Coventry Castle

Good morning Kaga, we don't differ as much as you think but we're not always talking about the same era. Early settlers in Coventry would have used natural features, including the loop of the Sherbourne as a defence from the west, north and east but the southern defences were clearly man made, even if they'd used a small stream or two to start with. They couldn't be navigated because they went up a hill and came down the other side. When and in what order the defences were built is debatable but they weren't all built at once. They show a growing town that predated the Normans but was expanded and redefined by them. The bulk of the changes happened well after the Norman invasion. The city wall ditch wasn't very deep and wasn't meant to act as a castle defence because warfare had changed by then. Castles weren't impregnable. The city walls and ditches were as much to stop tax avoidance and minor thieves, as a way to turn away armies. Before the city wall was built the residence of the Lord was at Cheylesmore, outside the protection of the city, suggesting a lower level of danger at the time. By that point the castle was redundant and the area was being redeveloped. My personal theory is that the castle keep (if there was one) might have served as a gaol but nobody knows what the castle consisted of so there may have been no keep at all. The city walls did defeat Charles I but only because his was a small force on the move. The main defence was the numbers of people in the city and the soil embankment of the walls on the inside. Walls alone couldn't stop cannon but piles of earth could. Attacking the city was just more trouble than it was worth.

I came into this topic very late. The military transactions of the city are very few. It was an open town for many centuries, and of course, incapable of sustaining a siege. The walls were not begun until 1355 and by licence of Edward III twenty seven years before. nor were they finished in less than forty. They were built by money raised by taxes on wine, pigs, sheep etc. The walls of great strength and grand, of thirty-two towers and twelve gates. These continued until July 1661, when a great part of the wall, most of the wall and towers, and many of the gates were pulled down, under circumstances of disgrace, as a punishment for disloyalty of the inhabitants, in shutting the gates against their monarch Charles I on the 13th Aug 1642. His majesty, after setting up his standard at Nottingham, he sent to the city he intended to reside here for some time and desired for his forces in and about the place. The mayor and aldermen, with many expressions of affection, offered to receive the King, but refused any admittance to any of his soldiers. Incensed at this, his majesty then attacked the city. His military forced open one of the gates, repulsed by the valour of the citizens, and was forced to retire with losses. The city was regularly garrisoned with parliament troops. In the 15th century another monarch had been denied the possession of this city, the great Earl of Warwick armed it against Edward IV in1470 when he attempted entering on the side of Gosford Green. The king repaid the insult, he deprived them of their privileges, fined them 500 marks for having the sword returned to them.

Before the building of the walls, there had been a castle of early times on the south side of the city near Cheylsemore with a park belonging to it. This had been the residence of some of the kings of Mercia. It afterwards fell to the Earls of Chester, and later vetted to the royal line. In its place a wooden building, built after the fall of the castle. King Stephen forcibly took this fortress from Randle de German of Chester. In 1146 the Earl erected a fort near it, not by seige but cutting off supplies. The king brought force against the Earl, defeated him, and then destroyed the castle. Coventry was seated on gentle sloping grounds on every side, and even in those days had very old buildings. The habitants, before 1549, were thought to have been 15,000. It lost trade and reduced to 3,000.

There was a castle but it probably wasn't at Cheylesmore. The castle was probably near the County Hall. It was partly destroyed by Stephen but was repaired and is recorded as a viable structure in 1182. Castles weren't comfortable and Coventry's lords moved out to Cheylesmore when the area became safer. It was a fortified manor house and was incorporated into the city's walls. The lands to the south were hunting parks.

Helen F From very early times there had been a castle, near Cheylesmore Park. Kings of Mercia resided there, but it fell to Randle (Ranulf) de Guernon, Earl of Chester, and at length was vetted in the royal line. King Stephen forcibly took this fortress from Randle. Randle then in 1146 attempted to take it back, not by force but by erecting a fort and cutting to distress the garrison, cutting off supplies. The king twice attempted its relief, once without force, the second time successfully defeating the Earl with wounds and then demolished the castle.

Sorry Kaga, but no. The first major connection to Coventry was Earl Leofric, just before the Norman Invasion and while Norman descendants built a castle, there was none in the late Saxon or early Norman times. A defended stockade certainly but not a recognisable castle. Cheylesmore was too far out to be the location of that castle and all the authentic references and archaeology put it in the middle of the city. The most defining bit of evidence is the name Bayley Lane. I'll add that the differences between a fortified manor house and a castle would be a point of debate on what exactly defined a castle. Many of the later buildings called castles were not truly defensible and were more to keep out thieves and brigands or impress the neighbours than defend against an army. Cheylesmore had a stone hall that would have looked a lot like a castle and an encircling wall but I'm not sure that it ever had a tower like Stokesay for example.

Helen, It's like you posted, what defines a castle, whatever it was long before they built Cheylesmore Manor House. Stephen destroyed the castle that had belonged to the kings of Mercia there, did not find Matilda, but found she was in Oxford Castle, where he laid siege, but again she escaped. The Cheylesmore Manor was then built from the ruins of the castle down in the park.

Kaga, please stop quoting flawed old books and use a bit of logic. Why would Bayley Lane be called such if the castle was over at Cheylesmore? Why would Broadgate be named after the gate of the castle if it was over at Cheylesmore? Why would archaeologists find ditches and bits of castle stone work in the Pepper Lane area if the castle was in Cheylesmore? Why would the part built St Mary's cathedral central tower be used to lay siege to Coventry castle if it was out at Cheylesmore? I could let you quote old books and accept that they are a superior source but I think accuracy is more important than respect for dead antiquarians.

Helen, Yes, if you please stop posting a passage that moves around two hundred years time period, in one paragraph, and where is the logic in saying the word 'castle' is debatable, and two days later saying you know the definition, because you know where it is, but it was nothing like Warwick Castle. Cheylesmore was around long before the Normans invaded, and had buildings, whether you could call them fortified or castles is debatable - the one in Cheylesmore was destroyed by the Earls of Chester, and King Stephen could have destroyed them when he was looking for Matilda. And Leofric was not the first in Coventry, King Cnut ruled Coventry, and I believe gave it the name. He destroyed the Convent tree at its entrance, my opinion.

Helen You just posted 'would I please stop quoting flawed old books, use a bit of logic'. Well, my logic says, if we didn't read old books then we would have no history. My logic also tells me who is flawing these books, is a bad historian, for Pennant is correct in most things he wrote, most of it now on the internet - his writing of the shrine of St Chad, the parliament in Coventry, the cross, etc. So why is there no Bayley Lane or Broadgate at Caludon Castle or Kenilworth Castle? Cheylesmore was a priory, and had a wall with many windows looking east, so the monks could pray at early sunrise. The bits of stone archaeology finds could be from anywhere - Caludon, the priory, priory house all had them for sale, there is no markings on them, you don't know how many hands have handled them, and neither do those guys with their little trowels.

Example - Pennant writes about Lady Godiva's naked ride, which with modern levels of information we know is almost certainly fake. From the Domesday Book we know that Coventry had just 69 households in Godiva's time but Pennant suggests that Coventry must have been a considerable place, and its number of inhabitants great, otherwise the fair Godeva could never have made so great a merit of riding naked through the town, STORY OF GODEVA. to redeem it from the intolerable taxes and grievances it at that time labored under. The cause must have been equal to the deed. Her husband long resisted her importunity in its behalf, on account of the profits that accrued to him: at length thought to silence her by the strange proposal: she accepted it, and, being happy in fine flowing locks, rode, decently covered to her very feet with her lovely tresses. Through no fault of his own, Pennant was wrong. He was telling the story that was well 'known' at the time. History written at the time something happens is different to history written from folklore well afterwards. That doesn't mean that there is no value in his writings or from the things he quoted, they just need confirmation. Without that, the information is anecdotal. The same applies to modern books. Anyone can speculate but nobody has to believe it. Kenilworth had a lane out of the inner bailey into the outer bailey. Its baileys still mostly exist. The town is outside the baileys. What it does have is a Castle Road. Early castles tended to be built within town centres and earlier ditches. They were built to dominate communities. They were built to oversee roads, rivers or ports. Whereas manor houses were deliberately built away from town centres for privacy, sport hunting and a nicer view. They were built with fortifications because they were unprotected by town defences. I've never seen another reference to Coventry castle being at Cheylesmore or that Coventry was the home of any Mercian kings. Castles had a purpose other than just for living in, what was the purpose of Cheylesmore other than as a country retreat? Any confusion between castles and fortified manor houses relates to after the Anglo Saxons. If 21st century archaeologists with carbon dating can't work out the age of things, what hope would antiquarians reporting hundreds of years after events? The earliest archaeology from Cheylesmore only shows things from well after Godiva's time.

Helen, We cannot say it was a fake, there is a picture of him holding a charter that says the tolls would cease after her ride. Then we read it differently. Pennant said Leofric and his countess founded a monastery. After that period Coventry must have been a considerable place. But Cnut brought over a thousand soldiers, and like him most of them stayed, and there would have been scores of people hiding in the dense forest. By 1080, there were at least a dozen districts in Coventry that are still there today, they all had manor houses, mills etc and were well established by that time, so, if and when she did ride, Coventry would have been pretty good sized place. Now if Mercia Kings or Earls lived in Cheylesmore then it would have been fortified, and Henry did destroy it. But you have now moved on a couple of centuries from Leofric's time.

What??? A picture of Leofric holding a charter? Drawn when, and by whom? I've never seen any picture of anything Coventry-related older than the 1500s, and that was a "view of the city", the accuracy of which left a lot to be desired. How does seeing someone's drawing of Leofric holding a charter make it any more authentic than my drawing of King Alfred the Great going into battle, made when I was 8 years old? And where in any history book or historic document have you seen anything to place Cnut (quick dyslexia check here) personally in Coventry, or the dozen districts, with their manor houses, that you mention, or Mercian kings living in a fortified Cheylesmore? The earliest I've heard about any being mentioned is medieval times, not Saxon or early Norman. Kaga, you must have access to unique documents that the rest of us have never had the privilege to read!

Kaga, this sort of comment is why we clash. There is no painting from Leofric's era. The one Pennant refers to is much later (Richard II?). Godiva was a very pious Lady and very rich in her own right. All the indications are that she owned Coventry - either brought into the marriage from her family or given to her by Leofric - as she retained the place and numerous others after Leofric died. Leofric's lands went to his son. If Godiva wanted to free the city from taxes, she could have paid them herself. She wouldn't have had to strip off in an unthinkably immodest act. And why would he have allowed his wife to do it? What proud Earl would have done any deal that involved his wife riding naked in front of his peasants and slaves, let alone carry it out? Yes, there were settlements around Coventry but they weren't Coventry and there is no suggestion she went anywhere else in the myth. We know the size of Coventry at Leofric's death. 69 households. My own lane has more houses than that and we don't even constitute a village. I've written about Mercia and Saxon land owners before and I'm not going through it again. If you want to make unlikely claims about Cheylesmore or anything else, you're going to have to provide some evidence other than a throw away comment in a book that was written centuries after the events.

This is the sort of image quality from over a 150 years after Leofric died. King Edward the Confessor and Earl Leofric of Mercia see the face of Christ appear in the Eucharistic host; below: the return of a ring given to a beggar who was John the Baptist in disguise. Thirteenth-century abridgement of Domesday Book