The Antiquaries Journal http://journals.cambridge.org/ANT Additional services for The Antiquaries Journal: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Edward The Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey: The Origins of the Royal Mausoleum and its Cosmatesque Pavement Sally Badham The Antiquaries Journal / Volume 87 / September 2007, pp 197 219 DOI: 10.1017/S0003581500000895, Published online: 28 November 2008 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003581500000895 How to cite this article: Sally Badham (2007). Edward The Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey: The Origins of the Royal Mausoleum and its Cosmatesque Pavement. The Antiquaries Journal, 87, pp 197219 doi:10.1017/S0003581500000895 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ANT, IP address: 129.174.21.5 on 16 Mar 2013
Transcript
The Antiquaries Journalhttp://journals.cambridge.org/ANT
Additional services for The Antiquaries Journal:
Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here
Edward The Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey: The Origins of the Royal Mausoleum and its Cosmatesque Pavement
Sally Badham
The Antiquaries Journal / Volume 87 / September 2007, pp 197 219DOI: 10.1017/S0003581500000895, Published online: 28 November 2008
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003581500000895
How to cite this article:Sally Badham (2007). Edward The Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey: The Origins of the Royal Mausoleum and its Cosmatesque Pavement. The Antiquaries Journal, 87, pp 197219 doi:10.1017/S0003581500000895
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ANT, IP address: 129.174.21.5 on 16 Mar 2013
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL,WESTMINSTER ABBEY: THE ORIGINS OFTHE ROYAL MAUSOLEUM AND ITS
COSMATESQUE PAVEMENT
Sally Badham, FSA*
It has hitherto been argued that Edward the Confessor’s Chapel at Westminster Abbey, built byHenry III in –, was established as the royal mausoleum only from the s. In aground penetrating radar survey of the chapel floor revealed many anomalies, some of whichcan be interpreted as grave cists. A re-examination of the written and physical evidence for sub-floor burials in the chapel suggests that, among other early burials, at least five of Edward I’schildren were interred here in the period –. It thus appears that the chapel was used as afamily mausoleum before and was not originally exclusively reserved for the monarchs andtheir consorts. New light is also thrown on the vexed question of the date of the Cosmatesquefloor in the shrine chapel, which is here redated to the s.
The chapel dedicated to St Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey, as we see ittoday, appears almost exclusively reserved as the mausoleum of the Plantagenet kings ofEngland and their consorts. Forming a horseshoe round three sides of the Confessor’sshrine are the tombs of Edward I (d ), Henry III (d ) and Eleanor of Castile (d) on the northern side; Henry V (d ) on a raised platform at the east end of thechapel; and Philippa of Hainault (d ), Edward III (d ) and the joint tomb ofRichard II (d ) and Anne of Bohemia (d ) on the southern side. In September, however, a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the chapel floor (carried outby Utsi Electronics) revealed the presence of a number of anomalies, many of whichwere interpreted in the report and by Warwick Rodwell as grave cists under the floor. Inattempting to interpret these anomalies, it is essential to be able to relate the GPRoutput to the floor plan of the chapel and especially to the locations of the known gravesin the chapel. The best known plan of the shrine chapel is that produced by theRCHME in ; unfortunately, although useful as a general guide, it lacksarchaeological accuracy. This plan has been modified by Tim Tatton-Brown to producean annotated plan which, while not as accurate as a photogrammetric survey would be,provides a more reliable indication of the positions of the known tombs in relation to theCosmatesque pavement and thus to the GPR findings (fig ).
DEVELOPMENT OF HENRY III’S ABBEY CHURCH AND THE ROYALMAUSOLEUM
The Confessor’s Chapel was the centrepiece of Henry III’s reconstruction of the Anglo-Saxon abbey church between and . In , Edward the Confessor washimself buried in front of the high altar of his Romanesque church, which had beenconsecrated the previous year. He was canonized in and his body was translatedtwo years later into a shrine behind the high altar. Where precisely his original tomband the high altar of the Anglo-Saxon church were located in relation to the survivingGothic fabric is a matter of debate, although most authorities place it to the west of theConfessor’s Chapel. The initial interpretation of the GPR survey, however, was that theConfessor’s tomb was the substantial chamber with an arched or vaulted roof foundlying directly below the present shrine altar and that a large void which had been back-filled to the west of it was an access way to the grave. If this analysis is correct, it wouldimply that the high altar must previously have stood to the east of the current shrinelocation and that the eastern apse of the Anglo-Saxon abbey ended in the area nowoccupied by the Confessor’s Chapel.However, there are problems in reconciling this interpretation with what is known
from written sources of the Confessor’s original tomb, which was certainly in asarcophagus. Osbert de Clare recorded that, when the tomb was opened in ,removetur ergo lapis superior a sarcophago (‘and so let the upper stone be removed fromthe sarcophagus’). This does not explicitly exclude the possibility of the sarcophagusbeing placed in a vault, such as that located by the GPR under the shrine, but high-status eleventh-century graves normally comprised monolithic or built sarcophagi, witheither a flat or coped lid, sunk into the floor or occasionally standing on it, as at StAlkmund’s, Derby, and at Kirby Grindalythe, Yorkshire. The early abbatial grave slabswith low-relief effigial representations now in the south cloister walk of WestminsterAbbey (but probably formerly in the original chapter house) provide additionalparallels in that they, too, were undoubtedly the cover slabs of sunken coffins.
Moreover, that at least the coffin lid of the Confessor’s tomb was exposed to view isimplied by the fifth miracle story provided by Osbert de Clare, in which ArchbishopLanfranc tried to depose Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester in a council held atWestminster; the bishop insisted on returning to the Confessor the crozier withwhich the latter had invested him, and the metal staff went into the stone as into wax.While the story is of dubious authenticity, it may have been inspired by decoration onthe lid of the original coffin; more pertinently, however, it suggests that the sarcophaguswas not hidden from view in a vault. At this date no evidence is known for kings,bishops or other high-status persons meriting intra-mural burial having been interredin vaults.
There are various other possible interpretations of the purpose of the vaultedchamber. One is that it was a translation site. It is certainly the case that when the oldapse was demolished in the bodies of the Confessor and his wife, Edith, weremoved to a place of safety. Another possible explanation suggested by Rodwell is thatHenry III could have created the chamber in the late s as part of the cult focus, evenperhaps with a view to being buried in it himself. Yet whatever the original purpose ofthe vault, its documented use as a refrigerium in the late thirteenth century is keyevidence in establishing the terminus post quem for the Cosmatesque shrine pavement, asis argued below.
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:39 Page 199
The focus of the Confessor’s Chapel built by Henry III was the new shrine base,enriched by exotic Cosmatesque marble work and surmounted by a gold feretory, whichwas sufficiently advanced for the Confessor’s bones to be translated to it on October. The bodies of two royal consorts – the Confessor’s wife, Edith (d ), who hadbeen buried beside him to the north of the high altar, and Henry I’s first wife, Matilda (d) – were also reburied in the new chapel. The burial lists and accounts given by theearly historians of the abbey record the body of one laid to the north of the Confessor’sgrave and one to the south, although the evidence conflicts as to whom was buried onwhich side. The GPR survey, however, revealed no anomalies which could beinterpreted as grave cists flanking the northern and southern sides of the tombs. Thisfinding needs to be reconciled with the evidence of the burial list regarding the preciselocation of the burial places of the two queens. The various sources give differentaccounts, but one sixteenth-century account says: ‘And in the Right underneath thesame Shryne Queen Maude wife to King Henry the first. In the left lyeth Queen Edithwife of St Edward and sister of King Harold’, which implies that the two queens actuallylie underneath the shrine. The less plausible alternative is that they were buried nearerthe perimeter of the chapel, with the remains perhaps having been destroyed by theerection of the royal high tombs.It has been argued that marked the turning point in the establishment of a
permanent royal mausoleum at Westminster, in part due to Edward I’s sudden, andapparently capricious, abandonment of interest in his new Cistercian abbey of ValeRoyal, Cheshire, which he had regarded as his special foundation and in which he mighteven have planned to be buried. The first high tombs to the kings and their consortswhich now surround the shrine were not completed until about this time, but this doesnot mean that the decision to establish a new royal mausoleum was made this late.Henry III was the first Plantagenet king to be buried in the shrine chapel. On his death in, his body was temporarily buried in the Confessor’s grave vacated by thetranslation of his body to the shrine, but a permanent memorial was much delayed. In Edward I returned from France with stones for Henry’s magnificent Cosmatesquetomb, but the work appears to have taken over a decade to complete. Henry’s bodywas moved to the tomb in May , although the cast gilt copper-alloy effigy of theking was not added to the tomb chest until . In , Edward’s queen, Eleanor ofCastile, died. Again her body found temporary rest in the Confessor’s old grave ortranslation site. Her Purbeck marble tomb, made by Richard of Crundale, wascompleted relatively quickly, with the cast gilt copper-alloy effigy surmounting the tombchest, which was commissioned at the same time as Henry’s, being installed by spring. The impression created by the surviving monuments is thus that the Confessor’sChapel was not effectively established by Edward I as a mausoleum until the last decadeof the thirteenth century. Yet, although Henry III’s body was not moved to hisCosmatesque tomb until , he had planned since to be buried at Westminsternear the Confessor, for whom he had a deep devotion. Moreover, a reassessment of thedocumentary and physical evidence for earlier burials, aided by new insights providedmostly by the GPR survey, shows that the first new burials in the shrine chapel datedfrom the s at the latest.
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:39 Page 200
EVIDENCE FOR BURIALS OF ROYAL OFFSPRING IN THECONFESSOR’S CHAPEL
At the east end of the chapel are two worn Purbeck marble coffin lids. Their upper endswere covered in the mid-fifteenth century by new steps constructed as part of therebuilding to accommodate Henry V’s tomb. In the s and s, Sir George GilbertScott carried out a major restoration in the Confessor’s Chapel, in the course of which itwas discovered that the part of the northern coffin lid under the step had preserved inlayof latten and Cosmatesque work in squares of creamy white magnesian limestone andopaque red glass, with some traces of gilding (fig ). He subsequently had a specialhinged step made, so that the remains could be inspected. Some fifty years later,Lethaby made the discovery that there were similar remains at the foot end of theadjoining slab, although no similar access was made and they can only be viewed bysquinting under the partly hollow step. The surviving section of individual inlaylettering on the northern slab includes the name ‘WILLAME’ (fig ), confirming theevidence of the burial lists that these two coffin lids cover the graves of the offspring ofHenry III’s half-brother, William de Valence: that on the south being for Margaret (d) and that on the north for John (d ). These burials so close to the new shrinecould only have taken place with the approval of Edward I; his regard for John isconfirmed by his payment of d for two little coffers to contain John’s bones.
Nonetheless, these decorated coffin lids have hitherto appeared as odd intrusions intothe Confessor’s Chapel, partly because of their early date, but also because of the statusof the de Valence pair.That these were not the only new burials in the Confessor’s Chapel before Henry
III’s body was transferred to his monument, however, is confirmed by the evidence ofchroniclers recording the burial of Edward I’s third son, Alfonso, who died in atthe age of eleven and who had been Edward’s heir for the previous decade. His burialwas recorded in the Flores Historiarum manuscript thus: cujus corpus in ecclesiaWestmonasterii juxta feretrum sancti Edwardi honorifice collocatur (‘whose body is laid uphonourably in the church of Westminster, next to the shrine of Saint Edward’). Thisaccount is supplemented by the description of another Westminster monk that Alfonso’sgrave was inter fratres suos et sorores juxta praedictum feretrum praesepultas inter lapidesclaudebatur marmoreos et porphiriticos et de thaso (‘between his brothers and sisters, whowere buried before him, next to the aforesaid shrine; he was buried among stones, someof marble, some of porphyry, some of Thasian marble’).
Of key significance is the statement in these accounts that other royal offspring hadbeen buried near Alfonso’s tomb. The sixteenth-century tomb lists do not provideconfirmatory documentation of such burials, but by that time the material evidence oftheir grave covers might well have been lost. Nor was physical evidence evident until theGPR investigations revealed the presence of several anomalies in the Confessor’sChapel.
GPR EVIDENCE FOR BURIALS IN THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL
Two GPR surveys of the shrine pavement area were carried out – one at low frequency( MHz) and another at high frequency (GHz) – to examine the floor in greaterdetail. The method cannot identify individual materials, but it identifies changes in the
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:39 Page 201
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
Fig . Inlaid coffin lid commemoratingJohn de Valence (d ) at the east endof the Confessor’s Chapel, WestminsterAbbey. Photograph: author.
Fig . Detail of the inlaid coffin lid com-memorating John de Valence (d ) atthe east end of the Confessor’s Chapel,Westminster Abbey. Photograph: author.
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:39 Page 202
underlying materials on the basis of their electromagnetic response: relative signalstrength is a measure of the change from one material to another, such as theappearance of a void immediately beneath a grave cover. Three-dimensional data setsare used to generate ‘time slices’ at various depths beneath the pavement surface to aidthe examination of patterning in GPR output. Various features show up most strongly atdifferent depths – the features interpreted in the Utsi survey report and by Rodwell asgrave cists at the east end of the chapel being first noted on the time slice from the low-frequency survey at mm below the surface. The anomalies are strongly marked atmm depth (fig ) and continue to be visible at mm depth but mostly fade out atmm depth. The signal strengthens again by .m depth, indicating another relativechange of material, probably to the ground below the void.It is significant for the interpretation of these anomalies that several of the
rectangular features interpreted as grave cists correspond with known burials. Theseanomalies show most clearly on the high-frequency survey, which provides higherdefinition information than can be obtained from low-frequency radar, and whosecoverage extends further east than the low-frequency survey to include the area markedby the coffin lids of John and Margaret de Valance (fig ). Two features match up withsurviving grave slabs cutting into the Cosmatesque floor (see fig ). A large rectangularfeature aligned at an angle in the south-west corner is the grave of Richard II’s uncle,Thomas of Woodstock (d ), covered by a Purbeck marble slab with the wornindents of a lost brass. This indent was raised in , after it was proposed that a statueof Joseph Addison be erected on the tomb, and the bones of Woodstock were found tobe in situ in the remains of his lead-lined wooden coffin. Another large feature in thenorth-west corner of the chapel corresponds with the burial of John Waltham, Bishop ofSalisbury and Treasurer of England (d ), buried here on Richard II’s explicitinstructions, despite the monks’ objections; the grave is covered by a brass, part of theinlay of which remains.The final anomaly that can be matched up with a known burial is the rectangular
feature to the north-east of the shrine shown clearly on the mm ‘time slice’ from thehigh-frequency survey (see fig ). The western part of this anomaly is also shown inrelation to adjoining anomalies on the mm ‘time slice’ of the low-frequency survey(see fig ). This feature, part of which is under the plain Purbeck marble paving and partunder the Cosmatesque pavement, can be identified as the grave of Bishop RichardCourtenay (d ), a close friend of Henry V, who took advantage of the precedent setby Richard II over John Waltham’s burial, and ordered that Courtenay be buried in theshrine chapel. Although no grave cover survives, the burial was accidentallyrediscovered in in a grave lined with Reigate stone (fig ). The location of the gravecan be distinguished within the area of plain paving and Cosmatesque work by theuntidy white cement repairs to the floor.In addition, there are several similar anomalies, albeit smaller in size. Two
correspond with the graves of John and Margaret de Valence; their entire extent isshown on the high-frequency survey (least clearly in the mm time slice in fig ), butonly their western ends are within the area covered by the low-frequency survey. Theother anomalies most clearly delineated on the low-frequency survey are locatedbetween the east end of the shrine and the graves of John and Margaret de Valence (seefig ). These cists are not covered by the Cosmatesque pavement, the floor here beingconstructed of cut-down pieces of Purbeck marble. The most northerly of the slabscovering these grave cists is still evidently coffin-shaped (fig ), but unusually broad at
Fig . Purbeck marble slabs between the east end of the shrine and the de Valencecoffin lids in the Confessor’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey. The arrows indicate the
junctions between the three slabs. Photograph: author.
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 205
the head end. That in the middle seems also to have been taken from another taperedslab, although its southern side is now square-cut. The small scale of these anomalies (cm long) suggests that, like the de Valence grave cists, they are likely to be child burials.In addition, there appear to be more grave cists in a line running northwards, probablymostly sealed by the Cosmatesque paving, but also extending eastwards under theadjoining area of small squares of Purbeck marble. The first (in order from the south) isa small cist entirely sealed by the Cosmatesque work. The second, larger, cist isCourtenay’s grave.North of this, the GPR survey showed anomalies that are more difficult to interpret.
These are located in the extreme north east of the shrine pavement, in the area wherethe Cosmatesque pavement has been much disturbed by the insertion of plain Purbeckmarble slabs. These anomalies might be interpreted as two large grave cists or, perhapsmore likely, as four smaller ones. Admittedly, without excavation the small cist-shapedanomalies cannot be proved to be graves, but such an interpretation is stronglysuggested by the documentary evidence for child burials in the Confessor’s Chapel,added to their similarity in shape and depth to other anomalies that correspond withdocumented graves in the chapel.
BURIALS OF EDWARD I’S OFFSPRING
The presence of between five and nine grave cists of a size appropriate to the burial ofchildren of various ages revealed by the GPR survey provides confirmation of thechronicle evidence that the de Valence offspring were not the only minors to be buriedin the Confessor’s Chapel, although one of the small cists probably held the heart ofHenry of Almayne, Henry III’s murdered nephew, which Henry had buried near theConfessor’s shrine in . The chroniclers’ accounts referring to Alfonso’s burialprovide evidence that several of his brothers and sisters were ‘buried before him’ in theConfessor’s Chapel. Who might these have been?It is generally accepted that only six of the offspring of Edward I and Eleanor of
Castile survived childhood and that three other sons died young, giving a total ofnine, but various writers expanded this by adding more daughters. The authoritiesdo not agree on the names of the additional daughters; hence, if all the suggestednames were combined in a single list, the number of children borne by Eleanorwould reach nineteen. This list includes, for example, a daughter called Alice who ismentioned in the burial lists and by many historians of Westminster Abbey; yet adetailed study of evidence from the chronicles and wardrobe accounts by Parsonscasts doubt on her existence and that of several other putative children in the extendedlists. His analysis, together with documentary evidence relating to burials andmonuments, provides the following list of Edward’s offspring (underlining addedby author):
. Anonymous daughter, born and died before , buried in the DominicanPriory, Bordeaux.
. Katherine, born before February ; died September . She was buried inWestminster Abbey, although the location of her grave is not recorded; Henry IIIpaid burial expenses of £ and also made payment for two gold cloths decoratedwith Katherine wheels.
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 206
. Joan I, born January , died shortly before September . She too wasburied in Westminster Abbey, but the location of her grave is not recorded,although again Henry III ordered a gold cloth for her tomb.
. John of Windsor, born / July , died August . He was buried inWestminster Abbey. There is contemporary evidence that John was originallyburied to the north of the Confessor’s shrine:
Hoc anno obit Johannes, primogenitus Domini Edwardi puer etate quinque annorum etnon plene quatuor septimanarum Cujus corpus in Ecclesiae Westmonasterii ex oppositebasilice Sancti Edwardi in parte aquilonali datum et sepulture viij die mensis Augusti.
This year [] died John, the eldest son of Lord Edward, a boy aged five years andjust under four weeks; his body was brought to burial in the church of Westminster,opposite the chapel of Saint Edward, on the northern side, on August.
This account suggests that John was a likely occupant of one of the grave cists inthe north-east corner of the Confessor’s Chapel. However, in / Robert ofBeverley, the King’s Mason and Keeper of the Works at Westminster, receivedpayments for the stipends of several workmen employed on the tomb of John ofWindsor, including a payment for £ s ½d to cover wages for a period ofsixteen weeks. This was presumably a tomb chest, into which his bones mighthave been translated; or, more likely, a cenotaph standing over his grave. Nomonument remains in the Confessor’s Chapel that is attributable to John.
. Henry, born shortly before May , died October . He too was buried inWestminster Abbey; although no precise location is recorded, the Confessor’sChapel is likely. Between and William of Corfe was paid s d protumba domini Henricii filii Regis (‘for the tomb of the king’s son, Master Henry’),undoubtedly a Purbeck marble tomb or grave slab. Again, nothing remains inthe Confessor’s Chapel that can be firmly associated with Henry’s monument.
. Eleanor, wife of Henry III, count of Barrois, born June , died August. There is a tradition, originating with the Flores historiarum, that she wasburied at Westminster Abbey, apparently in the cloister or chapter house, butthis seems to be an unlikely location. However, as she was twenty-nine whenshe died, the location of her grave is not pertinent to an investigation of the childburials in the Confessor’s Chapel.
. Anonymous daughter, born and died in Palestine.. Joan II, born , died April , wife first of Gilbert de Clare, Earl ofGloucester, and secondly of Ralph de Monthermer. Buried at Clare, Suffolk.
. Alfonso, born / November , died August . Buried atWestminster in the Confessor’s Chapel.
. Margaret, born March , died after , wife of John, Duke of Brabant,and buried in Sainte-Gudule, Brussels.
. Berengaria, born May , died by June . There is no evidence as toher place of burial.
. Unknown child, probably a daughter, born January , died soon after.Again there is no evidence as to the place of her burial.
. Mary, born / March , died May . She took the veil, becoming anun of Amesbury, where she was probably buried.
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 207
. Anonymous son, perhaps born and died /.. Elizabeth, born August , died August , married first John I, Count
of Holland and Zeeland, and secondly Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Herefordand Essex. Buried at Walden, Essex.
. Edward II, born April , died , buried in St Peter’s Abbey,Gloucester, now Gloucester Cathedral.
In addition, Edward had two sons – Thomas and Edmund – by his second wife,Margaret of France.The conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is that the brothers amongst whom
Alfonso was buried can only have been John of Windsor, aged five, and Henry, aged six.The accounts for the making of their tombs (or cenotaphs) show these to have been inplace in the Confessor’s Chapel by the time Alfonso was buried in . The sistersamongst whom Alfonso was buried are most likely to have been Katherine, aged ninemonths, Joan I, aged nine months, and perhaps Berengaria, aged two months. Asinfants, they would easily have fitted into small cists such as those adjoining the east endof the shrine and in the north-east part of the chapel. There is no surviving documentaryor material evidence of tomb monuments having been made for any of them. It isimprobable that their graves would have remained unmarked, but for baby girls, carvedcoffin lids might have been thought adequate.It is likely that one of the grave cists revealed by the GPR survey held the body
of Alfonso himself. Aged eleven at death, he would have been too large for a grave ofonly c m long, but the feature to the south east of the shrine measuring c .m long, whichhas been interpreted as a cist, might be his grave (see fig ). The chroniclers’ evidencerecords that he was buried next to the shrine; Sandford states that his grave was on thesouth side, although no confirmatory evidence has been traced. Opinions differ as towhat exactly is meant by Alfonso’s burial ‘among marble, porphyry and Thasianmarble’. Several interpretations are possible. A number of scholars have assumed thatAlfonso was buried in the Cosmatesque tomb chest believed once to have been in theConfessor’s Chapel but now located in the south ambulatory. It might possibly havebeen made for him or later, for his brother, John of Windsor, but it is unlikely that hewas interred there immediately following his death; the chronicler says that he wasburied inter (among) the stones, not intra (within them). Alternatively, he could havebeen interred under the shrine pavement, although it is odd that the document shouldnot then say he was buried sub (under) the stones. Although Alfonso could have beenburied on the periphery, where the tombs of Philippa of Hainault, Edward III andRichard II now stand, the cist to the south east of the shrine is a more likely location.Cosmatesque works referred to by the chroniclers were quite possibly merely the shrine,Henry III’s tomb and the two inlaid coffin lids to the Valence pair, but this does notexclude the possibility that the Cosmatesque tomb chest was later erected over his grave.
THE DATING OF THE SHRINE PAVEMENT
The evidence of the GPR survey combined with the documentary record that the grave-like anomalies sealed by the Cosmatesque flooring mark the burials of at least five ofEdward I’s children, throws new light on the dating of the Cosmatesque pavement itself.Unlike the sanctuary pavement, the date of the shrine pavement is not documented and
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 208
opinions thus differ on when it was constructed and completed. Carpenter argues for ithaving been laid prior to the sanctuary pavement, which was complete or in hand by, on the grounds that it is less sophisticated in planning and less grand in itsmaterials. Tatton-Brown assumes that it was laid concurrently with the sanctuarypavement. Binski put forward the case for all the Cosmatesque work at Westminsterhaving been finished by the s and, on the basis that one of the readings of the shrineinscription refers to the completion of the entire project in the chapel (the shrine, HenryIII’s tomb and the pavement), that the pavement may well have been completed by/. Yet if burials were still taking place in in the area where theCosmatesque pavement now is, could the floor be even later? Rodwell, following closeexamination of the inter-relationships of various parts of the fabric, has arguedconvincingly that the Cosmatesque pavement post-dates Eleanor of Castile’s tomb,which was completed by spring .
The Cosmatesque shrine pavement displays a repeating pattern of circles andscrolling bands inlaid with tesserae of purple and green porphyry, creamy white stonerecently identified as magnesian limestone, coloured glass and small amounts ofEgyptian gabbro; the pattern continues without a break from one slab to another. Thisinlaid area of the pavement does not cover the entire area of the chapel floor, extendinground only three sides of the shrine; there is no inlaid work surviving at the eastern endand the ends of the two sections at the north and south are not aligned (see fig ). It hasbeen assumed that the inlaid floor originally extended further to the east, butexamination of the pavement shows that the pattern has not been cut into; instead, bothends have planned terminations to the pattern some distance short of the eastern edgesof the most easterly slabs in the pavement. This is most clearly demonstrated by the slabat the extreme north-eastern corner of the inlaid area, which shows the pattern ending asignificant distance short of the north and east sides of the slab, thus marking part of theoriginal perimeter of the inlaid pavement (fig ). Most crucially as to the date of theCosmatesque pavement, it has also clearly been designed on its northern side toaccommodate Henry III’s tomb: while the tombs on the south clearly overlie thepavement and cut into the continuity of the pattern (fig ), the pattern stops just short ofHenry’s tomb plinth (fig ). That the Cosmatesque inlay of the pavement wasplanned to end abutting Henry’s tomb means that it was not put in place until at least, and it may be even later still.The inlaid work also gives a similar impression of having been designed to end
abutting the Purbeck slabs immediately surrounding the shrine and, more pertinently, thefootprint of the shrine altar (fig ). At the west end of the altar is an exceptionally largeslab (in excess of m long) which the GPR survey shows capping the former entrance tothe vaulted chamber; this entrance area was back-filled before the Cosmatesquepavement was laid. This access chamber must previously have been open to allow accessto the vaulted chamber which was used as a refrigerium for the bodies first of Henry IIIand then of Eleanor of Castile. It can be assumed that once the Cosmatesque pavementwas laid none of the slabs in this area were taken up again; to raise individual slabs wouldhave been difficult to do without causing damage to the slabs and their inlays.Admittedly, it cannot be proved that no other slabs have been disturbed, as the edges ofthe slabs are worn and the passage of many pilgrims to the shrine has caused damage tothe paving. But damage caused by lifting is evident in the part of the Cosmatesquepavement taken up for Bishop Courtenay’s burial in . Had slabs around the shrinealtar been raised, it is improbable that they could have been reset perfectly level; yet none
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 209
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
Fig . Cosmatesque pavement in the north-east corner of the Confessor’s Chapel,Westminster Abbey (view facing west). The inlaid patterns end some distance shortof the edges of the Purbeck marble slab, showing that the pavement never extended
further north or east. Photograph: author.
Fig . Cosmatesque pavement abutting Edward III’s tomb in the Confessor’sChapel, Westminster Abbey (view looking south). Some of the inlay is lost next tothe tomb, but faint indents of scrolls and circular motifs cut into by the tomb show
that the tomb overlies the pavement. Photograph: author.
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 210
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
Fig . Cosmatesque pavement abutting Henry III’s tomb in the Confessor’sChapel, Westminster Abbey (view looking north). The pattern of scrolls and circu-lar motifs end short of the tomb, with no devices being cut into, demonstrating that
the pavement was laid after the tomb was in place. Photograph: author.
Fig . Cosmatesque pavement abutting the shrine in the Confessor’s Chapel,Westminster Abbey (view looking east). The inlay is exceptionally well preservedhere and no part of the pattern is cut into by the edge of the altar platform, indicat-
ing that the pavement post-dates the shrine. Photograph: author.
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 211
of the slabs shows signs of settlement or tilting at the corners. The western slab cappingthe chamber thought to be the former entrance to the Confessor’s original grave, forexample, is perfectly aligned horizontally with the adjoining slabs. If this is indeed theentrance to the refrigerium – and no other possible site for such a feature was identified bythe GPR survey – this slab, with its Cosmatesque inlay, cannot have been put in placeuntil after Eleanor’s body was removed from the vault in spring , providing aterminus post quem for the Cosmatesque floor. That this vault was the refrigerium and thatit was sealed by the floor laid after explains why there is no later reference to the useof the old grave or translation site linked with the Confessor as a refrigerium, an importantfact that has puzzled at least one authority on the abbey.
Since the screen separating the high altar from the chapel was built later, it isinconceivable that there would not have been a paved floor to the chapel before the mid-s date here postulated for the Cosmatesque floor. As new burials were taking placein the shrine chapel certainly by and probably also in the s, the original floormust surely have been in place by this time. Yet there is no evidence that the RomanCosmati marblers had arrived at Westminster that early, the sanctuary pavement beingin hand or completed in . The most likely interpretation is that the shrine had plainPurbeck marble paving, most of which was later replaced by the inlaid floor.Why the Cosmatesque pavement does not extend to the east of the shrine is
problematic. Instead, this area is covered by Purbeck marble slabs, mostly in the form ofsmall square pavers. Tatton-Brown suggested that the paving at the east end dates fromc when Henry V’s chantry chapel was being built. He argued that the areas ofCosmatesque pavement in the north-east and south-east corners of the chapel must havebeen removed to enable substantial foundations to be laid for the stair-turrets to provideaccess to the chantry chapel. This argument is plausible, but the observations madeabove as to the planned termination of the pattern at the eastern ends militate againstsuch an explanation. Perhaps it was decided not to extend the inlaid pavement right tothe east end of the chapel because of the large number of burials there, as demonstratedby the evidence of grave cists provided by the GPR survey combined with thedocumentary record for child burials here; even though there is no surviving evidence ofmonuments in situ apart from the Cosmatesque cross slabs for the Valence offspring.Possibly the positioning of tombs once here and since moved could even account forwhy the south and north side pavement sections end at different levels at their east ends.Purbeck pavers of the size and shape of those in the north-east corner of the chapel areconsistent with a thirteenth-century date, although pavers of this size and shape werealso used in later medieval contexts. Many of the other slabs are fragmentary and aremore likely to be the result of later repairs to the floor, although two cut-down taperedslabs, which the GPR survey shows covering grave cists, could be the remains ofmonuments placed here to mark the burials of children in the cists beneath.Of note is an area in the north-east corner of the shrine pavement abutting Henry’s
tomb which has been broken up or repaired with plain Purbeck marble slabs. This mightmark the position of a small tomb chest placed here after the floor was laid and laterremoved. However, there are other possibilities. Tatton-Brown has argued that thestones might have been laid to define the position reserved for a tomb for Henry VI thatwas never built. A final possibility is that these inserted slabs were put here c / toprovide a base for the relic cupboard known to have been resited to the north of theshrine after the rebuilding of Henry V’s chantry necessitated its removal from the eastend of the shrine chapel. Of these alternatives, the last seems most likely.
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 212
A dating for the shrine pavement in the s would make it the last of theCosmatesque artefacts known to have been made for the abbey. It is a fine pavement,but does not have the exotic richness of the documented Cosmati products atWestminster and in Italy. The inlay is considerably sparser and it is entirely composed ofsmall tesserae, lacking the large single stones of the documented Cosmati works atWestminster. This suggests that there may be grounds for doubting whether the shrinepavement is actually the work of the Roman craftsmen. Could it not have beenproduced by Purbeck marblers or abbey craftsmen in imitation of the true Cosmatiproducts? The evidence suggests that Roman marblers were at work in the abbey fromthe late s to c , which would have given plenty of opportunity for domesticcraftsmen working at Westminster to observe their inlay techniques. The porphyries andEgyptian gabbro used for inlaying the shrine pavement, all of which are reused spoilfrom Italy, are imported, but this does not mean that the work of constructing the inlaidpavement could not have been carried out by native craftsmen.The possibility that the shrine pavement was of domestic manufacture has been
discounted on stylistic grounds by Hutton, who argued that the design bears comparisonwith Cosmati pavements in Latium – notably at Farfa. That the scrolling designs aresimilar is a valid point, but crucially the construction is not. Italian Cosmati pavementswere set in white marble rather than the dark Purbeck marble used in both pavements atWestminster. There can be no question that the sanctuary pavement is other than thework of Roman craftsmen. The technique used for this pavement, which is known tohave been made by Roman craftsmen, was the same as that used in Latium, including atFarfa. This involved setting the exotic stone inlays into a framework of the base marbleso that each Cosmatesque element was bordered by a series of relatively shortrectangular or curved pieces of the base marble. In contrast, the shrine pavement iscomposed of large rectangular slabs of Purbeck marble into which grooves were cut toreceive the tessellated inlays. This constructional factor alone must surely cast doubt onthe likelihood of this pavement being the work of the Roman marblers working alone.While it is, of course, possible that English and Roman marblers were working togetheron the shrine pavement, there is no evidence of the Romans working at Westminster aslate as the s.
CONCLUSION
Even if it is not possible to identify the graves of all the children buried in theConfessor’s Chapel in the second half of the thirteenth century with certainty, it isbeyond doubt that a significant number of burials took place here before the s andthat many who were interred here were of lesser rank than those who occupy the hightombs which encircle the Confessor’s Chapel today. The Plantagenet mausoleum atWestminster can thus no longer be regarded as essentially the creation of Edward I inthe s, but must be reaffirmed as a scheme conceived by his father several decadesearlier. In the late twelfth century, Fontevraud had been the burial place of the Angevinkings – Henry II and his son Richard I – but the loss of Anjou to the French crown in/ prevented the continuation of this tradition, although King John’s widow,Isabella, was permitted burial there in and the hearts of Henry III and Edward Iwere also interred at the abbey.
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 213
Evidence suggests that, although the first tomb to a Plantagenet king to be erected inthe Confessor’s Chapel at Westminster was that to Henry III, completed in , thedecision to establish a new royal mausoleum followed hard on the heels of the start ofHenry III’s reconstruction of the Confessor’s abbey church at Westminster in . In awrit of Henry announced his intention to be buried at Westminster, rather than hisprevious choice of the Temple church, London, a decision confirmed in his will dated. Henry’s widow, Eleanor of Provence, had also instructed as early as the sthat she should be buried at Westminster, although when she died in , Edward Idecided that she should instead be buried at Amesbury, to which she had retired in, even though it had no prior tradition of royal burial.
Moreover, before the end of Henry’s reign various family members were buried atWestminster, many of them undoubtedly in the shrine chapel. Henry and Eleanor’sbeloved daughter, Katherine, was buried somewhere in the abbey, conceivably even inthe Confessor’s Chapel, in , and her brothers Richard and John may have precededher in and , although the evidence for their burial at Westminster is lesssolidly based. In addition to the translation in of the bodies of Edward theConfessor, his wife Edith and Henry I’s first wife, Matilda, at least three of Edward I’schildren, and the heart of one of his nephews, were buried in the chapel during HenryIII’s reign, between and . Another five children were buried in the chapelduring the first dozen years of Edward I’s reign, with others probably following later,showing a continuation of the policy adopted by his father. In fact, in the second half ofthe thirteenth century, few members of the immediate royal circle were buriedelsewhere, the chief exception being the family of Henry’s brother, Richard, Earl ofCornwall (d ). Richard chose burial in his own Cistercian foundation of HailesAbbey, Gloucestershire, together with his second wife, Sanchia (d ), and his sons,Henry of Almayne (d ) and Edmund (d ). By the time Edward’s first wife,Eleanor, died in and was buried in the chapel close to the graves of her deadchildren, the Confessor’s Chapel at Westminster was already firmly established as thenew royal mausoleum.Given that Henry III appears to have decided to found a new royal mausoleum at
Westminster as early as , it is puzzling that the Cosmatesque pavement installed inthe Confessor’s Chapel is not as sumptuous as the sanctuary pavement. Although theinlay was of the same exotic stones, it gives the impression of having been constructedon a tighter budget. The date of the early to mid-s suggested here for the shrinepavement may throw some light on the reasons for installing a less prestigious andexpensive pavement than that in the sanctuary, especially when taken in conjunctionwith the withdrawal of funding from others of Edward’s building works.In the early s, Edward I’s years of success had come to an end. The men who
had been the architects of the transformation of the state over the first twenty years ofhis reign were gone and his queen had died. He was also in urgent need for funds,having faced the costs of putting down the Welsh rebellion of . In addition, he hadpersonally owed some £, to his Italian bankers. A tax of a fifteenth raised thatyear was the most successful in Edward’s reign, but the years between and
were exceptionally difficult and expensive. War with the French broke out in ; in/ there was a further Welsh rebellion; in Edward campaigned against theScots, and in he took an army to Flanders. The total cost of warfare in this periodhas been calculated as around £,. During the same period, two of Edward’sbuilding projects were abandoned. His new Cistercian abbey of Vale Royal, which he
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 214
founded in fulfilment of a vow made when shipwreck threatened, would have been, ifcompleted, the largest Cistercian church in England and was costing the Wardrobe £
s d per year in the late s, in addition to £ s d paid out of the revenues ofthe County of Chester and various other casual revenues assigned by the king. In
the king ordered all payments to be stopped; this has variously been attributed to themonks having incurred the king’s displeasure or a reaction to the death of his first queenEleanor of Castile, but the need for economy may perhaps also have been a factor.Certainly work on the building of St Stephen’s Chapel at Westminster, begun in ,was brought to a premature close in due to financial stringency, and was notresumed until the s. There is thus a case to be made that Edward’s great buildingschemes were running out of steam under the pressure of the demands of his warfinance. Could the installation of a relatively cheap inlaid pavement in the Confessor’sChapel also have been due to economic factors?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a great debt of gratitude to Warwick Rodwell for providing me with a copy of theunpublished GPR survey report and for stimulating discussions regarding itsinterpretation and the likely dating of the shrine pavement. I am also grateful to JeromeBertram, John Blair and Phillip Lindley for invaluable help and advice, and to Erica Utsifor permission to reproduce images from the GPR survey. Thanks are also due to theCouncil for British Archaeology for a generous grant towards the publication of thispaper.
NOTES
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
. Some other tombs not commemoratingkings or their consorts were, however, tointrude later. Nestling under these hightombs are two small tomb chests in whichare buried Princess Elizabeth, daughter ofHenry VII (d ), and Margaret of York,daughter of Edward IV (d ), althoughthe latter is not in its original position in thechapel. Furthermore, the Cosmatesquefloor which paves the chapel to the north,west and south of the shrine is broken intoby two Purbeck slabs which held late th-century brasses. In the north-west corner isthe partly surviving brass to John Waltham(d ), and in the south-east corner theindent of the lost brass to Richard II’suncle, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke ofGloucester (d ).
. Utsi Electronics Ltd .. RCHME , . This contains manysmall errors; for example, positioning JohnWaltham’s brass insufficiently far northand misrepresenting the shape of some ofthe Purbeck marble slabs at the east end of
the shrine. It also fails to show the edges ofall the Purbeck slabs comprising the inlaidpavement. A photogrammetric survey isneeded to relate the radar results to adetailed floor plan, but the funding for thisis unlikely to be forthcoming in the imme-diate future: Warwick Rodwell, perscomm.
. The plan was first published in Tatton-Brown , , fig .
. Allen Brown et al , –; Binski.
. Barlow , –. It is likely that theshrine was raised on a pedestal but notenough is known of the east end of the oldchurch to say whether the shrine waslodged immediately behind the high altarin the apse or whether an eastern extensionwas built to accommodate it: Binski ,–.
. Binski , , fig .. Bloch , . For Edward theConfessor’s original tomb, see Barlow, – and –. Barlow states that
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 215
the sarcophagus was sunk into the pave-ment and within a short time could not beidentified with certainty, but his evidencefor the last point is questionable.
. Anderson () attributes them to AbbotsCrispin (abbot –/), Gervase(–) and Lawrence (–).
. Barlow , –.. I am grateful to John Blair for advice on the
evidence for the form of the Confessor’soriginal grave.
. Binski , .. Warwick Rodwell, pers comm, May
.. Allen Brown et al , –.. Harvey , n and n . Duffy
(, ) provides a plan showing themimmediately flanking the shrine, but theGPR shows that there were no grave cistsin these positions.
. There are several versions of the lists oftombs in Westminster Abbey, not all iden-tical: WAM (an incomplete list; thebottom part has been torn off and lost);BL, Harleian , fols –; BL, Add, fols v–r; BL, Egerton ,fols –v; CoA, MS A , fol v of thefirst part of the book and fols – of thesecond book; and CoA, MS F , fols –v.All were written in the th century andprobably derive from a lost original datedfrom internal evidence to between and . A detailed account of thesesources and a summary list is provided inHarvey , Appendix II, –.
argues persuasively that the ‘jasper stones’in question (purple and green porphyriesand other marbles) were acquired throughCharles d’Anjou, who had close contactswith Rome.
. Allen Brown et al , .. Luard (, –) says that Eleanor in
sepulchro Henrici regis est humatum (‘isburied in King Henry’s tomb’).
. Allen Brown et al , ; Lindley ,–.
. Scott , . The discovery was made byhis assistant, J T Irvine.
. Lethaby , .. These two are normally referred to as chil-
dren, but there is no evidence that theydied especially young and they could wellhave been adolescents: Oosterwijk ,
–. Of William’s name only ‘LAME’remains inlaid in brass; the letters ‘WIL’are worn indents but can still be read,although the form of Lombardic W withtwo V’s set one inside the other has onoccasion been confused with a V.
. Cokayne –, , n.. Luard , .. Ibid, , n . In fact the white stones used
for the pavements are not true marble fromthe northern Aegean island of Thasos, butcreamy white magnesian limestone, prob-ably from the quarries of south Yorkshire:Warwick Rodwell, pers comm. Based onpetrological analysis by Dr Eric Robinson.
. Tatton-Brown , ; Gent’s Mag, ,/, .
. Tatton-Brown , – and .. Camden , –; Palliser , .. Parsons . Just how early confusion
arose about the offspring of Edward I isillustrated by the Chaworth Roll. Part of it,dating from the early s, names only of Edward’s children:
Fet a saver que des enfaunz le bonroy Edward par desus purtrez,Johan de Wyndesore, sun primerfiz, morust tost et Henri deWyndesore auxi. Elianore fut con-tesse de Bare. Margarete futduchesse de Breibaunt. Johane deAcre fut countesse de Gloucestre.Elianore [sic; Elizabeth] fut con-tesse de Heplaunde [Holland] epus fut espose al counte de Herforde de Esex. Marie fut noneyne aAumbersbirri. Anfouns de Bayonemorust a Wyndesore. Edwardregna apres son pere. Thomas futcounte de Sufolk e de Northfolke emareschal d’Engletere. Edmund deWodestoke fut counte de Kent.
The roll then shows a series of arches, thefirst empty, the next with named imagesof children (Eleanor, Margaret, John,Henry, Joan of Acre, Eleanor, Mary theNun, Alfonso, Edward, Thomas andEdmund) and a last unnamed female figure.This does, however, appear to confirm thatEdward had children by Eleanor and byMargaret: Bovey , .
. Cal Lib –, –.. Close –, –.. Stapelton , .. Lethaby , ; TNA, PRO Issue Roll
Edward I, m , C /. In the following
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 216
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY
year, Master Robert was in charge ofrepairing the marble tomb: TNA, PROIssue Roll Edward I, C /. Tanner(, ) suggests this means that thetomb had been opened and John’s youngerbrother, Henry, who died in , wasinterred with his brother. If he did lie theretemporarily, rather than occupying one ofthe grave cists, he subsequently received apermanent tomb of his own.
. TNA, PRO E // ().. Luard , .. Sandford (, ) says Alfonso was
buried ‘on the South-Side of the shrine ofthe aforenamed Confessor St Edwardamong his brothers and sisters that lie thereinterred’. No prior documentary evidencefor this can be traced, although it may besignificant that this wording, apart from thereference to the south side, is a paraphraseof the second Westminster chronicler’sdescription quoted in Luard , n .
. Lethaby , ; Lethaby , ;Binski , ; Binski , –.
. It would be seriously incompetent for thechronicler to have written that Alfonso wasburied inter his brothers and sisters, andinter the stones, if he had meant quite dif-ferent things by the same word in the twoparts of the sentence.
. For the sanctuary pavement, see Foster.
. Carpenter , ; Carpenter , .. Tatton-Brown ; , .. Binski , . Other accounts of the
lost inscription date it to ; see AllenBrown et al , –, n .
. Discussion with Warwick Rodwell whileinspecting the shrine chapel fabric in rela-tion to the GPR survey findings on Jan and Mar .
. Durnan , –.. I am grateful to Warwick Rodwell for
pointing out that the pattern on the pave-ment does not continue under Henry III’stomb plinth, confirming the interpretationin Lethaby , . Tatton-Brown(, ) argues, however, that the tombseems to lie on top of the floor.
. Binski , .. Tatton-Brown , .. Could this paving be the work carried out
in the s as recorded by the payment byQueen Eleanor’s executors for shillingsto William le Pavour, pro pavimento faciendoin Ecclesia West (Scott , )?
. Tatton-Brown , .. Hutton , and fig .. Palliser , .. Eleanor’s heart, however, was buried in the
London Greyfriars where her daughter,Eleanor, Duchess of Brittany had beenburied in and the heart of her son,Alfonso, was interred in : Allen Brownet al , . Queen Margaret, EdwardI’s second wife, followed their example,being buried there in . Other royalladies who chose burial with theFranciscans were Queen Isabella (d ),Joan (d ), daughter of Edward II andwife of King David II of Scotland, and thecountess of Bedford (d ), one of thedaughters of Edward III: Allen Brown et al, .
. Binski , . Cornwall’s first wife,Isabella Marshall (d ), was buried atBeaulieu, Hampshire.
. Prestwich , and .. Ibid, .. Allen Brown et al , –.. Ibid, – and –.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations
BL British LibraryCoA College of ArmsTNA The National ArchivesPRO Public Records OfficeRCHME Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of EnglandWAM Westminster Abbey Muniments
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 217
Primary sources
BL, Additional
BL, Egerton
BL, Harleian
CoA, MS A
CoA, MS F
TNA, PRO Issue Roll , Edward I, m , C /
TNA, PRO Issue Roll , Edward I, C /
TNA, PRO E // ()WAM,
Secondary sources
THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL
Allen Brown, R, Colvin, H M and Taylor, A J. The History of the King’s Works: theMiddle Ages, I, London
Anderson, F . ‘Three Westminster abbots:a problem of identity’, Church Monuments,, –
Barlow, F . Edward the Confessor, nd edn,London
Binski, P . Westminster Abbey and thePlantagenets, New Haven and London
Binski, P . ‘The Cosmati and romanitas inEngland: an overview’, in Grant andMortimer (eds) , –
Bloch, M (ed) . ‘La vie de S Edouard leConfesseur par Osbert de Clare’ AnalectaBollandiana, , –
Bovey, A . The Chaworth Roll, LondonCal Lib –. Calendar of the Liberate Rolls
Preserved in the Public Record Office. Vol :–, London
Camden, W . Reges, reginae, nobiles, et alijin Ecclesia Collegiata B. Petri WestmonasterijSepulti: Vsque ad annum reparatae salutis, London
Carpenter, D A . The Reign of Henry III,London
Carpenter, D A . ‘Westminster Abbey andthe Cosmati pavements in politics –’,in Grant and Mortimer (eds) , –
Close –. Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry IIIpreserved in the Public Record Office. A.D.–, London
Cokayne, G E –. The Complete Peerage(new edn, revised V Gibbs, H ADoubleday, D Warrand, Lord Howard deWalden, G H White and R S Lea), vols(with vol divided into two parts), London
Duffy, M . Royal Tombs of MedievalEngland, Stroud
Durnan, N . ‘The condition and conserva-tion of the Cosmati pavements at
Westminster Abbey’, in Grant andMortimer (eds) , –
Foster, R . Patterns of Thought: the hiddenmeaning of the great pavement of WestminsterAbbey, London
Grant, L and Mortimer, R (eds) .Westminster Abbey: the Cosmati pavements,Aldershot
Hallam, E . ‘The Eleanor Crosses androyal burial customs’, in Parsons (ed) ,–
Harvey, B . Westminster Abbey and itsEstates in the Middle Ages, Oxford
Hutton, E . The Cosmati: the Roman marbleworkers of the XIIth and XIIIth centuries,London
Lethaby, W R . Westminster Abbey and theKing’s Craftsmen, London
Lethaby, W R . Westminster Abbey Re-Examined, London
Lindley, P . ‘Romanticizing reality: thesculptural memorials of Queen Eleanorand their context’, in Parsons (ed) ,–
Luard, H R (ed) . ‘Annales de Dunstaplia’,in Annales Monastici, III, Rolls Ser ,London
Luard, H R (ed) . Flores Historiarum, III,Rolls Ser , London
Oosterwijk, S . ‘“A swithe feire graue”: theappearance of children on medieval tombmonuments’, in Family and Dynasty in LateMedieval England (eds R Eeles and A Tyas),Harlaxton Medieval Studies IX, –,Donington
Palliser, DM . ‘Royal mausolea in the longfourteenth century (–)’, inFourteenth-Century England III (ed W MOrmrod), –, Woodbridge
Parsons, D (ed) . Eleanor of Castile–, Stamford
AJ - 07 Badham:197-219 9/10/07 16:40 Page 218
Parsons, J C . ‘The year of Eleanor ofCastile’s birth and her children by EdwardI’,Medieval Stud, , –
Prestwich, M . Plantagenet England–, New Oxford History of England,Oxford
RCHME . An Inventory of the HistoricalMonuments in London. Vol I: WestminsterAbbey, London
Riley, H T (ed) . Chronica Monasterii SAlbani. Willelmi Rishanger, quondam monachiS Albani, et quorundam anonymorum,Chronica et annales, regnantibus HenricoTertio et Edwardo Primo, Rolls Ser ,London
Sandford, F . A Genealogical History of theKings and Queens of England, and Monarchsof Great Britain from the Conquest, anno ,to the year , London
Scott, Sir G G . Gleanings from WestminsterAbbey, nd edn, Oxford and London
Stapelton, T (ed) . Cronica Maiorum etVicecomitum Londoniarum, Camden Society,old ser, , London
Tanner, J D . ‘Tombs of royal babies inWestminster Abbey’, J Brit Archaeol Ass,rd ser, , –
Tatton-Brown, T . ‘The two great marblepavements in the sanctuary and shrine areasof Canterbury Cathedral and WestminsterAbbey’, in Historic Floors: their history andconservation (ed J Fawcett), –, Oxford
Tatton-Brown, T . ‘The pavement in thechapel of St Edward the Confessor,Westminster Abbey’, J Brit Archaeol Ass,, –
Utsi Electronics Ltd . ‘Ground penetratingradar survey of the high altar steps and theShrine of St Edward the Confessor forWestminster Abbey’, unpublished report,Westminster Abbey Library
