The character of the ground makes it probable that the Norman fortress had but one entrance. This could not have been on the east, west, or south fronts, as the ground was low and marshy; nor on the north, where the ditch is wide and deep, and on which side the inner ward had no corresponding gateway. The obvious position would be where is now Leicester’s Gatehouse, between the high ground of Clinton Green and the marsh land, and the way from which towards the gateway of the inner ward would be commanded by the keep.
Henry III. spent large sums here, and the Water Tower and adjacent Warder’s Tower and the stair of Lunn’s Tower are probably his work, together with large repairs to the south and east curtain. It is also pretty certain that to him must be attributed the great dam, and therefore the older parts of Mortimer’s and the Gallery Towers. Of parallel cases, the lake at Caerphilly belongs to the end of that reign; as, or to the commencement of that of Edward I., does the completion of that at Ledes in Kent. The Brayz, being a necessary adjunct to the dam, must have been contemplated while that was made, and therefore is probably of the same date. The light earthworks crossing the Warwick road are probably the work of Simon de Montfort the younger, thrown up in haste to check the approach of the royal troops from Warwick. Save the Gallery Tower, bridge, and the outer gatehouse, there does not appear to have been any masonry beyond the lake.
The castle contains but little pure Decorated work. The kitchens, hall, and rooms to the south-east, called Lancaster’s buildings, are probably the work of John of Gaunt, late in the fourteenth century. They no doubt replaced other less magnificent domestic buildings of Norman date. The chapel seems rather earlier than the hall, the barn later, and its upper floor later still.
The later Plantagenet and earlier Tudor sovereigns did little more than keep up the place; and thus it remained, until it was granted by Elizabeth to Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who spent a large sum of money upon it in buildings and gardens, most of which have disappeared. He gutted the keep and forebuilding, and fitted them up in the Tudor style; and raised the lofty, but flimsy, pile known as Leicester’s buildings. He also embellished the entrance by the Brayz and Gallery Tower, and built the gatehouse still standing to the north-east, a very fine example of a declining period in English architecture. He probably filled up the east ditch and the inner north ditch, if such there was. The castle does not seem to have been inhabited after Leicester’s death. Prince Henry and his brother used it more for its chase than as a residence, and their successors, until recently, allowed it to be used as a quarry. During the Parliamentary wars, the north side of the keep was taken down, and the gorge of Lunn’s Tower blown up. Probably the lake was drained afterwards, when land became valuable.
Kenilworth is evidently the worth or dwelling of Kenelm; though who Kenelm was, or when he lived, are matters unrecorded. He was certainly a considerable person, both because he gave name to his estate and because his dwelling-place was evidently extensive and strong. It appears from Domesday that Kenilworth was a member of the royal manor of Stanlei or Stoneleigh, held as ancient demesne, the tenant doing suit and service upon the mote known as Motstow Hill. This mote, one of the most interesting English remains in the midland counties, stands, as it did at Domesday, and probably for several preceding centuries, upon a ridge of rock which forms the left bank of the Sow, opposite to the curious old Norman church of Stoneleigh. Some excavations upon its flanks have somewhat injured its integrity; but it is still a very marked feature in the valley, and one of the very few mote hills in the midland counties. A steep hollow way leads up to it from the river. The register of Stoneleigh Abbey mentions a castle in the manor, which was destroyed by the Danes in the wars between King Edmund and Canute, and which stood at a place called Holm Hill, on the Avon, in the woods opposite to the site of the late Abbey of Stoneleigh. As the destruction probably relates only to the timber superstructure, it is not unlikely that the mound or burh remains. Unfortunately, Holm Hill, as the ground thereabouts is still called, is in one of the Stoneleigh preserves, and therefore, not unreasonably, closed against strangers. Kenilworth at Domesday was in two parts: Opton or Upton, containing three hides, held direct of the king by Albertus Clericus, in pure alms; and Chineworde, held by Ricardus Forestarius. Opton is upper-town or high-town, the rising ground to the north of the present church; Chineworth is Kenilworth proper. Dugdale mentions a Richard Chineu as the same with Ricardus Forestarius, and cites the “Testa de Nevill”; but the name does not appear in the index to the printed volume of that record. Chineworth may be an accidental coincidence, or it may be a corruption of Kenilworth.
The two members continued in the Crown until Henry I. granted them to Geoffrey of Clinton, or Glinton, in Oxfordshire, one of his chamberlains and his treasurer, and possibly afterwards justiciary of England. Dugdale says he built the castle, and one of his grants shows that he had an important residence there, though it may be doubted whether any of the masonry now standing is his work. The date of Henry’s grant is not known, but no doubt it was before 1122, about which year Geoffrey de Clinton founded the priory of Kenilworth, from the local endowment of which he reserved his castle and park. Speed places the building of the church as early as 1112, but Robert, Bishop of Chester, who was consecrated in 1121, is one of the witnesses to the foundation charter. The Abbey of Stoneleigh was not established at that place till 1154, when Henry II. translated it from Radmore in Staffordshire. To Geoffrey de Clinton, who was living as late as 1129, succeeded Geoffrey his son, a chamberlain to Henry II., who acquired ten knights’ fees in the county by marriage with Agnes, daughter of Roger de Bellomont, Earl of Warwick. These he held, 12 Henry II. He was a large benefactor to the monks of Kenilworth, but he alienated the castle to the king, who held it, 12 Henry II., for some years. It was then recovered by Geoffrey, who, in a charter to the priory, says, “Postquam castellum meum et Honorem meum recuperavi.” It remained in his hands for about seven years, when it was again obtained by the king, who held it, 19 Henry II. and 27 Henry II., as did his successors. The date of Geoffrey’s death is unknown, but it was after 1165. The king evidently strengthened the place, for the entries in his reign relating to it are frequent and important. In 19 Henry II., it was victualled and garrisoned: the prices and quantities of the stores are set down in the Pipe Roll. In 27 Henry II., ward-silver and a commutation for castle-guard were paid to the sheriff, and rent, probably from persons living there for security. In 30 Henry II., the walls were repaired. In it there was then a prison, which was repaired, 31 Henry II. The castle was kept in order during Richard’s reign, and was much valued by King John, who, early in his reign, took a re-lease from Henry, son of the second Geoffrey de Clinton, with whom, or his son, another Henry, the name disappeared from Kenilworth.
King John paid five visits to Kenilworth between 1204 and 1215, and by his order large sums of money were spent upon the castle, and much wine was sent there. In 13 John, the sheriff is allowed sums of £361 and £102, and in the following year £224—all for buildings. In 17 John, £402 was thus spent. No doubt, King John may have built the keep in those years; it is, however, more probable that it was of earlier date, the work of the second Geoffrey; but John may well have built Lunn’s Tower.
Henry III. was much at Kenilworth, and the sheriff’s accounts show large and frequent expenditure very early in his reign. In 3 Henry III., a chapel was built, probably in the outer ward, and £150 allowed to rebuild a tower that had fallen. In each year more or less is spent. In 5–7 Henry III., the wind was high, and blew down several trees in the park, and much damaged certain buildings in the castle. Wine was occasionally sent there from Southampton. In 13 Henry III., the bank of the pool was repaired, and two years later there were more repairs, and mention is made of a gaol delivery by the judges. King John had already used the castle as a prison. In 19 Henry III., £6 16s. 4d. was allowed for a fair and beautiful boat to lie near the door of the king’s great chamber. No doubt the king had by that time constructed the dam and formed the lake. In 22 Henry III., Archbishop Walter de Gray had temporary charge of the castle, to receive there Ottoboni, the papal legate, who was himself soon afterwards placed in charge of it. In 26 Henry III., more money was spent. The chapel was to be ceiled with wainscot and painted, and seats provided for the king and queen. The tower where the bells hung was to be repaired, a new wall built on the south side by the pool, and the queen’s chamber to be painted. No doubt the Water Tower and the early part of, and perhaps the additions to, Mortimer’s Tower were of this period, as well as the dam and the outworks beyond it. Henry seems to have completed the military works pretty much as they are now seen.
In 28 Henry III., Simon de Montfort appears as governor for the king; and, in 32 Henry III., Alianor, the king’s daughter, and Earl Simon’s wife, has the custody of the castle for life. In 34 Henry III., such was the state of the district that the constable of the castle was ordered to cut away the woods to a breadth of six acres between Coventry and Warwick. In 38 Henry III., the Earl of Leicester and his countess had a grant of the castle for their lives, a concession by which Henry made over to his most dangerous enemy the strongest and most central fortress in his dominions. The events by which the king and the earl became opposed in arms in the field, and the succession of great events which led to the death of the earl, and the celebrated siege of Kenilworth, belong to the history of England rather than to that of Kenilworth, and form one of its most interesting and most valuable chapters. The subject has fallen under the pen of Mr. Green, and has found a place in the pages of the Archæological Journal (vol. xxi. p. 277), where the course of the events is disentangled, and very clearly narrated, and their political significance and bearing upon the constitutional history of our country treated in a manner both brilliant and profound. Earl Simon had evidently prepared Kenilworth as the base of his operations in the impending struggle; and upon his fall and death at Evesham, his son at once completed the preparations, and made his arrangements for a protracted defence. It was under the walls of Kenilworth that the younger Simon was surprised and nearly captured by the superior activity of Prince Edward, and it was from Kenilworth that he was marching when intercepted by the superior generalship of the prince, on the eve of the battle of Evesham.
The death of the earl and the defeat of his party brought out into strong relief the immense military value of Kenilworth. Thither fled all who escaped from the field, and they were employed in scouring the country, and adding to the immense stores already accumulated there. Richard, Earl of Cornwall, the king’s brother, was a prisoner there, and the conduct of Sir Simon towards him bears testimony to the prudence and moderation of the captor. He set free Richard, his son, and his followers, and despatched them to the Parliament convoked in September at Winchester, in the hope, not altogether in vain, that moderate counsels would ultimately prevail.