COUNTY DURHAM
 Barnard Castle  Chester-le-Street  Durham Cathedral  Egglescliffe  Long Newton  Staindrop


Durham Cathedral


Above:
 Bishop Thomas Hatfield (1381) (from Blore)



Possibly a priest


Possibly a lady


Possibly a knight with straight legs
Above: effigies in the church yard


   I regret I am unable to show any photographs of the monuments in Durham Cathedral except those above, which are in the church yard. Unfortunately the Dean and Chapter show a most uncompromising attitude to photography: it is not allowed except by prior written permission and then only in special circumstance, at relatively high cost and with very restrictive and rather foolish conditions. I was refused permission because I asked in person, even though I had travelled several hundred miles and explained  that the photographs were solely for research, academic and strictly non-commercial purposes. I can only hope that this unfortunate attitude may change in the future.

   May 2019 Since the above was written ten years ago, I am now pleased to announce that as from March 2019 Durham Cathedral has lifted its blanket ban on visitors taking photographs so you may now take photographs inside the cathedral subject to only very reasonable restrictions, such as not during services and in certain areas. I understand the use of flash is still not allowed but I have always found this irritating and it is also possible it could damage delicate fabrics. With the latest digital cameras there are only a few cases where it is a real advantage. I am sure this change of policy will be appreciated and welcomed by all.



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)

I am pleased to say that we received a very warm and helpful reception from members of the staff at St Mary's, Barnard Castle, after our obstructive rebuff from the Cathedral staff.

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 (ob. 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/
Name
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
 

Egglescliffe - St Mary or St John the Baptist






Above:
Knight, 14th century in porch  Right: Knight, 14th century in recess in church

Below are shown a collection of monuments from the 17th to 20th century, of various styles


 Above: Porch showing foliated cross, part of wall monument  and other fragments
.Left, top row from left to right 1) Anthony Hall (1799). 2)
Francis Hall (1611) and wife Margaret (Tunstall) (1643). 3) Rev George William Harris Clerk MA. (1777) Prebendary of Saraum and Rector for 37 years.
Bottom row:   1)  Jane Waldy (1899) . 2.) Beatrice Dingle (1914) Widow of the Rector.  3) John William Watkin (1917).  4)  Mary Taylor (1687)
            
          

Long Newton - St Mary

Far left: Rev Sir Henry Vane Bart (1794). Rector and prebendary of Durham. Damaged
The brass below reads: 'This reredos was erected in memory of Jonathan Wilson MA Rector and of Henrietta, his beloved wife. Anno Domini 1887
Mid left:
Dame Frances Vane (Tempest) )1795) Wife of the Rev Henry Vane
The monument to the latter was probably originally in this form. Both by Thos. Atkinson of York
Left:
Adolphus Frederick Charles Stewart Vane Tempest (1864)
Below is a quotation from St John and further below signed W H Burke...London
Above:
Frances Anne Vane, Marchioness of Londonerry (1865)
Above left: Sir Henry Vane Tempest Bart (1813) By Sir R Wetsmacott.  Above right:  Thomas Rud (1719)  Looks like a grave slab set into the wall. Right: Charles William Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry KG GCB GCH  (1854) Born Charles Stuart but took his wife's name on marriage. Soldier and politician. A list of the campaingns are inscribed on the lower tier of the monument.  Far right: George Vane (1756)

Other Monuments
1) Rev Charles Plumptre MA (1812) Rector of Long Newton for 17 years and of Haughton-le-Skerne for 6 months. Black and white tablet
2) Thomas Hart Dyke AM (1866) Also, John Fairfax Hart and Theophania Anne, his children, and Constance Maud, his grandchild, 'who died young ans are buried in the church yard.' 'The tablet is erected by his widow' and seemingly added later: ', Elizabeth Dyke who died October 6th 1893 aged 91 years.'
3) Lady Susan Vane Tempest (Pelhem) (1875) White tablet signed OLDFIELD
8) Avarina Mary Vane-Tempest (1873) Buried at Machynlleth, North Wales. Black and white tablet with gable
9) Frances Vane Tempest (1872) Buried at Machynlleth, North Wales. Black and white tablet with gable


Staindrop - St Mary  
 

   
Euphemia de Clavering (mid 14th) This effigy is in  a recess in the south aisle; there is a second lady with a boy, also in a recess in this aisle, but 13th C. There is another lady - 13th century - on the floor between the two large tomb chests (see below).     Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland (1425) and two wives, Margaret (Stafford) and Joan (Beaufort). Alabaster


The Neville tomb showing the tomb chest; the weepers or angels are missing.  In the foreground is 13th century lady referred to above.
It is difficult to see from the long shots exactly what the feet of the three effigies are resting on. They do follow the frequent arrangement of the ladies' feet resting on dogs and the knight's feet resting on a lion but the animals themselves each rest on a pair of seated monks reading at a double lectern.

A Tangled Web - A Simplified Who Was Who

   Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland married, as his second wife, Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, himself a son of King Edward III. She was one of the four Beaufort children - she had three brothers - of John of Gaunt and his mistress, Kathryn Swynford; all of the four children were thus illegitimate, not that that worried anyone at all, except when it came to inheritance. John of Gaunt later married Kathryn and the Beauforts were made legitimate,  not because of this subsequent marriage  (that law did not arrive until 1926 and then with some restrictions) but by Act of Parliament. However, there was a proviso to this act: the Beaufort line was barred from the throne. Not that this worried anyone either: later the much married Lady Margaret Beaufort was to become mother of Henry VII (Tudor).

  Ralph and Joan had a number of descendants who were to make marks of varying degrees on history. However we will discuss just two of their children here. A genealogical table would be needed to understand all these complicated inter-relationships.

   Their son Richard Neville married Alice Montague, who was heiress to the Earldom of Salisbury, thus becoming Earl of Salisbury. Not that it did him a lot of good in the long term as he joined the Yorkist faction during the Wars of the Roses, and was beheaded after the Battle of Wakefield.

   His son, another Richard Neville, known to history as the Kingmaker, married Anne Beauchamp, heiress of the Earldom of Warwick, so becoming Earl of Warwick and as well Earl of Salisbury after his father was executed. He was initially a Yorkist but because he felt he wasn't as influential as he would like to have been, swapped over to the Lancastrians who looked an easier option.  Not a good move: he was killed at the foggy  Battle of Barnet, trying to escape from the field.

   This Richard Neville had two daughters (actually three, one, Margaret, was illegitimate), Isabel and Anne, both of whom will reappear below.

   Another child of Ralph and Joan, this time was a girl, Cecily Neville, known, rather delightfully as the Rose of Raby, having been born in Raby Castle and, it is said, a girl of remarkable beauty. She married Richard, Duke of York, who was quite lucky to have inherited that title as his father was Richard, Earl of Cambridge, brother of  Edward, 2nd Duke of York, and both sons of Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, a son of King Edward III.  Now Richard, Earl of Cambridge took part with others in the Southampton plot to depose Henry V - himself a grandson - but a legitimate one - of John of Gaunt, whom we have mentioned above - just before Henry was about to embark to France in his attempted conquest. The aim of plot was for Henry to be replaced not by Richard, Earl of Cambridge but by Edmund Mortimer, whose sister Anne Mortimer, Richard had married. The Mortimer family were descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the 3rd son of Edward III but by the female line. However Edmund Mortimer had no wish to become king (not a secure job at the time)and reported the plot to King Henry; Richard, Earl of Cambridge and the other conspirators were promptly executed. Edward, 2nd Duke of York played no part in his brother's conspiracy and sailed to France with King Henry only to be killed at the Battle of Agincourt. He died childless and his nephew - son of the executed Richard, Earl of Cambridge - was curiously and, as it turned out, inadvisably - allowed to inherit the title.

   So Cecily, the Rose of Raby, was married to Richard, 3rd Duke of York who felt he had a better claim to the throne than did the rather useless King Henry VI, Henry V now having died young: he was after all descended from the third son (Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence) of Edward III, albeit via his mother and, as mentioned, via the female line anyway and from the fifth son (Edmund, Duke of York) via his father. The lines of the first and second son were extinct. A better claim he felt than the King who was only descended via the fourth son (John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster). A claim that led to the Wars of the Roses but to came to nothing as Richard was executed -  like Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury - after the Battle of Wakefield.

   But Richard and Cecily had three sons: Edward, Duke of York (who was to become Edward IV), George, Duke of Clarence (who was to be drowned in a butt of wine) and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (who was to become Richard III). Edward was captivated by and later married the lovely - and Lancastrian - widow Elizabeth Woodville but the estates and daughters of of the dead Richard Neville were shared out between the brothers, George marrying Isobel and Richard marrying Anne.

  To round off this tale that all of the sons of these marriages came to an untimely ends: Edward's two sons were the 'Princes in the Tower'; George's son, Edward, Earl of Warwick was imprisoned and later executed by Henry VII (allegedly on the grounds that he had attempted to escape from the Tower of London with the pretender Perkin Warbeck but it is also said that Henry had him executed at the request of  Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain as a condition of their daughter, Katherine of Aragon marrying Henry's son, Arthur, the never to be future king; and Richard's son, Edward of Middleham, died young.

  Thus ended the male Yorkist line - but not the ladies!

  


Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmoreland (1567) with his second and third and wives, Jane (Cholmeley) and her sister Margaret (Gascoigne)
The monument was made of oak by John Tarbotons. It now appears black in most areas. Note that the feet are reating on a number of dogs.  In the top left picture can be seen again the 13th century lady referred to above.

Left: Katharine Margaret, Countess of Darlington (1807)
Above: H
enry, 2nd Earl of Darlington (1792)  Also shown below where a relief of Raby Castle, which he restores, can be seen
Right: Margaret, Countess of Darlington (1800)

All three of these monuments are by Robert Cooke of London


Above:  Sophia, Duchess of Cleveland (1859)
Right: see above
Far right:
General interior view of the church; some of the monuments shown elsewhere can be seen in the background. The wall monument in the forground is to Mary Lee (1812)

Note: there is also a reference in Pevsner's County Durham to John Lee, Attorney-General (1793) with bust and books on a table and Mary Lee (1813) by Nollekens. I do not have a photograph of this monument but the Mary Lee to the far right died in 1912, was the widow of John Lee and the monument is signed by Nollekens.  It is likely this is the same person and the date in Pevsner is an error.








William Henry, 1st Duke of Cleveland (1842)  White marble by Sir Richard Westmacott






Above is a row of similar wall tablets to the Vane family; from left to right: 1)
Henry de Vere Vane, 9th Baron Barnard (1918) and his wife, Catherine Sarah (1918). 2) Henry Cecil Vane, Cpt R.F.A (1918) Died at Rouen of illness contracted on service and buried ar St Sever Cemetery.  3) Ralph Frederick Vane, Cpt Durham Light Infantry (1928)
To the right a series of similar monuments to the Trotter family; from top to bottom: 1) Lt Col William Kemp Trotter DL JP (1911) 4th Durham L I Special Reserve; formerly Cpt in the Duke of Wellington's West Riding Regt. 2) Kate Trotter (1941) wife of Lt Col W K Trotter; and her daughter Ada Drydon Fife (1982) 3) Lt Col William Dale Chaytor Trotter JP (1983) 11th Hussars; and his wife, Gladys Mona Trotter (1996)
 

Left: Alice Burton (Blackett) (1722)
Above:
Caroline, Duchess of Cleveland (1883)
Right:
Frances Davison (1799) The then Vicar's wife.
Far right: Thomas Scarth (1835)

 

The photographs from Staindrop, Chester-le-Street and Egglescliffe are by Richard Collier; the others are by the Web Master. The steel plate engravings are by Edward Blore
 
<Home - Gazetteer - Page>  <Top of Page>