Newbury Castle, Where was the castle in the 11thCentury. Options

[Nothing Much]

Basically because I know nothing beyond "1066 and all that", Hollywood films,
and a vague idea of rape and pillage. I delved into an old book I have, written in about 1740ish
by J.Hume.In it He describes the antics of the reign of Stephen and the Insurrection.

Even though he raced home from France and grabbed the throne from the legitimate heir,
at the end of his life the author felt he was an enlightened monarch. Pity about the period of anarchy.

The book was published in Paternoster Row,destroyed in WW2. Presently occupied by what some may call anarchists.

Stephen had to give way to keep his throne and allowed Barons to fortify areas.
From which they took what they wanted.
Considering it is dusty and smelly.The book is still an interesting read.

So during the troubles there were quite a few local conflicts ,Malmsbury,Wallingford, to name but 3.
But being a General or a Baron you look for the high ground. Donnington is an obvious one.
Looking at an old OS map , like Romans, you would chose a military spot to plant a motte and bailey.
Getting across a river is always important. So to block that, a stronghold on a hill sounds ok.
.........That is the short version of my thoughts!
ce

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Interesting I think Newbury having a castle would be amazing. I think a good location for a Castle would have been where the Newbury Retail Park now resides. Hilled on all directions plus there is a Tesco across the road for supplies in the event of a coup.

[Nothing Much]

You are worse than I am ...and I guess there are some years before you catch me up.

For once I was trying to be serious. The Stephen and Matilda spat was pretty mangled.
Everyone was connected, Bishops, Earls, It became chaos after Stephen gave way to barons.
I am still interested in the castles.

A quick change of interest.
"My Home Town".. Looking forward to a new CD for the M11. My birthday is in June.
So I think I will have to buy the old boy before then .
ce.

[Simon Kirby]

I find Stephen to be one of the least likable of a generally dislikeable collection of monarcs, being both weak and power-hungry.

Right next to a river in a marsh sounds like an odd place to build a castle so the warf does sound to me like an unlikely contender for the location. As I understand it Norman castles were built quickly with littl emore than a wooden pallisade on a mound or earth and then what we think of as a castle - the stone building - came once the locals had been pasified, so I guess it's possible there wouldn't be much to show from an early castle and the canal engineers who dug out the warf may well not have recognized the arcaeology for what it was if they did find any.

[Nothing Much]

Likeable?...... Was anyone kind in those days.
I agree about the river area though.. Back to my studies!
ce

[NWNREADER]

Given the science of location, why is it that The Castle at Donnington and Cold Ash are both half way up their respective hills?

[blackdog]

I find Stephen to be one of the least likable of a generally dislikeable collection of monarcs, being both weak and power-hungry.

All kings of that period were pretty nasty (and all power hungry enough to fight for their succession), I don't see why Stephen is any worse than the others.

Right next to a river in a marsh sounds like an odd place to build a castle so the warf does sound to me like an unlikely contender for the location. As I understand it Norman castles were built quickly with littl emore than a wooden pallisade on a mound or earth and then what we think of as a castle - the stone building - came once the locals had been pasified, so I guess it's possible there wouldn't be much to show from an early castle and the canal engineers who dug out the warf may well not have recognized the arcaeology for what it was if they did find any.

Archaeologists have looked for the castle and found nothing convincing. However, as you say, there may not be much left to find. I do wonder if it could have been at the east side of the Market Place rather than on the Wharf itself. The land must have been a little bit more solid there. Markets often took place outside a castle so the positioning would make some sense. Of course digging earth to make the mound would have left a moat around any castle there - and could explain the lack of any mound in recorded memory - the earth would have been used to fill in the moat.

Coincidently (or not) there was a pub/inn called the Castle on that side of the Market Place.

[blackdog]

Even though he raced home from France and grabbed the throne from the legitimate heir,
at the end of his life the author felt he was an enlightened monarch. Pity about the period of anarchy.

It's a moot point who was the legitimate heir - the Normans weren't that concerned with the concept of eldest child or even eldest son taking over by right. When Henry I died there were four options:

1 Matilda, Henry's only surviving child - but a woman, that would have been setting a precedent that they probably weren't ready for.

2 Matidla's son Henry by Geoffrey of Anjou - Henry I loathed Geoffery and the lad was only 2 years old - not someone who could manage a Norman Kingdom and Henry certainly wouldn't have wanted to effectively hand over his lands to Geoffrey.

3 One of Henry's illegitimate children (notably Robert, Earl of Gloucester), it seems that Robert may well have considered going for it but he eventually supported Stephen until they fell out and Robert went over to Matilda.

4 One of Henry's adult nephews - Stephen being one such. Stephen was certainly the quickest off the mark and, as a result was king for almost 20 years.

Several leading clerics/barons who were at Henry's deathbed swore that he chose Stephen - which went a long way towards legitimising his claim.

[blackdog]

Given the science of location, why is it that The Castle at Donnington and Cold Ash are both half way up their respective hills?

Because that was a good location to catch those needing a bit of refreshment before completing the climb up the hill?

The Castle at Donnington was the location of the toll gate for those travelling between Newbury and Chilton (and hence to Oxford) - it would be interesting to know if the pub pre-dates the turnpike or came about becuse of its location by the toll gate.

[Nothing Much]

Crikey blackdog , I was doing history lite!.
I will have to heave the old tome up stairs to bed to make sense of it all.
Night all.ce

[Biker1]

I find Stephen to be one of the least likable of a generally dislikeable collection of monarcs, being both weak and power-hungry.

Right next to a river in a marsh sounds like an odd place to build a castle so the warf does sound to me like an unlikely contender for the location. As I understand it Norman castles were built quickly with littl emore than a wooden pallisade on a mound or earth and then what we think of as a castle - the stone building - came once the locals had been pasified, so I guess it's possible there wouldn't be much to show from an early castle and the canal engineers who dug out the warf may well not have recognized the arcaeology for what it was if they did find any.

The Stone Building was built when the River Kennet was made navigable to Newbury from the Thames at Reading in the 18th century.
It is rumoured that the stone used was that from Newbury Castle but this has never been proven to the best of my knowledge.

[Brewmaster]

Archaeologists have looked for the castle and found nothing convincing. However, as you say, there may not be much left to find. I do wonder if it could have been at the east side of the Market Place rather than on the Wharf itself. The land must have been a little bit more solid there. Markets often took place outside a castle so the positioning would make some sense. Of course digging earth to make the mound would have left a moat around any castle there - and could explain the lack of any mound in recorded memory - the earth would have been used to fill in the moat.

Coincidently (or not) there was a pub/inn called the Castle on that side of the Market Place.

Is it possible that Donnington Castle was referred to as Newbury Castle in those days? After all, Donnington must have been a very small collection of cottages when the castle was built, and it does overlook the town from a very close position.

[blackdog]

Is it possible that Donnington Castle was referred to as Newbury Castle in those days? After all, Donnington must have been a very small collection of cottages when the castle was built, and it does overlook the town from a very close position.

Unlikely - Donnington Castle wasn't built until almost 250 years later.

I guess there is a posibility that the stone castle was on the site of an earlier motte and bailey which could have been the 'Newbury Castle'.

The story of Newbury Castle dates from the end of the Stephen/Matilda civil war - it is the tale of a precocious child captivating his captor and hence saving his own life. William the Marshal (1st Earl of Pembroke) was born in 1147, the civil war ended in 1153 - so, if the tale has any truth, it must have been from right at the end of the war. Richard de Abberbury received a 'licence to crenallate' his house at Donnington in 1386 - the castle would have been built over the next few years.

Hampstead Marshall is a good option because there is evidence of a castle (or three) from the right period and it is closely associated with William the Marshall, the subject of the tale that is the only real evidence that Newbury had a Norman castle.

[blackdog]

The Stone Building was built when the River Kennet was made navigable to Newbury from the Thames at Reading in the 18th century.
It is rumoured that the stone used was that from Newbury Castle but this has never been proven to the best of my knowledge.

It's very unlikely that the stone building was built using remnants of 'Newbury Castle'. Donnington Castle perhaps, or the Castle Inn which disappeared from the Market Place around then - both are far more likely. If a stone castle was built in Newbury - especially if it was still around in the 1700s there would surely be some trace of it in the ground or in documents of the time.

[Simon Kirby]

It's amazing what gets lost over the years. It always strikes me how ignominious it is that Henry I lies burried somewhere under a car park in Reading and noone remembers where exactly. How does that happen?

[Simon Kirby]

All kings of that period were pretty nasty (and all power hungry enough to fight for their succession), I don't see why Stephen is any worse than the others.

It's his weakness. There is much to like and admire in Henry II and his sons (and most especially in his wife) for all of their brutish barbarism and devilry because at least they had a bit of style about them and they all made a decent enough fist of bringing the country some political stability, even John wasn't entirely the worm or Robin Hood legend. But Stephen would have done everyone a favour, himself included, if he'd just gone abroard and left it to Matilda.

[blackdog]

It's his weakness. There is much to like and admire in Henry II and his sons (and most especially in his wife) for all of their brutish barbarism and devilry because at least they had a bit of style about them and they all made a decent enough fist of bringing the country some political stability, even John wasn't entirely the worm or Robin Hood legend. But Stephen would have done everyone a favour, himself included, if he'd just gone abroard and left it to Matilda.

Richard was a disaster for England (not that he cared much about the place as long as his tax collectors could gather in enough to keep his army going) - John was far better, though too weak to withstand the pressure of the barons (hence Magna Carta). His son, Henry III was also weak (hence Parliament) - the weaknesses of kings has proved pretty good for the population.

Stephen's biggest weakness seems to have been trusting people - given that these were Normans he was trusting he can certainly be criticised for poor judgement. Time after time he let rebel lords go after capturing them - a few more judicious hangings and he probably would have had a much more peaceful reign. Henry II had a similar problem - if he had hanged his wife and a few sons he would have had a far more peaceful reign.

[Andy Capp]

God bless Machiavelli. A bit late in the day though.

[Nothing Much]

I did not mean to start another civil war.But many years ago I read that the invasion of 1066
was only a beginning.
200 years of trouble and strife ensued before Saxons and Normans kissed and made up.
ce

[Simon Kirby]

Richard was a disaster for England (not that he cared much about the place as long as his tax collectors could gather in enough to keep his army going) - John was far better, though too weak to withstand the pressure of the barons (hence Magna Carta). His son, Henry III was also weak (hence Parliament) - the weaknesses of kings has proved pretty good for the population.

Stephen's biggest weakness seems to have been trusting people - given that these were Normans he was trusting he can certainly be criticised for poor judgement. Time after time he let rebel lords go after capturing them - a few more judicious hangings and he probably would have had a much more peaceful reign. Henry II had a similar problem - if he had hanged his wife and a few sons he would have had a far more peaceful reign.

Yes, I'd fudged the issue with Richard, he didn't seem to care much about anything but crusading.

The outstanding king of the era was Henry III's son Edward (not so much if you were Scottish or Welsh perhaps) as we've inherited quite a bit of his legal and administrative changes. Funnily enough what I like about him most is that he actually loved his wife.