TICKHILL CASTLE, YORKSHIRE.
TICKHILL is a place of high antiquity, and both before and for some centuries after the Norman Conquest its importance as a strong place and the head of an extensive lordship was very considerable. Mr. Hunter, the accurate and accomplished historian of the district, suggests “The-Wickhill,” in allusion to the village mount, as a probable etymology for the name, and cites “Thunder-cliffe,” or “Th’ Under Cliffe,” as an analogous case. It seems that near Sheffield Castle was a small green called “The Wick-er,” and “Ticken-hall,” near Bewdley, was the seat of an early fortress.
Tickhill, however, though obviously an early name, is not recorded in Domesday, but is thought to be included in Dadsley, a name still extant in the immediate neighbourhood. In “Dadesleia, Stantone, and Helgæli,” Elsi and Siward held eight carucates,—Roger de Buisli held seven in demesne; there were also thirty-one burgesses, a class whose presence has been held to indicate a burh or castle. Roger de Buisli was tenant in chief of these and other manors, comprising the Honour of Tickhill, a division certainly based upon an earlier fee, of which Tickhill was the chief seat. The Norman Honour numbered sixty-five and three-quarters knights’ fees, and extended from Yorkshire into the shires of Derby, Lincoln, Notts, and Leicester, including one manor in Devon. Tickhill, which seems to have been sometimes called Blythe, which, however, was also the name of a place in the adjacent part of Lincolnshire, was the chief seat of the powerful house of de Buisli during their somewhat brief career.
Roger de Buisli received Tickhill from the Conqueror, who erected it into an Honour in his favour. Roger had a choice in his wide Yorkshire domains of three ancient English seats, Laughton-en-le-Morthen, Mexborough, and Tickhill. He selected Tickhill; and the two other sites retain their English earthworks, unaltered by Norman masonry, and changed only by time. Laughton seems to have been originally superior even to Tickhill, probably as the residence of Earl Edwin, being named in the Domesday Survey. Roger himself probably fortified Tickhill with masonry, the gatehouse and much of the wall being apparently his work. The foundations of the shell-keep look rather later, but may also be of this date. He was also the founder of Blythe Priory, in 1088. He died 1098, and was succeeded by his son Robert, who died childless in the reign of Henry I.
The descent of Tickhill now becomes obscure. Roger had a brother, Ernald, who held six fees under Tickhill; and a sister, Beatrix, from whom descended the Earls of Eu. On Robert’s death, however, Tickhill was claimed by Robert de Belesme, as the next heir; and, as he was powerful, and supported his claim by payment of a heavy fine, or bribe, he succeeded. On his death, however, King Henry stepped in and took possession. The castle remained for some time, with some brief intervals, in the Crown. William Fitz-Godric held it in 1142, and Stephen, Earl of Eu, for a time. Ralph, Earl of Chester, had it in 1151–3. Henry II. seems to have settled it upon Eleanor, his queen, who founded the “Chapel of St. Nicholas within the walls.”
It descended to Richard I., and in his absence was seized by Prince John, and besieged for Richard by Pudsey, bishop of Durham. When John inherited it as king, he annexed his mother’s chapel to the chapter of Rouen. John was frequently at Tickhill, which is remarkable, as there was no park or chase annexed to it. He was here six times between 1200 and 1216 for at least eleven days. Early in John’s reign, however, the Earl of Eu, being powerful, claimed Tickhill as the husband of Alice, heiress of Henry, Earl of Eu, and representative of Beatrix, sister of Roger de Buisli. Ralph de Issoudon, or De Lusignan, her husband, an earl in her right, in 1197, seems to have been son of Geoffrey de Lusignan, who was to marry a daughter of King John, in consequence of which the king agreed to restore Tickhill to Ralph and his wife, and John de Bassingbourn was ordered to give possession, which was supplemented by an order to the same effect, 1 Henry III.
Meantime, another claimant appeared, in the person of Idonea, representative of Ernald, Roger de Buisli’s brother, and who had married Robert de Vipont, a baron much employed by John, and not unfrequently in connexion with Tickhill. Thus, in 1204 he was concerned in certain repairs at the castle, as also in 1206, which included a barn and stables. In 1207 he was to be paid for these repairs, and he was also employed upon the king’s castles of Nottingham, Bolsover, the Peak, and Scarborough. In 1208, five dolia of red wine, such as would keep, were to be sent to him at Tickhill, for the king. Idonea, Vipont’s wife, held by descent six fees in Tickhill, and now claimed the rest against Countess Alice, 6 Henry III. Alice had the best of it; but in 9 Henry III. she went abroad, probably to her Norman estates, and in consequence Tickhill seems to have lapsed to the Crown.
Henry III., when king, granted it to Prince Edward, who, in 1254, settled it upon Eleanor of Castile, but in 1259–60, Edward de Lacy, Constable of Chester, used the phrase, “Baronia mea de Tikehull,” as though absolute lord. Prince Edward, however, granted it to his cousin Henry, son of Richard, King of the Romans, in 1263.
In 1296, John, Earl of Eu, revived the family claim. He was grandson of Alphonso (son of John, King of Jerusalem), by a daughter of Countess Alice. His claim was speedily set aside, he being an alien. This was the last assertion of the right, but a century later it was remembered, when Henry V. created William Bourchier Earl of Eu and Lord Bourchier of Tickhill, titles only, not connected with the property, which remained in the Crown.
In February, 1322, the castle was besieged for three weeks by Thomas of Lancaster, and this siege was one of the charges brought against him on his trial:—“Et misit homines suos ... ad obsidendum castrum domini Regis de Tikhull; et quædam ingenia, ad projiciendum petras grossas super castrum prædictum, et homines in eodem castro ex parte domini Regis existentes; qui quidem proditores castrum illud, per tres septimanus continuè insultando et debellando, obsederunt, et quosdem homines Regis ibidem interfecerunt.” The castle was defended gallantly by Sir William de Anne, and relieved by the king in person. Tickhill was again settled upon a queen in the person of Philippa, who died in 1369. In 1362, Edward exchanged Tickhill with John of Gaunt, against the honour of Richmond, and it descended with the other estates of the duchy of Lancaster. In the Parliamentary struggle it was held for the king, but surrendered after Marston Moor, and was dismantled. When thus held, its outer defences were the moat and the palisades on the counterscarp. The foundation of the chapel was dissolved, 1 Edward VI. The castle now belongs to the Earl of Scarborough.
Tickhill Castle is an excellent example of a pre-Norman or English earthwork, composed of mound, fosse, and lower ward, converted into a Norman castle. It exemplifies exactly the manner in which the Norman engineers treated earthworks of this description, and how such works gave rise to one of the two great types of a Norman castle, that with the shell-keep. Tickhill is Laughton on a larger scale, the only difference being that the ditch of the mound is not carried wholly round it, but is wanting towards the attached area. Either it was never formed, or, what is not improbable, was filled up when the Norman works were constructed, or, as at Cardiff, at a much later period. Something analogous to this seems to have taken place at Kenilworth.
In the original construction of this fortress advantage was taken of a knoll of soft sandstone rock to form the base of the mound. This was scarped, and the ditch dug, and the material employed in forming the upper two-thirds of the mound. A modern cave in the side shows this natural base. The castle is composed of the mound, and a court or ward appended to its western side, the whole included within a ditch. The mound is conical, about 60 feet diameter at its table-top, and about 60 feet high, above the ward. The ward is a rounded and more or less circular area, save where it touches the mound, and includes about one quarter of its circumference. The exterior ditch follows the figure of this ward, and of the uncovered three-quarters of the mound: hence in plan it resembles somewhat a figure of 8, and it is this notch in the outline that makes it probable that the mound ditch was once complete, and the two parts of the fortress were, as at Barwick, distinct. The domestic buildings stood in the lower ward, on its western edge, opposite to the mound upon which was the keep. The gatehouse stands on the southern edge of the ward, between the domestic buildings and the keep. The curtain is broken down to the east, but elsewhere tolerably perfect. The ditch is filled up on the same side, and its place occupied as a kitchen-garden and by stables.
Upon the summit of the mound are seen the foundations of the keep, a decagon, the sides of which average 16 feet 11 inches, of which each angle was covered by a flat pilaster of 4 feet broad, and very slight projection. The door seems to have been towards the south-west, of 4 feet 6 inches opening. It lay between two sides of the exceptional length of 20 feet. The wall seems to have been, at the top of the plinth, 10 feet thick. The shell was apparently faced with ashlar. The whole building has been taken down with some care to the top of the plinth, a mere plain chamfer, formerly about 6 inches above the ground, and now covered to its level. Thus the actual dimensions of the plan are preserved, and the position and breadth of the entrance. It is said there is a well within the area, a few feet inside the place of the door. If so, it is at present effectually concealed.
The keep at this time is ascended by seventy-five stone steps in a straight line on the western face. Possibly this was the original approach. If so, the path from the head of the stair must, as at Tamworth, have passed for 20 feet round the outside of the keep. The steps terminate below under the shelter of the curtain. The two ends of the curtain ascend the mound about two-thirds of its height. Probably they were continued to the summit, but no foundations are now seen at the keep level, and the plinth of the keep shows there was no bond. The curtains which thus ascended these mounds were rarely bonded into the keep, and do not seem ever to have risen to its full height. On the contrary, they seem to have only risen to the level of the top of the mound or to the base of those of the keep, the parapet probably being continued so as to stop the passage round the exterior. This seems to have been the case at Tunbridge, Berkhampstead, and Tamworth. At Hawarden the curtain abuts against the keep about 10 feet high, but with no original bond, and with a doorway in it opening outside the base of the keep.
The curtain which enclosed the lower ward is here from 10 feet to 13 feet thick, and 20 feet to 30 feet high, with a plinth at its interior base. It rises out of a bank which forms a ramp or terrace 15 feet broad, on both outer and inner sides. Inside, this ramp is about 8 feet above the court level. Outside, it forms a walk all round the fortress, being carried by a bridge over the gateway, and in a step or notch round the slope of the mound. The curtain is entire from the mound to the dwelling-house, about 240 feet, along the north front, but to the west it is concealed by the house which represents the domestic buildings of the castle. It also remains from the house to the gatehouse, and about 50 feet or 60 feet beyond it along the south front. Towards the south-east about 300 feet are gone, but the last 78 feet, where it again ascends the mound, are tolerably perfect.
Where the outer wall skirts the mound it forms a revetment 6 feet high, and which may have been higher, and crested with a parapet to defend this front.
The exterior ditch is broad and deep, and in part contains water. Formerly it was fed from an adjacent stream, which flowed all round it. Beyond the ditch was a bank of earth, of which traces and portions remain, especially towards the north. It is difficult to say whether there was a second ditch, owing to the encroachments of roads and buildings.
The gatehouse deserves special notice, as an original and early Norman structure. It is 36 feet square, with walls 7 feet 6 inches thick, and has a round-headed gateway at each end, of 12 feet opening, with a plain rebate for doors, but no portcullis or chamfer. The inner space was covered with timber, and there was an upper story. This may have been partially rebuilt; it contains in the wall over the inner door a large Tudor window, probably an insertion.
There is no staircase. The structure much resembles Porchester before the alterations. It is placed upon the curtain, with a bold exterior, and still bolder interior projection. The outer front of the first floor is ornamented with four stiff rude pediments, each a right-angled triangle, with a rude figure at the apex of each and in the hollow angle or gutter, joining each pair. The tympana are filled with small square blocks, each carved with an undeveloped dog-tooth ornament. A plain string marks the division of the two stages, and so far all is Norman.
But although the upper part is unaltered, the lower part has been masked by a Decorated gateway with portcullis groove and pointed arch, while in front of and flanking this arch two walls, 6 feet thick, project 15 feet, and contained between them the drawbridge. Above and upon these, concealing the upper part of the arch of entrance, is a low flat bridge, which carries the exterior walk, or chemin de ronde, over the entrance, and from which the grate was worked. Had it not been for this bridge, and its Decorated connexions, it might have been supposed that the chemin de ronde was a mere modern pleasure walk, whereas it is clear that it was a part of the defence, a work covering the foot of the wall, and no doubt strongly palisaded. There is no trace of a parapet.
The gatehouse seems early Norman, probably with most of the curtain the work of Roger de Buisli before 1089. The keep looks much later, but it must have been part of the original design, and possibly the works begun by Roger were completed by his son. In the Decorated period there were probably considerable additions. Probably when the gatehouse was masked, and the bridge thrown over it, the curtain also was repaired, and a new parapet added, and the chemin de ronde formed. Leland speaks of a hall, now gone. Where the chapel stood is not known. A door case which may have belonged to it has been removed and set up inside the gatehouse, and outside is an old oak door of the style of James I., on which are carved the words,—
Peace and grace
Be to this place.
The entrance-way now leads up to the gatehouse across a modern bridge, over the wet ditch. To the south of the place is a tributary of the river Torne or Thorne, which covered that front.
This is one of the most curious castles in Yorkshire, not only for its pure Norman gatehouse, and the undisturbed foundation of its shell keep, but because it shows how the Norman lords availed themselves of an English seat, and how their architects or engineers accommodated their defences to the already existing earthworks. It should be studied in conjunction with Pickering for the general plan and the Norman works, and with Barwick-in-Elmete and Laughton-en-le-Morthen for the general resemblance of the earthworks. Unfortunately there is no plan.