Reading Castle

The Mystery Of Reading Castle

Reading certainly once had at least one castle, possibly more. Where it was and what exact form of castle it was is something that we will explore here.

The obvious location, from the place name, would be Castle Hill, somewhere near where Berkshire Record Office is now. This would overlook the west side of Reading, the road towards Newbury and Castle Street leading up towards it, but as we will see the mystery is more complex than that.

The fascination of historians with the location of Reading Castle goes back to the Tudor historian and antiquarian John Leland. In his itinerary he visited most of the major towns of England and Wales and noted their historic features and also talked to local people about the town’s history. When he came to Reading around 1540 he was presented with a problem:

“There was a castelle in the Saxons Tyme in this town and the name of castelle streat yet remaynithe lying from east to west to pass to Newbyri. But I could not perceive or clerlie learne wher it stood. But by all lykelhood at the west ende of Castelle streat, and as sum think about the place of execution.”

Later when talking of Reading Abbey he says of the castle: “It is very likely that a peace of the abbey was builded of the ruins of it; peradventure it stood where the abbey was.”

So we see Leland himself offers two possible locations for the castle. Most importantly even at this early date the people of Reading themselves do not know where the castle was exactly, and cannot point out any ruins or even a mound where it could be.

The Danes and The Battle of Reading

Leland was sure that there was a castle in Reading because one of the earliest references to Reading in history is the battle of Reading in 871. This was during the great Danish wars when Viking invaders effectively were attempting to conquer English kingdoms. The great kingdom of Wessex stood against them and Reading was within it. The Danes had seized Reading and erected fortifications between the Kennet and the Thames. In the battle of Reading King Ethelyrd I of Wessex and his more famous brother, Alfred the Great, (later to become king) were defeated, attempting to follow up an earlier victory. The Danes used their fortified base in Reading to fight them off. From the description of the battle it seems that the Danes had hurriedly built an earthwork and ditch rather than any more extensive fortifications. This earthwork, it appears, was to the east of the town so it cannot be the one near Castle Hill. However there have been suggestions it may have passed near the Forbury, possibly including the Forbury mound, and the old Plummery ditch which used to cross Kings meadows was part of it. There is, however, no evidence to show this for certain.

The earliest survey of Reading in the Domesday Book in 1086, though noting the town as one of only two boroughs in Berkshire, makes no mention of a castle there.

Reading Abbey and the Civil Wars of Stephen and Matilda

The foundation of Reading Abbey in 1121 by King Henry I is the next major development in Reading’s history. The Abbey was built to immortalize both Henry himself and his lost heir, Prince William, who died in the sinking of the White Ship, and was gifted with lands and wealth that made it one of the most powerful abbeys in England. The history of the abbey is too complex a subject to go into here but you can find out more about Reading Abbey on the Reading Museum website here: Reading Abbey

The important thing is that after Henry’s death in 1135, the country faced a dispute between Henry’s chosen heir to the Crown, the Empress Maud, (his daughter), and her cousin, Stephen of Blois, who was backed by many barons simply because he was a man. It was Stephen who in the short term won as he was quickly crowned king and presided over the state burial of Henry at Reading Abbey in 1136.

Civil war between the two sides broke out in 1139 with Matilda’s return to England. At first it seems Reading and its abbey attempted to remain neutral. In 1140 when Stephen was passing through he was given a good reception, a year later Matilda received an equally good welcome. From the beginning of the war the Thames Valley was in the middle of the conflict and Queen Matilda made a daring winter escape in 1142 from Oxford Castle which was under siege across the Thames into Berkshire to her castle at Wallingford, held for her by one of her staunchest supporters, Brian FitzCount. Matilda’s main support came from the West Country; Wallingford Castle was her furthest base east, and her forces were a persistent threat from it. Thus King Stephen put it under siege three times during the civil wars. It seems that the castle that was constructed by King Stephen in Reading was built some time around 1150 as one of a series of castles built to cut off any relief from Wallingford. Significantly it is clear that the castle was built inside the Abbey’s land, on the east side of the town, much to the horror of the Abbot and the monks. The Abbey was still being the built at this time the enormous Abbey Church not being completed till 1164. This infringement of Church property was a dangerous move prompting an edict from Pope Eugenius III (pontificate 1145-53):

Rubric:Item carta eiusdem de non faciendo castrum apud Radingiam.
Mandate by Pope Eugenius III to Theobold, Archbishop of Canterbury, and his suffragans in whose dioceses the possessions of Reading Abbey are situated that, since the abbey, endowed with royal liberty (regia libertas), is under papal protection and the pope prohibits the construction of any fortification or castle in the Abbey’s lands against its will, they are to prohibit the people of their dioceses from any such intrusion. (Reading Abbey cartularies, I, no 144)

Stephen’s position with the church had been getting worse during his reign as Eugenius was less favourable to Stephen’s cause than the previous pope. In 1152 the Church refused to recognise Eustace, Stephen’s eldest son, as heir to the throne and Stephen briefly imprisoned all the bishops concerned in this, and confiscated their land. It is possible that the Pope’s order concerning Reading Abbey may have played a part in this resistance.

The castle at Reading was short-lived according to the chronicle of Robert of Torigny:

“Stephen having raised the siege of Wallingford, destroyed Crowmarsh. For in the preceding year, the followers of Duke Henry, who resided at Wallingford, had not only destroyed the camp at Britwell, which had long infested their quarters, but also the castle which King Stephen, against all that was right and just, had erected near the Abbey of Reading.”

So it seems that Stephen’s castle was destroyed sometime in 1152 or 1153. What kind of castle it was and how substantial the building was remains unknown. During the civil wars castles were vital; there were few pitched battles and most action consisted of sieges and counter sieges and raids from castles into enemy territory. By this time stonework was becoming obligatory for longstanding castles in England as improvements in siege equipment meant wooden walls were easily overthrown. However motte and bailey castles which used wooden fortifications and earthworks were still being used in the wars where rapid construction was necessary, especially as part of siege works.

One example of the type of Royal castle that could be rapidly constructed during the wars is Burwell Castle in Cambridgeshire, built by Stephen rapidly in 1143 as an extra base against Geoffrey de Mandeville, the Earl of Essex who suddenly revolted against him. As the castle was unfinished and has been examined by archaeologists it provides a good example of the process of castle building in this period. It was of rectangular form, with a wide thirty-foot moat and a square-towered stone gateway and the beginnings of a stone curtain wall. It was built on a hilly area with a nearby stream intended to fill the moat. It shows that rapid building of stone castles was possible at the time, while close to enemy territory. It remained unfinished because Geoffrey was slain while preparing to attack it, so the revolt in the region collapsed and it was no longer needed. It is interesting to note that, like Reading, it was built on church land, this time belonging to Ramsey Abbey. Ramsey Abbey itself a little earlier had been occupied and fortified by Geoffrey, an act condemned as great impiety and which resulted in a miraculous rain of blood pouring down the walls.

So the castle at Reading could have utilised stone, wood and earth, though it seems likely considering it was not longstanding and the relative ease with which Henry's men destroyed it that it was made of wood and earth. It is often claimed that the Forbury mound is the motte on which the castle would have stood, but there is no definite evidence to support this. However it was standard practice to use existing high ground for the building of castles so the mound or any earthworks left by the Danish wars may have been incorporated into defences. It is also possible, though there is no evidence of this, that Stephen may have requisitioned timber and stone intended for building the abbey. Certainly the general location in the Forbury was appropriate - guarding the entrance to the abbey, close to the town and also guarding the crossings over the Thames and Kennet into Reading. What Stephen's castle seems to rule out though is the existence of another castle in the west of the town prior to this date. It would have made no sense for Stephen to alienate the church and duplicate fortifications if he could have merely expanded an existing site near Castle Hill.

Soon after the destruction of Reading Castle the civil wars drew to a close with the Truce of Wallingford being agreed in August 1153 at the castle which had seen so much fighting. A later agreement made in November 1153 at Winchester made Matilda’s son, Duke Henry of Normandy, Stephen’s heir. The sudden death of Stephen’s son Eustace in mid August 1153 following the truce at Wallingford was seen as a judgement of God against King Stephen and it probably played a part in Stephen’s decision to agree to peace. A year later in 1154 on Stephen’s death Henry was crowned as King Henry II. He was a frequent benefactor and visitor to Reading Abbey. It is also possible that the Empress Matilda had some of her entrails buried in Reading Abbey to be near her father.

Later Speculations as to the location of the Castle

As we have seen by 1540 there was no sign of any castle in Reading except the street name. Castle Street itself is mentioned in medieval records of the town but there is no mention of an actual castle. This has meant later historians have been left with a mystery to resolve.

It has been suggested that the Castle was located on Castle Street and was where St Mary’s Church now stands, which was the location of the old county Gaol. Daniel and Samuel Lysons in their Magna Britannia published in 1806 state: “There can be little doubt, but that the old county gaol, in Castle Street, occupied the site of the castle; and the lancet windows and round arches, discovered upon pulling down the building in 1798 were part of the original structure.”

Certainly there were medieval buildings on the spot and a medieval arch can be still seen in the rear of the ancient Sun Inn alongside St Mary’s. However it seems there was a Franciscan house on Castle Street, presumably an offshoot of the larger establishment of what were termed Grey Friars on Friar Street. As these old parts of the gaol were used as a chapel it seems more likely that this medieval stonework is part of a friary rather than a castle.

Other early historians of Reading also speculated about the castle. The first substantial historian of Reading was the Reverend Charles Coates, who in his 1802 book, The History and Antiquities of Reading, repeated Leland's assertion that a castle had existed from Saxon times and was connected to the wars with the Danes. He thought it might lie to the west end of Castle Street: "a supposition which is strengthened by the commanding situation of that part of town." Coates also mentions that "some foundations of brick were discovered here formerly, which were thought to have been part of the ruins of the castle." Unfortunately he does not tell us where these foundations near Castle Street were discovered. He also mentions the theory that the castle may have been in the old gaol on Castle Street. Coates also mentions the seventh century Civil War fortifications in the area of Castle Hill but dismisses them as evidence of an earlier building.

John Man in his 1816 book, The History and Antiquities of the Borough of Reading made a careful examination of all the available evidence. He decided that there was no castle on the west side of the town near Castle Hill because Leland had found no remains of the building there. Instead he suggested that the names Castle Street and Hill might have derived from something else, perhaps a Castle Inn. With the clear evidence of a twelfth century castle near the abbey from documentary sources it was there he turned to look for it as the following extract shows:

"To this place, therefore, we should turn our attention, if we wish to discover the precise spot on which this castle stood, which can only be done, by tracing out its vestiges, if any such still remain. To do this, I have examined with attention, every part of these noble ruins, their uses and connections with the principal building; and after weighing every circumstance, am induced to believe, that the remains of this celebrated castle are still in existence, and that it was erected on the south-east corner of the Forbury, near Blake's-bridge within the precincts of the abbey, but at a distance from, and consequently forming no part of the original building. These ruins are very much dilapidated, but they evidently appear to have been intended for a place of defence.

"From the ruinous state of this structure, it is difficult to trace its original form, but I conjecture it to have been a square building, with projecting towers at the four corners. The side next the river, the only one now remaining, was about 60 feet in length, and had square tower at each end, projecting a small distance before the front wall. That at the south-east corner has been lately removed, for the purpose of mending the foot-way on the bank of the river, but the other has two of its sides almost perfect. The slope of the hill has been scarped away from the water's edge, to the height of about twenty feet; this is faced with a strong perpendicular wall of flints, on which this tower is erected, and is about fifty feet high, from the level of the water, to its summit; the top seems to have been finished with battlements, but these are so covered with ivy, that it is impossible to discover with, certainty, whether they are really such, or rather the remains of the broken wall. In the side walls still remaining, are loop holes, some of which front the river, the others command the space between the towers, in front of the building. These towers were admirably well situated, to command the river and the bridge, which was the only entrance on that side of the town to the abbey. The loop-holes had a double purpose, that of giving light to the interior of the building and for the emission of arrows, and other missile weapons; as a proof of which, they are carried through the wall in an inclined plane, whereas, had they been intended to convey light only, they would have been horizontal; in which case, the garrison would not have been able to have molested, or even seen the besiegers below, the walls being at least three feet thick.

"Sir Henry Englefield has not noticed this building in his plan of the abbey, as from its distance it evidently could not have formed any part of that structure; besides, from the materials with which these buildings were erected there can be no doubt of their having been the work of different ages; for though both are cased with flints, the inside walls of the abbey are chiefly composed of the ruins of a former building, while those of the supposed castle are wholly filled with chalk, without any materials of a different nature. For these reasons, I am inclined to think that these ruins formed a part of the castle built by Stephen, and were partially destroyed in the reign of Henry II.

"In questions that involve in themselves much difficulty, we can only decide from circumstances; and, as in the present instance, we have all that can be required to form our judgment upon, independent of positive facts, I hope the conclusion I have drawn, from the above premises, will not be considered extravagant, nor the investigation of the question wholly useless, as it tends to elucidate a part of our history hitherto involved in doubt and obscurity." (Man, History, pages 176-7)

This set of ruins seems to be located in what was inside the Abbey gardens to the east of the Abbey main complex. The plate from Man’s work below shows their appearance at the time he was writing. They are in the area which was built on to construct a new county gaol in 1793, probably the building seen to the left in the picture, and then completely destroyed in 1844 when the new and far larger Victorian Prison, which housed Oscar Wilde and still stands today, was constructed. They seem to have run along the water side which is now Chestnut Walk. What are these ruins? Possibly they were part of the Abbey’s external defensive wall, but they certainly no longer exist; whether they were anything to do with Stephen’s castle is difficult to say.

Modern historians of Reading mostly follow the lines laid out by earlier authors and in Adam Sowan's book Abattoirs to Zinzan there is a compilation of all the different speculations concerning the castle in the town, including the possibility that it might have been in Prospect Park or on Caversham Heights but there is no firm new evidence.

Conclusions

There was at least one castle in Reading located in the grounds of the Abbey, possibly based on the Forbury Mound though, as we have seen, John Man’s evidence may indicate it was just to the east of the Abbey. It is important to remember that the mound definitely featured in the Civil War earthworks built to protect Reading prior to the siege of Reading in April 1643. So the current layout and size of the mound may be a result of that. 

Was there another castle to the west of the town near or on Castle Hill?

The simple answer is we do not know. No documentary evidence points to its existence nor has any archaeological evidence indicated that there was one for sure there, and there was no sign of it at the time of Leland’s visit around 1540. Yet it is possible that a wooden watchtower or small fortified building may have been in the area and any trace of it has disappeared long ago under the many buildings in the area. Another interesting element is the brick foundations noted by the Rev Coates, but we have no idea exactly where they were found. On the other hand in the absence of any definite evidence we should note in the nearby town of Maidenhead, the Castle Hill there is named after the Windsor Castle pub on the top. In Reading itself the Battle area of town is named, not after a local battle, but after Battle Abbey in Sussex, who once owned the land there. So it could be as John Man first suggested, the area is named after something or someone else.

Bibliography

Jim Bradbury, Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-53 (Sutton, 1996)
Charles Coates, The History and Antiquities of Reading (1802)
John Man, The History and Antiquities of the Borough of Reading (1816)
Adam Sowan, Abattoirs to Zinzan: Reading streets and their names (Two Rivers, 2004)