2. MAT, p.62.
3. Quoted in Blunt, TA, p.84.
4. MAT, p.63.
5. Hicks suggested that an engraving of the Clarence tomb, in a much more complete state than today, exists in R. Atkyns, Ancient and Present State of Gloucestershire, but Atkyns had been in error. What he had illustrated was not, in fact, the Clarence tomb. Atkyns does indeed suggest that statues of Clarence and Isabel survived at Tewkesbury in his day. However, when he wrote ‘on the North side of the Choir are two Statues carved in Marble with great Art, for George Duke of Clarence Brother to King Edward the Fourth, and for Isabel his Dutchess; she was buried in a Vault behind the high Altar 1479’, he was mistaken. The statues he describes were part of the neighbouring Despenser tomb. These images were never intended to commemorate Clarence and his wife. See R. Atkyns, Ancient and Present State of Gloucestershire (London: 1712, 1768; reprinted 1974), p.722. See also TA4, p.36.
6. The height was double-checked for me by Neil Birdsall, former Tewkesbury Abbey architect, on June 2013, and proved consistent and accurate.
7. ‘Restoration of Tewkesbury Abbey’, Tewkesbury Register, 20 July 1878. I am grateful to Pat Webley, Hon. Archivist at Tewkesbury Abbey, for this, and for other information marked [PW].
8. Four tiles at the end of the southern arm of the cross were removed at some point – probably in 1709, as part of the preparations for the burial of Samuel Hawling.
9. See, for example the later funeral arrangements for Edward IV: Ashdown-Hill, Richard III’s ‘Beloved Cousyn’, pp.83–4.
10. Linen coated in wax to make it waterproof.
11. For comparison, see the evidence of the time required for the shorter journeys between London and Stoke-by-Nayland in Suffolk in 1483, each of which took Edward IV’s messenger – and subsequently Lord Howard himself – about two days. Ashdown-Hill, Beloved Cousyn, pp.81–2.
12. This was to give the outward appearance that the body was still intact, whereas in fact the corpse had decayed, and comprised disarticulated bones.
13. RMS, p.94.
14. The empty and broken stone coffin that now lies in the vault dates from an earlier period than the Clarence vault, and is a later intrusion – see below.
15. In 1335 (before the Black Death), surviving records show that 1 fodder (approximately 1,000kg) of lead purchased to repair the roof of Portchester Castle cost 3 shillings (J. Blaire and N. Ramsey, eds, English Medieval Industries (London: Hambledon Press, 1991, 2001), p.64). It is very difficult to convert this precisely into modern currency, but using a conversion rate based on 1337 property values, 1kg of medieval lead would probably have cost about £15 in modern money.
16. J. B. Sheppard, ed., Christ Church Letters (CS ns xix, 1877), pp.36–7, cited in FFPC, p.128.
17. Kendall, Richard the Third, pp.125–7.
18. The Rous Roll records: ‘he died in the towr of London and is buryed at twokysbury the xxv day of feverel in the yere of yowr lord ml cccc lxxvii [sic]’. See W. Courthope/C. Ross, eds, The Rous Roll (London: Pickering, 1859; reprinted Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1980), no 59. For further evidence of Clarence’s burial at Tewkesbury, see also Thomas and Thornley, eds, The Great Chronicle of London, p.226.
19. Harl. 433, 2, p.7. See also R. Edwards, The Itinerary of King Richard III 1483–1485 (London, 1983), p. 5.
20. Hicks (FFPC, p.185) claimed that one of the encaustic tiles forming the cross laid on the floor of the Clarence vault commemorated Richard III as king, but this is not correct. Although the tile immediately to the east of the square pattern in the centre of the cross on the floor of the Clarence vault does contain a (slightly erroneous) representation of the late Plantagenet royal arms (England quartering France modern) there is nothing to connect this tile specifically with Richard III.
21. Sic. Presumably the writer was counting the ground level as the first step and the half step at the top of the flight as a whole step.
22. The Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. xcvi.i (1826), p.628.
23. A. G. Twining, Our Kings and Westminster Abbey (London, 1911), p.139.
THE CLARENCE VAULT
To summarise the evidence of its early history, the Clarence vault was probably constructed for Isabel’s burial in 1476/7, and reopened for George’s interment in 1477/8. After about 1484 there is no documentary evidence that it was opened again until 1709. Disturbance unquestionably took place in the vicinity of the vault in about 1540, when the adjacent eastern Lady Chapel of the former abbey church was demolished.1 One writer has therefore assumed ‘that the tomb was desecrated and pillaged soon after the Dissolution, and again later on in Commonwealth times’.2 It is important to stress that no written evidence supports this hypothesis – though the Clarence brasses could well have been ripped out of their stone matrix in either of these two periods.3 But although there is no written evidence that the Clarence vault was opened – let alone desecrated – in either the sixteenth or the seventeenth century, there is some circumstantial evidence that the vault may have been opened in about 1540. If the vault was opened at that time the reason was probably to reinter there human remains from a tomb in the eastern Lady Chapel which was then being demolished (see chapter 17).
In 1709 the Clarence vault was definitely opened again, to allow the interment of a local alderman, by name Samuel Hawling, a member of the Tewkesbury Corporation. It was then reopened in 1729 to receive the remains of Hawling’s widow, Mary. In 1753 the vault was opened a third time, for the burial of Hawling’s son, John.4
If the first recorded opening, in 1709, really was the first time the vault had been accessed since the 1480s, at that time the Clarence burials should have been substantially intact. The wooden outer coffins would probably have decayed, due to the damp conditions in the vault, but the inner lead coffins should still have been lying where they had been placed in the fifteenth century, on either side of the central cross on the floor of the vault. On the other hand, if the vault had been opened in 1540 it is possible that the lead from the coffins had been stolen at that early date, in which case, by the eighteenth century the surviving remains of George and Isabel would probably have been no more than two piles of bones.
Either way, in order to introduce the coffin of Samuel Hawling it would have been necessary to move the Clarence remains. It is therefore certain that in 1709 the contents of the vault must have been rearranged. Moreover, perhaps because it was evident that the Clarence burials had suffered from damp, it was apparently decided not to place Samuel Hawling’s coffin directly on the floor of the vault. Therefore three large pieces of broken stonework were brought in to support the new burial. These were placed on the southern side of the vault. Since the stones were of unequal heights, holes were dug in the floor to receive the bases of the easternmost one, and the one in the centre, thus creating a level surface to bear Samuel Hawling’s coffin.5 To achieve this it was necessary to break up the original floor tiles in those areas.
During his discussion on the possible date of the iron coffin handles found in the Clarence vault (see above), Julian Litten pointed out that it was a common practice in vault-type burials to have a charnel pit in the floor, on the far side of the vault, opposite the entrance. In the case of the Clarence vault, such a charnel pit, if it ever existed, would have been on the southern side. There is no evidence that a charnel pit was created during the original construction of the Clarence vault. However, it is possible that something of this kind was added during the 1709 digging on the southern side of the vault in preparation for the reception of Samuel Hawling’s coffin. In that case, some of the Clarence bones may have been buried under the stones introduced to support Samuel Hawling’s coffin.
Of the three stone supports added to the vault in 1709, the western one appears to be cemented into place. However, the eastern and central stones are not cemented. During our examination of the vault in April 2013, Dr Richard Morris, Dr Michael Donmall and I did not move the western stone. However, we lifted the eastern and central stones to briefly l
ook beneath them. Under the eastern stone was found loose soil, together with broken pieces of floor tiles (including part of a decorated tile). The central stone has some loose soil beneath it, and also some solid material resembling concrete, at the western end of its hole, which appears to hold part of another floor tile. No digging was done, and both stones were simply replaced. However, if an opportunity were to arise in future, it would be interesting to excavate beneath these three stones to check whether any of the holes in the soil beneath them were used as charnel pits in 1709, in which some of the Clarence bones may have been buried, in order to reduce the quantity of material in the vault.
In 1729, when the vault was re-opened for the interment of Mary Hawling, her coffin was placed above that of Samuel on a newly constructed shelf. Traces of the outline of this shelf can still be discerned on the eastern, southern and western walls, and the mortar for the supports on its northern side can still be found on the tiled floor. Later written accounts confirm that the coffins of Samuel and Mary had been disposed on the southern side of the vault, enclosed behind a brick wall. Since the subsequent burial of the Hawlings’ son, John, was eventually enclosed by a second and separate wall further to the north, it is logical to assume that the first (southernmost) brick wall was already in place before he was buried. Therefore it must have been built at the time of Mary’s interment, in 1729.
Traces of the mortar where the 1729 brick wall met the stone walls of the vault at its eastern and western ends can still be discerned, as can marks showing the line of bricks on the floor. These indicate that the brick wall stood approximately 2ft to the north of the original southern wall of the Clarence vault. Thus, from 1729 the open space in the Clarence vault was reduced from 9ft by 8ft to approximately 6ft 6in by 8ft (allowing for the width of the bricks). Workmen would have spent some time in the vault, constructing the brick wall to enclose the Hawling coffins. They could well have taken the opportunity to explore any other human remains which then lay in the vault, and even to make off with the valuable lead from the earlier coffins.
In 1753 the vault was opened again, for the burial of John Hawling, son of Samuel and Mary. Remains of any pre-Hawling bodies still lying in the vault – by this time almost certainly robbed of their protective lead coffins – must have been lying in the open, north of the brick wall enclosing the first two Hawling burials. Water must long since have reduced them to bones. That the vault had suffered from flooding between 1729 and 1753 is evidenced by a coating of pitch which was now added to the floor of the vault, on top of the medieval floor tiles – presumably in an attempt to prevent future damage by flooding – before John Hawling’s body was brought in.
When the floor was coated in pitch, all loose material (including loose human bones) must have been moved. Subsequently, the remains were apparently dumped back in the north-west corner of the vault, leaving space for the new Hawling coffin. Once again, bones and other material might have been lost from or added to the pile. If post-medieval intrusive remains were introduced, that may well have happened at this stage.
Following John’s funeral, workmen erected a second brick wall to enclose his coffin. The 1753 wall was two feet to the north of the wall of 1729, reducing the open space in the vault to approximately 4ft by 8ft. John Hawling’s burial is recorded in the Churchwardens’ Accounts as follows:
31st August 1753 To Ground in the outbounds of the Chancel & Bell for Mr Hawling £2/12/6.
It seems that the church authorities were charging for the ground space taken up by the new burial, even though it was inside the Clarence vault! Interestingly, the next entry in the accounts, dated 3 September 1753, is:
To Cash reced for bricks – 4/8.6
These were presumably the bricks used to build the new northern wall in the Clarence vault, sealing off John Hawling’s burial. The natural curiosity of the bricklayers may have led them to explore the pile of material in the corner of the vault – another opportunity for bones to have been removed.
After 1753, what had originally been the Clarence vault had more or less been transformed into two small, sealed Hawling vaults, containing the coffined remains of Samuel, Mary and John Hawling. The three Hawling burials were commemorated by a stone bearing the following inscription:7
Here lieth the body of Samuel Hawling, Gent,
who died December 17, 1709, Aged 72
Also Mary, his Wife,
who died December 2, 1729, Aged 96
Also John Hawling, Gent,
died August 29 1753, Aged 86
In his Tewkesbury Yearly Register and Magazine for 1848, Bennett lists the full inscriptions on some of the Tewkesbury gravestones, including that of the Hawlings. Moreover, in a footnote he states that ‘these inscriptions were copied from the grave stones, by the editor of this Miscellany, in the year 1830’, and in another footnote he reveals that the stone bearing the Hawling memorial inscription ‘was placed upon the arch of the Clarence vault’. This tells us that the Hawling memorial lay not over the entrance to the vault, but in the centre of the floor behind the high altar of the church and its reredos. As we have already seen, the vault entrance was apparently still covered at this period by the Clarence brass matrix of c. 1483 – albeit robbed of its brasses.
The next recorded opening of the vault occurred in 1826, in the presence of the vicar and the churchwardens. A feeling seems to have been growing that the Hawling family had behaved rather outrageously. Probably the 1826 opening was therefore in the nature of an investigation of the current situation. A graffito of 1826 can still be seen on the eastern wall of the vault, between the entrance steps and the former site of the second eighteenth-century brick wall, enclosing the burial of John Hawling.8 It was inscribed by Thomas Witherington Junior, a local bricklayer born in 1771. Following the inspection of the vault, it was reported that Samuel and Mary Hawling ‘lie inclosed by a brick wall at the south end of the vault and that of John Hawling is placed to the northward of his parents and cased in another brick wall’.9 These facts could only have been established by piercing, or partially dismantling, the Hawling brick walls – which presumably is why a bricklayer was employed. In the churchwarden’s accounts for 1826 a sum of £21/2/4 was paid to Thomas Witherington in August, probably for the work he had carried out in the Clarence vault.10
Three years later, in 1829, the Clarence vault was opened again. This time the purpose was clear. The three Hawling bodies were extracted, and ‘removed to another grave, southward of this vault … and bones which were supposed to be those of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence were then gathered together and placed in a stone coffin brought from a grave beneath the Trinity Chapel and the vestry’.11 It is generally assumed that the stone coffin was empty when the Clarence vault bones were inserted within it, but in fact there is no evidence to this effect. Obviously, if the stone coffin already contained some bones, that would have affected the subsequent contents of the Clarence vault. One alternative account of this coffin reads as follows:
An ancient stone coffin was then taken into the vault, the supposed bones of the royal duke and duchess were deposited in it, and here they were securely inclosed, by placing a large stone upon the top of the coffin … The coffin … was dug up by the sexton, whilst he was making a grave for Mr Samuel Jeynes, between the vestry door and the Trinity chapel, in 1773; and from the situation in which it was found, it is supposed to have been that of one of the Despenser family.12
Bennett tells us that once the Hawling bodies had been transferred to their new burial site, ‘their grave stone was afterwards laid upon it’.13 This presumably refers to the inscribed Hawling slab which had previously lain over the centre of the arch of the vault (see above).14
The eighteenth-century brick walls in the Clarence vault were completely removed during the relocation of the Hawling burials. It would have been impossible to remove the Hawling coffins without first demolishing them. Moreover, there is no subsequent record of their existence. In 1830, the vault was then reported
to be:
in the most perfect state, and measured nine feet long, eight feet wide, and six feet four inches high. The arched roof and walls were of Painswick free-stone, and must have been chiefly hewn from large masses of solid material [sic]; the floor was paved, and in the centre was the representation of a cross, extending almost the whole length and breadth of the vault, formed with painted bricks; on some of these were the arms of England, of the Clares, &c, and on some were ornamented letters, birds, fleurs de lis, and various other devices, similar to bricks which are frequently found about the church; and of which, it would seem, the members of the convent kept a store, to be used as embellishments as occasion might require. In the northwest corner of the vault were found two skulls, and other bones; these were evidently the remains of a man and woman, and although there was nothing to prove that they were relics of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence, there are some circumstances which render it by no means improbable.15
On 26 April 1876 the Clarence vault was opened once again, ahead of the planned re-flooring of the ambulatory, which was then about to begin. At that time the entrance to the vault was still closed by a large stone slab. The surviving account of the opening does not state specifically that this was the original blue stone brass matrix, but there is no reason to suppose that it was not.16 When the vault was opened, the stone coffin within which the putative Clarence bones had been placed was found to be full of water. The surviving account of this opening also implies that the medieval stone coffin was then found to contain one small but complete skull, and the occiput of a second skull, with an assortment of bones. It was probably at this stage that the bones were cleaned and some of the long bones repaired with wooden dowelling. Subsequently, it is possible that the bones were not replaced in the stone coffin, but transferred to a wooden-framed case (see below).17
The Third Plantagenet: George, Duke of Clarence, Richard III's Brother Page 23