corbels in the courtyard wall at the same level as those ofthe wall plate corbels in the curtain wall. These would have only functioned as load-

bearing features if there was sufficient weight of masonry above them to keep them in place. It is therefore suggested that a parapet existed around the courtyard.

AntechapelThe courtyard wall and one of the side walls of the antechapel are ruined to first floorlevel so it is difficult to determine the roof pattern of this room.

In the curtain wall is a large pointed archway which leads into the chapel. This makesit impossible to utilise the roof trusses found elsewhere in the keep. Two large corbelsset above the archway probably carried a trimmer beam on which principal rafters

rested.

ChapelThe chapel probably had a shallow pitched lead covered roof. Roof timbers were

probably very shallow arches supported on corbels in the side walls.

The roof was contained within parapets but there is now no evidence of merlons andembrasures along the side walls. There is also no evidence for any easy access fromthe wall walk onto the chapel roof, suggesting it was not considered important fordefence.

Post-medieval occupation and alterations


34/52

34

Within the shell-keep there are features which indicate adaptation of parts of therooms. In several instances this suggests post-medieval activity, most likely duringthe Civil War or by squatters occupying the ruinous buildings.

Beneath the guest chamber and the private chamber the wall has been breached; it

may have been caused by robbing, or to make a doorway.

In the south west corner of the room beneath the antechapel is a crudely cut chimneylike opening through the upper wall; this represents reuse of part of the space as alean-to shelter.

An opening in the west wall of the kitchen may have been caused by robbing.The west window of the hall was at some time modified by widening and roughrebuilding of its jambs, probably with a timber screen inserted in the space. Thisalteration appears to be contemporary with the insertion of a small hearth and fluewithin the area of the window splay. The inner edge of the window splay, its dressedstone decoration already removed, was edged with rubble stonework and probablyalso screened with timber. Toy (1933) interpreted the flue as a speaking tube

between the hall and the wall walk. At the time these alterations were made the hallappears to have been roofless and these works created a small room out of thewindow seat area. This space has a view of Beacon Hill (occupied by Royalists at thetime the castle was garrisoned by Parliamentarians) and also of the valley bottom,river crossing and town of Lostwithiel. It therefore seems that this was a hurriedly

built lookout.

In the post-medieval period the chapel was altered, including blocking of the eastwindow and addition of timbers adjacent to the east wall. A large vertical squaresection timber with a cross piece at its base in the north east internal corner of thechapel is clearly an addition. Part of the masonry of the adjacent north wall has beentaken down to insert these timbers and then rebuilt. The purpose of this timberappears to be linked to structures on the roof. If a gun emplacement was situated onthe chapel roof during the Civil War then the timber may have been associated with ahoist to bring the gun into position, and for hauling ammunition.

The interior of the chapel was rendered after the east window was blocked, suggestingthat this alteration was not hurried. Although the remainder of the castle was by thenderelict, this part of the building apparently saw some reuse during the later sixteenth

century and seventeenth century.

South of the chapel at the base of the external side of the curtain wall is an area whichRadford (1935) interpreted as a priests dwelling. There is a rough horizontal chase inthe masonry high on the shell-keep wall (a possible roofline) and a fireplace centrally

placed beneath. Radford suggested that a timber framed lean-to building sited herewas entered by a doorway from the chapel. There is, however, no trace of a doorwayon the exterior face of the chapel wall (unless one was obscured when the chapelwalls were thickened).

Any building sited on the exterior of the shell-keep wall would require a jettied

wooden floor situated above the steep slope of the bank surrounding the keep. Thereis no evidence of floor joist holes in the shell-keep wall (or between the shell-keep


35/52


36/52

36

The gatehouse was heavily modified when the keep was constructed. The innergateway of Pentewan stone, clearly an addition, contains two orders in its arch whenviewed from the entrance and three orders when seen from within the keep. This finegate has no defensive elements and its purpose appears ornamental. Decorativescribed lines parallel to and set back slightly from the joints are visible on the

Pentewan blocks. As these do not appear on all the arch stones it is suggested thatthey are a device by which particular stonemasons protected the edges of stones whilethey were being shaped, rather than to create a decorative element.

Radford (1935) suggested there may have been a drawbridge sited within the innergatehouse which, when raised, slotted into a rebate above the inner gateway arch.There is no evidence for a drawbridge in this location, however, as no hinge socketsare evident in the base of the walls.

Remains of the outer gateway only comprise footings of dressed masonry. This gatecontained more than one order in its arch and was built of the same architectural styleas the inner gate. Richard Carew (1602) noted a portcullis in the gatehouse and if hewas correct the slot for this would have been sited within the dressed masonry of theouter gateway, there being no provision within the attached drawbridge tower.

The shell-keep wall abuts the inner gatehouse on the north and south sides. One smallsquare area of masonry (c0.3m wide and high) jutting from the north side at theexternal face of the shell wall, may represent a position of an earlier timber beamfixed into the gatehouse, perhaps an element of a wooden palisade above the ringworkwhich preceded the stone keep. This would suggest that timber defences built againstthe gatehouse were of similar diameter to the later shell-keep.

The Caption of Seisin of 1337 recorded three chambers over the gate (Hull 1971, ??)and archaeological evidence indicates this represents the final layout of the gatehouse.The inner gatehouse comprised three storeys with an additional roof level; thedrawbridge tower was of two storeys, also with an accessible roof level. Thedefensive elements, from front to back, comprised a drawbridge, (a portcullis?) anouter gate and an inner gate. Above the entrance, the drawbridge tower contained onesmall room, the space filed by a winding mechanism for a drawbridge. Within theinner gatehouse, the two upper storeys both contained chambers, the first floor roomaccessed from steps built into the shell-keep wall on the south side. Remains of areveal indicate this room was lit from a window facing the courtyard. The second

floor room was accessible from the wall walk on the north side. Its roof level, probably protected by battlements, was reached from a set of narrow steps from thesouth side, still present on the wall walk. There is no evidence of any stairsconnecting floors inside the inner gatehouse; these may be absent for defensivereasons and to save space within the small rooms.

The roof of the gatehouse will have had a short span covered in lead.

A pair of garderobe chutes is visible in the shell-keep wall immediately to the south ofthe gatehouse. The garderobes were apparently situated close to the gatehouse buttheir location is uncertain. The most likely site is on the wall walk of the keep below

the gatehouse parapet access steps.


37/52

37

Drawbridge towerThe drawbridge tower, butted on at a slight angle to the earlier gatehouse, has arectangular lintelled gate opening on the ground floor and remains of a room above.There are sloping buttresses where this building faces the ditch. Its drawbridge wouldhave been a hinged and counterweighted platform which spanned across part of the

ditch. There are rebates representing the closed position of the bridge and a pair oflarge sockets at track way level where hinge mountings have been robbed out.

When open the bridge linked across to an arched stone causeway. The causeway,although heavily restored, is part of the medieval arrangement (and was illustrated byStockdale in 1824). The causeway comprises two retaining walls which extend fromthe exterior edge of the keep ditch. Between the two walls is an infilled sectionforming a solid roadway. Where each wall crosses the deepest section of the ditch it iscarried over a shallow arched opening and the arched section abuts the buttressedfront of the drawbridge tower.

Unrestored sections of the causeway indicate traces of render and limewash. This isfurther evidence that the ditch was always dry.

Inside the gateway, there was a pit to allow clearance for a counterweighted section ofthe drawbridge which, when the bridge was lifted, effectively doubled the barrier.

Above the gateway was a small room, its space mainly taken up with a windingmechanism for the drawbridge. This room was lit by a central slit window with a viewoverlooking the bailey, and single cross-loops in the side walls. All these wereconstructed of Pentewan stone. These loops are considerably shorter than those in theshell-keep, indicating that they were not intended for long bows; they may have beenfor cross bows. They only have a short field of view over the line of the ditch adjacentto the keep entrance and the bailey would have been more easily defended fromarrowloops in the shell-keep wall.

Access to the room over the outer gateway was probably via a doorway piercedthrough the front wall of the inner gatehouse; there is likely to have been a similararrangement for access to the roof level of the drawbridge tower.

A substantial amount of conservation work has been carried out to the front wall ofthe drawbridge tower. Above a pair of sockets for a timber lintel the wall has been

rebuilt to the base of a central window, which can be dated to 1928. The top of thewall has bowed inwards due to its past structural weakness and the southernmostcorner has moved out of line.

The only surviving defensive elements visible in the shell-keep wall are arrowloops,and these are located around the gatehouse. A single cross-loop is situated in a recessin the keep wall immediately north of the gatehouse. The opening overlooks thecentral part of the bailey (where there are likely to have been the principal bailey

buildings, including the hall) and the causeway/bridge into the keep. Two more cross-loops are situated in a corridor built within the thickness of the wall which leads to agarderobe south of the gatehouse. These have a field of view over the south side of

the bailey and were probably used to defend a gateway in the south east corner of the bailey.


38/52

38

PHASINGPhase I Iron Age backgroundAn undated multi-vallate sub-rectangular enclosure lies to the east? of the castle. Itmay be Iron Age or Romano-British

Phase II Ring work, late eleventh centuryThe earliest castle probably consisted of a ringwork about 38m in diameter,surrounded by a ditch, with a roughly rectangular bailey. The only indicators of theearly buildings in the keep are the three enigmatic pits dug into the bedrock. The pitscould have been cellars under towers. We have no evidence for their dating, as theywere cleared in the 1920s. A fourth large hole contains the castles well , an essentialfeature should the castle ever come under sustained attack. The well chosen site meantthat it was unnecessary to go to great lengths to provide a substantial defence, so therewas no large mound or motte.

There are probable building platforms within the bailey which may be attributable tothis or one of the later medieval phases.

Phase III Gatehouse, early thirteenth centuryThe curtain wall of the shell keep was butted up against the stonework of thegatehouse. It seems likely that the gatehouse came first, and sat within the earliertimber or stone walls. In view of the long term shortage of building timber inCornwall it seems likely that the earlier main defences were also of stone.

Phase IV Keep, late thirteenth century

The curtain wall of the keep was constructed with its footings dug into the ring work.The internal walls forming the accommodation are straight jointed against the curtainwall, and have putlog holes at different levels, showing that they were constructed assecondary activity. However, there is no reason to believe that they were more than afew months later in date. The main evidence for this is the negative one that there isno trace of any other internal structures on the curtain wall. Sadly, there has never

been any conventional archaeological excavation.

The gatehouse was considerably enlarged, with the addition of new drawbridge houseto the front and by raising the earlier gatehouse.

The date of this phase is late thirteenth century. The evidence for this is:

All the buildings around the courtyard display pointed arches, as do thewindows within the shell-keep. Pointed arches in England date from at leastthe 1170s. No semi-circular arches, which would indicate an earlier date, arevisible within the entire keep complex.

The chamfers and stops visible in blocked openings within the chapel.

The multiple ordered and chamfered gateways added to the gatehouse.

Documentary evidence.


39/52

39

Roof structures with principal arch-braced trusses.

Phase V Royal visitors: the fourteenth century glory daysThe castle was given to the Black Prince as a part of the property attached to the newtitle of Duke of Cornwall created in 1337. No fabric can be attributed to the Black

Prince. The documentary sources suggest that he received the fully built castle, andthe accounts record various repairs responding to the contemporary circumstances.The Black Prince spent Christmas 1362 in the Castle, the last time the lord of thecastle was to stay there.

Phase VI Dereliction and robbing: sixteenth centuryThe keep was abandoned at the close of the medieval period and robbing out of thehigh quality building materials occurred. The most obvious evidence is the removal ofdressed masonry; other items such as timber, lead and stone slates were also valuable.

Phase VII Civil War alterations: 1640sThere was a brief siege of the castle in 1644 when it was taken by the Royalist forces.The east window of the chapel was blocked to provide for a high level timber gun

platform, evidenced by the shadows of the timbers in the stonework. The state of therest of the building at this time is not known, but the roofs of the main apartmentswere probably missing.

Phase VIII Ruination: romantic landscape feature: the eighteenth centuryThere are no records which relate directly to the creation of the designed landscapewith its deliberately planted avenue (in the bailey) and woodland. This was apparentlyunder the direction of William Masterman who was at Restormel House from to 1774to 1786, or perhaps by his wifes uncle, Thomas Jone s, who had the site from 17?? to1774.

Phase IX Royal visitors, again: the nineteenth centuryThe first recorded tourists were eighte

Restormel Castle Conservation Statement

Documents

Transcript of Restormel Castle Conservation Statement