Haughley

Haughley (originally Hageneth or Hagenorth) Castle has the distinction of being one of the largest surviving mottes in Britain. At 85 feet (26 m) high and about the same in diameter at the top, it is second only to Thetford which was destroyed at the same time. The sheer size of Haughley is not so evident as Thetford because Haughley village is on naturally rising ground and Thetford motte is bare and exposed. Haughley motte would originally have been bare and all the surrounding area devoid of any trees or shrubs. This bare earth policy was a usual practice as it denied any would-be attacker the opportunity to hide.

It appears almost certain that the castle site was occupied long before the Normans came. It is believed that this was originally a Magus or Druid site, which was taken over as a Roman camp as a result of the Iceni uprising of ad 61 by Boudica. This was due to its strategic importance, being positioned in the heart of Iceni territory and being near a number of major roads linking London to Norwich via the Roman capital, Colchester. This camp, known as Sitomagus, was highly significant and may have accounted for a quarter of the garrison at Colchester. A number of sources state that it was built by Paulinus Suetonius, but he was not born till ad 75. Most Roman camps were square or rectangular and this would have been quite possible at Haughley if we include part of Castle Farm. The camp would probably have been surrounded by a wooden palisade or flint wall (as at Burgh) surrounded by a ditch, flooded with water. It is likely that this was only occupied for a short time.

The site was almost certainly reused by the Danes and Saxons because of its position overlooking the Gipping valley leading down to the Orwell Estuary. This was after all, the centre of Suffolk.

By the time of King Edward the Confessor, the castle was held by Gutmund or Guthmund, and so we must assume the motte was first raised around the year 1050, using earth from the enlarged ditches which surround the inner bailey, the castle being needed to protect the population from Norse attack.

Guthmund was the brother of the Abbot of Ely and was, by all accounts, a well respected and

Pious man. Haughicy probably had a market of sorts by now as it was common for traders to set up stalls outside a castle’s gates. (Officially the market did not receive a royal charter until 1231, but Eye Castle had a market in its outer bailey in the time of Robert Mallet, so it is safe to assume Haughley did as well.) Many people would have had to visit the castle to deal with land disputes etc. The castle would have been fairly simple in construction with a lookout tower on the mottc surrounded by a wooden fence or palisade. Guthmund would have had a hall, enclosed within a lower court probably where Castle Farm is now.

By 1086 the manor and castle of Haughley had been granted to Hugh de Montfort, an ancestor of Simon. Hugh was appointed Constable of the Honour of Haughley, one of the three Honours awarded in Suffolk. Hugh, nicknamed ‘the Bearded’, had excelled himself at the Battle of Mortremerin 1054 and commanded one of the flanks at Hastings. Hugh had also captured Dover Castle immediately after the Battle of Hastings. William I granted 170 honours to his tcnants-in-chicf throughout England. This gave the tenant the right to build a castle and guaranteed an income through the granting of certain manors. Hugh had 114 lordships of which 60 were in Suffolk. Under the Constable were 52 knights throughout Essex and Suffolk.

HaiighUy limit

Some writers say that Hugh ‘despised’ Haughley. Could it be that he was discontent at only having being granted 60 manors in Suffolk, as against his main rivals Richard FitzGilbert, who was granted 112 manors with the Honour of Clare, and Robert Mallet, 319 manors with the Honour of Eye?

William I decreed ‘that a castle was to be constructed at Hageneth’. Forced local labour would have been used to graft on extra layers to the motte and enlarge the ditches surrounding the site. This is where the term ‘a hard day’s graft’ comes from. This first castle would probably have been built of wood as it was the quickest form of construction (at Pevensey, the castle took only eight days to build), but this would have had to be replaced after about twenty years as wood rots quickly when in contact with the soil.

Hugh died early in the reign of William II in a duel and was succeeded by his son, another Hugh. Times were now troubled as William I had left Normandy to his eldest son Robert and England to his second son Rufus. Hugh became politically active and with his brother, a priest, supported Robert, Duke of Normandy. He had however backed the wrong side as Robert was defeated by his brother and imprisoned in England. Hugh lost Haughley to the Crown. Hugh and his brother left for the Crusades in 1096, never to return.

The de Montfort family, however, was not entirely out of favour as Hugh’s son, Robert, was a well respected courtier of Henry I. The manor had passed to Adeline, the sister or daughter of Hugh. Her husband, Robert de Vere, was certainly Constable of the castle by 1107. It must be assumed that the castle was now reconstructed in flint with a shell keep (similar to Clare) at the summit of the motte. Money would have been available from the crown for this. (Some local Haughley people claim to have remains of doorways and windows constructed out of Caen stone.)

By 1141 the post of Constable and the manor had passed to Gilbert of Ghent, who would have had a difficult time controlling the many adulterine castles which were built during the civil war between Stephen and Matilda. When Henry II eame to the throne in 1154 the post of Constable appears to have been separated from the lordship of the manor - Henry D’Essex was appointed Constable and Robert FitzSussche was awarded the manor.

Henry D’Essex’s story is worth recounting here. In 1157, he acted as standard bearer to Henry II during the Welsh campaign. At the battle of Colcshill he threw down the standard and fled the field. The day was saved by Robert de Montfort (quite a coincidence), who picked up the standard and reassembled the troops. De Montfort charged D’Essex with cowardice. This meant mortal combat; D’Essex refused, but the king insisted and the fight took place. Before any blows could be exchanged D’Essex lay down on the ground, pretending to be dead. Afterwards he claimed that he had seen a vision of St Edmund and St Gilbert alongside Robert de Montfort and had been struck down. He believed it was divine retribution for having tried a criminal in his own court at Haughlcy for an offence committed within the Liberty of St Edmund and had failed to pay the abbey an annual pension. The usual punishment for such cowardly behaviour during a duel was death, but friends managed to save him and a pardon was granted on the condition D’Essex became a monk. This he did at Reading Abbey where his story was told to Abbot Sampson and Jocelin of Brakelond.

Hugh’s lands and privileges were withdrawn and the post of Haughley Constable was given to Randolph de Broc, a man infamous in English history. In addition to Haughley he had charge of Saltwood Castle in Kent which had belonged to the Archbishop of Canterbury. (Becket held this and Eye Castle, but when he went into voluntary exile in France the king dispossessed him. Such was Becket’s anger at Broc that he publicly excommunicated him.)

Following the king’s famous outcry ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ four knights (Robert Fitzurse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy and Richard le Bret) rode from the castle near Bayeux to England. They arrived at Saltwood on the night of 28th December 1170, and with de Broc they plotted the murder of Thomas Becket. The story says that the five discussed their plot without

Candlelight, not daring to see each other’s faces.

The following day the four knights, without Broc, rode to Canterbury Cathedral and carried out the dreadful murder, returning to Saltwood that night before travelling further afield. What happened to Broc afterwards? This I have been unable to establish, but Saltwood castle was given to the see of Canterbury by a penitent Henry II. Could it be that Broc then took up permanent residence at Haughlcy?

Shortly afterwards, in 1173, Henry II was in France re-establishing his claim to Normandy. Encouraged by Queen Eleanor, Henry II’s eldest son Henry organised a rebellion to take over the English throne. Henry’s co-conspirator was the banished Robert Beaumont, Earl of Leicester.

On 24th September Leicester landed at Walton with 1,400 Flemish mercenaries and was welcomed by Earl Bigod. (Many of the sources are confused over events here with some saying they forced Bigod’s co-operation, which cannot have been the case.) A small force attacked Walton and Orford but was unsuccessful. The troops travelled up the Orwell to Ipswich where they captured Bigod’s castle which had been taken over by forces loyal to Henry II. Confidently and with an ever growing band of supporters, including more Flemings, the troops proceeded to Bigod’s castle at Framlingham where they met Prince Henry. On 13th October 1173 an army (said to have been 10,000 strong) arrived at Haughlcy.

Opinions differ as to the size of de Broc’s garrison, but it may have been as low as thirty. The attack, which is supposed to have lasted only one afternoon, was short and fierce and bodies were said to have been piled high, - local legend says the bodies were buried in Hall Gardens, the field just north of Haughlcy Crawford school. The surrender was obtained when Broc himself abandoned the castle in return for his life and a few knights were taken prisoner to be used to obtain ransom money. The castle was left burning with brushwood piled high against the keep. This is said by some to be evidence that the castle was a wooden structure, but castles have wooden doors, roofs and floors and the brushwood would have been used to smoke out the last few defenders. Certainly it was badly damaged and despite its apparently massive defences had fallen remarkably easily.

So confident were the attackers after the speed of Haughlcy’s capitulation that a small force went to attack Eye. Although they badly damaged the castle, it was not actually taken. It was, however, u n 1 i kcly to offer any f u rther resistance.

Leicester returned to Framlingham perhaps a little over-confident, because forces were being mustered against him. Travelling to the midlands, Leicester was intercepted on 27th October by Robert dc Lucy, Humphrey de Bohun, de Broc, and an army of knights at Fornliam St Genevieve near Bury St Edmunds. Although fewer in number than Leicester's men, the quality of the king’s troops was far better and the result was total victory.

The result of the rebellion was that Henry ordered the destruction of Bigod’s castles at Ipswich, Bungay and Framlingham. Bigod only avoided execution by paying an extremely large fine. Unfortunately poor Haughley was also included in the list for destruction. Henry’s new castle at Orford would keep this difficult baron in check and there was no money in the kitty to restore and update Haughlcy. There were also too many castles in Suffolk and he wanted to avoid the risk of anyone taking Haughlcy over.

Here the story should end, but in 1744 John Kirby in his book The Suffolk Tnwelkr stated that the castle was afterwards rebuilt and fortified by Ufford, Earl of Suffolk, and ‘did good service to the family’. Part of a circular keep and rampart walls were said to have survived. It is pretty certain that the destruction ordered by Henry II was not completely carried out (it certainly wasn’t at Walton or Framlingham), and the castle was rebuilt, but not by the Uffords.

The records for Haughley manor now become extremely vague. A local book by Nigel McCulloch has such contradictory evidence from one chapter to the next that I have to admit to some confusion. The most likely person to have rebuilt the castle around 1190 is Thomas de Perche who was married to Matilda of Saxony, niece of Richard I. Matilda held Haughley Manor as part of her estates. It seems unlikely that in such troubled times a member of the royal household would live in anything but a castle.

By the year 1319 the manor had passed to Queen

Wingjidd Castle (see p. 82), built by the de la Pole family u’ben they were unable to denelop Haughley as their baronial seat (seep. 48).

FURTHER REAPING

A. G. H. Hollingsworth, The History of Stowmarki't (argues for the identity of Sitomagus)

Nigel J. H. McCulloeh, HmijfhUy Past and Present

Isabella, wife of Edward II, possibly as part of her wedding dowry in 1308. It provided aecommoda-tion for Edward II in 1326. Edward had spent his last Christmas as a free man at Bury St Edmunds, staying at Haughley as a guest of Riehard, Earl of Cornwall and King of the Romans, for a week early in the new year before going to South Elmham to visit the Bishop of Norwieh. Later in the year it may well have aeted as a stopover for his wife Isabella, who on 24th September had travelled from the eontinent up the Orwell Estuary via Walton on the Naze with a foree of soldiers. Queen Isabella then went on to pay homage at the tomb of St Edmund.

From 1337 the manor was held by the Ufford family. When the last male Ufford, William, died in 1384, Riehard II granted it to Michael dc la Pole. William Ufford’s widow Isabel, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick was granted the right of abode, in what we assume to be the castle, until her death. The dc la Poles, unable to develop Haughley as their baronial seat, built Wingfield Castle. We must therefore assume that when Isabel died in 1416, Haughley Castle became surplus to requirements and was abandoned. After this, the castle was left to decay and was used as a quarry for local building materials.

There are no remains of the castle to be seen although the ramparts and earthworks remain and still impress the visitor with their size. Some local people claim that a faint outline of the shell keep can be seen in frosty weather. The outline of the different sections is clear. There were two drawbridges and barbicans to both the motte and the inner bailey and the moat is still remarkably full of water, even in the summer, the water table being extremely high here. The inner bailey would have contained the lord of the manor’s hall and various essential outbuildings like stables.

There also appear to have been two baileys - one to the north and a larger southerly bailey which would appear to have extended all the way to the road called ‘The Folly’, thus being approximately circular. The church may well mark the site of the original chapel, but it is dated c. 1330-40 and so is much later than the castle. There is also a local story saying that Duke Street was named after the Earl of Leicester. I wonder why it wasn’t called Earl Street? More likely the name is a derivation of ducks from the castle moat.

It would be interesting in the future if the site could be fully cleared and a full archaeological survey carried out, with public access granted, but the motte, with wildfowl happily floating along the moat, is so photogenic that it would be a shame to spoil the vista.

O. S. LANDRANGER MAP 154 Oimhritigt

GRID REFERENCE

TL65945Q?

TVPE

Fortifitd manor house?

OWNERSHIP

?