The Elmete Heritage Foundation

Conservation - Education - Promotion - Investigation

Chairman: Mr J. Davey  01977 684234   Treasurer: Mr C. Edghill 01904 792434

2005-2006 - site interest continues to grow.

2005 registered 1,533,183 hits.  39,443 unique visitors to this site re-visited more than once.

January & February 2006 saw  11635 unique visitors 106% up on 2005 !!

Jan 2006 saw 246,748 requests for pages.

Stats from Awstat. Confirmed by Analog.

Thank you, one and all! Content will also continue to grow.

Elmet Heritage Centre??

Visit our

 Elmete Heritage Foundation Forum

Local History

Page Constantly Under Construction

There was a short period of time, around 927AD, when Sherburn-in-Elmet was the effective capital of England - or much of it as we know it today. This was under Aethelstan or Athelstan, and the site of his palace is alongside the present-day church.

Aethelstan, the most powerful of all Saxon kings, was the eldest son of Edward the Elder, but there is a question or two about his legitimacy.  Edward may not have married Aethelstan's mother Egwina, and although she was later described as “a noblewoman”, the scandal -mongers of the day remembered her as a shepherd's daughter whom Edward took a fancy to in his youth and who bore him two or even three children.  It could be because he was illegitimate that Aethelstan was raised by Edward's sister, Aethelfled, at her court based at Gloucester in Mercia and not at Winchester.  Some authorities make much of the fact that Aethelstan was a favourite of his grandfathers, Alfred, as if he preferred this child over the others and singled him out for succession; in fact Aethelstan was the only grandchild Alfred knew, as all of Alfred's other grandchildren were born after his death.  Nevertheless, because Aethelstan was reared in Mercia he had a loyalty from the Mercians that his forebears had never received.  When Edward died, the Mercians immediately proclaimed him their king whilst the West Saxon witan were still deliberating.  No doubt, if Aethelstan was illegitimate, there was an issue to resolve, and possibly Edward had suggested before his death that Aethelstan would succeed him in Mercia whilst one of his legitimate sons would succeed in Wessex.  Edwin was already sub king in Kent and the obvious choice but perhaps he declined (or, if his recorded death date is in error, he may have already been dead).  There is a suggestion that Elfweard the hermit was summoned to Winchester as a possible candidate, but he died en route, and thereafter there was no other choice but Aethelstan, but he was not confirmed in Wessex until some months after his accession in Mercia.  Even then he was not crowned for over a year. Just what the reluctance was amongst the West Saxons is not clear, and it may be that they just did not trust Aethelstan.  There is no doubt that Aethelstan's strength of character may also have been a disadvantage, because he had a distrust for the Saxon nobility whom he treated with reserve, and they probably saw him as haughty and unwelcoming.  Yet to his subjects he was kind and generous, perhaps because of his own origins.  He was exceedingly generous to the church and delighted in giving gifts and receiving memorabilia.  Like Arthur he was an avid reader but also a collector of treasures he later donated to the church.  He was a tall, if thin, man with long golden hair and conveyed the image of a handsome, powerful knight.  It may be something of Athelstan who lives on in our folk memory of Sir Lancelot.

No sooner was Aethelstan ensconced as king than we find his authority recognized by Sitric Caech of York, the Norse king who had refused to recognize Edward's sovereignty.  Sitric recognized that Aethelstan's power base in Mercia gave him a much greater ability to attack Northumbria if necessary.  Sitric and Aethelstan thus agreed terms and as part of the arrangement Sitric was married to Aethelstan's saintly sister Eadgyth on 30 January 926.  The alliance with Sitric did not last for long, as he refused to accept Christianity, and by March 927 he was dead.  Aethelstan seized this opportunity.  Sitric's brother, Gothfrith, who was king of Dublin, attempted to claim the throne of York, but Athelstan defeated him and, after showing him hospitality, despatched him back to Ireland.  During this episode Aethelstan summoned the kings of Scotland and Strathclyde to Eamont Bridge in July 927 and made them swear that they would not support Gothfrith in his designs upon the throne of York.  Aethelstan entered York, the first Saxon king to do so, since all previous kings before the Scandinavians had been Angles.

During 926 Aethelstan had summoned the Welsh princes to a meeting at Hereford.  Although the three primary rulers had previously paid homage to Edward, there had been a Norse uprising in 924 supported by the Welsh at Chester.  Aethelstan was determined to put a stop to Welsh hostilities in Mercia.  At Hereford he laid down the boundary between Wales and England, particularly the southern stretch which had always been in dispute, where he now specified the Wye, and he exacted harsh tribute from the princes.  It is not clear how far they ever met this demand, but it was evident that they recognized Aethelstan's authority.  Hywel Dda in particular was fascinated by the Saxon court, appreciating its possibilities in Wales, and he learned much from Aethelstan that he was able to put into practice.  Immediately after this agreement, Aethelstan hurried to Devon where the Cornish were again in revolt, probably under their king Hoel.  Aethelstan expelled the Cornish from Exeter. Driving them back over the Tamar, which now became the boundary between Cornwall and England.  He refortified Exeter and it seems he may have taken Hoel hostage to ensure the Cornish compliance, because Hoel was with him a year later at Eamont Bridge.

The alliance with the Scots lasted for seven years, a remarkable period of peace and prosperity in England during which time Aethelstan reviewed his troops, improved his fortifications and generally settled down to the government of his subjects.  It seems that Aethelstan also made friends with the king of Norway, Harald Fairhair or Finehair, who sent gifts to Aethelstan and also adopted the current vogue for fostering by sending his son, Haakon, then aged about seven, to Athelstan's court to benefit from understanding the English form of government.  One consequence of this was that Haakon became such a welcome king in Norway that the elders deposed his brother, Erik Bloodaxe, who immediately became a problem for Aethelstan's successors.  This was but one example of Aethelstan's role in Europe.  Because of a series of political marriages amongst his aunts and his own sisters, Aethelstan was on close terms with many of the major rulers in Europe.  These included Count Baldwin of Flanders, who had married his aunt Elfreda, Charles III of France, who had married his sister Edgiva, the influential Hugh, Count of Paris, who had married another sister, Edhilda, and Otto, duke of Saxony and subsequently German emperor, who had married a further sister, Eadgyth.  There was another possible half-sister who married Gorm the Old, the first king of a united Denmark.  All of this demonstrates that Aethelstan was a key activist on the international scene, and though it is not recorded that he travelled abroad, his relationships improved trade and culture in England extensively.

In 934 Aethelstan was incensed when the Scottish king Constantine married his daughter to Olaf Gothfrithson of Dublin, which Aethelstan saw as a flagrant breach of the Eamont treaty.  He decided to give Constantine a lesson and in 934 he raised a huge army, which increased in numbers as he marched north from Winchester, and he devastated Scotland en route as far north as Fordun.  Constantine recognized Aethelstan's power, but it only made him all the more determined to seek the support of Olaf as a defense against the English might.  In 937, after the death of Gothfrith, Olaf combined his army with Constantine's.  He took York and marched down into Mercia.  Aethelstan met him at Brunanburh, near Nottingham.  It was one of the most decisive of all Saxon victories, and passed into legend.  From then until his death two years later Aethelstan ruled peacefully, the complete master of his realm.  Aethelstan's reign was remembered by later annalists as a golden age, and certainly there would be little like it again for many years to come.  Aethelstan died of an illness, probably a manifestation of the same malady, which afflicted his family, many of whom died young.  He was only forty-four.  Aethelstan had never married, and he was succeeded by his half-brother Edmund.

Hazelwood Castle

The Vavasours

Ann, daughter of Sir Peter Vavasour of Spaldington and Willitoft, Knight, a scion of the house
of Vavasour of Hazelwood, became the wife of Thomas Langdale of Sancton, the son of Anthony
Langdale and Agnes (Constable) his wife.
Ann Vavasour’s father founded the chauntry in the chapel of St. James’s at Spaldington. He was Sheriff of York 1519, and married Elizabeth, daughter of Andrew, Lord Windsor of Stanwell. He was buried at Bubwith.

His father
William Vavasour of Gunby, married first Isabel, daughter of Robert Urswick of Badsworth, who died without issue, and secondly Alice, daughter of Robert Mallory.

 His father
Sir John Vavasour of Spaldington, Knight, married Isabel, daughter and co-heiress of Thomas de la Haye, by his first wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir (Robert?) Babthorpe of Babthorpe, Knight. Through his wife the Vavasours inherited Spaldington, which had been in the possession of the de la Hayes since the Conquest.

His father
John Vavasour, married Ann, daughter of Sir Henry Scrope, Knight, 6th Lord Scrope of Bolton by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Percy, 13th Baron de Percy, 6th Lord Percy of Alnwick, and 3rd Earl of Northumberland, who was summoned to Parliament in right of his wife as Baron Poynings, FitzPayn and Bryan.

His father
Sir Henry Vavasour of Hazelwood, Knight,
married Margaret, daughter of Sir William Skip-with of Ormesby, County Lincoln, Knight, Chief
Justice of England.

His father
Sir William Vavasour of Hazelwood, Stubs and
Woodhall, married Elizabeth, daughter of William
Stapleton of Edenhall, County Cumberland.

His father
Sir Henry Vavasour of Hazelwood married
Annabell, daughter of Henry Lord Fitzhugh of
Ravénsworth Castle

 His father
Sir Henry le Vavasour [His elder brother, Walter le Vavasour, 2nd Baron Vavasour (confirmed to Parliament 26 July, 1313), died without
issue. Henry le Vavasour, was direct heir]. married Constance,
daughter of Sir William Mowbray, Knight.

 His father
Sir William le Vavasour of Hazelwood was
employed in the Gascoigne and Scotch wars, and
was so greatly esteemed that he was summoned to
Parliament among the Barons from 6 February,
1299 (27 Edwd. I) to 7 January, 1313 (6 Edwd. II)
although not in every year. He was keeper of
the castles of Nottingham, Harston and Bolsover.
In 5 Edwd. II he had custody of the city of
York. He was in the wars in Scotland and present at the siege of Carlaverock in 1300 and is
described by the monk chronicler present:
“And of this same division was William le
Vavasour, who in arms is neither deaf nor dumb.
He had a very distinguishable banner of fine
gold with a sable dauncet.”
He gave to the Archbishop and Chapter of York
from the quarry at Theves-dale (Jack-daw crag)
the stone from which York Minster was built.
He also founded St. Leonard’s chapel in his castle
of Hazelwood, which because of his magnificent
gift to York was made extra parochial by the archbishop. The King’s charter for the chapel is dated 29 April, 1286 (15 Edwd. I), the confirmation is dated 5 June, 1452 ( Henry VI). He had licence from the King to castellate Hazelwood (i8 Edw. I). In 23 Edw. I he did homage for all lands and tenements which Alice, his mother, held of the King as of the barony of Bayeux (Bacocis). He married Nichola, daughter of Sir Stephen Walls of N Knight He died 6 Edw. II. In his will, dated 1311, he wished to be buried in the new chapel of St. Leonard’s of Hazelwood. His brother was Sir Mauger Vavasour, a quo Vavasour of Weston, Newton, Acaster, etc.

 His father
Sir John le Vavasour, lord of Hazelwood, gave to the Abbot and Convent of Thornton and the Prebendaries and Chapter of St. Peter’s Church, Howden, stone from his quarries at Theves-dale near Tadcaster to build their churches and repair other edifices. His sister Maud married Theobald Walter, brother of Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury. He married Alice, daughter and heir of Sir Robert Cockfield, Knight.

His father
Sir Robert le Vavasour was High Sheriff of County Nottingham, 21 Henry III (1236) and High Sheriff of Derby from 31 Henry III until his death. He married Juliana, daughter of Gilbert de Ros of Steeton, Yorkshire. He had custody of the tower of Peverell. In 9 John he paid a fine of 1,200 marks and two palfreys that his daughter, the widow of Theobald Walter, might be married to Fulke Fitz Warine, an eminent Baron of his time who held huge estates in Sussex, Yorkshire, and elsewhere.

His father
Sir William le Vavasour, lord of Hazelwood, a
Judge (30 Hen. II) 1184, was one of the witnesses to the charter of the Abbey of Sawley, County
York, re-founded by Maud de Percy, Countess of
Warwick. In a grant to the monks of Tadcaster,
Maud de Percy, daughter of William de Percy,
4th Baron, speaks of acting” by the advice of the
Lord Vavasour and other of our faithful lieges and
of our whole Court.” At her various castles she
maintained a rude state, verging on royalty. Her
elder sister Agnes de Percy, Baroness de Percy,
was co-heir and eventual heir to her father, and
married Josceline de Louvain, who assumed the
name of Percy. Sir William le Vavasour held two
knight’s fees of Sir William de Percy, 1187.

 His father
Sir Mauger le Vavasour gave to the monks of
Salley the mill at Hunslet.

 His father
Sir Mauger le Vavasour heads the Vavasour
pedigree.
Jane Vavasour of the Vavasours of Copmanthorpe, who married Anthony Langdale, was
descended from Sir William le Vavasour’s younger
son, Sir Mauger Vavasour, Knight, of Denton and
Askwith, a quo Vavasour of Weston, Newton,
Acaster, etc.; Jane Vavasour met a common
ancestor with Ann Vavasour, the wife of Thomas
Langdale, in Sir John le Vavasour, Knight, lord of
Hazelwood; he who gave stone from his quarry
at Theves-dale to Thornton and Howden. Of the
Vavasours it has been said that in twenty-one
descents from Sir Mauger le Vavasour (tem
William I) not one of them had ever married an
heir or ever buried his wife.




 

The village of Cawood in North Yorkshire has a long and at times dramatic history. It was given to the see of York in 838 by King Athelstan, the King of Mercia. He beat the Danes in battle at Brunanburg, and also subjugated the Kingdom of Northumbria, and the gift was a votive offering to the church for his victories as, a consequence of his strong Christian faith. Cawood was one of the last outposts in England of the British race, following the domination by the Saxons.

The area around was a mixture of bog and forest. and it bordered onto "the inhospitable banks of the River Ouse." At the time of the Domesday survey Cawood seems to have been insignificant enough to have been ignored by the agents of William the Conqueror. After this a palace was developed for the Archbishops of York. Its importance grew, and over the next 500 years or so the royal court often came from Windsor, and England was ruled from here whilst they were in residence.

The most famous Archbishop was Cardinal Wolsey. He came to Cawood after falling from power in London. Whilst he was in power he neglected his duties in the North of England, and the palace fell into disrepair. In his banishment to the north he set to to restore the palace, employing some 300 craftsman in the process. He had never been enthroned in York Minster and he made arrangements for the long delayed ceremony. According to the historian W Wheater, Wolsey had never stepped into the minster although it is said that he could see it from the highest point in that castle. He might have seen Selby Abbey, but it is difficult to see how he could see York over the undulating terrain, and the forest.

"CAWOOD, a market and parish-town, in the wapentake of Barkston-Ash, liberties of St. Peter and Cawood, Wistow, and Otley; 5 miles from Selby, 7½ from Tadcaster, 10 from York, 12 from Pontefract, 186 from London. Market, Wednesday. Fairs, Old May day and September 23, for horned cattle, &c. Principal Inn, the Ferry House. Pop. 1,127. The Church, peculiar, is a vicarage, dedicated to All-Saints (see Churches for photograph), in the deanry of the Ainsty, value, p.r. !£34. 14s. Patron, the Prebendary of Wistow.

Cawood was formerly one of the chief places of residence of the Archbishop of York, who had here a magnificent Palace or Castle, in which several of the bishops died. It was obtained for the see of York from King Athelston, in the 10th century, by Archbishop Wulstan. Alexander Nevil, the 45th Archbishop, is said to have bestowed great cost on this palace, and in have adorned it with several new towers. Henry Bowett, the 49th Archbishop, built the great hall; and his successor, Cardinal Kempe, erected the gate House, the ruins of which are all that remains of this once magnificent building.

The celebrated Cardinal Wolsey, after residing here a whole summer, and part of the winter, was arrested at this place, on a charge of high treason, by the Earl of Northumberland, and Sir Walter Welsh. The Earl had orders to conduct him to London, for trial, but his death at Leicester, on his journey, terminated the business.

In 1642, this castle was garrisoned for the King: and was surrendered to Sir John Meldrum, for the use of the Parliament in 1644; and two years afterwards was dismantled by order of Parliament. --Drake, Rapin, &c.

Cawood, a village in Yorkshire, seven miles southwest of York. The most important feature in the hamlet was the grand manor house. King Aethelstan, the first Saxon king of all Britain, and the grandson of Alfred the Great, succeeded to the throne in 924 and erected the manor three years later. Historical accounts indicate that the house was in a finished state by the time Archbishop Walter de Gray (1216 – 1256) added to it. Archbishop Neville (1373 – 1388) also “laid out much on it.” In 1271 Archbishop Giffard acquired a license from King Henry III to furnish his manor house with battlements, thus converting it into a castle.

Visitations by British royalty increased the castle’s importance before and about this time, and it became known as the "Windsor of the North". King John visited it for fox hunting in 1210 and 1212. In 1255 King Henry III and his wife, Eleanor, stayed there en route to Scotland to visit their daughter, Margaret, who had married Alexander III. About 1299 King Edward I started for Scotland to subdue the Scots, who were attempting to free their country from English rule. Edward’s wife, Margurete of France, gave birth to a prince, Thomas de Brotherton, and she and her son resided at Cawood, with Edward visiting her frequently over the next five years. Edward also held some of his parliaments here. King Edward II stayed at the castle in 1314 after he was defeated in the Battle of Bannockburn. He and his queen stayed there in 1316 and again in 1322. And King Henry VIII stayed at Cawood Castle with Catherine Howard in 1540 when she was a bride.

15 January 1466
The Duke of Gloucester visited Cawood Castle for the occasion George Nevill’s enthronement as Archbishop of York and the feast held the following day. The feast is mentioned in the National Geographic, Vol. 168, No. 5, November 1985, p. 674, although there are a few discrepancies regarding the date and amount of some items. Two thousand cooks prepared the menu:

300 quarters of wheat
300 tunne of ale
100 tunne of wyne
one pype of Ipocrasse
104 oxen
6 wylde bulles
1000 muttons
304 veales
304 porkes
400 swannes
2000 geese
1000 capons
104 peacocks
400 mallards and teales
204 cranes
204 kyddes
2000 chyekyns
4000 pigeons
4000 conyes
400 herpnshawes
2000 pygges
400 plovers
100 dozen quayles
200 dozen fowles called rees
4000 colde pasties of venison
1000 parted dishes of gelly
4000 cold baked tartes
3000 cold baked custards
2000 hot custards
100 curlewes
1000 egrittes
500 and more stagges, bucks and rees
608 pykes and breames
12 porpoises and seales
2000 hot custards
200 fessantes
4500 partridges
400 wodcockes
204 in bitters
spices, sugared delicates and wafers – plentie

Humpty Dumpty

At length the castle passed to Cardinal Wolsey, who let it fall into disrepair in the early part of his career (1514 – 1530), due to his residence at the Court, devotion to temporal affairs and his neglect of his diocesan duties. King Henry VIII sent Wolsey back home in 1523 after he failed to obtain a divorce from the Pope – a huge mistake on Wolsey’s part. Wolsey returned to the castle and began to restore it to its former grandeur. However, he was arrested for high treason in November, 1530 and ordered to London for trial. He left on 6 November, but took ill at Leicester and died in the Abbey there on 29 November. The story of his downfall is depicted in the children's nursery rhyme of Humpty Dumpty.

Wolsey’s successor, Edward Lee became Archbishop of York in 1531, and didn’t help the castle’s condition any by converting it into a prison. Sometime after this it was used as the headquarters of the Royal Commissioners “appointed to govern the north and put down Popery and rebellion.” Huh? The arrival of Mary Queen of Scots sparked off the Catholic rising in the north in 1569. The uprising failed and many were put to death. Oh, those Scots…

The House of Commons resolved on 30 April 1646 that several castles in the County of York, Cawood being one of them, be unoccupied, and no garrison kept or maintained in them. On 27 November of that year the Northern Committee of the Commons ordered at 2:00pm that Cawood Castle be reduced to a ruin. Some of the stone was then taken upriver to Bishopthorpe Palace, where it was used to extend the official residence of the Archbishops of York. The gatehouse and parts of the castle's foundation are all that remain. An excerpt from Who is This Fellow Cawood?, by Lawrence Cawood, 1962:

"The castle and palace are now partially in ruins, and there are fragmentary remains of foundations which seem to indicate a much greater area than presently appears. The great gateway is still intact. Over the west front of the arch runs a dado embellished with eleven shields of armorial bearings, over which is the principal window. Above the inner arch of the gateway is a beautiful mediaeval oriel window of four bays, each divided into four panels, and each of the four panels at the base contains a shield of arms. On the right of the gateway is a large brick building supposed to have originally been the chapel, lighted by six late Edwardian windows. It formerly contained an upper floor said to have been the banqueting hall of the archbishops. Only these fragmentary remains of Cawood Castle, mouldering relics of its former greatness, now exist, but the walled and moated enclosure can still be traced."

13th century Steeton Hall - South Milford

Steeton Hall Gateway

For More Local Historical Information and Heritage Tours See Tykes Heritage

Ongoing Investigations:-

Rewriting the History of the Battle of Towton 1461.

Why should we even think that Towton’s history may need any rewriting? Well quite simply the modern image of that battle has too many questions, all of which doubt the present-day ‘historical’ picture of that bloody event.

Let us first take a look at the supposedly cast-iron picture that is broadly presented to us today, at the beginning of this twenty first century. This basic view of the historical explanation of the battle tells us how the Lancastrian forces had to pull back from London to York where their main, basic support was to be found. Yorkist Edward advances himself northward from London gaining men as he goes and comes along to Pontefract Castle. He has the nearby crossing at Ferrybridge secured and prepares for the advance into ‘enemy’ territory.

The Lancastrian faction sends Lord Clifford rushing south to Ferrybridge from their powerbase at York while they move their equally immense forces south of Tadcaster to Towton to take up a strong position there upon the plateau north of Saxton. Lord Clifford successfully takes over the bridge at Ferrybridge and destroys it.

Lord Warwick slays his horse and tells anyone who wishes to leave to do so now. So the Yorkists then cross the river upstream at Castleford, thus outflanking Clifford and causing him to retreat back north to the main Lancastrian force‘s position.

The Yorkists, foreseeing this possibility, send a detachment of mounted archers to ambush him at Dintingdale between Towton and Sherburn-in-Elmet, and he is killed. They then advance their main force to Dintingdale and Saxton and there take up their own position upon the plateau, with the woods to their left.

The next morning, Palm Sunday, the main battle begins. Yorkist Lord Fauconberg launches an arrow storm into the Lancastrians backed by a snowstorm and supporting wind. There is devastation within the Lancastrian ranks. The Lancastrians counter attack with foot soldiers up the slope which is on their right flank. The slaughter then begins that names the area ‘Bloody Meadow’ to this day.

The Lancastrians seemingly hid a detachment in the woods to the left of the Yorkist upon the previous day and these troops lunge upon the Yorkist lines at the same time.

The fight goes on most of the day until Yorkist Lord Norfolk, having repaired the crossing at Ferrybridge, comes onto the Lancastrian east flank with 6000 fresh men.

The Lancastrians are pivoted and they panic. Their retreat is a massacre as they try to cross the flooded Cock Beck.

It is a clear victory for Edward and the new Plantagenet regime takes the crown.

So what is wrong with this picture? Let us look at where it all seemed to come from.

We have various Victorian writers who take up the story. The one who seems to have been adopted by modern writers is Leadman in 1891. He tells us of Old London Road being the entry for the Lancastrians and of how Warwick made his speech about anyone wanting to leave at Pontefract after the Ferrybridge set back. He gives the starting lines as being upon the site that modern writers now have them.

Bogg almost copies this in the last years of that century, though he indicates the battle was started in Dintingdale. Apart from that it is much the same and it has come down to us in that manner and style ever since. But what of other Victorian writers?

Langdale wrote his version in 1822, with no position given as to where battle commenced, with no reference to Old London Road and no comment as to the speech.

Grainge was writing in 1854 and only mentions the battle positions as at Grimston. He gives no mention to Old London Road and puts the speech in the mouths of both Warwick and Edward at Pontefract.

1882 sees Wheater putting the starting lines at Dintingdale, no mention of any Old London Road and the speech down to Edward while upon the field.

In 1891 we have Lamplough placing the staring lines at Dintingdale and the speech being made by both Edward and Warwick at Pontefract, yet with no mention, again, of Old London Road.

Bulmers came out in 1892 but does not mention the Old London Road, nor the speech, nor the starting lines.

Speight went to press in 1903 with the starting lines between Saxton and Towton, but with no mention of the speech nor of Old London Road.

Not very consistent.

Now just what can we, in this 21^st century, gather from these few articles of the mid 19^th to early 20^th century and how should we compare them with today’s published view of the battle? There are quite a few views given of the battle and of that bloody day in these descriptions - but, little, if any, information as to where this information came from. Even then, most of this selection of ‘historic’ reports manage to contradict each other and differ, in no small part, with the picture that today’s supposed history tells us of this action.

Reading most of these articles it has to be noted that the battle is not even initially set upon the plateau where modern day descriptions put it, but instead to the north and south of the slightly more southerly placed Dintingdale valley. Leadman, in 1891, tells the world of the importance of the track heading west out of Towton called ‘Old London Road’. This seems to have been picked up by Edmund Bogg a few years later. He very firmly states as to how this was the main northern entry to the battlefield site from Tadcaster due to no other road (such as today’s modern road line) having existed until some 300 years after the battle - which would mean the late 1700’s. Today’s views of the battle in many ways also seem to mirror Leadman’s and Bogg’s writings.

Is the Leadman and Bogg picture to be regarded as correct? Perhaps not. It certainly has no merit in any of the other written views of that period, but let yourself be the judge of that. First let us consider their ‘Old London Road’ as being the only highway from Towton to Tadcaster.

Some map of the late 1700’s, which was perhaps the earliest one available to be used in forming Leadman’s and thus also Bogg‘s articles, may well only show the local area as it was during the enparking of Grimston Hall. That narrow period of British history saw the local gentry of all regions putting their money and efforts in to grand parks around their houses and halls while moving the previously connected villages and their people to new sites beyond the walls and hedges of this expanded new park’s boundary. Harewood is a world-famous example of this ideal. Local to Towton there was also Parlington and Lotherton that did exactly the same. Then, even closer to the battlefield, the present-day hall at Grimston was, like so many others, also built in that same enparking period and developed to suit the same grand-scale parking theme.

The only map that was thus seemingly available to them, from that narrow period in time, was somewhat erroneously used by Leadman to conclude his ‘Old London Road’ comments and perhaps lead to Bogg’s presumption about there being no other Tadcaster to Towton road until some 300 years after the battle. The map they may well have seen shows that the present day road line north from Towton finished just north of Grimston where the lane to Stutton links in, again at 90 degrees. This map was the well used and available work of one Mr. Jeffries and it was published in 1770. Our dear Victorian friend Edmund Bogg was, however, most certainly, and totally, wrong in saying that the present-day road line from Towton to Tadcaster was not available until the late 1700’s.

If we may, let us now look a little further back than perhaps these Victorian writers could then see. They were not blessed with having today’s Internet etc. to find and view extra evidence; that evidence that comes from the records of the other, earlier, maps of that self-same road dating back, as they do, as far as 1765, 1744 or 1720 and even to 1675. What do we find from what these somewhat earlier maps now show us? Well, firstly let it be said that road maps as we now know them were not so perfectly viewed as we can now, photo-like and from above, in this earlier period. Rather they were shown as long lines with side roads and towns marked upon them. Ribbons almost, each of which came with a compass rose to show the direction in which each ribboned panel was heading. More of a route map than a district road map.

A road map of this region by Cary in 1794 shows the road as it is today.

A route map published in Gentleman’s Magazine and dated 1765, which is some five years before Jeffries (see map page for this map), shows the self-same road route we have today, with the milestones noted and details of all road junctions, major and minor, that were connecting to the main highway. It gives totally no indication of ‘Old London Road’ even existing at that time.

Cowley’s Map of 1744 also shows a similar straight through roadway, though it’s detail is not clear enough for our argument.

The 1720 map of Mr. Lumby has similar details to that of 1765. (See map page for this map) This touring map again passes directly south out of Tadcaster and shows the side road link to Sutton (the present-day Stutton Road as already mentioned). It also shows the side road link to Ulleskelf, the side road link to Leeds, (past today’s memorial Cross ), the side road to Fenton as was directly opposite same, the roads to Saxton, to Barkston, to Huddlestone and many more very small country lanes as it goes on further south. It also does not even give today’s so-called Old London Road so much as a mark or a mention. Today’s milestones are again noted accurately.

Even further back there is the 1675 map by John Ogilby (see map page for this map)which also shows that the road through Ferrybridge and Sherburn-in-Elmet comes up to Towton and then carries straight on - as with today’s road line. It then crosses the Cock river at the stone bridge, which is now part of the south bound slip road of the Tadcaster by-pass, and carries on into Tadcaster. Grimston is specifically shown to the east of it and Stutton to the west. Virtually mirroring, once more, that of today’s road line. All side roads are marked but yet again- no indication of the Old London Road is given.

As there are no earlier local road maps on record then could it be perceived to mean that the present day road was not in use much before 1675? Not really, it is just simply that the map of 1675 was actually the first published map of this area that specifically showed the road lines, while any previous maps we know of today were only showing the towns, villages and rivers.

These three maps by Gentleman‘s Magazine, and Mssrs Lumby and Ogilby, herein mentioned, are drawn at one inch to the mile and, as stated, also show all the constructed milestones that sat alongside the road - so it would appear that these milestones and the self-same road line must have been already in place much earlier than that initial map of 1675 - and most of the mile stones are, indeed, still there alongside the road today. The maps gave mileages from the stones that, to be accurate, must indicate the use of the exact line of the present-day road. If the longer Old London Road we are debating was the earlier route then they would all be wrong - and for all the way south!. It must be said, yet again, that these milestones go straight through Grimston Park, north of Towton and south of Tadcaster, on today’s road line. The only one that is missing alongside today’s road in this locale is the one which would likely have been removed when Grimston was enparked - because it sat aside the then temporarily defunct roadway in the new park - if indeed that was what was happening in 1770. There is always the other possibility that the Cock Bridge was down and awaiting repair. Please remember that not one map available shows Old London Road as existing before the enparking period.

Yet the title ’Old London Road’ is there beside the lane adjacent to the present-day road so let us look more closely at the problems with this Old London Road. Heading out of Towton it leads first west and then generally north from Towton, while London is most obviously to the south. So when it was, at some past time, given the name ‘Old London Road’ then it would not have been so entitled by the folk of Towton, as, to them, it headed in the opposite direction. It must be fairly safe to assume that it would be named this way at it’s more northern end in-or-near Tadcaster. However this track’s ‘Old London Road’ name only runs as far as Stutton - after which it is called, to there from Tadcaster, not surprisingly, Stutton Road, for the simple reason that that is where it went from Tadcaster. Therefore the folks of Stutton may well have called it Old London Road because - at least to them - that is where it eventually went.

All well and good, but if the earlier road, on today’s line, was removed for any reason whatever, then why did it soon afterwards return once more into use, and remain so all the way up to this present day? Well, could it be that the nation came up with this great idea of toll roads? Therein was money to be made and here was an obvious old-time main-road route. It was thus re-instated as a highway and, to its south, a toll bar was put across it as it entered Grimston Park - at the previously mentioned Ulleskelf turnoff - and it has to be noted that this place is still today known as Towton Bar. Or again it may just simply have been a temporary situation while the bridge was having to be repaired.

Now we must look at the layout of that Old London Road where it meets the main road at Towton. A 90 degree connection. Nowhere else on that long, main London to York route do we find a 90 degree turn, not in some 200 miles, not before and not after. And these two roads that sit at 90 degrees? Well, for mile after mile the London road heads north towards Towton, and from Ferrybridge upwards it winds north in a consistent width and form, all the way to Tadcaster if the present road line is accepted, but when it supposedly turns onto Old London Road it then changes from a main, wide, usable highway into a mere narrow track, which is less than a quarter of its previous consistent width. So does this Old London Road theory really add up in the whole scheme of things?

Added to all that is where the Old London Road has it’s crossing place over the Cock river. The slope of the road’s track upon the Towton side is much too steep for any sizeable or weighty cart to use and would make such heavy transport usage virtually impossible. Something that such a main highway would be most often used by. Such a steep slope would, anyway, show deep wear from heavy use and from erosion, and indeed the track leading up from the bridge towards Towton is quite deep with use, but this wear is only some three feet wide. Indicating single foot or horse traffic. Hardly does it give the signs of any main north-south highway.

So today’s road line was obviously there in the 1600’s, and most likely even earlier, while the so-called Old London Road was little more that a track that was used during that ‘glitch’ of the enparking rage that swamped England in the late 1700’s, or perhaps as no more than a way for light traffic to avoid the toll road through Grimston Park. However, despite this, who is to say that the present and 1600’s road line was there, one hundred and fifty years or more earlier, back in the late 1400’s?

Not an easy question to answer by any means, with the maps of earlier periods not showing any road lines. But between Sherburn-in-Elmet and South Milford a major Roman road has recently been discovered which leads due north to south - with Ferrybridge to the south and Tadcaster to the north. Also in the early 1900’s the old bridge on the present road-line crossing over the Cock Beck near Tadcaster by the modern-day by-pass (mentioned above) was also found to have been built upon Roman foundations.

So this direct Ferrybridge to Tadcaster route was certainly in use some 1000 years before the Battle of Towton. It was in use on the self-same line less than two hundred years later than the battle, as it shows on maps from 1675, 1720, 1744, 1765, 1794, 1831, 1849 and it still is in use today while there is only one map of 1770 that shows any differing route. There is no certain proof from all this of its use in the fifteenth century, but the odds in favour of the present road line being in use in 1461 must now be 10 to 1 in favour while the odds for the so-called Old London Road being the main roadway at that time would appear to be nearer 50 to 1 against.

Do not forget though that we are told in the modern published versions of The Battle of Towton’s histories that the Lancastrians were slaughtered around Cock Bridge and that was, according to the likes of Edmund Bogg and those who came after, on today’s Old London Road’. This is most certainly a very big point in its favour. But was the said Cock Bridge actually upon Old London Road? Not seemingly so. The problem for this modern school of thought being that the said title only appears on that self-same map of 1770, while the last bridge over the Cock (the one with the Roman foundations), which is on the more modern-day route to Tadcaster, was the crossing point which was actually known as ‘Cock Bridge’. It says so even on the 1849 Ordnance Survey map where its then current 19^th century name was ‘New Bridge’ but ‘Cock Bridge’ is shown clearly as its much earlier title. This is also a possible indication of it having been lately repaired and re-instated.

So either we have a wide, continuous and consistent roadway from the south to only just past Grimston.

The road width shows that it is a consistently wide and well used ancient way along its whole route, but it then slips into a mere track way at Towton which joins it at an unacceptable 90 degrees to its main course. It then has milestones upon the road south of Towton are all incorrect in their distances to Tadcaster.

It is also far too narrow and too steep in certain sections to have been anything more than a country track and the only maps which call this track Old London Road are of the enparking period or later.

Or we more likely have a 1600 year old through way with consistent road width, consistent milestones and all the features that argue in its favour and with the earliest road map of 1675 showing that it was indeed so. It has continuous milestones from earlier than 1675. It has a Roman road mirroring it between Sherburn-in-Elmet and South Milford. It has a bridge just outside Tadcaster with Roman foundations. As it passes Grimston Hall it is mirrored by the remains of that Roman road which lie on its east side just the other side of the Grimston Park wall.  When Grimston was enparked in 1830 that Roman road was well known and the landscape designer incorporated it into the walk around the park. He lined it with Roman statues and columns, possibly from the site of a villa on the far side of the park, and named it Emperor's Walk. Certainly all the other maps of both later and earlier than the enparking period show it near exactly ‘as-is’ today.

If - by some weird case of distorted imagination - this Old London Road track could have been the main road at the time of the battle then its steep incline and its narrow bridge would likely have not allowed the battle to take place at Towton anyway. To put such a large Lancastrian army on the field by this route would have required nearer to five days than the seemingly one day that was available. So it would most certainly appear that either the idea of this being the main Tadcaster to Towton road is wrong or all else of the battle’s history is wrong.

But what of other problems with today’s picture of that battle? As already mentioned it would seem that the majority of Victorian writers put the start of the battle in a different place to where today’s battle maps put it. And in their option they do at least seem to pick the more militarily obvious site. The slope to the north of Dintingdale, and thus Saxton, would be a far more obvious place for the Lancastrian force to await the enemy, especially given the strategy of warfare in that period.

Likewise, should the battle lines have indeed been drawn up upon the higher plateau, the idea of thousands of Yorkist soldiers spending a freezing night alongside the ‘ambush’ party in the wood to their left without ever checking it or even simply going in there for their firewood is a little too far fetched to be believed.

Then we also have the famous references to the ‘bridge of bodies’ over the Cock river by Cock Bridge and the said waterway to be later seen ‘running red with blood‘. A far from impossible situation given the numbers who died. But, and it must be a big ‘but‘, we find we have exactly the same description given of Penda’s defeated army’s retreat further up the Cock river in the 7^th century. Exactly the same description, virtually word for word. Bridge of bodies - river running red with blood? A possible coincidence? Or could it just perhaps be a case of local legends becoming mixed up over time?

And finally we have the story of Warwick at Pontefract exclaiming that any man who would rather leave him should do so now - while we also have a very similar statement being made by Edward upon the battlefield. Hardly is it likely that this offer was made twice within twenty four hours.

There are certainly many questions that need to re-asked, but I conclude from this evidence that the present-day road route was the self-same route that was open to the warring factions back in 1461 and thus the search for bodies should be directed to the region due north of Towton as much, if not more, than around the Old London Road’s smaller bridge.

Minor details perhaps, but details that could mean a total re-think on the Battle of Towton, and, if this is indicative of history in general, then many other ‘accepted’ facts may need some serious rethinking.

I await any contrary arguments.

Copyright John Davey. 2002. Dedicated to Mr. Scowen Sykes Esq., the father of Towton investigation.

Copyright J.Davey 2002-2006

Return To Elmet Home Page

Page Sponsored by 02shop.com