St Osburga Nunnery and the original Church

Coventry Catholic Deanery The History of The Most Holy Sacrament and St. Osburg's, Coventry. Page 3 of 18, The Background to St Osburg's. The first settlement in what is now Coventry was the convent established by the Abbess, St Osburg, in Anglo Saxon times. It was destroyed by the Vikings and rebuilt as a monastery for men in 1043 by Lady Godiva and her husband Earl Leofric. It developed into a great Monastery and the Cathedral Church of Coventry - the only Cathedral destroyed by King Henry VIII. The site, to the left of Holy Trinity Church in Broadgate, has been carefully preserved by the City. There are a few remains of the other monasteries destroyed at the Reformation: The Whitefriars Carmelite Monastery (founded in 1342) at the beginning of the London Road; the Carthusian Priory of St Anne, founded in 1381, further along the London Road; and the Franciscan Monastery, of which only the spire remains, in New Union Street.

Thanks Kevin, welcome to the forum

I think we all agree, that St Osburg's church, as we all now know it, was first built in Coventry about 1843. But that isn't actually the church we are speaking of. The discussion is really about the Saxon nunnery, supposedly founded by Osburga, possibly in the 600s to 700s - almost all of which is supposition based on very little documented evidence at all. I wrote on this page about what was found in excavations just over 20 years ago, and drew the foundation stones that were unearthed, which just might have been from a church associated with the nunnery.

It's a fascinating question, Peter, dragged up three years later. When I was a jobbing journalist 'oop North', having left the CET in 2000, I remember interviewing an archaelogist in Staffordshire about an early church site somewhere in the Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme area (I'm ashamed to say I can't remember the place or the chap's name!) and I talked about thinking early churches were built on high (whether to be closer to God or seen by the great unwashed depends on your viewpoint!) but I remember him talking about water sources being king to early settlements. That area with Radford Brook, the Sherbourne, and potentially natural pools - like Pool Meadow and Babblelake - would have meant fertile ground and a source of fresh water. Given the nature of the lands owned by the church there, plus the hospital (old Grammar School), there is a certain logic. But I do wonder whether you're right and that there was something already on Hill Top, except surely some record would remain?

What a fabulous discussion. The depth & feeling, I'm in awe. Thank you. When these discussions are going on, I'm listening between the lines, not just at the building architecture, but the real lives throughout. The hardships as well as the celebration activities of folk long gone. Again, thank you.

Whenever there is a great flood somewhere and the TV helicopters and now drones fly over, invariably the one place in the centre that isn't flooded is the oldest church/cathedral. They weren't daft. Anything down near the river Sherbourne was too vulnerable but there was a lot of land above the river that could be used. I've been thinking about how Coventry came about and the more I think about it, the more I believe that there is a logical story to how the place developed but that archaeology can't prove it. I think that St Osburga's nunnery and the town must have been fairly well established before Cnut's forces destroyed the nunnery because there were quite a lot of people there in 1066. The nunnery must have been wealthy enough and well enough known to make it worthwhile seeking it out. It may all hinge on the forest of Arden. I'll dig out the notes I was making last year before ill health disrupted things.

Just rewatching the Time Team dig and Tony Robinson says they've realised it, St Mary's, was built on the side of the hill to allow the conduits to run into the River Sherbourne.

The more I think about this subject, of the reasons for the hillside location of (probably) our first nunnery, the more I realise that Steven Bassett's book Anglo Saxon Coventry and its Churches makes sense, when he puts forward a very strong argument that there must already have been something on top of the hill - i.e. a church where Holy Trinity now stands, probably a Saxon Minster. I expanded on this a little more in post 2 in this topic. Update: Checking online, the book still appears to be available for only £5 + £1.70 P&P - Occasional Paper number 41 on the Dugdale Society website.

Very possible, Rob. Because while the nunnery gets a mention, there would have been a church in a settlement even as small as Coventry, what would become Coventry. What else was there? The old St Nicholas church in Radford?

Hi Diesel74, when thinking of Saxon Coventry you have to forget every building that survived long enough to be properly recorded. There are some theories that the nunnery was up towards old St Nicholas but I've not worked out why they'd think that. Even Godiva's St Mary's is a ghost of stones under the later cathedral (if that's what they were). A lot of buildings would have been made out of timber and often weren't protected from damp by stones.

All the theories I've heard were that the nunnery was close to the Sherbourne, so roughly where parts of the priory buildings attached to St Mary's were on the hill. How much of Coventry's history has been damaged by war? Fascinating and sad in equal measure.