Kendal Castle

Kendal Castle.

“Towering high, a ruin’d castle, old and gray,

In mould’ring piles fast hast’ning to decay.

Its towers and battlements all cleft.

Its draw-bridge gone, and scarce a vestige left

Of turrets, while circling round, a grassy moat.

That speaks its rude defence in days remote —

When sturdy archers strode along thy sheen.

Equipped with bow, and clad in Kendal green.”

The summit of Castle Hill is some hundred and seventy feet above the level of the river, which flows away on its western side ; and, it is much to be regretted that there is so little information to be gleaned concerning the past splendour of the old Castle, rising like a grey crown over the green hill and that has once been the great central pivot of the town.

Pre-Norman

Mounting up the northern slope of the hill, the earthworks surrounding the base-court and the square area itself measuring some 110 by 96 feet, first strike attention, and perhaps before you are aware of it, excite a keen interest. Here we have the outer court, which would at first be surrounded by strong palisades of oak. Within this defence, the area would be occupied by huts and sheds of daub and wattle for the retainers and for the cattle belonging to the great thane or franklin of Saxon days.

Between this and the inner court is a cross moat, and the communication would be over a moveable bridge of planks. The inner ward has a circular area of about 250 feet in diameter, and the fortress raised by the ceorl here would have no stonework about it at all. Unfortunately it still seems necessary to repeat that the popular idea of the moat having once been filled with water is quite erroneous. The very depth and size is sufficient proof that it was not intended for water. No, the whole value of this moat as a defence consisted merely in its depth, in the steepness of the scarp and counter-scarp, and in the oaken palisade that surmounted the top. From the fact that a Roman legion once occupied a camp at Water Crook, a good mile to the south of the town, it is possible that they also took over this thane’s dwelling, not so much for a camp as for a look-out post but it must be confessed that there is no masonry or other external evidence of such a Roman occupation.

Norman

But the Norman conquest brought about a great change in these parts, and Kendal became by gift from the Conqueror the property of Ivo de Tailbois, a Norman baron. Now Ivo was already possessed with lands on the east coast of England, and it is to be imagined that he found those estates more enjoyable, for we find no definite information about his either building a castle or dwelling here.

In the years following, when these counties were overrun so frequently by regular organised expeditions under Bruce, and when almost every household of value was plundered, and ravaged if not entirely destroyed, it became necessary for the barons to erect their buildings both inaccessible and massive, and with as little wood or combustible material in them as possible. Moreover, for similar reasons, they were obliged to do without any windows for light and air in the lower chambers, except such as could be obtained through long narrow loopholes which could easily be defended. It is just possible that the small donjon or circular tower that now stands at the north-west, and which is evidently of a date anterior to the rest of the ruins, may have been the early keep, standing alone as an Irish tower ; a shape which began to supersede the Norman square keeps at the beginning of the early English period.

Possessing the elements of strength and passive resistence against assault, grim and foreboding, it must have been a cramped, dark and uncomfortable dwelling for the early inhabitants. In course of time, when the country became more peaceful and property more secure, the lord was enabled to push out a bit and gain more accommodation. Then would be erected the banqueting hall and spacious kitchens, the bed chambers, and, as necessity required, all the further apartments.

But the Castles of Appleby and Kendal do not possess the same strategic importance as the Castle of Carlisle does, for there the Castle Hill commanded the only road through the country that was practical for wheeled conveyances —that is for the march of an army with the usual impedimenta. Kendal Castle on the other hand, lies remote from the great military road over Stainmore, neither is its name associated with either siege or assault. We must, therefore, look upon it as a fortified residence of a subject onl)' and not as a garrisoned fortress of the Crown.

The Possessors

Ivo de Tailbois was succeeded by the de Lancasters, who became in succession Barons of Kendal. After four generations the male issue failed, and the property passed into the hands of Helwise, daughter of the second William de Lancaster. She was married in the reign of Richard I. to Gilbert, the son of Roger Fitz Reinfred, who was a Judge of the King’s Bench, and, what is more to the point, a particular favourite of the King’s. By a special grant, Gilbert obtained from King Richard I. the whole Forest of Westmorland, of Kendal and of Furness, to have and to hold in the same manner, in which William de Lancaster had held it. And it is to the lasting credit of this feudal lord and his wife that, having nearly unlimited power put into their hands, they preferred to use it wisely, rather than abuse it.

The welfare of the community amongst which they lived seems to have been their chief care, and having noted the industry of the Kendal people, they granted them privileges, gave them a seneschal, in the person of Matthew de Redman, then owner of Levens, practically re-built the church, and also instituted a weekly Saturday market with the King’s consent. Now it seems to me more than likely that we owe to Gilbert the building of the Castle.

He obtained from King John a continuation of the honour of Lancaster, and executed the office of Sheriff of Lancaster from the seventh to the seven- teenth years of that reign. But Gilbert, the good, was unfaithful to John, his bad patron, and thus joined the rebellious barons. Unfortunately his son William having been taken prisoner, Gilbert was obliged to accept the King’s terms, and pay a ransome for his son, together with Ralph Deincourt and Lambert de Brus, his esquires, twelve thousand marks ; also to find hostages for his own and their future fidelity, besides which he was compelled to deliver unto the King his Castle of Kirkby-in-Kendal, around which lay all his dependencies. However, the Castle and Manor were again restored to his son William, for we find that he was placed in his father’s trust as keeper of the honour of Lancaster under date 25th Henry III, William and his sister Helwise married Agnes and Peter le Brus respectively, also sister and brother, whilst W^illiam’s other sister Alice became the wife of William de Lyndsay. On the death of William de Lancaster, without issue, this very valuable estate was divided into two portions, the Lumley and Marquis fee going to Helwise, and the Richmond fee to Alice.

By an inquisition taken on the death of Peter le Brus, 1279, son of the aforesaid Peter, we find that he was seised “ of a moiety of the Manor of Kirkeby-in-Kendale, and as parcel thereof, of the Castle, with the parks, vivaries within the parks, and herbage therein of the yearly value of ten marks.” The Castle, “ with all in Kendale that had been Peter’s in demesnes, villenages, rents and services of free men and others,” fell to the share of his eldest sister Margaret le Brus. She married Robert de Roos, and had a son William, who had a son Thomas de Roos.

When John Kempe came from over the water, in the year 1331, to establish here the Flemish industry (see page 206) he brought with him also his beautiful daughter Marguerite. And notwithstanding the protection which the baron afforded them, no enthusiasm could be aroused in our dalesmen to welcome either the weaver or his daughter. But fifteen years later the people needed no commands to celebrate the occasion, when Thomas de Roos led the acknowledged beauty of Kendal to the hymeneal altar. Old and young made a living avenue for the young lord and lady to pass through from the Church to the Castle.

The Lady Marguerite, however, died within two years, and the Baron de Roos remained an unconsoled widower for forty years. About the year 1385, when he was not less than sixty-eight years of age, he was induced to marry again, that the barony might go forward in his line. The poor man, unable to forget his overpowering sorrow, allowed his friends to select for him a very worthy lady, who accepted him in spite of his declaration that it was useless for her to expect love; that all the love he had ever in his power to give was buried in Kendal Churchyard.

Whilst all these important changes were taking place, nearly a century rolled away, and during all that period the Castle remained practically deserted. By this marriage, however, the aged baron had two children a boy, John de Roos, who died before his father, and Elizabeth, who was two years old when her father died, 1391. In due time she married Sir William del Parr, and thus carried the Lumley fee and the old Castle into the possession of the Parrs, a good family of limited wealth, who held the barony for nearly two centuries.

(CONT)

John F Curwen, Kirkbie Kendal (1900)