Thornbury Castle: Defensive castle or just a lavish home?

This node will aim to answer the question "Was Thornbury castle intended as a defensive castle or a lavish home?". While only the Duke of Buckingham knew for certain what its purpose was we can get a good idea from the building itself, what is known about the Duke and the buildings of the time.

Transitional Man's comment pointed out that the history of Thornbury Castle is not particularly well known, construction was started in 1511 by Edward Stafford, third Duke of Buckingham and was stopped while the castle was still unfinished in 1521 when the Duke was beheaded by Henry VIII for the crime of treason, The main evidence at his trial was the fact that he was supposedly building a defensive stronghold in Thornbury from where he could rebel against the King. Pictures of the layout of the castle can be seen at http://www.thornbury.org.uk/

wertperch pointed out that I haven't actually said where Thornbury is. It's a small town near Bristol in the South West of England. If anyone wants to know it isn't a particularly good place to go for a holiday because aside from the castle, a church and several pubs there isn't really that much there. But that's for another node.

The western range

The western range, situated on the north and west sides of the base court, has many features that seem to support the opinion that Thornbury castle was built as a defensive castle. The walls are quite thick and could have provided some measure of defence from projectile weaponry possessed by the enemy, there are also arrow slits and what appear to be gun loops although the arrow slits seem to be too low to provide any kind of defensive fire and what seem to be gun ports are pointing out of both sides of the western range, into the base court as well as out to any prospective attackers. The walls would have been much higher than they are now if the castle was finished, we can guess this by the fact that there are slots for the mounting of a portcullis on the main gate, for a portcullis to operate the walls must be at least twice as tall as the gate the portcullis is to protect. There would also, most likely, be some machicolation and crenellation at the top of these walls as both are used in other parts of the castle such as the Duke's tower and other walls around the castle.

However there are many features that seem to support the opininon that the castle was merely intended as a lavish home, these include the fact that both the arrow slits and the gun ports are too low to be of any real use to defend the castle, the fact that there are windows in the interior walls and in some of the towers which would negate the point of having machicolation at the top of them and would make getting into the towers from the outside quite easy. It is also unlikely that the rooms in the western range were used to house soldiers as there are a large number of fireplaces and evidence that tapestries could hae been hung from the walls, luxuries that would not normally be afforded to common foot soldiers. However it is possible that Buckingham wanted the soldiers in his employ to be more loyal to him and feel that they should fight for him as their leader rather than their employer.

There is also the fact that the walls are much too thin to protect against enemy cannon fire as they are a mere one metre thick as opposed to the standard six metres thick of contemporary defensive castles and, unlike contemporary castles, has straight walls as opposed to the curved "flower"-type of defensive layout that was used in most defensive castles of the time. However there were parts of the wall which would have been much harder to take down using cannon fire such as the hexagonal towers each side of the portcullis.

I feel that it would be too rash to make a decision about the castles intended purpose at this point. However it does seem that, if the castle was intended as defensive, Buckingham was using rather outdated technology, to draw a completely unnecessary analogy, it would be like riding a dinosaur to work in the morning and then using an abacus to do long division afterwards, all the while having a frog on your head because a witch doctor said it would cure your cold. But, for a fortified manor house, the priority being luxury over security, Thornbury castle would be an almost perfect retreat from court life for Buckingham. So, it seems that the evidence so far is pointing towards the castle being a fortified manor house rather than a defensive castle.

The garden courtyard

The garden courtyard is undoubtedly the most lavish part of the castle, with lots of expensive windows and brick chimneys that would would not usually be put in a place where they are likely to get destroyed easily by someone the other side of the relatively low wall to the south of the castle. There are oriel windows which would have been there as a show of wealth as well as the aforementioned brick chimneys which, at the time, were very, very expensive. However the walls would have provided a small amount of protection from any enemies, there was crenellation across the top of the walls however it does not seem to have had much use other than decorative as there was no place for archers to stand however it is possible that a wooden walkway was used that would have subsequently rotted away.

The walls were also not particularly high and were overlooked by the church, which would have made it very easy to take out defensive soldiers with volley shots or from the church tower, there are also windows and a small door in the wall which would have made it trivial to get through if an attacker really wanted to, the door could have been forced in a few minutes and the windows could have been smashed granting immediate access to the garden courtyard and then, using the windows in the main house, gain access to the rest of the castle with little effort and few fatalities on the attacking party while defending would be extremely difficult and costly.

The destruction of the brick chimneys, which would have been trivial, would serve as a morale boost to the attackers and would demoralise the defenders, especially anyone standing directly below the chimney as it fell.

Since the courtyard would have been hopeless to try and defend, it is only sensible to assume that the courtyard's main purpose was to serve as a simple garden for Buckingham, his wife and any guests to relax or promenade in and as an access to the church that is situated directly to the south. While it may still be too soon to draw a conclusion from this evidence alone, it does seem that Thornbury castle would have been meant to be a fortified manor house in the baronial style as it would be hopeless to attempt to defend the castle unless additional walls were built around the existing walls, which would be very unlikely. And, since the majority of the features in this rather vulnerable part of the castle are decorative, it may be assumed that defence was not a very high priority and that the walls were only to keep angry peasants from getting in the way of Buckingham.

About the Duke

All of this begs the question of whether or not Buckingham wanted to overthrow the King. There are numerous documents that support the view that Buckingham's only concern was to build a lavish home which would serve as a retreat from the minions in London. One of these documents shows the sort of huge feasts the Duke held to show his wealth and his hospitality, it would not be much of a leap of the imagination to suggest that Buckingham would have wanted to show off in everything he did, one such way would have been to build a lavish house for himself and his family, his main rival, Cardinal Wolsey, was also building a manor house, Hampton Court Palace, and it would not be surprising if Buckingham was competing with Wolsey to see who could build the better and more lavish manor house.

Then we must look at if Buckingham actually wanted to lead a rebellion, to do this we must look at his history and his character. His father rebelled against Richard the Third which would explain the King's reservations about his loyalty to the throne as rebellion seemed to run in his family. Another fact that would have worried the King is the fact that Buckingham had a direct claim to the throne, possibly more of a claim than he, himself did. The King wold also have been suspicious of Buckingham as he had other castles across the country and one of Buckingham's men was prosecuted for wearing the Dukes livery in the presence of the King, suggesting that Buckingham's men were loyal to Buckingham first and the King second.

There is also the testimony of a steward that Buckingham fired, Knyvett. Knyvett informed Cardinal Wolsey about alleged "hot and indiscrete words" that Buckingham is supposed to have spoken. Wolsey then informed the king about this and Buckingham was then tried and executed for treason, however it is more than possible that these "hot and indiscrete words" may well have been made up by Knyvett.

However there is evidence to suggest that Buckingham was merely unlucky to become the subject of the King's paranoia, Buckingham's father supported the Kings family when they took power. Buckingham also didn't play the games of court particularly well, he tended to stay away from the common massaging of the King's ego and spent large amounts of time moaning about the people who did. One source also mentions that Buckingham was very adept at saying exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time, making him rather unpopular with the King and Wolsey.

In conclusion I would say that Buckingham could have staged a rebellion successfully and he had motive for doing so however I find it unlikely that Buckingham was going to do anything of the sort and that Buckingham was merely politically inept.

Contemporary buildings

To further ascertain the intended use of Thornbury castle we must look at contemporary architecture to see what styles were being used in both fortified manor houses and military buildings.

Castles at the time had low walls and had a "flower" shape to them as can be seen with Camber castle in Sussex, Thornbury castle is completely different in design, closer in style to the fortified manor houses of the day.

Manor houses such as Hengrave Hall share features like polygonal towers, oriel windows and crenellation.

With Thornbury castle there is not much in the way of defensive weaponry, there are a small number of gun loops but most of what are traditionally thought of as defensive features are arrow slits which were old technology by the time the castle was designed and built. There is also the overall design of the castle that calls its use into question. The walls are straight rather than curved like the defensive castles of the time and the walls are very thin compared to contemporary castles at only one metre think as opposed to castles such as Deal castle in Kent which had walls up to five metres thick, as such they would be little use when bombarded with cannon fire.

All of this seems to point at Thornbury castle being designed for recreational use rather than for defensive purposes.

Conclusion

When looking at the evidence it can be seen that it shows a definite lean towards Thornbury castle being a lavish country home rather than a defensive castle as the allegations towards the Duke of Buckingham seem to point to.

The building itself, when compared to other buildings of the time, shows that it had far more features in common with contemporary fortified manor houses than with military structures. It does not share the layout of defensive castles like Deal castle or Camber castle. It does share many of the aesthetic characteristics of manor houses built at the time, arrow slits being used as decoration rather than for defence and crenellation being used as a finishing touch rather than trying to make it easier to repel attackers.

The western range may have had some attention turned to defence but this could be explained as trying to keep out the welsh, who the Duke was a landlord to. Oriel windows can also be seen and they are in a vulnerable position if anyone were to attempt to attack the castle, it is unlikely that the Duke would put such an expensive feature in such a prime position for attackers, brick chimneys are also used, while they are not an unusual sight these days at the time they were very expensive and would not be used in a defensive castle.

The Duke would also have no incentive to build a defensive castle, he was on good terms with the King and had a chance of inheriting the crown if the King died with a male heir. All of this points towards the castle being designed to be a lavish home and not a defensive castle and as such it is my conclusion that this is correct.