Whose Body? Monuments Displaced from St Edward the Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey

135JBAA, vol. 160 (2007), 135–152© British Archaeological Association 2007 DOI: 10.1179/174767007x219946

Whose body? Monuments Displaced from

St Edward the Confessor’s Chapel,

Westminster Abbey

SALLY BADHAM

Documentary evidence reveals that, when in 1395 the Purbeck marble tomb with gilt cast copper-alloy effi gies commemorating Richard II and his queen, Anne of Bohemia, was installed in St Edward the Confessor’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, another tomb was moved to make room for it. It has commonly been supposed that the displaced tomb was the Cosmatesque tomb chest now in the south ambulatory, which has commonly been believed to house the bones of Katherine, daughter of Henry III, and up to eight other royal infants and older children of Henry III and Edward I. Examination of the evidence indicates that neither part of this view is correct. Three other tombs may have been moved from the Confessor’s chapel; of these, the high-status monument to William de Valence is the most likely candidate for the tomb displaced in 1395.

ON 1 April 1395 contracts were agreed with the masons Henry Yevele and Stephen Lote for a magnifi cent Purbeck marble tomb with gilt cast copper-alloy effi gies commemorating Richard II and his newly-dead queen, Anne of Bohemia. The location chosen by Richard was in the south-west part of the chapel dedicated to St Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey, the only position on the periphery of the chapel not already occupied by a tomb to a king or queen of England. Yet the space itself was not unoccupied. An entry in the issue roll dated 15 December 1395 records:

Domino Petro sacristo Westm’ Abb’. In denario eidem pro pictura coopertura supra tumbam Anne nuper regine infra dictam ecclesiam humata existent’ quam pro removacione unius tumbe prope tumbam euisdem regine ac etiam pro pictura euisdem tumbe . . . £20.1

[To Sir Peter, sacristan of Westminster Abbey. In cash to the same, for the painting of the cover-ing [tester] which exists over the tomb of Anne, late Queen who was buried in the said church, also for the moving of one tomb near the tomb of the same Queen, and also for painting the same tomb which was moved . . . £20.00.]

From this, it is clear that a tomb was moved to make room for the new royal tomb, but whose tomb was it? Many authorities assume that the displaced tomb was the Cosmatesque chest in the south ambulatory, traditionally believed to house the bones of Katherine, daughter of Henry III, and up to eight other royal infants and older children of Henry III and Edward I. Yet this interpretation is not universally accepted, nor do all agree that the chest was actually a tomb.

160-JBA05Badham.indd 135160-JBA05Badham.indd 135 7/2/2007 6:33:39 PM7/2/2007 6:33:39 PM

136

sally badham

the function of the cosmatesque chest

THE Cosmatesque chest is now positioned in the wall linking the chapels of St Edmund and St Benedict in a recess under a plain arch probably dating from the 13th century, which is itself under a higher 13th-century trefoiled arch (Fig. 1). All authorities agree that this cannot have been its original position. The chest has been damaged in the course of its placement here, as has the recess. O’Neilly and Tanner have made a case for this not being a tomb, arguing that it was instead the shrine altar.2 The dimensions are right for it to fi t as an altar to the shrine, assuming that it was placed on a lost step, but there are several objections to this theory. First, the top slab of the Cosmatesque chest has no consecration crosses. Secondly, the top slab is heavily inlaid with Cosmatesque work (Fig. 2). It has, therefore, to be questioned whether it conforms to Canon law which requires the mensa to be intact, as its con-struction from multiple pieces would make it a symbol of the Church divided by error and schism.3 Admittedly, it might be countered that the top would conform to the requirements of Canon law as it is merely inlaid rather than being composed of more than one stone slab. Surviving Cosmatesque altars in Italy, however, have inlays on just the frontal and sides, but not on the altar slab itself.4 Moreover, although German museums contain many portable altars, which are often enclosed in brass and enam-el work, the fact that only part of the main stone is visible on the upper surface is not the same as the surface of the slab being broken up by decoration.5 The extent to which these requirements for altars to be intact and have consecration crosses were strictly adhered to in the 13th century may perhaps be doubted, particularly as datable medieval examples appear to be rarities. Moreover, although altars are not infre-quently illustrated in illuminated manuscripts, which are more easily datable, they are normally shown fully draped so that the construction of the mensa itself cannot be determined.6 One objection to both these arguments against the Cosmatesque artefact being an altar is that a medieval altar in the Pyx chapel in Westminster Abbey is formed of several stones and has no consecration crosses, but this is atypical.7 Finally and decisively, however, the rear of the Cosmatesque chest is not constructed in a manner appropriate for an altar. In 1938 a stone was removed from above it so that a mirror could be inserted to observe the back of the chest; as a result, the important discovery was made that it too was inlaid with Cosmatesque work.8 The part of the shrine against which the medieval altar would have stood is blank, and surely the back of the altar would have been blank also since it would not have been seen. This is a compelling argument for the item in question originally being free-standing and therefore a tomb.

traditions regarding the occupants of the cosmatesque tomb

IT is evident that the pair of embedded tomb recesses which now house the Cosma-tesque tomb-chest are unrelated to the tomb as this was not its original location. The recesses themselves were once adorned by paintings. Virtually no trace of them now remains; hence our knowledge of them depends on antiquarian sources. These paint-ings appear to have been very unclear by the 17th century, but it is generally agreed that under the trefoiled arch was a painting of a church in perspective on an heraldic pavement of leopards and fl eurs-de-lis, and that the painting on the inner recess showed four kneeling fi gures. Opinions differ as to the sex and costume of these


137

Whose Body?

Fig. 2. Westminster Abbey: top of Cosmatesque tomb-chest inserted under arch in south ambulatory

© Dean and Chapter of Westminster

Fig. 1. Westminster Abbey: Cosmatesque tomb-chest inserted under arch in south ambulatory



138

sally badham

fi gures, although one account suggests that two of the fi gures were saints.9 The paint-ings almost certainly date from before the tomb was moved here, so any interpretation of these paintings is most likely an irrelevance in a quest for the identity of the origi-nal occupant of the tomb, although, as explained below, the painting on the inner recess in particular has been used as evidence by early historians of the abbey.

Given the size of the chest (165 cm long, 76 cm wide and 73.5 cm high, although internally only about 60 cm deep), the tradition that it houses up to nine royal infants and older children appears inherently implausible unless, perhaps in addition to the original occupant, the bones of other children were moved here when their tombs were destroyed. The evidence for the burial in this tomb-chest of the children of either Henry III or Edward I is, moreover, highly questionable; the accounts of the abbey’s early historians such as Camden, Dart and Strype are very confused and, in places, contradictory.10 The uncertainty seems to have arisen as a result of an attempt to reconcile two confl icting traditions in the early accounts. The starting point is the burial traditions of Westminster Abbey, which have rightly been described as ‘com-plex, confl icting and extremely diffi cult to disentangle’.11 The earliest abbey traditions associating the burial of children with the area where the Cosmatesque tomb is now located pre-date the Reformation, all having been copied in the 16th century from a lost late-15th-century original and thus possibly subject to errors of transcription.12 The manuscript notes of John Stow and one of the lists of abbey burials say that nine children were buried in the chapel dedicated to Sts Edmund and Thomas.13 The Cosmatesque tomb is, however, outside this chapel. A variation on this account is given in an anonymous treatise on royal progeny dated 1595, which states that the bones of Henry III’s children Richard, John and Katherine are said to lie on the south side of the choir under the pavement ‘in the space of the passage lying between the chapels of King Edward the Confessor and St Benet’.14 Again, this does not pro-vide evidence that the Cosmatesque tomb held the bones of these children; indeed, it militates against such an explanation.

The earliest clear association in print of the burial of Edward I’s progeny with the Cosmatesque tomb appears to have been Speed’s account of 1611, which states that four children of Edward I were buried there.15 However, it is almost certain that he was copying his information from another passage in the 1595 treatise. This states, regarding John of Windsor, that he was ‘buried at Westminster by the wall between St Edmund’s and St Bennet’s chapels. There is remaining over him a tomb of marble inlayd with his picture and name in an arch over it’. The treatise gives the same account of the resting places of Henry, Alfonso and Eleanor.16 This source is alone in stating that the names of those commemorated were given in the mural on the back wall of the recess, but not so in using the painting of the four fi gures as evidence as to who was buried here. Yet there are objections to the inclusion of at least one of the children listed. Eleanor’s burial place of Beaulieu Abbey is documented by the payment of her burial expenses by her half-brother, Edward II.17 Moreover, her inlaid Purbeck marble slab survives there.18 Even if the bones of John, Henry and Alfonso had been moved here from their original tombs in the Confessor’s chapel, her body undoubtedly lay elsewhere. Thus, the myth about a large number of royal children having been buried in the Cosmatesque tomb may have arisen from, or have been reinforced by, a misinterpretation of the wall painting in the inner recess; although, as explained above, since the tomb is not in its original position, the painting is of very doubtful validity as evidence as to the occupants of the tomb. In order to attempt


139

Whose Body?

to solve this problem, we must turn to the contemporary evidence regarding the burial off the children of Henry III and Edward I.

contemporary evidence for the burial places of henry iii’s offspring

THE use of the word ‘bones’ rather than ‘bodies’ in the 1595 treatise on royal pro geny and in Speed’s account suggests that what may have been meant was that the remains of three of Henry III’s infant children — Richard, John and Katherine, — were trans-lated to the south ambulatory rather than necessarily being originally buried here. Yet, could any of them, or indeed others of Henry III’s offspring who died young, have been the original occupant of the Cosmatesque tomb?

The traditional list of nine children that Henry had by Eleanor of Provence is open to doubt, but has been thoroughly examined by Howell.19 The Chetham manuscript of the Flores Historiarum includes manuscript additions made after it came to West-minster which record four burials of Henry’s children: William in the Temple church; but Richard (d. 1250), John (d. 1252) and Henry (d. 1260) in Westminster Abbey.20 No mention is made of where the last three were buried in the Abbey and no accounts survive of monuments being made for them, although that would not be exceptional. However, these additions to the manuscript must have been made a decade or more after the events mentioned and may possibly not be accurate. Howell raises doubts about whether Richard, John and Henry actually existed, as there is no mention of any of them in the public records, such as the wardrobe accounts. A possible explana-tion provided by Howell is that they could have been stillborn; this is improbable as children could only be baptised if alive, but it is more likely that they might have lived only a few hours or days.21 Yet, in such circumstances, it is perhaps unlikely that any of them would have been provided with such a richly-inlaid tomb-chest.

Hence, of the progeny of Henry recorded by Speed as being buried in the Cosma-tesque tomb-chest, this leaves as a strong contender only Katherine (b. 25 November 1253; d. 3 May 1257). Most accounts place her burial in the south ambulatory, although no contemporary evidence for this appears to exist and the tradition may have arisen as a result of the long association of her burial with the Cosmatesque tomb-chest. Lethaby says, albeit without apparent supporting evidence, that she was buried in the nave or perhaps St Katherine’s chapel; he also assumed that the body of Katherine was later translated into the Cosmatesque tomb.22 It is even conceivable that her tomb could have stood at the east end of the Confessor’s chapel where other members of the king’s family who died young were buried from at least the early 1260s.23 What is certain is that she was provided with a splendid monument, including an effi gy made of wood but plated with silver gilt, provided at a cost of £35 11s 0d by William of Gloucester, the king’s goldsmith.24 No specifi c account remains of the making of the tomb on which the effi gy would have rested, although we know that the order for it to be set up was issued on 28 May 1258. There are two arguments against the Cosmatesque tomb-chest having been made for Katherine.25 First, we know that in 1258 a cloth adorned with pearls was provided at a cost of 500 marks to cover a reading-desk to be placed at the front of the altar and tomb.26 Now, while some may question whether the image made by William of Gloucester was an effi gy, arguing that it could — improbably in my view — have been a devotional image of St Katherine to be placed on or above the tomb, the cloth cover and reading desk would surely have been inappropriate if it were to mask a tomb-chest with prestigious


140

sally badham

Cosmatesque inlay. Secondly and more crucially, the evidence of the order for the tomb to be set up and for provision of a cloth in 1258 proves that the tomb was complete by that time; yet it was not until a decade later that there is documented evidence of the employment of the Roman Cosmatesque specialists at Westminster. This last point would also militate against the tomb having been provided for any other of Henry III’s offspring who died young, so attention must turn instead to the children of Edward I.

contemporary evidence for the burial places of edward i’s offspring

IT is generally agreed that the most likely original location of the Cosmatesque tomb was in the Confessor’s chapel, as that is where other Cosmatesque artefacts in West-minster Abbey are concentrated. Five or six of Edward I’s children are likely to have been buried in the Confessor’s chapel. In 1284 Edward I’s third son, Alfonso, who had been Edward’s heir for the previous decade, died at the age of eleven. His burial was recorded in the manuscript Flores Historiarum: ‘cujus corpus in ecclesia West-monasterii juxta feretrum sancti Edwardi honorifi ce collocatur’ (whose body is laid up honourably in the church of Westminster, next to the shrine of Saint Edward).27 This account is supplemented by the description of another Westminster monk that Alfonso’s grave was ‘inter fratres suos et sorores juxta praedictum feretrum praesep-ultas inter lapides claudebatur marmoreos et porphiriticos et de thaso’ (between his brothers and sisters, who were buried before him, next to the aforesaid shrine; he was buried among stones, some of marble, some of porphyry, some of Thasian marble).28

These accounts provide evidence that several of Alfonso’s brothers and sisters were ‘buried before him’ in the Confessor’s chapel. It need not be assumed that all were buried in tomb-chests as a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey revealed the presence of what have been interpreted as small tomb cists at the eastern end of the chapel, which it has been argued elsewhere were the graves of Alfonso’s brothers and sisters.29 Those likely to have been buried in the Confessor’s chapel are:

1. Katherine, b. before February 1264; d. 5 September 1264. She was buried in West-minster Abbey, although the location of her grave is not recorded; Henry III paid burial expenses of £40 and also made payment for two gold cloths decorated with Katherine wheels;30

2. Joan I, b. January 1265; d. shortly before 7 September 1265. She too was buried in Westminster Abbey, but although the location of her grave is not recorded, again Henry III ordered a gold cloth for her tomb;31

3. John of Windsor, b. 13/14 July 1266; d. 3 August 1271. He was buried in Westmin-ster Abbey. There is contemporary evidence that John was originally buried to the north of the Confessor’s shrine:

Hoc anno obit Johannes, primogenitus Domini Edwardi puer etate quinque annorum et non plene quatuor septimanarum Cujus corpus in Ecclesiae Westmo-nasterii ex opposite basilice Sancti Edwardi in parte aquilonali datum et sepulture viij die mensis August.32

[This year [1271] died John, the eldest son of Lord Edward, a boy aged fi ve years and just under four weeks; his body was brought to burial in the church of West-minster, opposite the chapel of Saint Edward, on the northern side, on the 8th of August.]


141

Whose Body?

John probably received sub-fl oor burial, but in 1272–73 Robert of Beverley, the King’s Mason and Keeper of the Works at Westminster, received payments for the stipends of several workmen employed on the tomb of John of Windsor, including a payment for £6 16s. 4½d. to cover wages for a period of sixteen weeks.33 This was presumably a tomb-chest into which his bones might have been translated or, more likely, a cenotaph standing over his grave. No monument remains in the Confessor’s chapel which is remotely likely to be attributable to John;

4. Henry, b. shortly before 6 May 1268; d. October 1274. He too was buried in West-minster Abbey; although no precise location is recorded, the Confessor’s chapel is a likely location. Between 1274 and 1277 William of Corfe was paid 53s. 4d. ‘pro tumba domini Henricii fi lii Regis’, undoubtedly a Purbeck marble tomb-chest or grave slab.34 Again, nothing remains in the Confessor’s chapel which can be fi rmly associated with Henry’s monument;

5. Berengaria, b. 1 May 1276; d. before 27 June 1278. There is no evidence as to her place of burial, but is it likely that it was at Westminster.

Could any of these have been the child for whom the Cosmatesque tomb-chest was originally made? There is no surviving documentary or material evidence of tombs having been made for any of the girls. It is improbable, however, that their graves would have remained unmarked, although for baby girls, carved coffi n lids might have been thought adequate. Henry also is an unlikely candidate. His tomb was made by a Purbeck marbler and, while the tomb-chest in the ambulatory features Cosmatesque work set in Purbeck marble, the cost of 53s. 4d. seems far too modest for such a splendid monument. Although there is no comparative evidence for the cost of tomb-chests at this time, information analysed by John Blair as to the cost of brasses set in Purbeck marble slabs in the period from the 1270s to the Black Death suggests that such a sum would have covered the cost of only a modest brass with an inlaid inscrip-tion or some other simple tomb.35 No record survives of payments for Alfonso’s mon-ument, but it seems implausible that he would not have been provided with one. His body would not, of course, necessarily have been moved into it; the greater likelihood being that it acted as a cenotaph standing on the site of his grave. If he was provided with a tomb-chest, it seems unlikely that it would be less grand than that previously provided for John.

This narrows down the likely candidates for the Cosmatesque tomb-chest to John of Windsor (d. 1271) and Alfonso (d. 1284). Either might well have had such a prestigious tomb provided by their grieving parents.36 John was the fi rst-born son, but Alfonso was Edward’s heir for a decade. A sum of £6 16s. 4½d. was expended to cover wages for a period of sixteen weeks for the making of John’s tomb, but this excluded materials, so the total cost of his monument is likely to have been a signifi -cant sum. There are no grounds on which we can narrow down the likely date of the Cosmatesque tomb within the decade or so in which the two monuments are likely to have been made. The Roman Cosmati marblers were at Westminster work-ing on the new shrine when John’s tomb was made in 1273–74; Alfonso’s would doubtless have been made soon after 1284, while Henry III’s tomb was under con-struction. Opinions differ as to which option is more likely. Some scholars assume that Alfonso’s body was laid to rest in this Cosmatesque tomb.37 Tanner, on the other hand, suggests it was made for John of Windsor.38 As noted above, the GPR survey showed the child burials to have been in the eastern part of the shrine chapel and documentary evidence records that John was buried to the north of the shrine and Alfonso to the south.


142

sally badham

If, as many believe, the Cosmatesque tomb-chest was the monument moved to make room for Richard II’s tomb in the south-west of the Confessor’s chapel, this would provide conclusive evidence that it was not made for either child, but there is an obstacle to this interpretation. The element of the 1395 payment recorded at the beginning of this paper regarding the removal of a tomb also provides for this tomb to be painted. It is absolutely clear that what was painted was not the recess which now houses the Cosmatesque chest, but the tomb-chest itself. The Cosmatesque chest, however, would not have required painting as it was already colourfully inlaid. It must be concluded from this that the payment for moving a tomb to make way for Richard II and Anne of Bohemia’s tomb must refer to another monument. While we cannot say with certainty where the Cosmatesque tomb originally stood in the shrine chapel, it was probably at the eastern end and was not, therefore, in the position now fi lled by Richard II and Anne of Bohemia’s tomb. Hence, Hence attention must turn to other extant tombs believed to have been moved from the Confessor’s chapel.

john of eltham’s tomb

ONE tomb which has been moved from the Confessor’s chapel is the fi ne alabaster monument to John of Eltham, which is now in the chapel dedicated to Sts Edmund and Thomas, where Eltham was fi rst buried following his death in 1337 (Figs 3–4). The chronicle of John of Reading, a monk of Westminster, records:

Et in vigilia Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis ejusdem anni [1336] in Scotia obiit dominus Johannes de Eltham, comes Cornubiae et frater domini regis Angliae qui in vigilia [Epiphaniae] anno proximo sequenti [1337] apud Westmonasterium in Capella Sancti Thomae sepelitur. Evolutisque septem annis, ad petitionem matris sui reginae Isabellae, ammotus de dicto loco in medio ecclesiae prae-dictae inter duas columpnas marmoreas majores collacatur. Interumque jussu dominae supradic-tae ad priorem locum transfertur.39

[And on the vigil of the feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross the same year (13 September 1336), Sir John of Eltham died in Scotland, the Earl of Cornwall and brother of the lord king of England; he was buried on the vigil of the Epiphany in the next following year [5 January 1337 new style] at Westminster in the chapel of Saint Thomas. After seven years had passed, at the entreaty of his mother Queen Isabel, he was removed from the said place and deposited in the centre of the aforesaid church, between two marble columns. Afterwards, at the request of the said lady, he was moved back to the former position.]

The implications of these curious events have not previously been examined cri-tically; the text was noted by Duffy, but without any comment on the eccentric sequence of moves posited.40 The tomb-chest and effi gy, once surmounted by a fi ne canopy, probably dates from after the move to the ‘centre of the aforesaid church’.41 The decision to have such a prestigious alabaster tomb would be of a piece with Isabel’s evident concern to reaffi rm John’s high status in death. Puzzlingly, John of Reading’s account suggests that the move back to St Thomas’s chapel was also ordered by Isabel herself. Such a change of mind appears quixotic, but perhaps she belatedly recognised that room for royal burials in the Confessor’s chapel was fast running out. She may have preferred to organise the safe removal of her son’s monu-ment herself, rather than risk the possibility that some time in the future it would be moved to an unworthy position or even disposed of altogether. Isabel died in 1358. Thus, if this account is accurate, Eltham’s tomb cannot have been the one moved in 1395.


143

Whose Body?

Establishing the reliability of John of Reading’s account is therefore of great impor-tance. Part of the story can be independently verifi ed, for on 24 August 1339 Edward III issued a warrant addressed to the abbot of Westminster, ordering:

Nous vous prioms cherement que selonç la esleccion et le devis de nostre treschere dame et miere Isabel Reine Dengletere, vueilletz ordiner et suffrir que le corps de nostre trescher frere Jehan jadis

Fig. 3. Westminster Abbey: tomb of John of Eltham, Chapel of Sts Edmund and Thomas



144

sally badham

Counte de Cornewaille peusse estre remuez et translatez du lieu ou il gist iusques a autre plus convenable place entre les roials. . . . Faisant toutesfoitz reserver et garder les places plus honour-ables illoeques pour le gisir et la sepulture de nous et de noz heirs selonc ce que reson le vouldra droitement demaunder . . .42

[We ask you kindly that, according to the choice and desire of our dear lady and mother Isabel, Queen of England, you would be pleased to order and ensure that the body of our dear brother John, late Earl of Cornwall, may be removed and translated from the place where it lies to another more suitable place among the Royals ... Provided that the more honourable places are still reserved and kept for the rest and burial of ourselves and of our heirs in accordance with what reason would appropriately require.]

The timing of the order for the move appears to have been earlier than suggested by John of Reading, but that the body was moved is clearly confi rmed. Where ‘entre les roials’ John was laid to rest is not certain, although Lethaby suggested that it could have been where Edward III’s tomb now stands, rather than on the site of Richard II’s tomb.43 The account of the alabaster tomb having been moved out of the Confes-sor’s chapel is not confi rmed elsewhere, although the fact that it is now in Eltham’s original resting place shows that it was indeed moved from the Confessor’s chapel. Reading’s account generally is not without errors — for example, the date he gives for Eltham’s death is probably wrong.44 Such errors may have arisen from a faulty memory; it is thought that he did not write his chronicle, in its present shape at least, until the 1360s.45 However, John of Reading is thought to have died in 1367, the date at which the chronicle ends abruptly. Given that he had been resident at Westminster since 1339–40, it is inconceivable that he could have made a mistake as to whether the tomb was in the Confessor’s chapel or the chapel dedicated to Sts Edmund and Thomas.46 The evidence of John of Reading can therefore be taken as conclusive proof that Eltham’s monument was moved out of the Confessor’s chapel before 1395.

the so-called ‘de bohun’ tomb

STANLEY argued that the tomb moved in 1395 was the arcaded Purbeck marble tomb-chest now in the chapel dedicated to St John the Baptist (Fig. 5).47 It is

Fig 4. Westminster Abbey: effi gy from tomb of John of Eltham, Chapel of Sts Edmund and Thomas



145

Whose Body?

certainly the case that this tomb-chest was originally painted; Scott recorded that in his day it retained traces of painted shields, although nothing can now be seen.48 However, being a one-piece tomb with lid, it could surely have been moved without signifi cant damage to the painting and thus the need for repainting. Despite this, the case for it having been the tomb moved in 1395 should not be dismissed without further examination. The date of the tomb, for whom it was made, and its original location have all been the subject of much speculation, but there is no relevant historical evidence to support any of the conclusions published so far.

Blair and Binski argued that it could have been the tomb of John of Windsor, who is known to have been buried in the north-eastern part of the Confessor’s chapel.49 It is, however, more commonly believed to house the bodies of Humphrey and Mary de Bohun (d. 1304 and 1305). This attribution was given credence by Peers and Tanner’s study of the monument, following the opening of the tomb in 1936, as a result of which it was discovered to hold two tiny oak coffi ns of considerable fragility with painted cloth covers.50 The size of the coffi ns (recorded by Peers and Tanner before the metric standard was introduced to the UK as being 30 in. by 9 in., and 26 in. by 8 in.) suggests that the bodies are of very young children. Both Bohun infants were certainly buried at Westminster, but several points raise doubts whether the bodies were theirs and whether this was originally their tomb. First, the style of this arcaded tomb-chest is that of several decades earlier than when they died and would fi t ideally with a date between c. 1250 and c. 1270. Secondly, there was no sign in the

Fig 5. Westminster Abbey: the unattributed arcaded Purbeck marble tomb-chest, Chapel of St John the Baptist



146

sally badham

tomb-chest of the lead coffi n recorded as having been made for John in 1304 two days after he died and a week prior to his burial.51 Finally, the tomb-chest contained rubbish including architectural fragments and pieces of tile, from which it can be inferred that it had been re-opened since the early 14th century and that the two small wooden coffi ns of unknown date and identity were moved there from elsewhere.

Yet could this Purbeck tomb-chest have been originally sited in the Confessor’s chapel and have been the one displaced in 1395 and perhaps been made for one of Edward I’s children? The tomb has certainly been moved more than once, but there is no clear trail back to its original location. It was almost certainly in the chapel dedicated to St John the Baptist as long ago as 1596. In 1730–31 William Johnson, in his manuscript history of the Abbey, now in the chapter library, noted that the railings which formerly surrounded the 1596 Hunsdon monument in St John the Baptist’s chapel stood on ‘an ancient tomb . . . in the wall’. This is consistent with the position of the ‘de Bohun’ tomb until 1936, when it was excavated from the wall and moved to its present free-standing position.

Where the arcaded tomb-chest was prior to this cannot be proved beyond doubt. Peers and Tanner concluded that it was formerly sited in St Nicholas’s chapel, arguing that this tomb was displaced in the 1580s to make room for new tombs.52 The belief that the tomb was previously in St Nicholas’s chapel is based on the early lists of tombs in Westminster Abbey. All the lists agree that what is variously described as ‘the little stone tomb’ or ‘parva tumba lapidea’ in the chapel of St Nicholas contained the bones of the children of Humphrey and Elizabeth de Bohun; but two factors cast doubt as to whether these entries refer to the tomb-chest now in St John the Baptist’s chapel. First, it is curious that the references mention a stone tomb, not a marble tomb. Antiquarian sources are generally more specifi c in distinguishing between tombs made of ‘marble’ and ‘freestone’. Secondly, the arcaded Purbeck marble tomb-chest (1810 mm long by 575 mm wide at the head end, tapering to 520 mm at the foot) is not actually a small tomb. It is, for example, much larger than the tomb-chest of William of Windsor and Blanche of the Tower in Sts Edmund and Thomas’s chapel (720 mm by 460 mm); or the chests in the Confessor’s chapel to Princesses Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VII, and Margaret of York, daughter of Edward IV.

The internal tapering of the arcaded tomb-chest, as seen in the photographs taken in 1936 when it was opened, indicate that it was made to contain a tapered wooden coffi n. The dimensions indicate that it was designed for a coffi n of adult size, and was clearly not a receptacle for children. It is thus highly improbable that the arcaded Purbeck tomb-chest was made for any of the royal children, even Henry, for whom a tomb, presumably of Purbeck marble, was made in the mid-1270s by the marbler, William of Corfe. The likely date of the chest is c. 1250–70, earlier than virtually all the other tombs known to have been in the Confessor’s chapel and arguably too early ever to have been originally located there. Finally, while it is an attractive monument, its quality is not suffi ciently outstanding for it to be regarded as part of the ‘royal group’. It is thus improbable that the arcaded tomb-chest was made for a child or could ever have been located in the Confessor’s chapel. As a candidate for the tomb moved in 1395, it is almost certainly, therefore, a red herring.

william de valence’s monument

FINALLY, attention must turn to Lethaby’s suggestion that the monument to William de Valence (d. 1296), now in the chapel dedicated to Sts Edmund and Thomas,


147

Whose Body?

might originally have stood in the Confessor’s chapel, a proposition accepted by Binski (Figs 6–7).53 There is no medieval evidence for this, but it clearly does not belong where it is currently sited. This highly prestigious and richly-detailed tomb would not have been out of place in the Confessor’s chapel, especially as it draws inspiration from monuments already there at the time of Valence’s death. Its tiered construction, with an oak tomb chest on a carved stone base, alone of all the monu-ments surviving in the Abbey, echoes the design of Henry III’s monument and the shrine itself. The sumptuous gilded copper-alloy and Limoges-plated effi gy, inlaid with fi ctive jewels, presents a glittering and colourful impression, as did Henry and Eleanor of Castile’s monuments. Like Eleanor’s monument, it had an inscription, ‘about the verge or side of his monument, these verges are inlaid with brasse’, a rare feature at such an early date.54 Moreover, the monument places great emphasis on William’s high status and royal connections. The oak tomb-chest was plated with copper-alloy on the mouldings of the blind arcading, as evidenced by nail holes even where the copper-alloy has been lost, although there is no hint of the attachment of metalwork to the sides, which were undoubtedly painted. Under the arcades once stood ‘little brazen Images’; these were identifi ed by enamelled shields, some of which survive, which were set into the ledge of the wooden tomb-chest at their feet.55 These ‘weepers’ depict William’s English and French relatives; the son of Isabelle of Angoulême and her second husband, Hugh de Lusignan; he was the half-brother of

Fig 6. Westminster Abbey: tomb of William de Valence, Chapel of Sts Edmund and Thomas



148

sally badham

Henry III and the full brother of Hugh XI of Lusignan. The Reigate stone base has a further heraldic display; alongside those of William and his son, Aymer de Valence, together with the royal arms, again emphasising his royal connections.56 In all respects this tomb fi ts well in the late-13th-century group of ‘royal monuments’.

It is also credible that William would have been buried in a place of honour in the Confessor’s chapel, although this might have appeared to give the king’s half-brother greater favour than his brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who also died in 1296 and whose tomb is on the north side of the presbytery, close to that of his fi rst wife, Aveline de Forz, who died in 1272 but whose monument can be dated stylistically to the end of the century. The tomb slabs inlaid with Cosmatesque decoration com-memorating his children, Margaret and John, who died in 1276 and 1277 respectively, survive at the eastern end of the chapel, where several of Edward’s own children who died young were buried.57 The family’s privileged status in burial is clear, especially as Edward I partly paid for the funerals of William’s children.58

There are a variety of locations in the Confessor’s chapel in which William de Valence’s tomb could have stood. Lethaby suggested a position next to Eleanor’s monument, albeit without apparent supporting evidence. Another possibility is the east end of the chapel, close to the tombs of his children; if so, it could have been moved to make room for Henry V’s chantry chapel, although Henry’s will mentions the need to move only the almeries containing relics.59 The altar of the Holy Trinity also stood under the eastern arch, but appears to have been moved westwards, probably to rest on top of the de Valence coffi n lids. Two factors, however, suggest that William de Valance’s monument was more probably in the south-west of the

Fig. 7. Westminster Abbey: effi gy from tomb of William de Valence, Chapels of Sts Edmund and Thomas



149

Whose Body?

chapel on the site later to be occupied by the tomb of Richard II. The fi rst is that is it currently positioned just across the aisle from Richard’s tomb; relocating it to the closest available space to the original site would be a natural and easily under-stood move. Secondly, and even more crucially, the monument would, if moved, have required repainting, as recorded in the document quoted at the beginning of this article. The oak tomb-chest, although partially painted, could have been easily moved without damage to the decoration, but the same is not true of the substantial stone base. This is composed of many separate pieces of carved and moulded stone, which would have been fully painted. Dismantling and rebuilding would have wrecked the decoration and re-painting would have been inevitable.60

conclusion

THERE is a good case for arguing that the monument commemorating William de Valence was originally located in the shrine chapel on the site that Richard II’s monument now occupies, and it was thus the tomb displaced in 1395. Moreover, although nothing can be proved beyond doubt, the Cosmatesque tomb-chest was probably originally positioned at the eastern end of the Confessor’s chapel and was thus was the tomb (or cenotaph) of either John of Windsor or Alfonso. Yet, when and why was it displaced? There was certainly considerable subsequent disturbance in the eastern part of the shrine chapel. In 1397 Thomas of Woodstock was buried under a fi ne brass in the south-east of the chapel. Then in 1415 Bishop Richard Cour-tenay, a close friend of Henry V, was buried to the north-east of the shrine, although no grave marker remains. Finally, in 1415 came the construction of Henry V’s chant-ry chapel, with his tomb-chest and effi gy above. The construction of the foundations of the spiral staircases in particular might have entailed the destruction of additional child graves. It is thus not entirely out of the question that the bones of other royal children might have been moved to the south ambulatory or buried in the chapel dedicated to Sts Edmund and Thomas as a consequence. This would explain the traditions discussed above in the abbey burial lists and perhaps even the loss of the prestigious tomb to Henry III’s infant daughter, Katherine. Finally, this leaves unac-counted for the arcaded Purbeck marble tomb-chest in the chapel dedicated to St John the Baptist. That it was made in the early 14th century for the de Bohun children can be ruled out; yet where it was originally located, when it was made and whose body originally occupied it remain a mystery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Jerome Bertram, Phillip Lindley, Sophie Oosterwijk and, above all, Warwick Rodwell for help and advice.

NOTES

1. F. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer (London 1837), 262; The National Archives: PRO E. 403/554. There is no doubt that the fi rst item refers to the tester over Richard’s tomb: P. Lindley, ‘Romanticizing Reality:


150

sally badham

the sculptural memorials of Queen Eleanor and their context’, in Eleanor of Castile 1290–1990, ed. D. Parsons (Stamford 1991), 69–93, at 70–72; J. A. G. Alexander, ‘The Portrait of Richard II in Westminster Abbey’, in The Regal Image of Richard II and the Wilton Diptych, ed. D. Gordon, L. Monnas and C. Elam (London 1997), 197–206 at 209.

2. J. G. O’Neilly and L. Tanner, ‘The Shrine of Edward the Confessor’, Archaeologia, 100 (1966), 129–54. See also R. Allen Brown, H. M Colvin and A. J. Taylor, History of the Kings Works. The Middle Ages, ed. H. M. Colvin, I (London, 1963), 479.

3. A. Heales, The Archaeology of the Christian Altar in Western Europe (London, 1881), 9.4. E. Hutton, The Cosmati: the Roman Marble Workers of the XIIth and XIIIth Centuries (London 1950),

15–16 and pls 19–25.5. Ex. inf. Jerome Bertram. For an example, see J. Belonje and F. A. Greenhill, ‘Some Brasses in Germany

and the Low Countries’, Monumental Brass Society Transactions, 9 (1961), 447–59, fi g. 1, opposite 448.6. One exception is the altar depicted in British Library Add. MS 24199, fol. 4; W. H. St John Hope,

English Altars from Illuminated Manuscripts (London, 1899), pl. 1, fi g. 1. This appears to have an orna-mented front, perhaps incised or inlaid work, and the altar slab is decorated with a border of circles. How-ever, as this depiction dates from the 10th century and is probably of North Frankish rather than English origin, it is of dubious evidential value for the form of 13th-century English altars.

7. Another medieval altar constructed from several pieces is in the baptistery at Ratisbon, Germany, but such examples are very rare; Heales, Christian Altar, 9.

8. J. D. Tanner, ‘Tombs of Royal Babies in Westminster Abbey’, JBAA, 3rd series 16, (1953), 25–40, at 28.

9. J. Dart, Westmonasterium (London 1723), 104, refers to it as showing two boys and two girls kneeling. Although the Basire engraving for R. Gough, Sepulchral Monuments in Great Britain, I (London 1786–96), pl. XVIII, shows four ladies, Gough himself says on p. 49 that the two fi gures on the left have nimbi (i.e. are probably saints) and the two on the right appear to be in armour.

10. W. Camden, Reges, reginae, nobiles, et alij in Ecclesia Collegiata B. Petri Westmonasterij Sepulti: Vsque ad annum reparatae salutis 1606 (London 1606), 51; ‘In spatio interiecto inter Capellam Sancto Edmundi & Sancti Benedicti siti sunt tres fi lij Edwardi primi cum fi lia, quos sescepit ex Aelenora fi lia Ferdi-nandi 3 Regis Castiliae vid. Iohannes, Henricus, Alfonsus & Aeleonora. . . . Ossa item Richardi, Iohannes & Katherine fi liorum Hen. 3 ibi consepeliuntur’ (In the space that exists between the Chapel of Saint Edmund and [that of] Saint Benedict, are buried three sons and a daughter of Edward I, whom he begot by Eleanor, daughter of Ferdinand III, King of Castile, namely John, Henry, Alfonso and Eleanor . . . the bones of Rich-ard, John and Katherine, children of Henry III are also buried there). J. Strype, A survey of the cities of London and Westminster, and the borough of Southwark, II (London 1720), 14, says ‘In St Thomas’s chapel lye the bones of the children of Henry III and Edward I, in Number Nine’; but on p. 17 he links Richard, John and Katherine and John, Henry, Alfonso and Eleanor specifi cally with the Cosmatesque tomb. The account in Dart refl ects the confl icting evidence and stories which had arisen by the 18th century. On p. 104 he says that based on information from Strype, the Cosmatesque tomb is said to have been erected for three [sic] children of Henry III, viz. Richard, John, Henry and Katherine. On p. 105 he adds that in this place likewise is said to be buried four children of Edward I, viz. John, Henry, Alfonso and Eleanor. Yet on p. 104 Dart says he believes Edward I’s children to have been buried in several places in the south ambulatory passage, which perhaps refl ects a tradition that they were re-buried under the pavement there. Again on p. 107 he says that Richard, son of Henry III, was said to be buried on the south side of the choir and that Alfonso was buried on the south side of the shrine.

11. M. Howell, ‘The Children of King Henry III and Eleanor of Provence’, in Thirteenth Century England 4, ed. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd (Woodbridge 1991), 57–72, at 66.

12. There are several versions of the lists of tombs in Westminster Abbey, not all identical: London, West-minster Abbey Muniments 53318 (an incomplete list; the bottom part has been torn off and lost); London, British Library Harleian MS 544, fols 75–77; London, British Library, Add. MS 38133, fols 98v–100r; British Library, Egerton MS 2642, fols 322–323v; London, College of Arms, MS A 17, fol. 62v of the fi rst part of the book and fols 1–3 of the second book; and London, College of Arms, MS , fols 1–2v. All were written in the 16th century and probably derive from a lost original dated from internal evidence to between 1487 and 1503. A detailed account of these sources and a summary list is provided in B. Harvey, Westminster Abbey and its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1977), Appendix II, 365–86.

13. BL Harleian MS 544, fol. 75v, and BL Add. MS 38133, fol. 99v.14. BL Harleian MS 1416, fols 50–51.15. J. Speed, History of Britaine (London 1611). His fi rst reference at p. 551 does not explicitly link the

burial of the children of Henry III with the Cosmatesque tomb, instead saying regarding Katherine that ‘at Westminster her bones lie interred with her brothers Richard and John in the space between the Chapels of King Edward and Saint Bennett’. However, on p. 563 he lists the issue of Edward I. Referring to John, he


151

Whose Body?

states: ‘there is remaining over him a tombe of marble inlayed with his picture in an arch above.’ This clearly refers to the Cosmatesque tomb in its current setting. He continues by saying that Henry ‘is the same place and under the same tomb where his brother John lyes with his picture also in the arch above it’. Similar accounts are given for Alfonso and also for Eleanor, Edward’s daughter by his second wife Margaret, who died age fi ve in 1311, bringing the total number of children he believes to have been buried there to four.

16. BL Add. MS 1416, fols 51v–55r.17. Devon, Issues, 124.18. S. Badham and M. Norris, Early Incised Slabs and Brasses from the London Marblers, Reports of the

Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, no. 60 (London 1999), 63–67 and fi g. 7.21. 19. Howell, 91.20. Manchester, Chetham Library MS 66712, fols 203v, 202, 219 and 221. See also Howell, 59, n. 15.21. I am grateful to Sophie Oosterwijk for advice on this point.22. W. R. Lethaby, Westminster Abbey and the King’s Craftsmen (London 1906), 317.23. S. Badham, ‘St Edward the Confessor’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey: the Origins of the Royal

Mausoleum and its Cosmatesque Pavement’, Antiquaries Journal, 87 (2007), forthcoming.24. Sir G. G. Scott, Gleanings from Westminster Abbey, 2nd edn (London 1863), 113–14; Allen Brown,

Colvin and Taylor, I, 146 and 261. 25. Tanner, 27.26. Scott, 113–14; Allen Brown, Colvin and Taylor, I, 146.27. H. R. Luard ed., Flores historiarum, III (London 1890), 61. 28. Luard, III, 61 n. 1. In fact the white stones used for the pavements are not true marble from the

northern Aegean island of Thasos, but creamy white magnesian limestone, probably from the quarries of south Yorkshire: petrologic analysis by Dr Eric Robinson, pers. comm. Warwick Rodwell.

29. Utsi Electronics Ltd 2005. Unpublished report, ‘Ground Penetrating Radar survey of the high altar steps and the Shrine of St Edward the Confessor for Westminster Abbey’. See also Badham, ‘St Edward the Confessor’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey’.

30. Calendar of the Liberate Rolls, V, 1260–67 (London 1961), 142–43.31. Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, A.D. 1264–1268 (London, 1937), 70–71.32. T. Stapelton ed., Cronica Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum, Camden Society, old series 34

(London 1846) 141.33. Lethaby, The King’s Craftsmen, 316; London, The National Archives: PRO Issue Roll 1 Edward I, m.

5, C 62/49. In the following year, Master Robert was in charge of repairing the marble tomb; The National Archives: PRO Issue Roll 3 Edward I, C 62/51. Tanner, 29, suggests this means that the tomb had been opened and John’s younger brother, Henry, who died in 1274, was interred with his brother. If he did lie there temporarily, rather than occupying one of the grave cists, he subsequently received a permanent tomb of his own.

34. Luard, III, 103.35. J. Blair, ‘English Monumental Brasses before the Black Death: Types, Patterns and Workshops’, in

The Earliest English brasses, ed. J. Coales, Monumental Brass Society (London 1987), 133–75.36. This may seem at odds with Edward I’s reaction while on crusade at hearing the news of the deaths

of fi rst his son John and then of his father, king Henry III of England. According to the chronicler, Edward grieved far more for his sixty-four-year-old father than for his fi ve-year-old son and, when asked to explain the reason, he replied that the loss of a child is easier to bear as one may have many more children, but that the loss of a father is irremediable. However, what has often been overlooked is the fact that Edward’s reaction, instead of being typical, was in fact seen as unusual, even if proper and devout. S. Oosterwijk, ‘The Medieval Child: an Unknown Phenomenon?’, forthcoming.

37. Lethaby, The Kings’ Craftsmen, 316; P. Binski, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets (London 1995), 104; P. Binski, ‘The Cosmati and romanitas in England: an Overview’, in Westminster Abbey: The Cosmati Pavements, ed. L. Grant and R. Mortimer (London 2002), 116–34, at 128–29.

38. Tanner, 29. 39. J. Tait ed., Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis 1346–1367, Manchester

University Historical Series, 20 (Manchester 1914), 81–82.40. M. Duffy, Royal Tombs of Medieval England (Stroud 2003), 124.41. L. Southwick, ‘The Armoured Effi gy of Prince John of Eltham in Westminster Abbey and some

Closely Related Military Monuments’, Church Monuments, 2 (1987), 9–21, convincingly dates the tomb, on the basis of the armour shown, to the 1340s. Binski, Westminster Abbey, 178–79, links the design of the tomb with the circle of William Ramsey III (d. 1349) who in 1343 made the delightful Purbeck marble tomb-chest for Blanche of the Tower and William of Windsor, the children of Edward III, located in the chapel of Sts Edmund and Thomas, Westminster Abbey.


152

sally badham

42. London, Westminster Abbey Muniments, 6300xx.43. W. Lethaby, Westminster Abbey Re-examined (London 1925), 281. 44. Tait, 82.45. Tait, 11.46. Tait, 11.47. A. P. Stanley, Historical memorials of Westminster Abbey (London, 1882), 123 and 143. 48. Scott, 165.49. J. Blair, and P. Binski, ‘The Tomb of Edward I and Early London Brass Production’, Monumental

Brass Society Transactions, 14 (1988), 234–40, at 18; Lethaby, Kings’ Craftsmen, 317.50. C. Peers and L. E. Tanner, ‘On Some Recent Discoveries in Westminster Abbey’, Archaeologia, 93

(1949), 148–55, at 152–53.51. Ricardo de London plombario pro un sarcofago de plumbo pro corpore Humfridi fi lii Comit’ Here-

fordie impondo iiijs jd; (To Richard of London, plumber, for a lead coffi n for the body of Humphrey, son of the Earl of Hereford, by weight . . . . 4/1d); London, The National Archives: PRO E.101 370/20.

52. Peers and Tanner, ‘Recent Discoveries in Westminster Abbey’, 152–53.53. Lethaby, Westminster Abbey Re-examined, 278; Binski, Westminster Abbey, 114.54. J. Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments (London, 1631), 479.55. H. Keepe, Monumenta Westmonasteriensia (London, 1682), p. 57.56. Duffy, Royal Tombs, 92, questions whether the stone base belongs with the rest of the monument, but

the heraldry indisputably links the two.57. Illustrated in Badham, ‘St Edward the Confessor’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey’.58. Binski, Westminster Abbey, 113.59. W. H. St John Hope, ‘The Funeral Monument and Chantry Chapel of King Henry the Fifth’,

Archaeologia, 65 (1914), 129–86, at 146.60. I owe these points to Warwick Rodwell.


Documents

Whose Body? Monuments Displaced from St Edward the Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey