The story of Castle Carlton usually begins with Hugh Bardolf (or Bardulf) (born c. mid-12th century, died c. 1203). Hugh was a Justiciar, which at the time meant he was a royal court member. He served as a sheriff of several counties and a Baron of the Exchequer under three kings - Henry II, Richard I, and John. He was a collector of taxes in seven shires for John in 1196. Shortly after this, he was known to have died. Whether it was connected to his tax collecting duties is unknown.
John Marius Wilson's Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1870-72, described Castle Carlton like this: “Sir Hugh Bardolph held the manor in the time of Henry I.; and had a castle on one of three artificial mounds, called the Castle hills.” History of Castle Carlton, in East Lindsey and Lincolnshire | Map and description (visionofbritain.org.uk) Henry I was King from 1100 to 1135. This, therefore, would seem to be a mistake. There is no known or recorded Sir Hugh Bardolph dating back to the time of Henry I. The Hugh who served the three Kings at the end of the 12th century is undoubtedly correct.
Hugh acquired the castle and lands from Ralph de la Haye around 1157. It is then believed that following his death, the estate was divided amongst Hugh’s descendants and the castle passed by marriage in 1275 to John Meriet. Castle Carlton, South Reston (The Gatehouse Record) (gatehouse-gazetteer.info)
The Castle
Castle Carlton is a large Norman motte and bailey castle that was built at the foot of the Wolds on the edge of the marshlands. It would have been an impressive sight with the motte surrounded by two concentric circular baileys and wide, deep ditches. When built, the marshes and sea would have reached the foot of the castle.
The motte (mound) was 8m high, 40m in diameter at the base, and 15m at the top. This gave a steep-sided hill that would have been surmounted by the wooden keep or manorial house.
Castles such as this were brought to England by the Normans in 1066, and their construction continued through the 12th century before being succeeded by stone castles, for example Bolingbroke, in the 13th century. A detailed topographic and geophysical survey of Carlton was undertaken during 2013 and 2014. The survey results suggest that the motte and bailey were built upon an existing prehistoric site. It was not uncommon for them to be built upon Bronze Age barrows. Using an existing structure likely led to the unusual circular bailey and enabled the rapid construction of an imposing Norman symbol. CASTLE CARLTON, LINCOLNSHIRE: The origins and evolution of a castle and medieval new town
The survey report suggests a construction date in the late 11th century. No castle is recorded in Domesday (1086), suggesting it was built after this date. It is claimed that after the Norman conquest, the castle was owned by Ansgot of Burwell before passing on to Ralph de la Haye. At the time of writing this, I have not found the documentation that establishes the castle did belong to Ansgot, but it is reported by reliable sources.
There has been a suggestion that Ansgot of Burwell is actually a D’albini. The family, otherwise known as D’Aubigny, was one of the most prominent in medieval England. Earls of Arundel, Lords of Belvoir, and spread across Lincolnshire. This would give him excellent, high-level connections. But at the time of Domesday, he does not have major land holdings. In fact, just four places are attributed to him as both Lord and Tenant in Chief. These being Authorpe, Burwell, Muckton, and Welton-le-Wold, all in the Louthesk Hundred.
Domesday records
The Burwell, Muckton, and Authorpe entries in Domesday show Ansgot as Tenant and Lord. These are close to Castle Carlton, but North Reston and Little Carlton are closer and would geographically seem more likely to have had ownership of the castle area.
William de Percy was Tenant in Chief (holding land directly from the crown) of North Reston and Little Carlton. The lord of North Reston and Little Carlton was a chap called Osbern. The Lord title was held by the person who was the immediate lord over the peasants and who paid taxes to the tenant-in-chief. Therefore, Osbern was the local estate manager for William de Percy.
William de Percy was keen on motte and bailey castles. “Percy set about fortifying his landholdings, constructing motte and bailey castles at Spofforth and at Topcliffe, where was situated the caput of his feudal barony.” (from Wikipedia) It seems reasonable, therefore, to suggest that Percy may have constructed another castle here at Carlton.
William de Percy died on the first Crusade (1096/99) in sight of Jerusalem. His body was buried at Antioch, and his heart was brought home to England and buried at Whitby Abbey. If Percy did order the building of Castle Carlton, I would assume a construction date within the 10-year period 1086 to 1096, after Domesday and before he left on his crusade.
Nearby, Tothill also had a motte and bailey of even grander stature. It, too, was estimated to have an 8m high motte but with a massive 70m diameter flat top, almost five times the size of Carlton. That the two castles were built in such proximity, and both of significant scale, is intriguing. Toot Hill Castle was controlled by Hugh d’Avranches, Earl of Chester. We will never know whether the two castles worked together to protect (or tax) the route from the coastal salterns or were built by neighbours wary of each other.
Carlton and Toot Hill mottes were much bigger than the largest Fenland motte and bailey Wrangle Castle.
Carlton Super Mare
Several sources quote a 1205 document that describes the castle as being at “Karleton super mare” (literally Carlton above the sea) like Weston Super Mare. We would probably say today Karleton on Sea. The quote actually comes from an entry in King John’s Rotuli de oblatis et finibus in Turri Londinensi asservati.
The rolls (rotuli) are the documents, called the Oblata or Fine Rolls, upon which were entered the sums of money or other property offered to the King by way of oblation or fine for the enjoyment of honours, offices, lands, liberties, and privileges.
The following is the Roll that the Karleton Super Mare quote comes from:
I have written an article about How to translate the letters patent of King John. I am no expert at this, so I apologise to medieval Latin experts. The text of the transcribed fine rolls is very similar to King John’s patent rolls, and the following paragraphs show the process I went through to translate the order. I
First, expanding the abbreviated words:
Mandat[ur] G. fil[ius] Pet justic[iar] q[uod] p[ro] cent[um] [e]t xx m[arks] q[ua]s Rob[ert] Bardulf recognoscit se deb[er]e Hug[h] de Nevill[e] p[ro] Hug[h] Bard[ulf] q[ui] p[ren]d[i]cus den[e] debt[io] Henr[y] de Cornhill[e][uscus] filia[m] [e]t he[re]de[m] p[ren]d[i]cus Hug[h] h[e]t [in] ux[u], lib[er]ari faciat eid[e] Hug[h] Man[er]iu[m] de Karleton s[up]r[a] mare cu[m] cast[ro] [e]t cu[m] p[er]tin[er] suis h[e]nd[er] q[uor]usq[ue] in[us] p[er]cep[er]it p[re]d[icu]m debit[ur]. Mandat[ur] ; & q[e] capiat ad op[us] d[o]ni R[ex]. Medietate[n] illi[us] debiti.
Which gives the full text:
Mandatur G. filius Pet justiciar quod pro centum et xx marcas. quas Robert Bardulf recognoscit se debere Hugh de Neville pro Hugh Bardulf qui prendicus dene debitio Henry de Cornhille uscus filiam et heredem prendicus Hug het in uxu, liberari faciat eide Hugh Manerium de Karleton supra mare cum castro et cum pertiner suis hender quorusque inus perceperit predicum debitur. Mandatur ; & qe capiat ad opus doni Rex. Medietaten illius debiti.
I then process the text through Google Translate to get the straight translation before rewriting it to read as logically as possible to a modern reader:
It is ordered that the Justiciar G. the son of Pet, collects one hundred and twenty marks, which Robert Bardulf acknowledges that he owes on behalf of Hugh Bardulf to Hugh de Neville, who is a bailiff for the debt of Henry de Cornhill since he is married to his (Henry de Cornhill’s) daughter and heir, let him deliver the manor and castle of Carlton on sea with all its belongings. It is commanded that whoever receives the aforesaid goods shall gift the King half for his work.
This is a reasonable translation. There are some bits that I am unsure of, particularly the first parts. I do not know who G son of Pet is, and it seems to refer to him as a justiciar. This may be wrong. I wondered if the first part, "Mandatur ; G." is a shorthand version of a well-used introduction.
The content of the order is very interesting. In essence, Hugh Bardulf, who died c 1203, owed money to Henry de Cornhill, who had died in 1193 with significant debts. Hugh Bardulf’s debt was to be honoured by his son Robert Bardulf and paid to Hugh de Neville, who had married Joan de Cornhill, Henry’s daughter and heir. The manor and castle of Carlton on sea, along with all its possessions, were to be handed over in settlement.
This fact is not reported in any other description of Castle Carlton I have found. The accepted reason for it leaving the ownership of the Bardulf family is that it was diluted through inheritance and eventually passed out of the family through marriage in the late 13th century. This order of John seems to suggest that it left the Bardulf family much earlier, at the beginning of the 13th century. It may have switched back at some point in the future, or the order may not have been executed. But I find that unlikely.
King John has been accused of levying heavy taxation and making unreasonable demands. This order seems to support that because he demands half of the debt payment to pay for his work in resolving the matter. The value of the debt is defined as 120 marks, and the manor, castles, and possessions are valued as sufficient to cover the debt. By doing this, the King can ‘tax’ the transaction at half of 120 marks instead of having to own half a castle, etc, which would be a liability, not a benefit.
Such a level of taxation by the King is not unusual. The Rotuli de oblatis et finibus is a collection of all the recorded transactions of King John, and the author, Thomas Duffus Hardy, explains the extent of income generation.
“By the entries of the Fine Rolls, it appears that a great source of wealth to the crown arose out of receipt of Fines or Oblations and must have constituted a considerable branch of the royal revenue, for no one solicited a favour of the King without a present. The sovereign’s grace and goodwill were easily purchased, and his interference could be obtained even in case of conjugal infidelity or of matrimonial rights. Money was extorted from the subject to replenish the royal coffers on the most trivial pretences, and these records afford a painful but curious account of fines offered and amerciaments imposed in a variety of ways almost innumerable.”
The Dragon Slayer
In her book Folklore of Lincolnshire, Susanna O'Neill collates the information and retells the story of Hugh Bardolph, the dragon slayer.
It is said that during the time of King Henry I, a man named Hugh Barde acquired the Baronetcy that included Carlton Castle. At the time, there was a dragon wreaking havoc on the locals. It was described as a mighty beast with a “long scaly body, short iron-clad legs, lashing tail, and head, in which was set one blazing eye the size of a basin”. Hugh promised the locals that he would slay the dragon, freeing them from their terrors, cut off its head and present it to the King.
Fortunately, as in most dragon-slaying tales, the dragon had one weakness that Hugh could exploit. He set out to face the beast, and before he engaged in battle, he prayed to the saints and received divine inspiration and divine intervention. The skies darkened, and a brilliant light blinded the one-eyed monster, enabling Hugh to strike a mortal blow to the weak spot. After the dragon died, he cut off its head and took it to the King as promised. The King was impressed. He suffixed ‘dolph’ to Hugh Barde’s name, ‘dolph’ being a champion’s title meaning ‘famous wolf’. He was thereafter known as Hugh Bardolph. The King also added a dragon's head to Hugh’s family coat of arms.
Stories of dragons are common across the country, but there is a cluster of dragon myths around the area of Carlton. They certainly deserve a more detailed investigation.
The dragon-slaying story, attributed to Hugh Bardolph in the reign of King Henry I, is undoubtedly where the suggestion that the Bardulfs held the castle so early came from. It is most likely that Hugh Bardulf after he acquired the castle in 1157, encouraged the myth to be attached to him rather than some historic figure.
Another interesting element of the dragon story is that following the slaying, the King granted Castle Carlton many privileges, including “the right to take a horn of salt from every salt cart passing through the domain”. This links very nicely with the location of Carlton, which must have been on the main route for the salt carts from the coastal salterns that ran from Saltfleetby to Theddlethorpe All Saints. Perhaps the dragon myth was created to help Bardulf collect his salt tax. Who would dare refuse to pay tax to a dragon slayer?
The New Town
In the 1220s, Hugh’s son Robert Bardolf began to establish a New Town. The Castle had been granted an annual fair for around twenty years. This suggests that a sizeable population had grown up around the focus of the castle. However, Robert did not site the New Town with the existing village but on an undeveloped site away from the castle. The fifty or so houses of the New Town were built to the North and South of the existing salt road from the coast.
That the New Town was built separately from the established settlement may indicate that Robert Bardolf no longer had control of the castle, further support for ownership passing to Hugh de Neville to settle his father’s debt.
Although impossible to be certain, it seems likely that Robert’s New Town did not attract the level of permanent habitation he hoped for. The medieval marketplace does not appear to have been used beyond the 13th century. This is surely an indicator that economic activity and habitation failed to grow.
What was left of the failed New Town probably collapsed when the manor was divided in the 15th century between heirs, rendering it uneconomical. Today, the area is classified as a Deserted Medieval Village (DMV).
Comentários