The tomb monument of Katherine, daughter of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence (1253-7)

The Antiquaries Journal, 92, 2012, pp 1 of 28 r The Society of Antiquaries of London, 2012

doi:10.1017⁄s0003581512000078

THE TOMB MONUMENT OF KATHERINE,

DAUGHTER OF HENRY III AND ELEANOR OF

PROVENCE (1253–7)

Sally Badham, FSA, and Sophie Oosterwijk, FSA

Sally Badham, Dawn Cottage, Purrants Lane, Leafield, Witney OX29 9PN, UK. E-mail:

[email protected]

Sophie Oosterwijk, MeMO Project, Utrecht University, c/o Zijde 63, 2771 EK Boskoop,

The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

An English princess of the mid-thirteenth century, dead by the age of three and a half, Katherineoccupies only a footnote in the history of England. Yet the costly tomb monument at WestminsterAbbey provided by her grieving father, Henry III, was probably the earliest recorded memorial to achild known to have been set up in England. It may also have been part of Henry’s response to thecommemoration programme that his brother-in-law, Louis IX of France, had instigated. Nothingnow apparently remains of Katherine’s tomb to remind posterity of her brief existence, but itscommissioning marked a step up in Henry’s growing ambition to be seen as an innovator at theforefront of the artistic developments of his age, and the story surrounding its provision affordsinsights into the role of display and material culture in Henrician politics.

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PRINCESS KATHERINE

Katherine was the third daughter of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence. With two elder

sisters and two healthy brothers living to ensure the continuation of the line and the

Crown, she was of comparatively little dynastic importance. Unlike some of Henry’s other

children, Katherine’s life and death are relatively well documented.1 Contemporary records

indicate that Katherine was born at Westminster on 25 November 1253 and baptized

that same day, being named after St Katherine, whose feast day that was.2 According to

1. For the problems surrounding the couple’s possible four other sons, whose existence is in somedoubt and who could only have lived even shorter lives than Katherine, see Howell 1992.

2. Matthew Paris records in the Flores Historiarum: Alienora regina peperit filiam Londoniis, diesanctæ Katerinæ, quæ, ab archiepiscopo Cantuariensi baptizata, a die nativitatis suæ nomen sortitaest Katerina (‘Queen Eleanor gave birth to a daughter at London, on St Katherine’s day andwhen she was baptized by the Archbishop of Canterbury she received the name Katherine afterthe day of her birth’): Luard 1890, I, 393. The only other reference to Katherine is clearlyincorrect and only occurs in one manuscript superimposed on an erased earlier text; it is for theyear 1261 and says: Duodecimo die Aprilis obiit domina Katerina quasi octennis, filia regis Henricitertii, et sepelitur apud Westmonasterium cum fratribus suis (‘on the twelfth of April diedKatherine, about eight years old, the daughter of Henry III, and she was buried at Westminsterwith her brothers’): Luard 1890, II, 474 n 4. The slightly longer entry for her birth reads:Tempore sub eodem, Regina Angliæ Alienora peperi[t] domino regi filiam Londiniis. Et nomen aptanteet baptizante infantulam archiepiscopo, vocata est Katerina, eo quod die Sanctæ Katerinæ nata aera

Matthew Paris, Henry III was in Gascony at the time of Katherine’s birth and he received

the news of the birth of a filiam speciosam (‘beautiful daughter’) from the queen’s valet,

William de Valers.3

Much has been made of Matthew Paris’s description of Katherine in the ChronicaMajora at the time of her death: muta et inutilis, sed facie pulcherrima (‘speechless and

helpless, but very beautiful in appearance’).4 Although muta et inutilis has been inter-

preted as an indication that she was born deaf and dumb, a more recent explanation

proposes that she could have been suffering from a degenerative disease such as Rett

Syndrome, the symptoms of which only start to appear later, after an apparently normal birth

and early development. The lavish scale of the queen’s purification feast and the subsequent

offering to Westminster Abbey by the king of five lengths of gold cloth embroidered with the

royal arms, a gift he had been accustomed to make for each of his children,5 may suggest that

there was no suspicion of the newborn’s state of health at the time:

It was commanded to Philip Lovel, treasurer, and Edward of Westminster, that

without delay they should acquire five handsome swaddling bands, of [cloth of]

gold, and have them sewn together, and a handsome border fastened around them,

with shields of the King’s arms, so that the King may find them ready the next time

the King comes to London. They are to be offered at Westminster for Katherine,

the King’s daughter, in the manner in which he has formerly been accustomed to

offer for each of his children. Witnessed by the King at Merton, 2nd April.6

More can be gleaned from other accounts. In August 1255 the little princess was not with

the other royal children at Windsor but instead some miles away at Swallowfield in

hauserat primitivum (‘At the same time, Queen Eleanor gave birth to a daughter for my Lordthe King at London. When the Archbishop named her and baptized her, she was calledKatherine, because it was on the day of St Katherine that she was born and first drew breath’):Luard 1864–9, V, 415. See also Gransden 1964, 19: Alienor regina peperit filiam que dicta estKatherina (‘Queen Eleanor gave birth to a daughter who was called Katherine’). However, adifferent and erroneous date of 22 Nov is given in brief entries in Luard 1864–9, II, 94: Alianoraregina peperit filiam 10 kal. Decembris, nomine Katherina; sic nominatum quia die Sancto Katerinaefuit baptizata (‘Queen Eleanor gave birth to a daughter on the 10th day before the Kalends ofDecember [22 Nov, the feast day of St Cecilia] named Katherine, named thus because she wasbaptized on St Katherine’s day’) and in Luard 1864–9, IV, 442: Regina peperit filiam nocte[Sanctae] Ceciliae, et vocata est Katerina (‘The Queen bore a daughter in the night of [St]Cecilia (22 Nov) and she was called Katherine’). See also Madden 1866–9, III, 148(for her birth) and 330 (for her death).

3. CPR 1247–58, 267.4. Luard 1872–83, V, 63. See Howell 1992, 63–4 and esp n 48.5. It was customary to make an offering of cloth to the Church on the occasion of a mother’s

churching or purification; this was normally the baby’s chrisom or baptismal clothes or theequivalent. See Oosterwijk 2000, esp 51 and n 43. For the cost of various types of gold cloths,see Wild 2011, 11.

6. CCR 1254–6, 59: Mandatum est Philippo Lovel, thesaurario, et Edwardo de Westmonasterio quodsine dilacione perquirant ad opus regis v. pannos pulchros ad aurum et eos insimul attachiari faciant etin circuitu eorundem aliquam pulcram borduram cum scutis de armis regis apponi, ita quod rex habeateos promptos in proximo adventu regis London’, offerendos apud Westmonasterium pro Katerina filiaregis, sicut pro singulis liberis suis prius facere consuevit. Teste rege apud Merton ij. die Aprilis. TheLatin word pannus can mean any type of cloth, but it is used in the Gospels for swaddlingbands, which seem appropriate as an offering for a baby. Relics of Christ’s swaddling bands arealso referred to as panni in medieval records.

2 THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

Berkshire – therefore being looked after at additional cost to the royal household; this

separation from her siblings has been tentatively related to her health.7 Certainly, by the

spring of 1256 she was so severely ill as to cause grave concern. Thus in March of that year:

it was commanded of Edward of Westminster that he should have a silver image

made in the form of a woman, for Katherine the king’s daughter who has recently

been ill, to be the same size as the two images one of which stands in front of

the old feretory of Blessed Edward at Westminster and the other at the side of the

same feretory.8

The subjects of the figures adorning the shrine of St Edward at Westminster Abbey

are not recorded; they might have been votive figures representing St Katherine, her

patron saint.9

A messenger from the queen who brought Henry news of Katherine’s improved health

was rewarded with a robe, again indicating the parents’ mutual interest in the well-being

of their young children.10 However, no offerings could halt the decline in Katherine’s

health and she died at Windsor on 3 May 1257. Matthew Paris described the queen’s grief:

‘the queen, her mother, as a result of her anguish, was seized of a grievous illness that

neither physician nor human consolation could alleviate’.11 Although the couple had lost

other children soon after birth, the king’s own sorrow appears more vivid and real than

the customary image of medieval parents’ resigned regret at the death of a young child.

Distressed at the serious illness of the queen and the death of Katherine, Henry is

recorded as having been plunged into such sorrow that he fell ill of the tertian fever that

had afflicted him for some time.12

Tellingly, unlike her deceased siblings, whose existence and dates remain a matter for

debate, Katherine makes an appearance in chronicle rolls. The fact that Matthew Paris

featured her in his genealogical diagram, which was subsequently included in John of

Wallingford’s collection of St Albans writings, may have been due to the fact that

Katherine could still have been alive at that time.13 Yet she was still included some fifteen

years later in the Chronicle Roll of Kings of England, along with her four living siblings,

as the only deceased child of Henry III (fig 1).14 Katherine’s roundel shows her with her

7. CCR 1254–6, 123; Howell 1992, 64.8. CCR 1254–6, 287–8: Mandatum est Eduuardo de Westmonasterio quod pro Katerina filia regis,

nuper egrotante, fieri faciat quandam imaginem argenteam ad similitudinem femine et ad magnitu-dinem unius duarum imaginum quarum una erigitur in anteriori parte veteris feretri Beati Edwardiapud Westmonasterium, et altera a latere ejusdem feretri.

9. Lehmann-Brockhaus 1955–60, II, 164, no. 2814, dated 1287, lists many figures and otherprecious artefacts from the Confessor’s shrine that were pawned, but there is no mention ofsilver objects nor of a figure of St Katherine. Typically votives represented the part of the bodythat the intercession was being requested for – an eye, leg, heart or entire body. Few medievalexamples survive in this country, although a collection of wax votive limbs and figures offeredat Bishop Lacy’s tomb and found stored in the canopy of his tomb survives in ExeterCathedral: Orme 2009, 183.

10. CCR 1254–6, 288.11. Luard 1872–83, V, 632: Regina autem mater ejus dolore concepto infirmitate quasi irremediabiliter

occupabatur, nec potuit ei phisica vel humana consolatio suffragari.12. Chronica Johannis de Oxenedes [Chronicle of John of Oxnead]: BL, Cotton Nero D ii, fol 229, col 3.13. Howell 1992, 58; BL, Cotton Julius D vii, fol 59v. Gerould 1948, 102, provides an inter-

pretation of another copy roll of this tree in Princeton.14. Bodleian, MS Broxbourne 112.3, fol 1 (1).

THE MONUMENT OF KATHERINE (1253–7), DAUGHTER OF HENRY III 3

hair unbound, unlike her veiled married sisters, Margaret and Beatrice, while the text

surrounding her image – Katerine ki morust enfant (‘Katherine who died as a infant’) –

makes it clear that she died young.

KATHERINE’S BURIAL AND MONUMENT

After Katherine’s death the king showed appropriate concern for her soul by appointing a

chaplain in the chapel of the hermitage at Charing (London) to say daily prayers, paying

to Brother Richard (the hermit there) 50s yearly during his life.15 Her nurses Avice and

Agnes were dismissed with the royal gift of 10 marks (£6 13s 4d) each.16 At a cost of £51

12s 4d paid to John, the chaplain and the king’s almoner, Katherine’s funeral must also

have been impressive; unfortunately no breakdown of this sum is provided.17

Fig 1. Chronicle Roll of Kings of England, showing Katherine with her four living

siblings as the only five children of Henry III: Bodleian, MS Broxbourne 112.3,

fol 1 (1). Photograph: reproduced by courtesy of the University of Oxford

15. Howell 1992, 64, and CLR 1251–60, 375; Howell 1992, n 56, records regular payments for thisin the issue rolls: TNA, E 403/15A, m. 5; E 403/17A, m. 3; E 403/3114, m. 2; E 403/17B, m.2;E 403/3115, m. 2; E 403/18, m. 2; E 403/19, m. 3. The hermitage of St Katherine was on the sitenow occupied by Charing Cross post office: Clay 1914, 68.

16. CLR 1251–60, 398.17. Ibid, 373.


Katherine was perhaps the first member of Henry’s family to have been buried at

Westminster; her death occurred soon after he apparently formed an intention to make it the

royal mausoleum, following his decision to rebuild the abbey church.18 In a writ of 1246

Henry had announced his intention to be buried at Westminster, rather than in his previous

choice of the Temple Church, a decision confirmed in his will of 1253.19 In pursuit of this

plan, the bodies of Edward the Confessor, his wife, Edith, and Henry I’s first wife, Matilda,

were translated in 1269 and, between 1266 and 1271, at least three of Edward I’s children and

the heart of one of his nephews were buried in the Confessor’s Chapel.20

That Katherine might have been buried in the Confessor’s Chapel too cannot be

dismissed, but she died nine years before the first documented burial there.21 Lethaby

claims, albeit without apparent supporting evidence, that she was buried in the nave or

perhaps in St Katherine’s Chapel.22 Many previous commentators have instead placed

her burial in the south ambulatory, although no contemporary evidence for this appears

to exist and the tradition may have arisen as a result of the long association of her burial

with the Cosmatesque tomb chest now located there.23 Another possibility, not previously

considered to our knowledge, is Henry’s Lady Chapel, at the east end of the abbey, which

was completed by c 1245. Such a location would make sense as, at the time of Katherine’s

burial, the Lady Chapel had recently received a new vault and roof, while the remainder

of the fabric of the abbey church, including the Confessor’s Chapel where family mem-

bers would later be buried, remained under construction and was not completed until

1259; fitting out the chapel and the construction of the shrine complete with its Cosmati

work took another ten years, culminating in the translation of Edward the Confessor’s

body on 13 October 1269.24

Henry’s next plan was to commemorate his young daughter with a costly tomb

monument. To this purpose he summoned Simon de Welles to Westminster to construct a

gilded cast copper-alloy effigy. The initial discussions had evidently been concluded

satisfactorily, for the following order was given to the Treasurer on 28 May 1257:

To the sheriff of Somerset. To let Master Simon de Welles have 2 marks [£1 6s 8d]

out of the issues of the county for his expenses in going to Westminster at the king’s

command, and for his future expenses in coming to Westminster to dwell there and

make a tomb over the body of Katherine the king’s daughter, which has been

delivered for burial in the church of Westminster; and to carry to Westminster his

tools necessary for the work of the said tomb by the same writ.

Liberate to Master Simon of Welles 80 marks [£53 6s 8d] to complete an image

of gilt bronze as enjoined to place on the said tomb, and for his expenses in all

things, to be paid by successive instalments as he shall be seen to labour on the

despatch thereof.25

18. Badham 2007a.19. Palliser 2004, 4.20. Badham 2007a.21. Ibid, 213–18.22. Lethaby 1906, 317.23. BL, Harley MS 1416, fols 50v–51; Camden 1606, 51; Strype 1720, II, 14; Dart 1723, 104; Green

1850, II, 274; Scott 1863, 146.24. Brown et al 1963, I, 148–9.25. TNA, C 62/33, m. 4: Rex vicecomiti sumerset salutem. Quia magister simon de Welles de precepto

nostro venit ad nos vsque monasterium tibi precipimus quod de exitibus predicti Comitis facta h’re


However, just six weeks later, on 11 July, the Treasurer was instructed to make a final

payment of 51⁄2 marks (£3 13s 4d) to Simon:

Liberate without delay to Master Simon of Welles, who should have made a

copper-alloy image over the tomb of Katherine the king’s daughter in the church of

Westminster, 51⁄2 marks [£3 13s 4d] for his expenses in coming to London on that

business and returning home.26

Despite this false start, Katherine was provided with a splendid tomb monument,

including a silver effigy provided by William of Gloucester, the king’s goldsmith. On

11 July 1257, the same day that Simon de Welles was dismissed, an order was made to:

‘Liberate by instalments to William of Gloucester, king’s goldsmith, 70 marks [£48 6s

8d] to make a silver image over the same tomb.’27 It was completed within a year,

for, on 18 May 1258, Edward of Westminster was instructed: ‘Let him make a tomb

for Katherine, deceased daughter of the King, in a due and competent manner,

and to cover the same tomb let him provide a suitable cloth.’28 In the event the

silver image cost marginally less than allowed for. On 14 December 1272 an order

was made to audit the account of the executors of William of Gloucester, including

for the ‘silver image over the tomb of Katherine’.29 William’s accounts presented in

1272 record:

And for a certain wooden effigy for the tomb of Katherine, the king’s daughter, in

the church of Westminster, 15s. And for silver placed above and on the said tomb,

in total, £11 12s 8d. And for the making of the aforesaid silver image, £12. And for

gold to gild it with, £11 3s 4d. And for stones, specifically to the number of 180, as

many pearls as amethysts, to adorn the said image, 1s.30

eidem simoni duas marcas ad expensis suas quas fecit in veniendo illo et? pro expensis suis quas ad hucfacturus est in eundo usque Westmonsterium moraturem ibidem ad faciendem quendum tumulum vltracorpus katerine filie nostre quod sepulture traditum est in ecclesia Westmonasterio facta etiam cariarevsque westmonasterium vtensilia sua ad operaciones dicti Tumuli necessaria prout tibi dicet ex partenostra. Et compictabitur tibi ad sc’em.

26. TNA, C 62/33, m. 4: Pro Simone de Welles Rex eisdem salutem. Liberate de thesauro nostro sineomni dilatione magistro symon de Welles qui debuit fecisse quendam Imaginem eneam supra tumulumKaterine filie nostre in Ecclesia Westmonasterio quinque marcas et dimidium pro expensis suis inveniendo Londinium pro Imagine predicta et in reduendo ad partes suas: CLR 1251–60, 385. Thepayment is confirmed as having been made in the issue roll, TNA, E 403/13, m. 2: MagistroSimoni de Welles v marcas et dimidium pro expensis suis in veniendo londinium et in redeundo ad?pascali / partes suas [the last part is unclear] (‘To Master Simon de Welles 51

⁄2 marks for hisexpenses in coming to London and returning at Eastertide / returning home’).

27. TNA, C 62/33, m. 4: Liberate de thesauro nostro particulariter Willelmo de Gloucestrie aurifabronostro sexaginta et decem marcas ad quendam imaginem argenteam faciendam super tumbamKaterine filie nostre in Ecclesia Westmonasterio: CLR 1251–60, 385.

28. CCR 1256–9, 222: Et tumbam Katerine filie Regis defuncto debito et competenti modo collocari faciatet ad tumbam illam tegendam quendam pannum competentem provideat.

29. CCR 1272–9, 3; Noppen 1927, 190.30. Noppen 1927, 192. TNA, PRO E 372/116, m. 32d: Et in quadam imagine lignea ad tumbam

Katerine filie Regis in ecclesia Westmonasterij XV s. Et in argento posito ultra predictam tumbam desuper per totum XI li XII s viij d. Et in operacione dicti imaginis jam argenti xij li. Et in auro eandemdeaurandam IX li iij s iiij d. Et in lapidibus videlicit ciiijxx tam perlis quam amatistis ad ornamentaejusdem ymaginis XI s. This account also appears in the corresponding Chancellor’s Roll, TNA,E 352/65.


The total cost incurred by William was £35 11s, less than the planned cost of the copper-

alloy effigy, although, as explained below, the sum given here did not cover all elements of

the monument.31

The account is not without its ambiguities. The loosely worded phrase et in argentoposito ultra predictam tumbam de super per totum probably just refers to the silver for plating

the effigy and the effigy slab, but this is not definite. Certainly, the commissioning order

refers to a ‘silver image’. That the effigy had a wooden core on which silver plate was fixed

is indicated by the phrase et in quadam ymagine lignea ad tumbam Katerine.32 The silver was

gilded, as shown by the phrase Et in auro et eandem deaurandam. The formula used to

specify the number of precious stones is open to misinterpretation; however, the total was

probably 180.33 Whatever the number, the use of real stones rather than fictive jewels

appears exceptional.

The wording of these documents has led some authorities to suggest that the image

was not a tomb monument with an effigy, but a standing votive image on a bracket

near the tomb. This was first suggested by Gough, who referred to ‘the tradition of the

vergers, that three silver images were affixt over the tomb by the irons now remain-

ing’.34 Further confusion has arisen through suggestions that both effigies were pro-

duced, in one case with the silver image being interpreted as representing St Katherine

and the copper-alloy figure being the princess herself.35 However, this is undermined

by the evidence of the account given above, as well as the fact that Simon de Welles’s

dismissal and the commissioning of a ‘silver image’ occurred on the same day in

adjacent entries. The most obvious interpretation is thus that these two entries were

paired parts of a single decision and that the silver image was a replacement for the

copper-alloy one.

Katherine’s effigy, apparently comprising a wooden figure plated with gilt silver and

set with pearls and amethysts, does not survive, but there are broadly comparable,

if less elaborate, precious-metal effigies at Westminster and formerly elsewhere. The

most commonly cited examplar is the monument to William de Valence (d 1296) now

in the chapel dedicated to SS Edmund and Thomas, although it probably stood

originally in the Confessor’s Chapel (fig 2).36 The sumptuous gilt copper-alloy and

Limoges enamel-plated effigy around a wooden core, inlaid with fictive jewels, presents

a glittering and colourful impression; it also had a brass inscription, a rare feature at this

date.37 This was not the earliest such tomb in England: Walter de Merton (d 1277),

Chancellor of England, Bishop of Rochester and founder of Merton College, Oxford,

31. Tanner 1953, 27, erroneously gives the total as 70 marks. CCR 1272–9, 3, refers to the order toaudit the accounts made on 14 Dec.

32. The evidence of surviving cast copper-alloy effigies suggests that effigy slabs were also coveredwith metal.

33. This assumes that it should be read as ‘100, plus 4� 20’ and not ‘104� 20’. Tanner 1953, 27,puzzlingly gives the number of stones as 130.

34. Gough 1786, I, 49–50. These 3 silver images read suspiciously like an echo of the silverfigures that adorned the shrine of St Edward, including the one ordered for Katherine’sapparent recovery by Henry III in 1256. Moreover, the iron brackets referred to are over theCosmatesque tomb chest which, as argued below, cannot have been Katherine’s original tombmonument.

35. See Lindley 1991, n 15, on Tanner’s reference to a statue, possibly based on Scott 1863, 146–7.36. Badham 2007b, 140–2.37. Weever 1631, 479.


was commemorated in his cathedral by an enamel tomb made by Jean of Limoges at a

cost of £40 5s 6d.38

Silver and silver-plated monuments appear to have been much rarer, particularly in

the thirteenth century. Katherine’s lost monument is the earliest recorded monument of

this type in England, although the lost tomb of Henry I, Count of Champagne (d 1181), in

his collegiate foundation at Troyes (France) included an effigy covered with silver beneath

an open arcade set with enamel ornament.39 Richard II de Clare (1262) was buried on the

right-hand side of his father in the presbytery at Tewkesbury Abbey; his wife commis-

sioned a tomb ornamented with silver, gold and jewels, which the Monasticon Anglicanumdescribes thus:

This Richard II [de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford] [y] died on the 14th

day of July, 1262 [y] and was reverently and honourably buried in the presbytery

at Tewkesbury [Abbey] to the right of his father, where [referring to the funeral],

among those present, were the bishops of Llandaff and Worcester, twelve abbots,

and a great multitude of barons, knights and magnates. And afterwards his wife

[Matilda, a daughter of the earl of Lincoln] ornamented his tomb with gold and

silver and precious stones, [and] with the sword and spurs he used when alive.40

Fig 2. Tomb monument with gilt copper-alloy and Limoges enamel-plated effigy to

William de Valence (d 1296), now in the chapel dedicated to SS Edmund and

Thomas, but originally probably in the Confessor’s Chapel at Westminster Abbey.

Photograph: r Dean and Chapter of Westminster

38. Blair 1995. See Erlande-Brandenburg 1975, 114, for the occurrence in France of monumentsin Limoges enamel, of which several examples can be found among the Gaignieres drawings.See also Francois 2008.

39. Morganstern 2000, 10–12, 202; Nolan 2009, 102–3.40. Dugdale 1817–30, II, 61 (col B): Iste Ricardus secundus [y] obit xiv. die Julii anno Domini

Mcclxij. [y] Augusti honorifice humatur in presbiterio apud Theokes [buriae] in dextera patris sui,


The word ornavit may possibly imply removable objects, such as candlesticks, rather

than an integral part of the monument, but Leland refers to Richard as having had an

‘image yn sylver’, which supports the interpretation as a metal tomb.41 Could the

exemplar for it have been Katherine’s tomb monument of bejewelled silver gilt? At

Lincoln, Bishop John Dalderby (d 1320) was provided with a silver shrine.42 The tomb of

Henry V (d 1422), in his chantry chapel above the east end of the Confessor’s Chapel,

comprised silver plates over a wooden core with some solid silver components, although

of the effigy only the wooden core remains (fig 3).43 This last monument is probably the

best surviving parallel for what was commissioned for Katherine at Westminster Abbey

nearly two centuries earlier.

Fig 3. Effigy of Henry V (d 1422) in his chantry chapel above the east end of the

Confessor’s Chapel, originally comprising silver plates over a wooden core, with some

solid silver components, although now only the wooden core remains: the head and

hands are modern replacements. Photograph: r Dean and Chapter of Westminster

ubi interfuerunt Landavensis et Wigorniensis episcopi, et xij. abbates, et copiosa multitudo baronum,militum ac magnatum. Et postea uxor ejus ornavit tumbam ejusdem auro et argento et lapidibuspretiosis, cum gladio et calcaribus quibus utebatur vivus. Another bejewelled effigy was at WorksopPriory (Notts), commemorating Sir Thomas Nevill, although it is not recorded as being ofprecious metal: Dugdale 1817–30, VI, 123 (col A), quoting the Stemma Fundatorum Prioratus deWyrksope.

41. It is unclear whether the tomb monument still survived in his day or whether he took as hissource a manuscript original of a chronicle of the founders of Tewkesbury Abbey, of which heprovides an abstract: Toulmin-Smith 1964, II, 140, 155.

42. Rogers 1987, 56.43. Hope 1914.


No specific account remains of the making of the tomb chest on which Katherine’s effigy

would have rested. We know that there was an altar with a reredos attached to the tomb and a

lectern associated with it. On 14 January 1259 Aubrey de Fecamp and Peter de Winchester,

king’s clerks, were paid 500 marks (£333 6s 8d): ‘To acquire a certain fabric with pearls for an

altar frontal, a certain lectern, and the tomb of Katherine our daughter deceased, and certain

pictures which our lord the King has had made for the altar of Blessed Mary at Westminster.’44

This cloth was the one ordered in 1258 and the entry reads as if the remainder of the items also

related to Katherine’s monument. How much exactly the cloth cost is not specified but in 1258

William of Gloucester, the king’s goldsmith, had been paid 20 marks (£14 6s 8d) for working a

precious cloth for the altar of the Blessed Edward (the Confessor).45 The whole ensemble

would probably have been more costly than the gilt copper-alloy effigy that was originally

planned, as well as even more splendid.

DOES ANY PART OF KATHERINE’S TOMB MONUMENT SURVIVE?

Although, as explained above, there is no firm evidence for the original location of

Katherine’s tomb monument, there is a persistent tradition that the Cosmatesque chest in

the south ambulatory of the abbey church housed the bones of Katherine and up to eight

other royal infants as well as the older children of Henry III and Edward I (fig 4).46 Given

the size of the chest – 165cm long, 76cm wide and 73.5cm high (though internally only about

60cm deep) – the tradition that it housed so many royal infants and children appears

inherently flawed. Moreover, the evidence for the burial in this tomb chest of the children of

either Henry III or Edward I is questionable; the accounts of the abbey’s early historians, such

as Camden, Dart and Strype, are confused and, in places, contradictory.47

The uncertainty arose as a result of attempting to reconcile two conflicting traditions

in the burial accounts.48 The earliest accounts associating the burial of the children with

the south ambulatory pre-date the Reformation, all having been copied in the sixteenth

century from a lost late fifteenth-century original and thus possibly being subject to errors

of transcription.49 The manuscript notes of Stow, and one of the lists of abbey burials,

say that nine children, including Katherine, were buried in the chapel dedicated to SS

Edmund and Thomas.50 Yet the Cosmatesque tomb is outside this chapel. A variation is

given in an anonymous treatise on royal progeny dated 1595, which states that the bones

of Henry III’s children, Richard (d 1250) and John (d 1252), as well as Katherine are said

to lie on the south side of the choir under the pavement ‘in the space of the passage lying

between the Chapels of King Edward the Confessor and St Benet’.51 Again, this does not

44. TNA, E 403/1217, m. 2: ad acquietandum inde pannum cum perulis ad frontale altaris, quoddamlectrinum et tumbam Katerine filie R. defuncte, et quasdam tabulas quas dominus R. fieri fecit adaltare Beate Marie apud Westm. The same writ is written in CLR 1251–60, 448; also Scott 1863,146, note b, quoting Devon 1835, xxx–xxxi, which gives inconsistent accounts of the sumconcerned. Nigel Saul kindly checked the original on our behalf and ascertained that Devonhad read the sum correctly as 500 marks.

45. Devon 1835, xxx.46. Badham 2007b.47. Ibid, 144, n 9.48. Howell 1992, 66.49. Harvey 1977, Appendix II, 365–86.50. BL, Harley MS 544, fol 75v, and BL, Add MS 38133, fol 99v.51. BL, Harley MS 1416, fols 50–51.


provide evidence that the Cosmatesque tomb held the bones of these children; indeed, it

militates against such an explanation.

The use of the word ‘bones’ rather than ‘bodies’ in the 1595 treatise and in Speed’s

account suggests that the remains of three of Henry III’s infant children – Richard, John

Fig 4. Cosmatesque chest in the south ambulatory of Westminster Abbey, now

positioned in the wall linking the chapels of SS Edmund and Thomas and of

St Benedict, which is traditionally said to have housed the bones of Katherine and

up to eight other royal infants and older children of Henry III and Edward I.

Photograph: r Dean and Chapter of Westminster


and Katherine – were actually translated to the south ambulatory rather than necessarily

being buried here originally.52 The Cosmatesque tomb chest could not have been made

for Katherine.53 The provision in 1258 of a cloth for the tomb shows that the tomb was

complete by that time; yet it was not until a decade later that there is documented

evidence of the employment of the Roman Cosmati specialists at Westminster.54

WAS SIMON DE WELLES INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING A CASTCOPPER-ALLOY EFFIGY?

Henry’s change of mind about his daughter’s effigy has often been interpreted as a failure

on Simon de Welles’s part to produce a cast copper-alloy effigy. The choice of copper

alloy as allegedly a royal material par excellence in England has been described by various

authors. Coldstream quotes Henry III’s preference, at the advice of his clerk of works, for

the ‘more magnificent’ cast bronze to marble for the leopards that were intended for his

throne in Westminster Hall.55 This would therefore chime with the claims made by Binski

regarding the ‘aesthetic and symbolic significance of materials and their implications for

image formation’; he saw a clear ‘link between gold and bronze and sovereign burial’, as

evidenced by William Torel’s gilt copper-alloy effigies of Henry III (fig 5) and Eleanor of

Castile provided after Henry’s death by Edward I, and the later monuments of Edward III,

Richard II and Anne of Bohemia, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, and Margaret Beaufort.56

Gardner has also observed that the use of this metal was ‘an English royal predilection’.57

Yet, if this link had already been clear in Henry III’s mind by 1257, what was the reason for

ultimately opting for another material for Katherine’s tomb?

Various theories have been presented. The key issue regarding the dismissal of Simon

de Welles was summarized by Tanner:

had he, presumably a sculptor, failed to master the technique of brass casting, an art not

perfected at Westminster until the end of the century when William Torel produced his

masterpieces of the effigies of Henry III and Queen Eleanor, or did the king alter his

mind and feel that a more precious metal should be used for his little child’s image?58

John Harvey offered the explanation that Simon’s design was not accepted, but this seems

highly unlikely in view of the order of 28 May 1257 that he was to be paid 40 marks for the

work, implying that a contract had been signed.59 However, most commentators have followed

the view of Colvin, who opined that ‘the technical difficulties were too much for [Welles]’.60

52. Speed 1611. However, at line 551 he instead records ‘at Westminster her bones lie interred withher brothers Richard and John in the space between the Chapels of King Edward and SaintBennett’. This is derived from BL, Harley MS 1416, fols 50–51.

53. Tanner 1953, 27.54. Badham 2007b, 135.55. Coldstream 1994, 117. Edward I commissioned a cast copper-alloy chair in Westminster Abbey

to house the Stone of Scone, but, for reasons of economy, work was stopped in 1297 after morethan £38 had been spent on it. Walter, the king’s painter, instead made the wooden chair thatremains at Westminster, albeit now bereft of the Stone of Scone: Percival-Prescot 1957, 13–14.

56. Binski 1995, 107ff, with quotations from p 111.57. Gardner 2009, 72.58. Tanner 1953, 27.59. Harvey 1984, 329.60. See Colvin 1963, 478.


This last conclusion is open to challenge. On the continent cast copper-alloy effigies

had been produced since the eleventh century, the earliest known example being that in

Merseburg Cathedral to Rudolph of Swabia (d 1080).61 There is also much evidence for

their use in France, which was culturally close to England at this time. Cast copper-alloy

effigies were in vogue among French bishops and royalty; two survive at Amiens to

bishops Evrard de Fouilloy (d 1222) and Geoffroi d’Eu (d 1236), while twelve such

monuments were apparently melted down in Troyes in 1778, eight of them being

episcopal tombs.62 Other lost examples include that formerly in Angers Cathedral to

Guillaume de Beaumont (d 1240), one at Aiguebelle to Peter de Aquablanca, bishop of

Hereford (d 1268), and another at Hautecombes to Boniface, archbishop of Canterbury

(d 1270).63 The last two were Savoyard clerics; Boniface was a relative of the English

queen Eleanor of Provence, and Aquablanca was also part of her circle, demonstrating the

Fig 5. Tomb with gilt copper-alloy effigy of Henry III (d 1272), produced by William

Torel, Westminster Abbey. Photograph: Sally Badham

61. Panofsky 1964, 51–2.62. Bauch 1976, 77 and figs 110–11. Two other cast copper-alloy effigies of men in armour dating

from the 13th century are recorded in Adhemar 1974, 47, 49.63. Rogers 1987, 20–3; Binski 1995, 110.


close relationship in patterns of patronage between the French and English courts, to

which we will return.

Some years before the creation of Katherine’s tomb in Westminster, a cast copper-

alloy effigy was set up at the abbey of Saint-Denis as a retrospective monument for

Charles the Bald (d 877). In the mid-thirteenth century the chronicler Richer de Senones

(d 1267) left a detailed eyewitness account of this large tomb, which was placed on four

short supporting pillars with lions and an additional sculpted lion at the emperor’s feet:

‘Upon which tomb let him have a cast bronze sarcophagus, eight feet long and three wide,

upon which is carved a lion as large as the sarcophagus, which I have seen with my own

eyes.’64 Moreover, despite a lack of drawings or detailed contemporary descriptions, there

is strong evidence that Philip II Augustus (d 1223), Louis IX himself (d 1270) and his

father, Louis VIII (d 1226), were commemorated with tombs made of gilt copper alloy and

silver gilt combined with other rich materials.65 In addition, Louis IX’s mother, Blanche of

Castile (d 1252), was apparently commemorated at Maubuisson with an effigy in high

relief supported on colonettes, all made of solid metal (cuivre).66

Given this evidence for the manufacture from copper alloy of large and complex tomb

monuments on the continent, it seems inherently unlikely that these could not have been

produced in England. Indeed, there is clear evidence for their production elsewhere

in England several decades before Torel made those for Henry III and Queen Eleanor.

Such effigies were not regarded as the exclusive prerogative of royalty; it was the higher

clergy who were the trendsetters in this regard, as they later proved to be for effigial

monumental brasses.67 The best-documented example is the effigy formerly in York

Minster to Dean William de Langton (d 1279).68 The metal was stripped off and sold in

1645, but Dugdale had visited York Minster four years earlier and had a drawing made

of the monument with annotations to indicate the materials used for its various elements

(fig 6). Bishop Grosseteste of Lincoln (d 1253) was commemorated by a tomb chest with

an ‘image made of brasse’, which was removed by 1641, but Rogers has suggested that

marks recorded on the surface of the tomb were probably left by a cast metal effigy resting

on a sheet of brass.69

There is no known documentary evidence showing that Simon de Welles worked in

metal. He evidently came from the city of that name in Somerset and was described

as a carver, presumably working on the cathedral there. Harvey has speculated that he was

probably engaged on figure sculptures on the west front.70 He also identifies Welles as the

64. Super quod sepulcrum sarcophagum habetur eneum fusile, longitudine octo pedum, latitudine verotrium, super quod sculptus est leo ad magnitudinem sarcofagi, quod et ego propriis oculis vidi: Erlande-Brandenburg 1975, 153 (no. 55), n 1, and Leistenschneider 2008, 41, both citing Richer’s Gestasenonensis ecclesiae in the context of the funeral of Philip II Augustus (d 1223). See also Wright1974, 234–5. Although Charles the Bald’s copper-alloy effigy was destroyed in 1792, it wasrecorded in Gilles Corrozet’s Les antiquitez, chroniques et singularitez de Paris of 1588, in anengraving in Bernard de Montfaucon’s Monumens de la monarchie francoise (1729–33), and in aGaignieres drawing: Leistenschneider 2008, figs 10–11; Erlande-Brandenburg 1975, figs 57–8;Wright 1974, 234, fig 22.

65. Erlande-Brandenburg 1975, 114; Binski 1995, 110. Louis VII (d 1180) had a stone tombembellished with gold, silver and gemstones at his foundation at Barbeau: Nolan 2009, 99–100.

66. Erlande-Brandenburg 1975, 165 (no. 95); Binski 1995, 110; Nolan 2009, 140–4.67. Rogers 1987, 15–17.68. Badham 1980.69. Rogers 1987, 20.70. Harvey 1984, 329.


man known as Simon le Peyntour, probably a maker or designer of images, who witnessed

documents of the Dean and Chapter of Wells during the latter part of Henry III’s reign.71

Yet if Simon was merely a stone carver, why would he have been chosen to journey to

Westminster to make a cast copper-alloy effigy, however skilled a workman he was?

It is quite conceivable that Simon de Welles was experienced in making cast copper-

alloy effigies. Leland, writing c 1540, described having seen ‘Jocelyn, buried in the middle

of the choir of Wells Cathedral, on a high tomb with a bronze image’.72 Half a century

later Francis Godwin recorded Jocelin’s monument thus: ‘His marble tomb is visited

today, which forty years ago was beautifully adorned with bronze plates’.73 The most

obvious interpretation of this passage is that Bishop Jocelin (d 1242) was commemorated

by a figure brass, but – forty years after its loss – Godwin’s memory may have been faulty.

Two factors argue in support of Jocelin’s lost monument being a cast copper-alloy figure.

First, the earliest figure brasses known to have been made in England are dated to the

1270s, thirty years after Jocelin’s monument was presumably made.74 Secondly, the

Fabric Receipts for 1549/50 include the sale of ‘72 shillings and a penny for the price of

two images of bishops in bronze which were in the choir, weighing 310 pounds, at 2d a

pound, sold to Cuthbert Bulman’.75

Fig 6. Drawing with annotations by William Dugdale (1641) of the monument to

Dean William de Langton (d 1279) formerly in York Minster. Source: College of

Arms of London

71. Ibid, 329.72. Toulmin-Smith 1964, I, 293: Jocelinus sepultus in medio Chori Eccl. Wellen. tumba alta cum imag.

aerea.73. Otterbourne 1732, II, 661: Sepulchrum ejus marmoreum hodie visitur, quod ante 40 annos aeneis

laminis pulchre adornatum.74. Coales 1987.75. Tudor-Craig 1982, 130–1: lxxijs jd de precio duarum Imaginum Episcoporum ex eneo qui fuerunt in

choro ponderis cccx libarum precio cuis re ijd ob sic uendit Cuthberto Bulman. This text may begarbled as the figures do not correspond; if the weight is correct, the sum should be 51s 8d.


One of these images was undoubtedly Jocelin’s and the most likely candidate for the

second is William Bitton I (d 1264): although he was apparently buried in the Lady

Chapel at the east end of the church, all other episcopal tombs at Wells can be accounted

for and ruled out of contention.76 Leland’s description of Bitton’s monument says: ‘he lies

with a bronze image in the Chapel of St Mary at the east end of Wells Cathedral’, which is

again ambiguous, although at this date a cast copper-alloy figure is more likely.77 Rogers

has pointed out that 310lb is very much greater than the likely weight of two figure

brasses, basing his assessment on Cameron’s calculation that the average weight of an

early brass military figure was 721⁄2lb (33kg), even if extra is allowed for the weight of

canopy work.78 This is considerably less than the 1,500kg (3,307lb) weight of the

monument commemorating Blanche of Castile (d 1252), but that was of solid metal (so

not a cast shell) and included more than just an effigy.79 Hence, one, or possibly both, of

the Wells monuments may have been cast copper-alloy effigies. Such prestigious monu-

ments could well have been regarded as appropriate for Jocelin and William Bitton I as

both men were regarded as saints at Wells.

Admittedly, it is not certain that Simon de Welles made these monuments at Wells,

but the circumstantial evidence is strong. Henry III could well have been familiar with

developments at Wells and known of Simon’s expertise, as Bishop William Bitton I was

well known to the king and trusted by him; in 1253 he was employed by Henry III to

negotiate the marriage of his son to the daughter of King Ferdinand of Spain.80 Moreover,

such an important commission as Katherine’s tomb monument would surely not have

been entrusted to a novice in the craft.

HENRY III’S CULTURAL PATRONAGE OF MATERIAL CULTURE

We have argued above that the silver-plated image made by William of Gloucester was

most probably an effigy representing the deceased princess. Moreover, we have made a

case that Simon was probably more than capable of producing a cast copper-alloy effigy as

initially required. This suggests that Henry III deliberately relinquished the idea of having

his daughter’s effigy made of gilt copper alloy in favour of an even more glittering

ensemble of silver gilt embellished with pearls and amethysts. Various aspects of his

patronage of material culture are consistent with such a hypothesis.

It would not have been out of character for Henry III to have changed his mind part

of the way through a project to provide something even more splendid, as Binski

76. Reid 1953, 124. Possibly the Fabric Receipts entry used the term ‘choir’ loosely to refer to theeastern end of the cathedral church, especially as it seems that by 1540 the Lady Chapel hadbecome part of the choir.

77. Reid 1953, 124, based on Hearne 1770, III, 124, n h: jacet cum imagine aerea in Capella B. Mariaead orientalem partem ecclesiae de Welles. Toulmin-Smith 1964, I, 294, has an illegible phrasereferring to Bitton.

78. Rogers 1987, 21.79. Erlande-Brandenburg 1975, 165 (no. 95); the figure of 15,000kg on p 114 is evidently erro-

neous. Although the cast copper-alloy royal effigies at Westminster Abbey were examined whencleaned in 1945, they were not weighed. The two earliest examples, to Henry III and hisdaughter-in-law, Eleanor, were described as being ‘of unusual weight, for their thickness variesfrom 2 to 4 ins’. This compares with a thickness of 1

⁄2in. to 3⁄4in. for the effigy of Edward III:

Plenderleith and Maryon 1959.80. Reid 1953, 122.


has argued.81 Henry’s Lady Chapel at the east end of Westminster Abbey, begun in 1220,

was completed c 1245, yet in 1256 an order was given to replace the vault and roof by ones

which matched the ambulatory in style and height.82 The magnificent retable that graced

the high altar of the abbey church was lengthened during manufacture (but prior to

painting) by the addition of two end panels of Baltic oak, different from the English oak

used for the main body of the work; Binski has hypothesized that this was triggered by a

decision to widen the high altar, and thus make it all the more impressive.83 Finally, the

new ceiling installed in the king’s chamber at Westminster Palace after a fire in 1263 was

rejected soon after its completion in favour of a more elaborate pattern of star-like ceiling

bosses.84 Admittedly, we cannot be sure that these were Henry’s personal decisions, but

previous authorities, including most recently Binski, have assumed this to have been the

case.85 That Henry had a change of mind regarding the form of Katherine’s monument is

entirely possible and even, it might be argued, in character.

Furthermore, that Henry should prefer for his much-loved daughter a silver-gilt effigy

encrusted with gems to the type of cast copper-alloy effigy favoured by at least some of the

higher clergy in England is also consistent with his known tastes. The offerings made to

St Edward the Confessor’s shrine by Henry and other donors included cameos and gold

statues with jewels and cameos incorporated.86 He clearly had a discerning eye and a love

of luxurious artefacts made from precious metals and jewels; the jewel accounts for

Henry’s reign and other related documents reveal the extent of his holdings and the

sumptuous nature of many of his treasures.87 Interestingly, as shown by Wild, Henry used

gifts of precious objects to enhance his political and personal authority.88 Commenting on

the trousseau Henry provided for his sister Isabella in 1235, Matthew Paris recorded that:

‘it was said that the treasures about to be taken out of England seemed almost priceless

and not just abundant but excessive’.89

His patronage at Westminster Abbey demonstrates a lavish – even profligate – use of

high-status materials, as exemplified by the deployment of Purbeck marble even in places

where it cannot easily be seen. The completed sanctuary and Confessor’s Chapel at the

heart of ‘the most important project of the most art-oriented ruler of his day’ must have

81. Binski 2009, 24. See also Liversage and Binski 1995.82. Harvey 2003, 22.83. Marchand 2009, 227–9.84. Liversage and Binski 1995.85. Binski 2009, 24.86. These were pawned in 1267. They included gold images of St Edmund set with 2 large

sapphires and other precious stones worth £86; a king with a ruby on his breast and other smallstones worth £48; a king holding in his right hand a flower, with sapphires and emeralds in themiddle of the crown and a garnet on his breast, and set with pearls and small stones, worth £564s 4d; a king with a garnet on his breast and other stones worth £52; a king with sapphires onhis breast and other stones worth £59 6s 8d; five golden angels worth £30; a Virgin and Childset with rubies, emeralds and garnets worth £200; a king holding a shrine set with preciousstones worth £103; a king holding a cameo with two heads and a sceptre set with rubies,prasinis (a form of emerald) and garnets worth £100; St Peter holding a church and the keys,trampling on Nero, and with a large sapphire on his breast, worth £100; and a Majesty with anemerald on his breast worth £200. There was also a great cameo in a gold case worth £200 andanother cameo worth £28: Scott 1863, 134–5. Lehmann-Brockhaus 1955–60, II, 164, no. 2814,provides a transcript of the original Latin.

87. Wild 2010a and 2010b.88. Wild 2010b, 418–23.89. Luard 1872–83, III, 319–20; Wild 2011, 1.


inspired wonder and awe in contemporaries who saw it.90 The two Cosmati pavements

and the shrine were decorated with inlays of precious stones – some, such as porphyry,

with imperial connotations. That nobody should doubt who had been responsible for this

great work, the inscription on the shrine records: ‘Man, if you want to know the cause [of

the shrine], it was King Henry, friend of this present saint’.91

The retable that once graced the high altar is a magnificent exercise in artifice: it has

the appearance of being constructed from precious metals and jewels, but is in fact made

of wood, decorated with paint, metal leaf and glass gems, imitation cameos and fictive

enamels. Although it cost no more than £7 5s, the retable was not a product of deliberate

economizing, for the use of gold leaf and expensive pigments was exceptionally liberal.92

Even more lavish was the lost altar frontal commissioned from Henry III’s goldsmith,

William of Gloucester, at a cost of £310; the high cost was accounted for by the amount of

gold and jewels, although about £36 was spent on sewing, a labour-intensive task

involving four women over three years.93

Undoubtedly Henry’s Lady Chapel was also lavishly fitted out, for in 1258 he paid an

extraordinary 120 marks (£80) to the painter Peter of Spain for two panels incorporating

precious materials, which he gave as a retable to adorn the Lady Chapel ante altare BeataeMarie (‘before the altar of the Blessed Mary’).94 Cost was evidently a secondary con-

sideration for Henry III.95 Hence, the eventual form of Katherine’s tomb monument

was very much to Henry’s personal decorative taste and the expense involved in

commemorating a deceased daughter would not have weighed heavily with him.

Finally, it is significant that, as Binski has noted, ‘Henry III had an ambitious and

competitive view of kingship’.96 His love for jewels, gems and cameos was a taste he

shared with his brother-in-law, Louis IX (St Louis) of France, who was married to

Margaret of Provence, older sister of Henry’s wife Eleanor.97 His close links with Louis IX

resulted in visits to Paris where Henry could not help being impressed by his brother-in-

law’s building projects in the new Rayonnant style.98 Since before 1245 Henry had

employed Henry de Reyns as his master mason, a man who knew not only Reims

Cathedral but also the important Parisian buildings being built under the patronage of

Louis IX.99 Reflecting Westminster’s use as the coronation church, Reyns’s plans for

the abbey were based on its French counterpart of Reims Cathedral. The influence of the

building that Louis regarded as his private chapel – Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, started

around 1241 and seen by Henry III in 1254 – can also be observed in the detail and

finishing of the new abbey church at Westminster.100

Henry himself led expeditions into France in 1230 and 1242–3 in attempts to recover

his father’s former French territories, and again travelled around parts of France in the

90. Wilson 2009, 80.91. O’Neilly and Tanner 1966, 146: homo causam noscere si vis rex fuit Henricus sancti presentis amicus.92. Bucklow 2009.93. Ibid, 349.94. CPR 1247–58, 613; CLR 1251–60, 424.95. Colvin 1963, 94.96. Binski 2009, 17.97. Cherry 2009, 132; Wild 2010b, 423–4. The two sisters were born just a few years apart and

were apparently very close.98. Bony 1979, 2–4, 9–13.99. Binski 2009, 17.

100. Binski 1995, 7, and 2009, 17–18.


1250s and 1260s with friendlier intentions, starting in late 1254 with visits to Fontevraud,

Pontigny, Chartres and Paris.101 He was thus able to see at first hand the fruits of

Louis IX’s patronage. Equally, what Bony calls Henry’s ‘wide curiosity of taste’ attracted

him to the best of contemporary Italian work, as exemplified by his patronage of

Cosmati marblers.102

However, Henry III’s patronage at Westminster Abbey was by no means derivative; it

has been aptly characterized by Wilson as having ‘a unique blend of French monu-

mentality and English ornamental inventiveness’.103 Wilson goes on to describe the

abbey’s chapter house as ‘a structurally daring and aesthetically compelling building y

[that] was justifiably declared in the inscription on its tiled floor – in which the arms of

England appear sixty-two times – ut rosa flos florum sic est domus ista domorum (‘as the rose

is the flower of flowers, so is this the house of houses’).104 The inscription continues

Henricus sancte Trinitatis amicus (‘Henry, friend of the Trinity’); as with the Confessor’s

shrine, Henry was keen to declare his patronage of this building.105

All of this was consistent with Henry’s building work elsewhere: in addition to his

patronage of Westminster Abbey, he redecorated many of his great halls with ‘lavish

displays of figural and heraldic displays of glittering kingship’.106 Clarendon Palace is

typical of this striving for the best and most innovative works: part of a tile roundel,

excavated in the 1930s and associated with an order by Henry for a new pavement in his

chapel there in 1244, has been shown by Norton to have been the earliest and most

technically proficient of its kind in Europe.107

HENRY AND THE DESIGN OF TOMB MONUMENTS

Henry’s interest in tomb design is evident from the number of monuments he had already

commissioned by the time of Katherine’s death. By 1232 he had had his father – the

unpopular King John (d 1216) – commemorated at the newly completed east end of

Worcester Cathedral by means of a splendid Purbeck marble effigy with inlays of real and

fictive gems. He chose the same stone when, in 1238, he commissioned Master Elias de

Dereham, a secular clerk and later canon of Salisbury whom Harvey considered to have been

‘an amateur artist of some distinction in work of a decorative character’, to make a tomb, now

lost, for his sister Joan, Queen of Scotland, for the nunnery at Tarrant Keynston (Dorset).108

Henry also provided tombs for some of those who served him. In 1243 he ordered a

monument to be made for Gerald fitz Maurice, Justice of Ireland. All that is recorded is

that this was made of stone and had his shield with his arms on it; the cost is not given,

but it was probably a modest monument, such as an incised slab.109 Another lost tomb

paid for through the Exchequer was ordered from Master Richard of Paris in 1245 for the

101. Binski 2009, 18; Ridgeway 2004.102. Bony 1979, 9.103. Wilson 2009, 92; Binski 1995, 1, 7, 34–46, rejecting the interpretation of Bony 1979, 3;

Carpenter 2005, 14–15.104. Wilson 2010, 40.105. Keen 2010.106. Dixon-Smith 1999, 81.107. Norton 2003.108. CLR 1226–40, 316; Harvey 1984, 82.109. CLR 1240–5, 198.


king’s almoner. Again no details were given, but the cost was only 5 marks (£5 3s 4d), so

this was probably another relatively modest memorial.110 In late 1254, prior to an eight-

day stay with Louis IX in Paris where he personally inspected the Sainte-Chapelle, Henry

Fig 7. Limoges enamel tomb effigy of Blanche (d 1243), infant daughter of Louis IX,

originally at the abbey of Royaumont, now at Saint-Denis Abbey. Photograph:

r Pascal Lemaıtre – Centre des monuments nationaux

110. CLR 1240–5, 286.


had visited Fontevraud, where he had his mother’s body moved from the cemetery to the

church and commissioned an effigy for her like those already in place for Henry II,

Richard I and Eleanor of Aquitaine; he also bequeathed his own heart to the monastery.111

Fig 8. Limoges enamel tomb effigy of Jean (d 1248), infant son of Louis IX,

originally at the abbey of Royaumont, now at Saint-Denis Abbey. Photograph: r

Pascal Lemaıtre – Centre des monuments nationaux

111. Powicke 1962, 119; Ridgeway 2004.


It is probably significant to Henry’s plans that Louis IX of France had succeeded in

making a clear dynastic statement by having his Capetian royal predecessors and

ancestors commemorated by a series of tomb effigies at the abbey of Saint-Denis, where

Fig 9. Tomb of Blanche (d 1243), infant daughter of Louis IX, originally at the abbey

of Royaumont: Bodleian, MS Gough drawings, Gaignieres, II, fol 29. Photograph:

reproduced by courtesy of the University of Oxford


Fig 10. Tomb of Jean (d 1248), infant son of Louis IX, originally at the abbey of

Royaumont: MS Gough drawings, Gaignieres, II, fol 26. Photograph: reproduced by

courtesy of the University of Oxford


they merged seamlessly with those of their Carolingian and Merovingian predecessors.112

Moreover, many other members of his family who had not received the royal unction were

to be buried and commemorated with monuments at the royal abbey of Royaumont.

Whether Henry went to Royaumont during his visit in 1254 is unrecorded, and therefore

unlikely; even so, the knowledge of what Louis XI intended at Royaumont may well have

planted in Henry’s mind the idea of a similar dynastic tomb programme, and we know

that Henry did go to Saint-Denis on 28 and 29 December to celebrate the vigil and

feast of Becket’s martyrdom, where he would have had ample opportunity to see at first

hand the most recent tomb monuments provided by his brother-in-law for the French

monarchy.113

It is also possible that some elements of Katherine’s tomb were influenced by

French royal tombs, specifically those to two of Louis’s children who died in infancy:

Blanche (born 1240/1), who had died on 29 April 1243, and Jean, who, according to the

inscription on his slab, had died in etate Infantie on 10 March 1248, probably soon after

birth. These royal children were provided with monuments at Royaumont that were both

costly and iconographically exceptional.114 They are also among the earliest surviving

monuments to children known in Europe, and, as such, provide our best exemplars for

Katherine’s lost monument and an insight in to how even young children could be comme-

morated. They originally consisted of copper-alloy slabs with Limoges enamel, featuring

stylized effigies in high relief; these were placed on top of their tombs inside canopied

niches with mural ‘portraits’ of the deceased on the back wall. Although the enamelled

plaques now remain (figs 7 and 8), the settings of the monuments are known only from

drawings made by Louis Boudain for Francois Roger de Gaignieres (figs 9 and 10).

Whether the patron was actually Louis himself, who was on crusade from 1248 to

1254, is debatable. Nolan has argued that they were commissioned by Louis XI’s mother,

Blanche of Castile, who acted as his regent during his absence abroad.115 This type of

enamelled metal plaque can in essence be traced back in type to that commemorating

Geoffrey, count of Anjou (d 1151; tomb in place by 1155), at Le Mans and a broadly

contemporary example at Angers to Ulger, bishop of Angers (d 1148), of which only the

stonework now survives.116 Hence, although the tombs to Blanche and Jean of France

were prestigious, they were not innovative, unlike that provided by Henry III for his

daughter Katherine.

CONCLUSION

We do not know precisely what form Katherine’s lost monument took, but the tomb that

William of Gloucester produced was unquestionably an example of English ornamental

112. Wright 1974.113. Carpenter 2005, 15.114. Erlande-Brandenburg 1975, 123.115. Nolan 2009, 138–40. This thesis is supported by the similarity between the monuments to

Louis IX’s infant children and another, once at Poissy but now lost, known through a drawingalso made by Boudain for Gaignieres; it commemorated Alfonso and Jean of France, the twininfant sons of Louis XIII and Blanche, who were born in 1213. It is virtually certain that themonument was a retrospective one, perhaps made at the same time as that for Blanche’sgrandchildren.

116. Nolan 2009, 59.


inventiveness at its most impressive. It was intended as a highly prestigious object that

fully reflected the important role played by display and material culture in Henrician

politics. It would undoubtedly have had an inscription identifying Katherine as Henry’s

daughter and, in common with the other embellishments he commissioned for West-

minster Abbey, it may well have recorded Henry’s role as patron – for, as Carpenter has

observed, ‘few kings were more sensitive to their name and fame’.117

A competitive quest for ultimate splendour may well have led to his decision

to change the form of Princess Katherine’s tomb monument from gilt copper alloy to

an even more sumptuous effigy of silver, amethyst and pearl. The change of plan

perhaps signalled Henry’s growing ambition to be seen as an innovator at the forefront

of tomb monument design as well as in the other artistic and architectural developments

of his age.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Richard Cassidy and to Fellows Jerome Bertram, John Blair, Brian and

Moira Gittos, Robert Hutchinson, Julian Luxford, Nicholas Rogers and Nigel Saul

for help with various aspects of this paper. Nicholas Rogers has transcribed various

documents and Jerome Bertram has provided many of the translations. The anonymous

referees made most helpful suggestions for improvements to an earlier version of this

paper. We would also like to acknowledge a grant from the A V B Norman Research Trust

for photographic and reproduction costs.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations

BL British Library, LondonBodleian Bodleian Library, OxfordCCR Calendar of Close RollsCLR Calendar of Liberate RollsCPR Calendar of Patent RollsTNA The National Archives

Manuscript sources

BL, Add MS 38133BL, Cotton Julius D viiBL, Cotton Nero D iiBL, Harley MS 544BL, Harley MS 1416Bodleian, MS Broxbourne 112.3Bodleian, MS Gough, II

TNA, C 62/33, m. 4TNA, E 352/65TNA, PRO E 372/116, m. 32d

TNA, E 403/13, m. 2TNA, E 403/15ATNA, E 403/17A, m. 3TNA, E 403/17B, m. 2TNA, E 403/18, m. 2TNA, E 403/19, m. 3TNA, E 403/1217, m. 2TNA, E 403/3114, m. 2TNA, E 403/3115, m. 2

117. Carpenter 2010, 37.


Published sources

Adhemar, J 1974. ‘Les tombeaux de la collec-tion Gaignieres; dessins d’archeologie duXVIIe siecle’ (Part 1), Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 84, 1–192

Badham, S 1980. ‘A lost bronze effigy fromYork Minster’, Antiq J, 60, 59–65

Badham, S 2007a. ‘St Edward the Confessor’sChapel, Westminster Abbey: the origins ofthe royal mausoleum and its Cosmatesquepavement’, Antiq J, 87, 197–219

Badham, S 2007b. ‘Whose body? Monumentsdisplaced from St Edward the Confessor’schapel, Westminster Abbey’, J Brit ArchaeolAss, 160, 129–46

Bauch, K 1976. Das mittelalterliche Grabbild.Figurliche Grabmaler des 11. bis 15. Jahrhun-derts in Europa, Berlin/New York: Walter deGruyter

Binski, P 1995. Westminster Abbey and thePlantagenets: kingship and the representationof power 1200–1400, London: Yale UniversityPress

Binski, P 2009. ‘Function, date, imagery, styleand content of the Westminster Retable’, inBinski et al 2009, 16–44

Binski, P, Massing, A and Sauerberg, M L(eds) 2009. The Westminster Retable. His-tory, Technique, Conservation, Turnhout:Harvey Miller Publishers

Blair, J 1995. ‘The Limoges enamel tomb ofBishop Walter de Merton’, Church Monu-ments, 10, 3–6

Bony, J 1979. The English Decorated Style. GothicArchitecture Transformed 1250–1350, Oxford:Phaidon

Brown, R A, Colvin, H M and Taylor, A J 1963.History of the King’s Works. The Middle Ages,3 vols, London: HMSO

Bucklow, S 2009. ‘Materials, wages and paint-ing at Westminster: costing the Retable’, inBinski et al 2009, 341–56

Camden, W 1606. Reges, reginae, nobiles, et aliiin ecclesia collegiata B. Petri WestmonasteriiSepulti, usque ad annum reparatae salutis1606, London: M Melchisedech Bradwood

Carpenter, D 2005. ‘The meetings of Henry IIIand Louis IX’, in Thirteenth Century Eng-land X (eds M Prestwich, R Britnell andR Fame), 1–30, Woodbridge: Boydell

Carpenter, D 2010. ‘King Henry III and thechapter house of Westminster Abbey’, inRodwell and Mortimer 2010, 32–9

Cherry, J 2009. ‘Cameos and gems on theWestminster Retable’, in Binski et al 2009,130–5

Clay, R M 1914. The Hermits and Anchorites ofEngland, London: Methuen

Coales, J 1987. The Earliest English Brasses,London: Monumental Brass Society

Coldstream, N 1994. The Decorated Style,London: British Museum Press

Colvin, H 1963. ‘Royal tombs and monuments’,in Brown et al 1963, I, 477–90

Dart, J 1723. Westmonasterium, London: JamesCole et al

Devon, F 1835. Issue roll of Thomas de Branting-ham, Bishop of Exeter, Lord High Treasurer ofEngland, London: John Rodwell

Dixon-Smith, S 1999. ‘The image and reality ofalms-giving in the great halls of Henry III’,J Brit Archaeol Ass, 152, 79–96

Dugdale, W 1817–30. Monasticon Anglicanum,6 vols, London: James Bohn

Erlande-Brandenburg, A 1975. Le roi est mort:etude sur les funerailles, les sepultures et lestombeaux des rois de France jusqu’a la fin duXIIIe siecle, Geneva: Droz

Francois, G 2008. ‘Fragments de cuivre etd’emaux retrouves du tombeau de Rogerde Brosse (1287) a Prebenoıt (Creuse)’,Aquitania, 24, 191–204

Gardner, J 2009. ‘The European context of theWestminster Retable’, in Binski et al 2009,66–78

Gerould, G H 1948. ‘A text of Merlin’sProphecies’, Speculum, 23, 102–3

Gough, R 1786. Sepulchral Monuments in GreatBritain, 2 vols, London: J Nichols

Gransden, A 1964. The Chronicle of BurySt Edmunds 1212–1301, London: Nelson

Green, M A E 1850. Lives of the Princesses ofEngland, 6 vols, London: H Colburn

Harvey, B 1977. Westminster Abbey and itsEstates in the Middle Ages, Oxford: ClarendonPress

Harvey, B 2003. ‘The monks of Westminsterand the old Lady Chapel’, in WestminsterAbbey: the Lady Chapel of Henry VII (edsT Tatton-Brown and R Mortimer), 5–32,Woodbridge: Boydell

Harvey, J 1984. English Mediaeval Architects.A Biographical Dictionary down to 1550,Gloucester: Alan Sutton

Hearne, T 1770. The Itinerary of John Lelandthe Antiquary, 9 vols, Oxford: SheldonianTheatre

Hope, W H St John 1914. ‘The funeral,monument, and chantry chapel of KingHenry the Fifth’, Archaeologia, 65,129–86


Howell, M 1992. ‘The children of Henry III andEleanor of Provence’, in Thirteenth CenturyEngland IV (eds P R Coss and S D Lloyd),57–72, Woodbridge: Boydell

Keen, L 2010. ‘The chapter house decoratedtile pavement’, in Rodwell and Mortimer2010, 209–36

Lehmann-Brockhaus, O 1955–60. LateinischeSchriftquellen zur Kunst in England, Walesund Schottland vom Jahre 901 bis zum Jahre1307, 3 vols, Munich: Prestel

Leistenschneider, E 2008. Die franzosischeKonigsgrablege Saint-Denis. Strategienmonarchischer Reprasentation 1223–1461,Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank fur Geis-teswissenschaften

Lethaby, W R 1906. Westminster Abbey and theKing’s Craftsmen, London: Duckworth

Lindley, P 1991. ‘Romanticizing reality: thesculptural memorials of Queen Eleanorand their context’, in Eleanor of Castile1290–1990: essays to commemorate the 700thanniversary of her death: 28 November 1290(ed D Parsons), 69–92, Stamford: PaulWatkins

Liversage, M and Binski, P 1995. ‘Two ceilingfragments from the Painted Chamber atWestminster Abbey’, Burlington Mag, 137,491–501

Luard, H R 1864–9. Annales Monastici, 5 vols,Rolls Series, London: Longman, Green,Longman, Roberts & Green

Luard, H R 1872–83. Chronica Majora, 7 vols,Rolls Series 57, London: Longman

Luard, H R 1890. Flores Historiarum (RerumBritannicarum Medii Ævi Scriptores), 3 vols,London: HMSO

Madden, F 1866–9. Matthaei Parisiensis HistoriaAnglorum, 3 vols, Rolls Series 44, London:Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer

Marchand, R 2009. ‘Manufacture of the woodensupport’, in Binski et al 2009, 222–32

Morganstern, A M 2000. Gothic Tombs ofKinship, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press

Nolan, K 2009. Queens in Stone and Silver. TheCreation of a Visual Imagery of Queenshipin Capetian France, New York: PalgraveMacmillan

Noppen, J G 1927. ‘William of Gloucester,goldsmith to King Henry III’, BurlingtonMag, 51, 189–95

Norton, C 2003. ‘Thirteenth-century tile pave-ments in Anjou’, in Anjou. Medieval Art,Architecture and Archaeology (eds J McNeilland D Prigent), Brit Archaeol Ass Con-ference Trans XXVI, 210–34, Leeds: Maney

O’Neilly, J G and Tanner, L E 1966. ‘Theshrine of St Edward the Confessor’,Archaeologia, 2nd ser, 50, 129–54

Oosterwijk, S 2000. ‘Chrysoms, shrouds andinfants on English tomb monuments: aquestion of terminology?’, Church Monu-ments, 15, 44–64

Orme, N 2009. Exeter Cathedral: the first thou-sand years, 400–1550, Exeter: Impress Books

Otterbourne, T 1732. Duo Rerum AnglicarumScriptores Veteres, 2 vols, Oxford: Sheldon-ian Theatre

Palliser, D M 2004. ‘Royal mausolea in thelong fourteenth century (1271–1422)’, inFourteenth Century England III (ed W MOrmrod), 1–16, Woodbridge: Boydell

Panofsky, E 1964. Tomb Sculpture. Its ChangingAspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini,London: Thames & Hudson

Percival-Prescot, W 1957. The Coronation Chair:an historical and technical enquiry, London:Ministry of Works

Plenderleith, H J and Maryon, H 1959. ‘Theroyal bronze effigies in Westminster Abbey’,Antiq J, 39, 87–90

Powicke, M 1962. ‘The thirteenth century,1216–1307’, in Oxford History of England,2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Reid, R D 1953. ‘The tomb of Bishop Button I’,Notes Queries Somerset Dorset, 26, 121–6

Ridgeway, H W 2004. ‘Henry III (1207–1272)’,in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:Online Edition (eds H C G Matthew andB Harrison), /http://www.oxforddnb.com./view/article/12950S (5 Mar 2012)

Rodwell, W and Mortimer, R 2010. WestminsterAbbey Chapter House, London: Society ofAntiquaries

Rogers, N 1987. ‘English episcopal monuments1270–1350’, in Coales 1987, 8–68

Scott, G G 1863. Gleanings from WestminsterAbbey by George Gilbert Scott, Oxford: J H &J Parker

Speed, J 1611. History of Britaine, London: GHumble

Strype, J 1720. A survey of the cities of Londonand Westminster, and the borough of South-wark, 2 vols, London: A Churchill et al

Tanner, J D 1953. ‘Tombs of royal babies inWestminster Abbey’, J Brit Archaeol Ass,3rd ser, 16, 25–40

Toulmin-Smith, L 1964. The Itinerary of JohnLeland in or about the Years 1535–1543, 5 vols,London: Centaur Press

Tudor-Craig, P 1982. ‘Wells sculpture’, in WellsCathedral (ed L S Colchester), 102–31, WestCompton: Open Books


Weever, J 1631. Ancient funerall monuments,London: Thomas Harper

Wild, B L 2010a. ‘A gift inventory from thereign of Henry III’, English Hist Rev, 135(514), 529–69

Wild, B L 2010b. ‘Secrecy, splendour and state-craft: the jewel accounts of King Henry IIIof England’, Hist Research, 83, 409–30

Wild, B L 2011. ‘The empress’s new clothes.A Rotulus Pannorum of Isabella, sister ofKing Henry III, bride of Emperor Freder-ick II’, in Medieval Clothing and Textiles 7

(eds R Netherton and G R Owen-Crocker),1–31, Woodbridge: Boydell

Wilson, C 2009. ‘The architecture and orna-ment of the Westminster Retable as evidenceof dating and origin’, in Binski et al 2009,79–96

Wilson, C 2010. ‘The chapter house of West-minster Abbey: the harbinger of a newdispensation in Westminster Abbey’, inRodwell and Mortimer 2010, 40–65

Wright, G S 1974. ‘A royal tomb program in thereign of St Louis’, Art Bulletin, 56, 224–43

RESUME

Princesse anglaise du milieu du XIIIe siecle, morte a l’agede trois ans et demi, Katherine occupe seulement une notede bas de page dans l’histoire de l’Angleterre. Pourtant, latombe monumentale et onereuse qu’Henry III, son pereendeuille, lui a fait construire a l’abbaye de Westminster, estprobablement le memorial a un enfant le plus ancien quel’on ait retrouve en Angleterre. Il fait peut-etre aussi partiede la reponse d’Henry III au programme de commemora-tions que son beau-frere, Saint-Louis, avait promu. Appa-remment, rien ne reste maintenant de la tombe deKatherine pour rappeler a la posterite sa breve existence,mais le fait de l’avoir commande marque une etape dansl’ambition croissante d’Henry III d’etre considere commeun innovateur, a l’avant-garde des evolutions artistiques deson epoque. L’histoire de ce monument permet de com-prendre le role des apparences et de la culture materialistedans la politique d’Henry III.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Katherine, eine englische Prinzessin aus der Mitte des 13.Jahrhunderts, die bereits im Alter von dreieinhalb Jahrenverstarb, nimmt nur eine Fußnote in der englischenGeschichte ein. Dabei ist jedoch das aufwendige Grabmalin der Westminster Abbey, das ihr trauernder Vater,Heinrich III., fur sie errichten ließ, wahrscheinlich eines derfruhesten nachgewiesenen Denkmaler, das in England furein Kind gestaltet wurde. Vielleicht gehorte das Grabmalaber auch zu Heinrichs Reaktion auf das Gedenkpro-gramm, das sein Schwager, Ludwig IX. von Frankreich, indie Wege geleitet hatte. Heute ist von Katherines Grabmalscheinbar nichts mehr ubrig, das die Nachwelt an ihrkurzes Leben erinnern konnte, doch seine ursprunglicheErrichtung ist Beleg fur einen weiteren Schritt in Heinrichszunehmendem Ehrgeiz, als Innovator und Vorlaufer kunst-lerischer Entwicklungen seiner Zeit zu gelten. DieGeschichte der Entstehung des Grabmals vermittelt einenEinblick in die Rolle, die Darstellung und Sachkultur in derPolitik Heinrichs III. hatten.


Documents

The tomb monument of Katherine, daughter of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence (1253-7)