Aycliffe  Barnard Castle  Brancepeth   Chester-le-Street  
<Durham City>  <County Durham - 2>  <County Durham - 3>

Aycliffe - St Andrew


There are a number of cross shafts and heads as well as grave covers in the church
Note the upside down figure in number three above
Frederick Richard Hardinge (1856)
Mate of HMS Encounter
Died of dysentry aboard RN Hospital Ship Hercules at 24
'The Farrier's Gravestone'
Now no longer in situ and buried under the carpet.
Grave cover of a blacksmith and his wife.
Note the key and shears for a woman.
And the hammer, tongs and sword for a blacksmith.

Sandstone knight c. 1300
Other Monuments
George Chapman JP (1932) and his wife, Margaret (1925)  Brass
Charles John Aylmer Eade  Vicar 1880-1926) and his son, Aylmer (1917) KIA Poelcapelle, Belgium at 25 Brass

Barnard Castle - St Mary
Robert de Northam Vicar of Gainford. Mid 14th century.

A number of medieval foliated crossed preserved in the church.  Note some of the symbols carved which include a sword and sheep shears.

   Far left:Hon Sir John Hullock (1829) Knight & Baron of the Exchequer
   Above left: Thomas Colpitts (1799); his wife Ann (1816); their 2nd daughter Ann (1808) ; their sons: Thomas (1819), John (1812), George 1810). Added below is their daughter Eleanor (1841)
Centre Left: Rev Joshua White A B (1783) 'Minister of the Chapel 25 years'
   Above right: Dame Mary Hullock (1856) widow of Sir John
   Far right: Rev Robert Barnes (1801)

 we received a very warm and helpful reception from members of the staff at St Mary's, Barnard Castle.

Brancepeth - St Brandon
St Brandon's suffered a disastrous fire during the night of September 16th 1998 leaving little more than a shell Virtually all of the fine woodwork was lost; however a curious archeological discovery was made, which is described below. Restoration of the church began almost at once and this was completed in 2014.

These effigies were of wood and unfortunately destroyed in the fire mentioned above.

Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (1484) and his wife, Elizabeth (Percy) (1440)
Ralph Neville became heir apparent to Ralph, the First Earl, when his father died in France in 1440; his grandfather, the First Earl, died in 1445 and then  Ralph succeeded to the earldom. However the First Earl had settled much of his inheritance on his second wife Joan Beaufort and their twelve children; she was one of the four illegitimate children of John of Gaunt and his mistress Kathryn Swynford, who were legitimized bu act of parliament following their parents subsequent marriage. The family was now very well connected to the royal and other powerful and influential families. This inheritance gave rise to the Neville-Neville feud which at times became violent.
All of these twelve children gained property, titles and offices: for example Richard, the eldest, became Earl of Salisbury while Robert, the youngest, eventually became Bishop of Durham. Ralph spent much of his life trying to regain his lost inheritance but Joan Beauford had powerful allies such as her brother Cardinal Henry and Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, who was to be succeeded by one of her sons, as mentioned. The First Earl had also strictly followed the law in his decision on this inheritance.
Although a settlement was reached in 1443, it was really a failure for Ralph Neville: he did regain Barony of Raby but he had to concede most of his lands to the Earl of Salisbury.
Ralph raised troops for the Lancastrian side in the War of the Roses but did not take a major part if the fighting as by this time he had 'succumbed to mental disorder.' He was then under the guardianship of his brother Sir Thomas, who died in 1458 and John was killed at the Battle of Towton in 1461.
Ralph's second wife was Margaret Cobham, 4th Baroness Cobham. He was succeeded by his nephew, another Ralph, as the Third Earl, his two children having died young.

Above: Sir Robert Neville (1319) known as, because of his swaggering ways, as he Peacock of the North.
He was the eldest son of Ranulph, First Baron Neville of Raby, but, because he predeceased his father, his elder brother, Ralph, the victor of Neville's Cross, inherited the barony. He fought at the Battle of Bannockburn and married Ellen Neville of Raby. This was a time when the Scots were making numerous border raids into England and Sir Robert was killed during one of these outside Berwick in single combat with  Sir James 'The Good' Earl of Douglas, also known as Black Douglas.
The monument was damaged in the fire and the yellow stains are of molten metal falling on the stonework from the roof.

Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland (1523)
I do not have a photograph of this monument, which was a large stone tomb chest without an effigy. I do not yet know if it survived the fire.
Ralph Neville was the only child of John, Baron Neville, brother of the unfortunate Second Earl, by his wife Anne Holland, daughter of John Holland, 2nd Duke of Exeter. John was killed fighting for the Lancastrians at the Battle of Towton in 1461 and attainded  later that year. However his son, Ralph, obtained a reversal of this attainder and became 3rd Earl of Westmorland and Baron Neville, when his uncle Ralph, the 2nd Earl, died in 1484.
Ralph, the 3rd Earl, was predeceased by his son, so that his grandson became the 4th Earl.

The fire mentioned above caused considerable damage and  great losses to the church. It also uncovered over one hundred 12th to 13th century grave slabs buried in the walls of the clerestory which were exposed when the heat from the fire stripped off the internal covering. These were well above the ground near the roof and regularly arranged. It is thus speculated that these stones were 'hidden' in the walls by the rector John Cosin, an enthusiastic builder - was was actually responsible for the clerestory - and who later became Bishop of Durham, in order to protect them from vandals or 'reformists'.  However it must be said that gravestone are frequently (if rather disrespectfully)  reused as building material: witness many a church yard path.
The slabs feature crosses of various designs, many swords as well and a few  shears. Forty have been kept in the church - see above, left and right -  and the rest in Brancepeth Castle.
Lost Brasses
Thomax Claxton 1403). Knight
Richard Drax (1456) Priest. Demi-figure. On each corner if the stone in which the brass are set images of the four Evangelists.

Modern Brass
(not damaged by fire)
Gustavus Russell 8th Viscount Boyne, 2nd Baron Brancepeth (1909). Brass with simple cross above the English text and leaf border.
John Parrington (1876) Rectangular but a gothick arch surrounds the Latin text. Floral design.
Gustavus William, 9th Viscount Boyne, Baron Brancepeth (1942). Also his elder son Gustavus Lascelles Hamilton-Russell (1940) KIA Dunkirk, serving with the B.E.F.
Edward Duncome Shafto (1879) Capt. R.A. Killed by an explosion at Bala Hissar, Carbul. Note: The H in Bala Nissar looks very much like an N but I am sure it is Bala Hissar, which means Hight Fort.

Chester-le-Street - St Mary & St Cuthbert

The Lumley Effigies
    The parish church at Chester-le-Street contains a series of fourteen effigies representing members of the Lumley family, although these effigies do not mark their actual burial sites. They were arranged in the chronological order of whom they represent, or are supposed to represent,  (that is, not necessarily according to the actual age of the monuments) beginning at the west end of the church with the earliest and proceeding along the north aisle to the last, when the chancel is reached. Each effigy lies on an tomb slab which itself  lies on what might be called a continuous tomb chest. There is a wall tablet over each giving the name of the represented and detailed genealogical and other information. Or at least this was how they appear to have been intended to be arranged when they were installed  although, as will be shown below, they were not.

   They were commissioned by John, Lord Lumley at the end of the 16th century to proudly demonstrate his lineage and most - but not all - date from that time; others were removed from other burial sites. Two - that of  Ralph, Lord Lumley and his son Sir John - were removed by license which included the monuments and the remains from the Bishop from the church yard of Durham Cathedral  in the late 16th century. However what John, Lord Lumley believed to be the burial sites - 'the lay cemetery near the north door' - was, in fact, according to the Cathedral records incorrect. It seems to be unknown from where the third 'original' effigy was removed.

   Some have broken feet and one the lower part of his legs; most are in a rather poor condition, although the 'genuine' monuments are far better.

   I must stress that I have not yet seen  these monuments let alone photographed them: the photographs below were kindly sent to me by Richard Collier and I have based this short article on these photographs with information from written material which I have attempted to correlate with the photographs. Let me state first of all that the short section about these monuments in Pevsner The Buildings of England: County Durham is not only vague and confusing but also quite incorrect. For example, he states that the last monument in the series represents John, Lord Lumley (1610), the instigator of the series: it does not, but rather his grandfather, also John, Lord Lumley. Furthermore, if you examine the effigies today you will see that there is a row of only twelve effigies along the north wall of the north aisle and a further two making a separate row right back at the west end again; this may be seen in the photographs below.  Pevsner writes that 'by this time the aisle was so full a second row was begun', although he does not clearly state exactly what he means by this; he had just referred to John, Lord Lumley (1610) so this seems to imply a further two monuments were inserted. In fact these two were moved from the row so that an organ could be installed in Victorian times; furthermore there have been movements of effigies and the accompanying tablets over the years and some of the latter are lost.
  The first table is distilled from the chapter The Parish Church of Chester-le-Street by Robert Surteen in The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham Vol 2, Chester Ward. (Nichols & Son, London 1820). I have used the list of effigies and the genealogical tables as described in that chapter, often using the (somewhat) unclear language there. The comments and deductions are mine
Original Order/
Dates Etc  Appearance Etc  Comments
  1) Liulph Anglo-Saxon thegn. Murdered by Gillebert, kinsman to Bishop Waltheof, before 1080. The effigy is Elizabethan.
'Coat of mail; right hand grasps hilt of sword, shield on left' Above this monument is a very long inscription of the whole family's descent or alleged descent.
 2) Uchtred Son of Liulph (c. 1080). Time of King Henry I. Also Elizabethan as are all the rest except where stated. 'Suit of chain armour, the right hand crossed to the left side, grasping hilt of sword'
 3) William de Lumley I Son of Uchred; the first to use the name Lumley. Time of King Henry II (i.e. before 1189). 'Probably genuine. Full suit of chain armour, over which a surcoat, the sword depends from  belt and shield on the left arm Legs crossed and feet rest on lion, arms crossed on breast, right hand grasps tail of paraquet' I have not discovered where this effigy came from. However it cannot be genuine in the strict sense as cross legged effigies did not begin to appear until mid-late 13th century, so either represents William III or it was made much later than William I's date of death and placed over his grave then. A similar case was that of the effigy of Robert, Duke of Normandy in Gloucester Cathedral. Furthermore the heraldry on the shield indicates the effigy is of another family altogether: the FitzMarmadukes of Horden.
 4)  Sir William de Lumley II Son of William I. Time of King John. 'Appears in plate of much less genuine description; legs crossed, shield on left arm and right hand grasping sword hilt; head bare and resting on helmet. I am unsure of the meaning of the first sentence
 5) Sir William de Lumley III Son of William II.  Time of King Henry III 'Similar but legs straight'  
 6) Sir Roger Son of William III  Time of King Edward I 'Like William but sore mutilate' He was buried in the Franciscan friary of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
 7) Sir Robert Son of Roger  Time of King Edward I. (ob. 1325) 'Extremely like Roger; head bare, resting on cushion;  
 8) Sir Marmaduke Son of Roger. Time of King Edward III. (ob. 1365) 'In mail with surcoat; hands clasped on breast; head in cap of mail, resting on gauntlets; curled beard  
 9) Ralph, First Baron Lumley Son of  Marmaduke. Died in battle at Cirencester in the 'Revolt of the Three Earls' against King Henry IV in 1400. Time of Kings Richard II and Henry IV Genuine: removed from the Churchyard of Durham Cathedral. 'A close coat of mail, the visor ribbed down the front with two transverse slits for sight, the breast covered with a shield, the sword unsheathed and upright and point resting  against the visor. Legs are straight and resting on hound'. The barony was forfeited because of this revolt although this is not stated on the tablets. He was actually beheaded according to the process of the law. The armour of this monument dates from the later 13th century so cannot be that of Ralph. The heraldry is also different. There is a knight's effigy in the church yard of Durham Cathedral similar to this and the next, but now very worn. (see above)
10) Sir John Lumley Son of Baron Ralph.  Died in battle with Thomas, Duke of Clarence (Henry V's brother) at Baugé, Anjou, France in 1421. Time of King Henry V. Genuine: removed from the Churchyard of Durham Cathedral.'Almost minutely resembling the last'  The armour of this monument dates from the later 13th century so cannot be that of Sir John.  The heraldry is also different.
'Then there follows is a blank space for one tomb' This presumable means a physical space. Sir Thomas (ob. 1485) was the son of Sir John and father of  Baron George (next) and omitted from the series. He petitioned King for the reversal of the attainder of his grandfather. Does this mean that the monument to Sir Thomas was planned but not constructed for reasons that cannot now be ascertained.
11) George, Lord Lumley Grandson of Sir John and son of Sir Thomas. Time of King Henry VII (ob. 1507) 'In robes of peace. Head bare, hair and beard curled. Hands clasped on breast. Ruff around neck'  
'A second vacancy occurs between 11 and 12' Why is this?
12) Sir Thomas Lumley Son of George, Lord Lumley. Died in battle in the lifetime of his father.  Time of King Henry VII (ob. 1487) 'The figure is in mail (not much unlike nos. 5) and 6). Head bare, resting on helmet, hands clasped on breast, legs straight'  
13) Richard, Lord Lumley Son of Sir Thomas. Time of Henry VIII  (ob. 1510) Robes, head bare, no beard, hands clasped on breast.  
14) John, Lord Lumley Son of Baron John Fought at Flodden 1513. Time of Henry VIII  (ob. 1545) Robes, much like the last. He was buried in the Priory of Guisborough
   John, Lord Lumley is number 14 and the last to be commemorated in the series. 

   We can now attempt to identify the effigies as they are arranged today.
Row Number Possible Correlation Comments    
1A (right-original-row) Almost certainly no. 1, Liulp The description fits: right arm passes over body and grasps hilt of sword. Shield on left. The legs are straight, although this is not mentioned. Feet missing.    
1B (left-new-row) Possibly John, Baron Lumley There are three figures referred to as 'in robes' and this is one of them. See 11 and 12 below where the reasoning suggests that only John remains. Lord John (no. 14)  was the last of the series so it is likely that this effigy would have been moved to make room for the organ. Sir Thomas who is now next to the east after Lord John was his grandfather. The description states no beard and this is certainly the case.    
2A (right-original-row) Almost certainly no. 2, Uchtred As 1A above.  The shield is not mentioned but this is probably an omission. The legs are again straight and again this is not mentioned. Feet missing.    
2B (left-new-row) Almost certainly no. 12,  Sir Thomas Lumley The description fits. The armour is plate rather than mail but this is probably  the inaccurate description of the time    
3 Almost certainly no. 3, William This looks original, although the comments above apply. The description of surcoat over armour, hands crossed over breast, legs cross and feet on lion fit. I cannot make out what he is holding but I think this can be discounted.    
4 Uncertain I cannot make these three out from the photographs I have; however there is no reason  to conclude that they are not the original nos. 4,5 and 6: Sir William II, Sir William III and Sir Roger.    
5 Uncertain    
6 Uncertain
7 Almost certainly Sir Robert. Again this fits: head bare, resting on cushion. He wears plate armour and a short surcoat.    
8 Almost certainly Sir Marmaduke This again fits the description: hands clasps on breast, head in cap of mail (not mail of course) and curled beard. The legs are broken off from the knees down.    
9 Almost certainly Ralph, 1st Baron These both look genuine and fit the description of straight legs, sword held upright and under shield which lies on breast. Lord Ralph appears headless in the photographs but Sir John wears a closed helmet with eye slits; the 1820 description refers to such an helmet being worn by Lord Ralph but not by Sir John but this is probably an omission as the description refers to thar effigy of Sir John as 'almost minutely resembling the last'. However these are certainly not the effigies of whom they are supposed to represent.    
10 Almost certainly Sir John    
11 Probably Richard, Baron Lumley There are three effigies in robes and both of these are thus clad. In the photographs the tablets over the effigies state that 11 is Lord Richard and 12 is Lord George. If we assumed these are correct - although there is really no reason for doing so - then this is then correct identification. However the effigies appear to have been reversed into an 'incorrect' order as George was the grandfather of Richard.    
12 Probably George, Baron Lumley    

I will now give further information which is in the 1820 article and the more relevant information from: Christian D Liddy and Christian Steer, John Lord Lumley and the Creation and Commemoration of Lineage in Early Modern England (Archaeological Journal 167:1, 197-227). I will also pose some questions and attempt some answers.
   The effigies - were installed on the instruction of John, Baron Lumley (c. 1533-1609) in the 1590's to show a direct male line from around the time of the Norman Conquest to Baron John himself , but with gaps which will be discussed later. This Lord John was the son of George, Baron Lumley, himself the son of the John, Baron Lumley whose effigy is the last of the series described above. This George Lumley took part in the Pilgrimage of Grace, a rather a gentle euphemism for the serious year long rebellions against King Henry VIII, which took place 1536-1537 and was led by lawyer Robert Aske, after whom it is sometimes named.  Lord George was attainted and executed for his part in the rebellion. He was buried in the church of the Crutched Friars in London but without a monument. Eighteenth and nineteenth century sources give a copy of his epitaph in Chester-le-Street Church, which was attached to the north wall of the north aisle but now is obscured by the organ.  His son, John, consequently did not inherit the barony but petitioned the King (Edward VI, King Henry now being safely out of the way) in 1547 for restoration of the honor, which was granted. It must be said here, however,  that this ancestral line, although supported on a historical basis in several texts, is considered to be dubious to say the lease and the 'imported' effigies certainly do not represent whom they are supposed to represent. It is also interesting that the acts of treason by two ancestors which led to their execution and loss of the barony are not mentioned: for example, George's epitaph merely states that he 'predeceased his father'.

   An agreement had been made between John, Baron Lumley and thirteen named parishioners for the preservation in perpetuity of twenty-two monuments. What exactly does this mean in this case? Monument does not necessarily refer to effigies but may also refer to wall monuments as well. There is also the likely possibility that the project was never completed and the whole twenty-two monuments were never constructed. Liddy and Steer believe that this  was actually the case and that six others - to Lord John himself, his two wives and three children of his first marriage, who predeceased him - were planned; in support of this they  refer to a 1805 document  which mentions 'an oval left blank for some future inscription upon which are three shields of arms, namely that of John, Lord Lumley, of Jane (Fitzalan), his first wife, and of Elizabeth (Darcy), his second'.  This specific wall monument at the east end of the north aisle is now totally obscured by the organ chamber. I have found over the years that these overlarge and rather unsightly instruments do have a habit of disrespectfully partially or completely obscuring church monuments, which is to be much regretted. As mentioned earlier the effigies have been moved around over the years, as have the tablets. For example a drawing in the document of 1805 shows vacancy between Sir John and Baron George, as mentioned in the 1820 article above, clearly intended for that of Baron Thomas, which was, for some unknown reason, never completed. In the same drawing the effigies of Sir Thomas (no. 12) actually lay on the ground and not on the tomb chest shelf at the extreme east end and the epitaphs of Barons Richard (no. 13) and  John (no. 14) to be on the south side of the east end of north aisle with their effigies lying on the ground below them. This seems to indicate that it was some time before they were moved into their intended position.

   Most of the monuments are made from magnesium limestone of a poor variety that tends to flake and this has certainly happened in the case here. At one point the monuments was covered with a wash which did little good but rather caused further erosion. The two effigies from Durham (said to be Ralph, Lord Lumley and his son Sir John) are of  Frosterely marble while that of William I is made of a local sandstone, although it is not known where this was taken from. The continuous tomb chest shelf is made of a sturdier sandstone. One effigy, that of  Sir Marmaduke, has lost his lower legs while several have lost at least the tips of their feet. Pevsner states that Lord Lumley had to have the feet of many cut off so that all the effigies would fit in a row; this is possible for the first two as the photographic evidence shows but most appear to be accidentally broken. He also states  that one (actually Sir Robert although he is not named ) 'had to have his feet on his shield'; this rather awkward statement if read as 'on a shield' would make sense as his feet do rest on a small shield which takes up less space than the usual lion.

   It is interesting to note that the effigies try to follow the pattern of effigies over the years: almost all the early male effigies (with the exception of clerics and kings) wear armour (and then the pattern goes - straight legs, crossed legs, straight legs again, even though the armour is not always contemporary with whom the effigy represent in several cases here); later they begin to wear civilian dress, such as merchants, lawyers but here probably parliamentary robes. This sequence is followed here with the exception of no. 12, Sir Thomas, who had been killed in battle. Liddy and Steer make the interesting conclusion that Baron John Lumley planned this series to show his family's glorious past, glossing over and not mentioning that two members had been executed for treason. His family had, following the Reformation, been excluded from public life because of their Catholicism - which, it must be pointed out, was not due to dogma but to real fear from acts such as the attempted removal of Queen Elizabeth from the throne and even her assassination - and he was looking back through decidedly rose tinted eye glasses at the good old days, which like all good old days were actually more old than good.

The above are at the west end of the aisle are in the back ground we can see Liulp, Uchred and - one of the genuine effigies - William I (c. 1260)

Above, according to the tablets, are: John, Lord Lumley (10); Richard, Lord Lumley (11) ; George, Lord Lumley (12).

Other Monuments
A) Mentioned in the text of 1820
 1) George, Baron Lumley. The one who was executed for his part in The Pilgrimage of Grace was buried at the 'Crossed Friars' in London. No effigy but a mural tablet 'at the East end of the aile, betwix 12 and 13'.
 2) 'Heere lyeth Anthony Lumley, Esquier second sonne to the Lorde Rycharde Lumley. Also heere lyeth  Roger Lumley, Esquier, eldest sonne to the foresaid Anthony Lumley. 'Flat stone'
 3) 'Of the second race of Lumley, many of whom lie here, only one memorial appears; a mural monument of blue marble' Richard, Earl of Scarborough (1721) & Countess Frances (1722)
4) William Lambton (1430) & Alice (143_) Brass, missing in 1820
 5) John Hedworth Esq and his betrothed Jane. Also his son Rudolph Hedworth Esq. And Jane (Gascoyne) later wife of Sir John Hedworth. 1624. Flat stone
6) Ann Musgrave (1755) 'Buried in the vault underneath'  Marble talet
 7) John Hudson ( (1814) Marble tablet

The following are in the church yard:

 8) Magaret Wardell (Marley) (1714) Table tomb
 9) Ann Humble (1755) Also Ann Humble (1744), Daughter of Richard and the said Ann; aged 2. Rebecca Humble (1739), the daughter of George Humble; aged 8
10) Elizabeth Harrison (1755)  Daughter of  George and Mary Humble . Her sister-in-law Jane Harrison  (1797)
11) George Humble (1770) Also Mary (Haswell) his wife (1778)
12) Ralph Haswell ((1778) His son, Mr Errington Shaftoe Haswell (1773) 'An eminent surgeon' Aged 24

I do not know how many of the above still exist as I have not visited the church and Pevsner is selective with later and 'minor' monuments

B) Current
1) Alice Lambton (1434) The equivalent to her husband was destroyed in 1862. Why?
2) A Priest c. 1300
Sir Marmaduke Lumley
The lower legs have been lost


All the photographs in the Durham Pages are by Richard Collier, to whom grateful thanks.Those from Barnard Castle  are by the Web Master.
 The steel plate engravings are by Edward Blore and the etchings by Charles A Stothard
<Home - Gazetteer - Page>  <Top of Page> <City of Durham>  <County of Durham - 2>  <County Durham - 3>