Donning The Armour of God A Case Study o

Donning the
Armour of God
A Case Study of the Crusader Orders in
Medieval London
Max Zeronian-Dalley
MArts Archaeology
HPH-4050
May 2016
Declaration
I certify that this dissertation is my own unaided work,
and has been personally researched and written by me.
Max Zeronian-Dalley
May 2016
Word Count
15, 108 Words
1
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
The Sites .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Previous Scholarship ....................................................................................................................... 8
The Archaeology of Monastic London ................................................................................................ 8
The Preceptories ................................................................................................................................. 9
Crusader Archaeology ....................................................................................................................... 10
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 11
3 Monastic Rule and Architecture ................................................................................................... 12
The Round Church in Medieval England ........................................................................................... 12
Expansion and Conversion ................................................................................................................ 18
The Monastic Precinct ...................................................................................................................... 22
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 25
4 The Military Orders in English Society .......................................................................................... 26
The Acquisition of Land..................................................................................................................... 26
The London Preceptories and their Role in London Society ............................................................. 28
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 30
5 Death, Burial & Memorial ............................................................................................................. 32
The K ights Effigies i the ‘ou d .................................................................................................... 32
RCHM no. 10 – William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke................................................................. 34
RCHM no. 9 – William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke .................................................................. 35
RCHM no. 8 – Gilbert Marshal, 4th Earl of Pembroke ................................................................... 36
RCHM no. 7 – A Knight .................................................................................................................. 37
RCHM no. 6 – Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex ................................................................... 38
RCHMW no. 5 – A Knight .............................................................................................................. 39
RCHM no. 4 & no. 3 – Knights ....................................................................................................... 40
Patronage in Death ........................................................................................................................... 41
6 After the Templars ........................................................................................................................ 43
7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Further Research............................................................................................................................... 46
Notes ..................................................................................................................................................... 47
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 48
2
List of Figures
Photographs taken by author unless otherwise stated
1 The northwest bay of the arcade in the nave of the New Temple 14
2 The west door to the New Temple Church 16
3 The o the Sa a e usts o the Ne Te ple s est doo 16
4 The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (RCHME 1959) 17
Plan of The New Temple Church showing the original church, and its later
5 20
expansion (Griffith-Jones 2011, 15)
The central passage within the crypt at the Priory of St John, Clerkenwell
6 21
[east facing]
Tentative reconstruction of The New Temple and its environs, c.1250
7 23
(Nicholson 2010, 4)
Temple Church, layout of the thirteenth-century military effigies since
8 1842, from photographs by Bedford Lemere, c.1885 (Griffith-Jones & 33
Park 2010, plate 56)
9 Effigy of William Marshal the Elder, RCHM no. 10 (Richardson 1843) 34
10 Effigy of William Marshal the Younger, RCHM no. 9 (Richardson 1843) 35
11 Effigy of Gilbert Marshal, RCHM no. 8 (Richardson 1843) 36
12 Effigy of a Knight, RCHM no. 7 (Richardson 1843) 37
13 Effigy of Geoffrey de Mandeville, RCHM no. 6 (Richardson 1843) 38
3
List of Abbreviations
MoLA Museum of London Archaeology
GLHER Greater London Historic Environment Record
RCHM(E) Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments (of England)
Regesta Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum
CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Huw Pryce for his illuminating advice and
supervision throughout the course of this project. Professor Pryce, along with Dr Euryn Roberts
provided me with a great deal of feedback and guidance, for which I am incredibly grateful. I also
feel that the upmost gratitude is owed to the rest of the staff in the School of History, Welsh History
and Archaeology, for all of their support and knowledge throughout the past four years, in particular
Dr Gary Robinson, Dr Karen Pollock, and Professor Nancy Edwards who have turned me into the
archaeologist I am today.
I would also like to thank Dr Sarah-Jane Hathaway from Historic England for her support and their
provision of datasets from the Greater London Historic Environment Record. Also credit must be
given to the Museum of the Order of St John, their incredible displays and incredibly helpful guides,
made my visit to the site all the more pleasurable.
Finally, but by no means least, I would like to thank my friends and family for their support in this
project. Gratitude goes to my sister, Katharyn, for visiting the New Temple on my behalf when I was
unable to make a second visit, and also to Alisa Patel for accompanying me around these churches
during my visit in the Summer of 2015. To my parents and Kirstie, I would like to say a special thank
you, your support has been invaluable over the past year and I truly would not have been able to do
this without you.
5
1 INTRODUCTION
Medieval Christendom was a world of frontiers, with wars raging both between and within the
realms of the Christian kings. However, in 1095, under the banner of Christ, these factions and
atio s u ited agai st o e foe; the i fidel. Pope U a II s all fo a s as o igi all to the aid of
the Byzantine forces to repel the Muslim Turks. However, the army of Christendom had another aim;
to recapture the Holy Land. From this conflict a new form of monasticism arose; militarised religious
Orders, such as the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller were founded under the direct
command of the Papacy, and their lands and wealth quickly spread west across the Christian lands.
This dissertation will assess the preceptories of these Military Orders in London throughout the
medieval period. The city of London and its surrounding area was home to houses belonging to four
of these Military Orders: The Old and New Temples of the Knights Templar; The Priory of the Order
of St John at Clerkenwell; the leper hospital of St Giles Holborn, under the care of the Order of St
Lazarus; and finally the hospital of St Mary Bethlehem, better known as Bedlam, under the care of
the New Order of St Mary Bethlehem. This thesis will assess the aforementioned preceptories of the
Knights Templar, and of the Order of St John – the Knights Hospitaller, as an analysis of all of the
above houses could not be done in enough detail within the scope of this project.
The primary aim of this thesis is to assess the roles of the Military Orders in London and the impact
they had upon London society. In order to attain this, this dissertation will address the following
secondary questions:
 To what extent does the archaeological record of the London preceptories reflect the
monastic rule of the Military Orders?
 Why are these preceptory churches round-naved for the majority of the medieval period?
 What can the archaeological evidence tell us about the patronage of the Templar and
Hospitaller houses in London?
 What role did the Orders play in London society from the late twelfth to early fourteenth
centuries, and does this explain the apparent flourishing of the Hospitallers after the
Templar fall?
6
THE SITES
Today, the New Temple and the Priory Church of St John, represent two very different monuments.
The Temple Church (chapel of St Mary the Virgin) is extant today and located at the centre of the
Inner Temple area of London, just south of Fleet Street. The church was fire bombed during the Blitz
of 1941, causing the loss of the wooden roof to the round nave, and the splitting of the chancel
columns. These were later replaced with Purbeck Marble, sourced from medieval quarries on the
Isle of Purbeck (Griffith-Jones 2009).
The story of the Priory Church of St John, Clerkenwell is however somewhat different. This site is the
perfect example of the palimpsest that is London s archaeological record. The church s Norman
foundations are the earliest stage in a series of rebuilding that will be discussed below. The
subsequent structure, was largely 18th century in origin, with features from throughout the ages. The
chapel was also incendiary bombed in 1941, and the rebuilding by the Order of St John took nearly
twenty years (Willis 2012, 27).
METHODOLOGY
This study will engage with both historical and archaeological sources in order to gain an
understanding of these religious houses, as well as the role played by the Knights Templar and the
K ights Hospitalle i Lo do s so iet a d the ide s ope of the English government. Due to the
nature of these sites and the protection of them under ecclesiastical law, relatively little
archaeological work has been carried out on areas around the preceptory chapels. In the case of the
Priory of the Order of St John, excavations were carried out by MOLA relatively recently and their
published report has formed the basis for the research into this property (Sloane & Malcolm 2004).
However, this has not been the case for the New Temple where archaeological assessments have
been few and far between.
Due to this, the archaeological aspect of this study has been drawn largely from data within the
Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) and from site visits to the churches at the
heart of these monastic precincts, the results of which will be discussed in chapter three of this
thesis. In order to gain an understanding of the part played by both the Templars and Hospitallers in
Medieval England, this project will be using documentary evidence including the calendar of patent
rolls of the various kings between 1128 and the early fourteenth century.
7
2 PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP
This chapter aims to provide a context for the present study by addressing the themes and status of
the field of church archaeology in London. Similarly, it will briefly examine some of the main themes
within the broad field of crusader archaeology. Though research in this field is largely concerned
with the Near East and the eastern Mediterranean, the debates and theories are still relevant to this
disse tatio s a gu e ts.
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF MONASTIC LONDON

By the end of the thirteenth century medieval London was home to over one hundred parish
churches, fifty religious houses and a large variety of fraternities, thus causing the city to stand out
from its European counterparts (Wright 2010, 49). The first part of this chapter will address the
archaeological investigations that have been carried out across Greater London in order to gain a
picture of the wider archaeological context for these sites.
The a ade i stud of Lo do s e lesiasti al a haeolog has apidl g o si e the s due to

a se ies of e a atio s, hi h e e a le to e a ied out as a esult Lo do s apid u a
redevelopment. These excavations, along with a series of resea h p oje ts i to Lo do s eligious
houses, were largely funded by an English Heritage initiative, the Greater London Publication
Programme, often in partnership with Museum of London Archaeology (MoLA). This initiative has
allowed for the archaeological assessment of around twelve religious houses to an academic
standard, which, when combined with the historical research, has enabled London to become one of
Eu ope s ost u de stood eligious la ds apes. The fi st of these sites, which is somewhat the
flagship site for this English Heritage initiative, was the Priory and Hospital of St Mary Spital. Though
not published until 1997, the excavations at this site were carried out between 1982 and 1991, and
provided a new archaeological insight into medieval hospitals in Britain. The publication of this
p oje t also follo ed a i o ati e fo at ai ed at displa i g the data f o the e a atio s i a
efficient way (Thomas, Sloane & Phillpotts 1997, ii). This format has since been used to present each
individual site and project undertaken within London, allowing for a new ease of access to the
scholarly discussion surrounding this field.
Though these projects have been published individually to a high standard, little academic work has
been done on the archaeology of the monastic landscape as a whole, nor any comparative studies of
these houses. The closest project to this is the MOLA publication, Religion in Medieval London:
Archaeology and Belief (Barber, Thomas & Watson 2013). This book provides a broad sweeping
8
thematic discussion of religious sites, both Christian and Jewish, across London and the surrounding
area. Though this text has proved useful as a basic introduction to the ecclesiastical landscape of
London, it lacks the in-depth academic discussion that the topic truly needs, and provides more of a
popular historical narrative and tourist guide to these sites. Barber, Thomas and Watson (2013)
suppo ts the ke poi t of Susa W ight s e ie of Lo do s o asti a haeolog , that o k
in this field must be continued and expanded upon, in order to truly understand the religious
landscape of the city. However, neither of these texts address the archaeology of the houses of the
Military Orders in any particular detail; it is this niche in the research of medieval ecclesiastical
London that this dissertation aims to address.
THE PRECEPTORIES
The pu li atio of St Joh s P io MoLA (Sloane & Malcolm 2004) is the culmination of work
undertaken by archaeologists throughout the 1980s and 90s as well as assessments of documentary
evidence and antiquarian reports on the Hospitaller priory. Unfortunately, no such work has been
undertaken on the New or Old Temples, the latter of which has only been located through partial
remains (Telfer 2002). The New Temple has not, however, been the subject of any major
archaeological investigations or excavations; and the small scale assessments and watching briefs
that have been carried out in recent years are, for the most part, unpublished. Therefore, the
evidence used within this thesis will be based upon the scant published work upon the Temple
Church, as well as secondary scholarship from both historical and archaeological perspectives.
The study of these London preceptories is one that is wrought with scholastic hurdles, with much of
the literature, particularly that relating to the Temple, being sensationalist and playing upon the
mythical romanticised tales of Grail-hunters and unimaginable wealth which litters popular culture
today. This literature is often aimed at tourism and heritage, rather than academic scholarship, with
authors such as R. Griffith-Jones, the current Master of the Temple, publishing works as pilgrim
guides (2009) and tourist pamphlets (2015). The largest issue with these texts is not the popula
histo i al atu e of the , ut athe thei a ilit to allo these e agge ated o e ta ies to
pe eate i to othe s hola ship. A e a ple of this a e fou d i Si o B ighto s In Search of
the Knights Templar (2006). Though the purpose of this te t is ot to e a high- o a ade i text,
but rather the writings of an amateur historian, it is clearly influenced by the myth and mystery of
the Knights Templar, which somewhat distracts the reader from the historical and archaeologically
accurate aspects of the text.
The use of antiquarian and early archaeological commentaries on these sites are vital to their study.
As previously mentioned, the cityscape of London has been subject to a millennium of
9
redevelopment and rapid urbanisation. Though this has allowed recently for archaeological
investigations to be carried out, it has also led to dramatic changes, not just to the immediate
vicinity of the sites but also to the wider urban landscape. These changes are difficult to picture
today, due to mode Lo do s ha a te isti all e dless sp a l, being so different to the sporadic
settle e ts hi h sp u g up o the oads out of the Cit of Lo do s s ua e ile . I o de to
ou te a t the dou le edged s o d of u a isatio , this study will be using antiquarian and
Victorian historical surveys in order to gain an understanding of these sites before both the most
modern redevelopment of the areas, a d efo e thei da agi g i du i g the Blitz. Tho u s
article o the Te ple s post-reformation architectural history addresses the restoration of
monuments and effigies within the Temple Church (1878); this allows for the analysis of these
monuments in their entirety, as the extant effigies were largely damaged in the bombing of the
church in 1941.
CRUSADER ARCHAEOLOGY
The study of the crusades is one dominated by historians, such as Christopher Tyerman (2007) and
Peter Lock (2005), assessing the chronicles and sermons of the conflicts as well as documents arising
from the Latin administration of the Crusader States. However, over the past two decades, the
Israeli archaeologist Adrian Boas, has published works on the archaeology of the Latin Near East. In
his publications, Crusader Archaeology (2005) and Archaeology of the Military Orders (2006), Boas
concisely explores oth e ta t e ai s a d e a ated ate ial ultu e of the usade s a oss the
Holy Land and the Outremer. Boas has used these texts to i t odu e the o ept of Crusader
a haeolog , a new umbrella field of discussion that brings together the scholarship of several
archaeological fields which are highlighted as urban, rural, defensive and ecclesiastical. Crusader
Archaeology acts as a comprehensive introduction to the material culture of the Latin East and
successfully interweaves the arguments and debates held by ecclesiastical and military
archaeologists, as well as the archaeological debate surrounding life and industry in rural and urban
areas of Jerusalem and the Outremer (Krentz 2003, 36). The remainder of this chapter will address
the key areas of archaeological discussion surrounding these Frankish lands in the East, in order to
provide a context for discussion that will be held in later chapters.
The area of scholarship that will prove to be most useful is the discussion surrounding the
ecclesiastical architecture of the Latin East. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries saw the rebuilding
of Christianity in the Levant. The Frankish rulers of Jerusalem both built and rebuilt over four
hundred churches within the Kingdom during this period, many of them in a new style reflective of
the cultural meld which occurred within the Crusader States (Pringle 1993, 1). Despite this the
10
ecclesiastical architecture of the Holy Land is distinctly Frankish, with basilicas and flat roofs,
differing from the largely rectilinear gable-roofed churches of the Christian West. However, these
monumental buildings maintained architectural links with their western counterparts, with the
majority of twelfth century churches within the Levant taking a Romanesque style, while those built
by the Crusaders on Cyprus, typically took the Gothic style (Boas 2005, 88; 120).
Another aspect of crusader archaeology is the military and defensive structures within the Near East.
This is particularly appropriate due to the combatant nature of the brothers within the Military
Orders addressed in this dissertation. The Crusades saw a rise in fortification and castle building
across the Levant, and in turn saw the development of castle architecture and typology. It is even
argued by scholars such as Ellenblum, that the Crusades initiated the development of castles across
Eu ope f o the t pi al No a otte a d aile fo i to the la ge sto e o ple es e a e
familiar with today. The archaeological record is a statement to the application and understanding of
castle typology by the Crusaders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Their experience of these
imposing structures within their homelands, allowed the Franks to apply and adapt variety of castle
types to the terrain of the Levant, utilising both eastern and western techniques to form the most
efficient defence in a land where the majority of the population was Muslim (Ellenblum 2007, 68-
71).
An interesting characteristic of Crusader archaeology is the interweaving of defence and faith. The
Franks were Christian settlers and conquerors in a predominantly Muslim land, a fact that struck
home for the ecclesiastical community in times of defeat. An example of this can be seen at the mid-
twelfth century Premonstratensian monastery of St Samuel in Montjoie, northwest of Jerusalem.
Excavations of this monastic complex have revealed an attempt to fortify the church with a moat,
follo i g Saladi s i to at Hatti in 1187 (Boas 2005, 135-7).
SUMMARY
This chapter has aimed to summarise some of the leading ideas and research directions relating to
the medieval Church in London as well as to the Crusader Orders in the East. What has become clear
from this study, is the gap in scholarship regarding the Templars and Hospitallers together in
London. This project will therefore aim to accumulate the evidence as to their roles and activities in
Lo do , as ell as the i flue es upo the a hite tu e of thei p e epto ies i E gla d s apital. It
will apply the archaeological and architectural approaches of scholars such as Boas, Malcolm and
Sloane, with the historical narratives and commentaries of Nicholson and Tyerman.
11
3 MONASTIC RULE AND ARCHITECTURE
Until the early twelfth century, the Church had a clear stance on the topic of the Clergy and their
role in military campaign. The warfare of the Church was one of the faith, and followed the teachings
of St Paul in his letter to the Ephesians:
Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of
the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood but against principalities
and powers, and against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirit of
wickedness in the high places. Therefore, take unto you the armour of God, that you
may be able to resist in the evil day and to stand in all things perfect. Stand
therefore, having on the breastplate of justice; and your feet shod with the
preparation of the gospel of peace. In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith
you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take
unto you the helmet of salvation and he sword of the Spirit, which is the word of
God – Ephesians 6: 11-17 (The Douay-Rheims Bible 1582).
The passage teaches Christians to arm themselves with the word of God, and that Christian values
are a spiritual armour. This is the cause of the belief that men of the cloth, who are, by definition,
the most devout of Christians should not take up arms or join military campaigns. However,
following the Council of Troyes in January 1129, this view seems to have changed, when the Hugh de
Payns and his group of knights were accepted by the Papacy as a monastic military order. The
medieval Military Orders bridged formed a new class of monk as well as a new class of soldier. This
chapter will look into the architecture and layout of the London preceptories in order to understand
the relationship between these two aspects of their monastic rule.
THE ROUND CHURCH IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND

Both the Old and New Temples, as well as the Priory of the Order of St John, display a unique
architectural style from the other churches and monasteries in London; this is the presence of a
circular nave. There are only sixteen round-naved churches evidenced in Britain with the majority of
these being dated to twelfth century foundations. Today only six of these naves survive above
ground with the New Temple included in this group (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 4). The purpose of this
section is to assess this architectural phenomenon; firstly, it will address the structure and
architecture of the nave before looking at the current and antiquarian literature on round naves in
England
The evidence for the presence of the Old Temple is fragmentary at best. Excavations at
Southampton Buildings, off High Holborn) revealed a curved section of substantial chalk foundations
at a depth of around 14m OD (around sixteen metres below the current ground level)1. This section
of wall coincides with other structural finds suggesting the location of the Temple, including sections
12
of curved wall and a circular colonnade of six columns uncovered in excavations between 1704 and
1905. Telfe has a gued, that the su i al of these fou datio s at su h depth elo Lo do s
modern streets is hopeful for the survival of more of this Temple church below any truncation due to
cellars (Telfer 2002). The uncovered foundations only prove that this church was of a circular design,
leading archaeologists to argue that it followed a design similar to that of the Paris Temple and the
later New Temple in London.
The nave of the Hospitaller priory at Clerkenwell was discovered in 1900 during the construction of a
new entrance to the chancel and crypt. The interior of the nave was of around twenty metres in
diameter, and led to a crypt and chancel on an east-northeast alignment. The nave walls were
constructed of a ragstone and flint core with an ashlar face of Reigate stone (Sloane & Malcolm
2004, 29). This use of local materials in its construction shows the Order s i teg atio i to the local
society, the relationship between the Order and society will be addressed further in the next
chapter. The p io as desig ed to sta d out, ith the hu h s situatio o a high a tage poi t,
along with the addition of 1.5 metres in height due to the under croft, this would have allowed the
commandery at Clerkenwell to have been seen from across Smithfield, as well as from the Fleet
valley and St John Street (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 193). Clerkenwell Priory was consecrated by the
Patriarch of Jerusalem at the same time as the New Temple
in 1185. Therefore, we can look at the architectural motifs
of the surviving parts of the original New Temple church in
order to form an idea of what the nave at Clerkenwell
would have looked like when it was complete.
The nave of the New Temple, when combined with the

aisle, is around eighteen metres in diameter and built of
ragstone, which is now covered in a post-medieval ashlar
facing. This ragstone was likely to have been sourced from
within the confines of the Templar cloisters, after recent
excavations within Church Court revealed a quarry pit. The
a e s a ade is fo ed of si pilla s, ith ea h pilla
constructed from four detached shafts of Purbeck marble
(Butler 2005, 24; RCHME 1929). Discussions regarding the
nave of the New Temple rarely appl the la el of Gothi to
its features, with the exception of the arches of the arcade Figure 1: The northwest bay of the
arcade in the nave of the New
(fig. 1). This may be due to the difference in experience Temple
between the Temple and other English Gothic churches,
13
which strove for pattered, linear effects often much richer than their French counterparts. The New
Temple remains, however, decidedly post-Romanesque, and true to the origins of the Gothic
heartland, the Île-de-France.
The architect aimed to create a vertical space, of harmony and simplicity, which created the light
and spacious nave that we still see today (Cannon 2014, 29). It is for this reason, that Wilson (2010)
has a gued fo a F e h a hite t s desig of the Te pla hapel, uilt a ou d , athe tha the
later date of circa 1180 which has traditionally been argued. This link to northern France is
g ou ded ot o l i the o e all feel of the uildi g, ut also i the de o atio of the hu h s
features. Possibly the most iconic feature of the New Temple, other than its round nave, is the west
door (fig. 2). The ornamentatio of this Gothi -T a sitio al door jamb has been heavily remodelled,
damaged and weathered over the past millennium, it is therefore difficult to determine which parts
of this archway are authentic to the twelfth century, however it is apparent from assessing this
featu e, that the eight usts hi h fla k the a h elo g to the doo s ea lie stages. These usts a e
split to four on each side, with a definitive stylistic differentiation between the north and the south.
To the north, the men are shown depicted wearing caps or turbans, and to the south all are
bareheaded; suggesting the Templar origins in the East. This has led Griffith-Jones (2011, 19) to
argue for the northern figures to be depictions of the Muslim Saracens (fig. 3), and the southern
figures are those of the Christians. What is poignant, however, is the dress of several of these busts,
on both sides of the door, are dressed in tight-fitting buttoned shirts – a style associated with the
orient in pre-fourteenth century Europe.
14
Figure 2: The west door to the New Figure 3: The o the Sa a e usts
Temple Church o the Ne Te ple s est doo
The round-nave is believed to be an architectural reference to the central rotund of the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Sepulchre forms the central site of pilgrimage in Jerusalem as it
houses the Tomb of Christ within the anastasis at its core. As such, the patrons of this church were
both pilgrim and soldier, causing the foundation to become one of three new monastic powers
within the Holy City; the Templars, the Hospitallers and the canons of the Holy Sepulchre (Morris
2005, 212). It is therefore, no surprise to find an architectural homage to this great basilica at the
furthest reach of the Christian world. In the case of the New Temple and the Hospitaller priory at
Clerkenwell, this link to Jerusalem is reinforced by their recorded consecration by the Patriarch of
Jerusalem, Heraclius, during his 1185 visit to England. These circular naves, are distinct and often
associated with the Templars and Hospitallers; with notable examples being found at Temple Bruer
in Lincolnshire, and Little Maplestead in Essex. However, these structures are not exclusive to these
Orders, as several British examples were built by other organisations with links to the Holy Land
(Rodwell 2012, 71). One of the finest examples of these naves can be found at the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre in Cambridge, which was built in the early twelfth century by the Austin fraternity of
the Holy Sepulchre (fig 4; RCHME 1959).
15
Figure 4: The Church of the
Holy Sepulchre, Cambridge
(RCHME 1959)
The presence of round naves on churches founded by a number of monastic Orders suggests that
there is no particular purpose for their curvilinear design, but it is rather a memorial to the church
hi h sta ds o e Ch ist s to . This idea, though o el, is ot a u o o i te p etatio of
church sites; with the placing and designs of monastic buildings and precincts often reflecting the
topography and morphology of the city of Jerusalem (Morris 2005, 230).
Due to the extent of their survival, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Cambridge, along with the
New Temple church, are often the primary sources of evidence presented in historiographical
discussions regarding the circular nave in England. In Britain, these discussions peaked in eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries due to the Gothic Revival. During this period, scholars such as James
Essex began to draw links between these rare English examples of ecclesiastical architecture and
their influences within the Eastern and Classical worlds. Essex argued that the Frankish Sepulchre
that was rebuilt after the capture of Jerusalem, replicated the original round plan of the original
Co sta ti ia hu h o the site. This a gu e t as ooted i the idea of Cha le ag e s circular
chapel at Aachen being the first commemorative church to the Holy Sepulchre, and predating the
post-crusade influx of round-naved churches into Europe, which Essex associated with the
foundation and spread of the Templars from circa 1120 (Miele 2010, 192). This argument can be
argued as the foundation of the belief that these English Round Churches were an exclusively
16
Templar phenomenon, which, as previously discussed, is not true, though the Order is associated
with many of the sites.
These antiquarians and early ecclesiologists aimed to build an architectural genealogy of the round
naved churches in England. Some, like Essex, linked the churches to the Holy Land and the early
Chu h s lassi al a hite tu e, othe s ho e e fo ed a so e hat isguided s hool of thought. In
his Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, John Britton emphasises the connotations of the circle
in the ancient past and superstitions; discussing images such as the Ouroboros, the self-devouring
serpent, and the symbol of the winged-sun, which is associated with the Egyptian deity Horus.
B itto s asso iation with these mystical images along with British prehistoric sites, such as
Stonehenge and Avebury, to the round churches of the English crusaders are of no coincidence.
Though not said outright in this text, the author is clear in his association between the Templars and
un-Christian symbolism (Britton 1807, 1-5).
These ideas are further built upon by scholars such as Clarkson, Robinson and Barruel, who
considered the connections between the Templar Order and other secret organisations such as the
Assassins in the east and the Freemasons. Cla kso s a al sis of the Te ple Chu h i Lo do
appears to be based upon somewhat of a conspiracy theory; linking the measurements and number
of pillars and arches to masonic and biblical references, as well as to sites from across the ancient
and mythical worlds; i ludi g D uidi al sto e i les, the Te ple of Osi is a d Baet lus Cla kso
1838).
Though the archaeological record for the Old Temple at Holborn and the Priory of the Order of St
John of Jerusalem at Clerkenwell, is somewhat sparse as to the nature of the round naves in London.
The Ne Te ple s a e p o ides s hola s ith a i sight i to the i o og aph of this a hite tu al
phenomenon. The Milita O de s ou d a es a ted as a o e o atio of the Holy Sepulchre at
Jerusalem and their Crusade in the East, not only through the circular nave, but also through the
loft pu it of the i te io efle ti g the Gothi isio of Hea e o Ea th o Si so , .
The Te ple s o a e tatio also efle ts this e o ialisatio of the Te pla s usade o igi s,
through the portrayal of Muslim and Christian figures within the arch of the west door.
17
EXPANSION AND CONVERSION
The late twelfth and thirteenth centuries saw dramatic changes to the footprints of the preceptory
churches. This section is aimed at looking the development of these buildings and how they reflect
the activities and rules of the monastic Orders in question.
The previous section has already looked at current comparisons between the circular naves in
England and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. However, this is not the only site in the
Holy Land which bares similarity to a London preceptory. Virginia Jansen has recently likened the
thirteenth century quire of the New Temple to the Temple Mount (fig. 5). The use of the Temple of
Solomon as an iconographic influence is somewhat of a reflection of the loss of the Mount by the
Christians in this period. The Te ple of Solo o housed the head ua te s of the K ights Te pla
and took a multi-aisled form, si ila to that of the Ne Te ple s e quire. Similarly, the octagonal
Te ple of the Lo d hi h as o l a sho t dista e f o the Te pla dist i t o the Mou t, and
housed the O de s eligious se i es, a es a si ila it to the circular nave of the London Temple
(Jansen 2010, 59). This argument, is largely conjectural as there is no documentary evidence as to
the medieval views of these two holy sites.
Helen Nicholson has argued that as the New Temple precinct lacked a conventional chapter house,
originally the chapel would have acted as this meeting space; in this case the circular nave of the
Church of St Marys the Virgin, in the heart of the Templar precinct, would have allowed for a
congregation of the brothers to sit around the walls during the chapter meeting as in traditional
rectilinear chapter houses (Nicholson 2010, 4). As the chapter meetings took place within the chapel
itself, the ui e s la out allowed for the workings of the Order as a collegiate community, with
seating on both sides of the hall facing the centre aisle as their rule viewed standing for a full service
as immoderate. However, it is also to be noted that the liturgy of the Order of the Knights of the
Temple in the West was to follow that of their local diocese, and not their headquarters in the Latin
East. It is therefore unusual to find this layout in Western Christendom. If this new hall design for the
New Temple was more fitting for the Templar liturgy, then the question remains as to why it is not
found at other Templar preceptories across Europe, such as the Paris Temple which maintained the
apsidal and aisleless chancel projecting east from a round nave, as per the Templar tradition (Jansen
2010, 55-6).
18
Figure 5: Plan of The New Temple Church showing the original church, and its later expansion
(Griffith-Jones 2011, 15)
19
As previously mentioned, the Gothic architect strove to recreate Heaven on Earth. Their use of light
a d e ti alit fo ed pu e a d hea e l spa es, su h as that of the Te ple s a e. I o pa iso
to the height of the nave, the new quire forms a wider and lower structure, which relies heavily
upon the architectural motifs of the Early English period in order to continue this heavenly feel. In
order to achieve this, the architect of this mid-thirteenth century expansion employed the use of
stepped lancet windows along the length of the quire. These tall, narrow windows contrast with the
stout round-topped, Romanesque style used on the earlier triforium of the round nave. As a result,
the vertical linears of the lancet windows o k ith the poi ted a hes of the hall s aulted oof to
create a lofty and illuminated space. The lack of aisles in this part of the church means that the light
reaches all parts of the room, and is not restricted to the chancel or the upper levels of the chamber,
as would be achieved through a clerestory.
Figure 6: The central passage within the crypt at the Priory of St

John, Clerkenwell [east facing]
In contrast to the church of St Mary the Virgin at the New Temple, the Priory church at Clerkenwell
developed through multiple stages. The first stage, was that discussed above; a round naved church
with an eastern appendage housing the chancel, and crypt below. However, around the same time
as He a lius isit to Lo do – during which he consecrated both the Priory of the Order of St John of
Jerusalem, and the New Temple – the chancel was dramatically enlarged. The chancel was extended
to the north, south and east, to accommodate a north and south aisle, separated from the central
aisle by freestanding piers. The expansion of the chancel also saw the crypt grow to the same
footprint, however due to burial chambers to the north and south of the original crypt, which were
accessed from the above chancel, the crypt itself take on a T-shaped form (Sloane & Malcolm 2004,
43, 55). Today it is still possible to see the extent of the original crypt due to the ribbing of the ceiling
20
vaults. The first three quarters of the central passage have a Romanesque curving to the crossed
ribs, however, the areas which were extended in the late twelfth century have a more pointed arch,
more suggestive of the Early Gothic period (fig. 6).
The fi al stage of the p io s de elop e t sa a d a ati step a a f o the o de s roots in the

Holy Land. By the end of the twelfth century, probably around 1280, the Hospitallers demolished the
round nave of their Priory church, and in its place built a more traditional rectangular nave, which in
the following years allowed for the connection of cloisters to the south and what Sloane and
Malcolm have argued as a grand chamber to the north, though this has only partially been excavated
(2004, 71-3).
The reasoning behind the demolition of the round nave is unknown. The practicality of a square
building for the connection to the cloisters is noteworthy, however the Te pla s fou d a a
around this, allowing for the enclosure of a cloister the full length of their chapel; it is therefore
unlikely that the need for an expansion to their monastic complex within the inner precinct was the
reasoning for this conversion (Sloane and Malcolm 2004, 71). Instead this thesis will argue that the
removal of the round nave was an attempt by the Hospitallers to distance themselves from their
origins in the Levant, following the fall of Jerusalem and seeming inevitability of the complete loss of
Christian lands in the East, the protection of which had been one of the Order s oles. As
aforementioned, the circular nave was an architectural commemoration to the Holy Sepulchre of
Jerusalem. Following the humiliation of the loss of this holy site, by the Order of St John of
Jerusalem, as well as the city in which they were founded, it is possible that the London Hospitallers
chose to remove this constant reminder of defeat. However, why the conversion of other round
naves in the English priory did not get converted at this time remains a mystery.
The expansions and architectural changes to the New Temple and Priory of St John in this period are
reflective of the growth of the Orders i E gla d. Fo St Joh s p io , the extension of the chancel
as uilt a ou d the sa e ti e as the E glish P io s i depe de e f o the P io of St Gilles in
the south of France (Nicholson 2001, 78). In this case, the growth of the chapel and the adjoining
cloister and possible grand chamber may have reflected the need for more space in order to
administrate the E glish o a de ies a d othe s. Si ila l , the g o th of the Te pla s hapel
is a reflection of the growth of the Order in England, its wealth, and the need for space in order to
hold provincial chapter meetings – although it is apparent from the documentary evidence that by
1266 these meetings had moved to the Templar house at Dinsley in Hertfordshire as it allowed for
easier access than the capital (Nicholson 2010, 4-5).
21
THE MONASTIC PRECINCT
So far, this chapter has only addressed the chapels of the monastic complexes in question. This is in
part due to the level of survival and the protection afforded to the chapels themselves due to their
status; though it is outside of this dissertations scope, it is worth noting that neither chapel was
destroyed during the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII. This section is concerned with
the evidenced auxiliary and residential buildings within the monastic precincts, in order to try and
understand the activities of the Orders in their London houses.
The previous section briefly mentioned the addition of cloisters and halls onto the chapels. These
structures formed the core of a monastic precinct and included the accommodation and living
ua te s of the othe s. These o asti st u tu es ill e add essed he e, efo e the add essi g
the outer precinct of these religious houses and the building which were dedicated to servants, and
the lay population which served the preceptories.
Figure 7: Tentative reconstruction of The New Temple and its environs,

c.1250 (Nicholson 2010, 4)
22
The Ne Te ple s loiste s a d halls e e la gel adapted i o de to a o odate the ou d a e
of the twelfth century chapel (fig. 7). The layout of the monastic buildings is still evident today,
despite none of the original structures surviving today. This is largely due to the later Inns of Court
and halls of the Inner Temple being placed on the footprints of their predecessors, with the modern
day Church Court being placed over the top of the consecrated Inner Court. The Templar complex
was formed of a cloister to the south of St Mary the Virgin, with the entire length of the chapel
forming the northern boundary of the Inner Court and the Knights and Se jea ts Hall fo i g the
southern boundary, with its attached kitchen and buttery.
The Rule of the Templars was one of a lay monastic community, formed largely of secular knights
and sergeants who took vows to a communal life of poverty, with the support of clergy in all matters
religious (Upton-Ward 1992 cited in Allen & Amt 2014, 133). As such, the arrangement of the New
Temple grange reflects this; the Knights and Sergeants took up residence in the hall to the south of
the chapel, which formed part of the cloister. The priests however had a separate hall to the east of
the chapel which was accessed through the church yard. The priest brothers were housed separately
from the militant brothers of the Order (fratres milites), this may have been due to their belonging
to the preceptory and the chapter, and not under the command of the Templar marshal. The priest
brothers restricted their activities to the spiritual activities of the house and did not engage in any
military activities or work outside of their clerical duties. (Burgtorf 2008, 95; Forey 1992, 178).
In somewhat of a contrast, the Hospitaller Priory at Clerkenwell took on a more traditional approach
to their grange. The early development of the site saw the chapel taking the southern boundary of a
courtyard, with the conventual buildings forming the north and west ranges around this space. It is
important to note, however, that in the period before c.1280 there was no conventional cloister as
there was at the New Temple due to the openness of the Order and their hospitality based rule
allowing for visitors (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 200). The Hospitaller commandery at Clerkenwell
follows the pattern of many of their rural houses in England and Wales, with an un-cloistered
monastic range, and ancillary buildings to the south. The priory however lacks a hospital, which is
unusual for an Order founded on a belief that hospitality should be at the forefront of their activities
(Nicholson 2013, 7). This may be in part to the number of hospitals that already existed in London at
the ti e of the p io s fou datio , i ludi g the ea St Ba tholo e s.
The development of the Priory of St John at Clerkenwell between the late thirteenth and fourteenth
century saw the monastic complex, leave the traditional monastic layout, and become somewhat
palatial. This is so e hat efle ti e of the O de s ole i E glish so iet du i g this pe iod; o e of
somewhat exclusive hospitality to royalty and nobility; an idea that will be addressed further, from a
23
largely historical perspective, in the next chapter of this thesis. This has become evident due to the
apid e pa sio of the a ge to the o th of the p io s hapel. The late thi tee th e tu loiste
accommodated the relatively small number of brothers who lived at the residence permanently. This
allowed for the expansion of the northern and western ranges as well as an eastern range to the
north of the chapel. By the sixteenth century, a great hall also existed to the west of the chapel,
though the exact date of the construction of this building is unknown (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 200).
What is clear from this expansion is the ability of the priory to provide hospitality to a large number
of people in somewhat of a formal cloister around the cemetery to the north of the chapel; a model
rarely found in a monastic setting, but instead is more typical of residential palaces, such as Ely,
Westminster and Lambeth (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 200).
The primary aim of the Military Order outposts across the West was supply. By the thirteenth
century, Jerusalem and the Outremer relied on trade with the west for the maintenance of the
Frankish occupation in the East and their crusade against the Saracens. As a result, the Military
Orders relied upon the charity of Christendom in order to trade and transport food, clothing, horses,
arms, and armour, as well as new recruits from the furthest reaches of the Christendom to wherever
they were required in the Levant (Barber 1992, 315). Though the relationship between the Orders
and their patrons, including their fundraising, will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter,
it is important to understand how this need for supplies and recruits materialised in the archaeology
of these sites.
The Rule of the Templars was largely concerned with the protection of pilgrims and to fight on
behalf of God (Upton-Ward 1992 cited in Allen & Amt 2014, 133-5). As such, one would expect a
largely militarised preceptory for the headquarters of the Order in England; this is however not the
case. If a brother wished to train, then permission had to be granted by the Master of the
preceptory on the condition that no harm or damage was to come to any person, horse or
equipment (Nicholson 2010, 3). In the case of the lay brothers, it was decreed by their rule that all
equipment needed for war, including horses, was to be brought with them at their time of reception
into the house (Upton-Ward 1992 cited in Allen & Amt 2014, 133). Where this equipment was stored
remains unknown; though stables have been identified near the gate to the preceptory. The lack of
defensive of military structures at the Templar preceptory in London, is a stark contrast to their
house in Paris, where the church was accompanied by a fort, the Grosse Tour.
The fratres milites followed a monastic routine of work and prayer, based upon the Rule of St
Benedict, and not a routine of a secular knight or the nobility. In the west, as the brothers were
away from the conflict of the Muslim frontier, the time which was dedicated to the maintenance of
24
equipment in the East, was spent on the work necessitated by the running of the house, such as
farming or collecting rents (Nicholson 2010, 3). However, due to the urban nature of the New
Temple, it is unlikely that farming took place on a large scale within the precinct, instead brothers
from this preceptory would likely have worked within trades which both produced for the house,
and that would have commercial value. Some of these trades are evident through the Sherriff of
Lo do s i e to of Ne Temple, following its confiscation in 1308. The records show the
presence of a dispensary, storeroom, brewery, as well as milling equipment (Nicholson 2010, 13)2. It
is therefore likely that the brothers would work as millers, brewers and blacksmiths, among other
jobs, within the Order. There would also have been a treasurer at the New Temple, though their role
will be discussed later in this dissertation.
As mentioned above, the Hospitallers were an order founded on the premise of hospitality and care
for the poor and sick (Nicholson 2013, 7). However they were also a militarised Order, and as such,
one would expect to find structures for the storage of arms and armour. Similar to the New Temple,
there is no evidence for such structures or rooms; and the defensive-style gate to the outer precinct
was not built until the turn of the sixteenth century (Willis 1950). In fact, by the fourteenth century,
there was little evidence of the O de s o igi s o ule at all. Ho e e , the e is e ide e fo a ast
numbe of t ades a d afts ithi the p io s p e i t. Excavations in the area within the boundary
of the outer precinct have revealed off-cuts and wasters of horn-working as well as low levels of
bone and antler working. It seems that the products of this area were most probably knife-handles,
lantern panes, cups and spoons, though there is little evidence of this due to the poor preservation
of horn within the archaeological record (Egan & Shepherd 2004, 359). Whether, these were aimed
at making the supplies to send to the East or for commercial sale at the local Smithfield and St
Bartholomew markets is unclear, but the rents collected from letting out these units would have
aided in the fundraising for the Jerusalem hospital and the campaign in the East.
SUMMARY
From the evidence presented in this chapter it is apparent that the structures at New Temple and St
Joh s Cle ke ell o igi all took the fo of o e o ati e hu hes dedi ated, at least
architecturally, to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. However, following the growth
a d i depe de e of the O de s f o the F e h G a d P io ies , these P e epto ies de eloped i a
separate way to their European counterparts; focusing more on the induction of new recruits and
brothers of the Orders, before their journeys to the Levant, as well as collecting funds for the
Crusades.
25
4 THE MILITARY ORDERS IN ENGLISH SOCIETY
The previous chapter looked mostly at the insular aspects of the Templar and Hospitaller houses in
London; their architecture, monastic granges and the wider precincts. This chapter is concerned,
however, with the outward look of the Orders in this region. It will look firstly at the acquisition of
the lands by the Military Orders on both a national and local level, before looking at the role that
these London preceptories played in London society and the court of the Kings of England.
THE ACQUISITION OF LAND

Due to the international status of the military orders and their close ties to the Papacy and
Jerusalem, the Templars and Hospitallers were granted footholds across England and Wales from a
relatively early date. The first record of a Templar presence in England dates to 1128, one year
before their Papal approval at Troyes. However, it was not long after this that the English Crown
granted the first lands to the Order (Nicholson 2010, 1). The Knights Templar did not have any lands
in London until between 1138 and 1154, when King Stephen granted the gift of lands to them by
William Martel (Regesta, 3, 849). The majority of the Orde s Lo do p ope ties – including a mill on
the River Fleet and a manor near Fleet Bridge – were not given to the Knights Templar until the
latter years of the reign of King Henry II (Nicholson 2010, 1-2). The first part of this section aims,
therefore, to understand the relationship between the Templars and English high society, in
particular the English Crown, and how they were able to achieve grants of land so close to the
centres of power and influence in the court of Kings of England.
The relationship between the monarchy and the Templars was complex. It is apparent that from the
outset of the Templar development in the West, that their relationships with the secular rulers and
Lords was one of mutual benefit. In England, Henry II allowed the Templars to bypass the majority of
the se ula judi ial s ste a d take thei suits di e tl to the Ki g s Cou t, this ei g alo gside the
immunity granted to the Order by Pope Innocent II from the local diocesan justice system. Gatti has
therefore argued that this exemption bound the loyalty of the English Templars to the Crown, in the
same way they were bound to the Holy See in Rome. This would therefore allow the King to use the
Templars for political gai , a idea that as al ead e ide t i He II s p ede essor, King Stephen,
and the civil war between the King and Matilda. Both pretenders had strong links to Jerusalem and
the Latin East; Stephe s ife was niece to Godfrey of Bouillon, and his father, Stephen of Blois, had
been one of the notable leaders the First Crusade. Similarly, Matilda was of the House of Anjou, a
powerhouse in Europe and also the house of King Fulk of Jerusalem. As such, both Stephen and
Matilda, attempted to use their links to the Holy Land and the crusaders to solidify their claims to
26
the throne. On a domestic level, this often culminated in the granting of land and donations to the
causes of the Military Orders (Gatti 2005, 23).
The appeal of both the Templars and Hospitallers to the English nobility was, however, more than
one of merely gaining political power. Medieval society had the Church and God at its forefront; and
those in the public eye strove to, at least, appear pious. It was for this reason that so much of
Christendom journeyed east following Pope U a II s all fo a C usade, to the promise of
redemption and absolution. However, in the period between the second and third crusades, an
atmosphere of apathy descended over the Christian West. Eu ope s ule s i ludi g He II of
England became increasingly reluctant to set out on large scale expeditions to the aid the Crusader
States against the Muslim threat. Their complacency was the subject of criticism by their Eastern
allies, but following the failure of the Second Crusade, the launching of another passagium would
have led to further criticism in the West (Tyerman 1988, 36). This dissertation will therefore argue
that the increased patronage and the further development of a mutually beneficial relationship
between the English Crown and the Military Orders was an attempt by the secular rulers to be seen
to be aiding the East and gaining piety in the eyes of their contemporaries, without damaging their
political standing at home. It is therefore no coincidence that between 1159 and 1173, Henry II was
seen to grant a substantial amount of land to the Knights Templar, including the site of the New
Temple and other properties in the vicinity of the River Fleet.
With regards to the attitude towards the Knights Hospitaller in the period between the First Crusade
and the trail of the Templars, little work has been done; with the majority of scholarship focusing
upon the flourishing of the Hospitaller Order in Britain in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Ho e e , it ould appea that the g o th of the O de of St Joh s holdi g in England and Wales,
was largely acquired through purchase of small areas of land within the geographical area of their
preceptory, which was usually granted by the Crown (Gilchrist 1995, 66). One would therefore be
safe in the assumption that these larger donations of land by the King, or by the English nobility,
would have been viewed in the same way as donating lands to the Templars, as discussed above. It is
worthy of note that of the three grants and charters relating to the Hospitallers within the Regesta
Regum Anglo-Normannorum, between 1144 and 1167, none relate to English lands, but instead are
grants of lands within Normandy by Duke Geoffrey or Matilda. A stark contrast to the Templar gains
in this period (Regesta, 3, 407-9). This is however, an unreliable method for the deduction of royal
patronage of the Military Orders within twelfth century England3.
27
THE LONDON PRECEPTORIES AND THEIR ROLE IN LONDON SOCIETY
Up to this point, this chapter has aimed to gain an understanding of royal patronage of the Knights
Templar and Knights Hospitaller on a national level. The question remains however, as to how this
patronage manifested itself in the London headquarters of these Orders, and furthermore, how this
impacted the archaeological record.
In the period prior to 1307, Clerkenwell Priory and The New Temple played very different roles in
London society; the New Temple acted as a bank, with money being both deposited, withdrawn and
loaned from within the Temple premises. The Priory of St John at Clerkenwell acted primarily as a
house of hospitality. As discussed in the previous chapter, the priory at Clerkenwell developed into a
complex more typical of a palace than a monastery. The remainder of this section will look at some
of the documentary and archaeological evidence pertaining to these activities.
As discussed above, the Templars had a favourable position with the English society under the reign
of Henry II. Like their sister preceptory in Paris, the New Temple acted as a bank and depository from
a ea l poi t i its histo , ith a po tio of the Ki g s i o e f o a a t hu hes, alo g ith
mid-term and Michaelmas receipts being deposited with the Order in London in 1185, the same year
as the Patriarch of Jerusalem s o se atio of the hapel. The Te ple s i po ta e as a fi a ial
and administrative centre for the King of England was assessed in the 1920s by Agnes Sandys.
Sa d s highlights that although the Te ple as ot the sole o e e hief t easu it appea ed to
be a preferred depository to the Royal Treasury at Westminster until 1290, when Edward I
established permanent treasuries at the Westminster Chapterhouse and the Tower of London
(Nicholson 2010, 7; Sandys 1925, 149-51). The Ne Te ple s deposito was not however designed
to hold such sums of money; no archaeological evidence has been found to date for a strong room
within the precinct, so it is likely these sums were held within the Vestry of the chapel, or within the
sto age oo s e o ded i the She iff of Lo do s i e to y of 1308. This lack of security around the
Te ple s fu ds e a e utilised at ti es of diffi ult fo the Ki g s T easu . In 1263, it was recorded
that Henry III was forced to take out a loan from the Bishop of Worcester for four hundred marks,
presumably as nobody in London would lend the King such a sum. However, on the same day, the
King also granted pardon to Robert Walerand, who broke into the New Temple with a group of
armed e to steal oi f o the O de s t easu CPR Henry III, 1258-1266, 279).
Despite the C o s appa e t la k of espe t a d fea fo the K ights Te pla , He III a d his
successors seemingly relied upon the respect for the Order, and fear of punishment from the Church
for any transgression against a monastic order to keep these items safe. This quasi security allowed
the general population of London to see the New Temple as a safe and secure location. The
28
Templars became the first international bankers; providing bills of exchange for deposits made,
allowing for the secure transport of sums to other convents of the Order; an international money
transfer not dissimilar to the modern day Western Union (Forey 1992, 116). The payment of debts
also efle ts the O de s reputation as mediators; their mutual ground and safe deposits, meant the
New Temple was often chosen by the courts for the payment of debts. An example of this, can be
found in the Calendar of Letter-Books of the City of London, where it was ruled that Richard Poterel
could pay the sum owed to William de Hamelton to the New Temple, if he wished not to give it to
him in person (Sharpe 1899, 129-30).
The evidence presented above has sho the la it of the Te pla s role in London society. The
Ne Te ple s p o i it to the To e of Lo do as ell as West i ste allo ed for the Templars to
liaise with the most influential people in the Kingdom, and maintain a relationship with the Crown
which was allowed the Order to raise substantial funds for the campaigns in the East. Nicholson has
argued that by the turn of the fourteenth century, the New Temple had lost all but the title of the
headquarters of the English province of the Knights Templar, as the majority of the internal
administration of the province, appears to have been undertaken at Dinsley by the time of the
Templar trials (Nicholson 2010, 5). However, this was more than likely due to the time and
manpower required by the New Temple to maintain its position in society. The preceptory in London
was the gateway for the Templars to gain power in the English Courts and subsequently revenue. A
method which was highly successful, and resulted in brothers being appointed to positions in the
court; such as the appointment of Brother Geoffrey in 1230 to the position of Keeper of the Royal
Wardrobe and Royal Almoner (Nicholson 2010, 7).
The role of the Priory of St John at Clerkenwell changed as the convent developed throughout the
period that his project it aimed at. The earliest documentation regarding this house comes from the
Cartulary of St Mary Clerkenwell, the nunnery which bordered onto the Hospitaller precinct. In the
documents within this collection that date to the later twelfth century, the term hospitalis Ierusalem
is used when referring to the Hospitaller priory (Sloan & Malcolm 2004, 27). It is possible, that this is
indeed a reference to a small infirmary located within the grange of the priory. Despite this,
excavations within this area have found no artefacts relating to the practice of medieval medicine, or
any structures that suggest an infirmary on the site. This dissertation will therefore argue that the
use of the word hospitalis is rather just a reference to the Order, which had become known as the
Hospital.
As with the Templars, the English Hospitallers used positions of power within government and court
in order to achieve greater patronage and financial benefits for the Order. In the mid to late
29
thirteenth century, both Roger de Vere and Joseph de Chauncy served the monarchy as Drapier and
Royal Treasurer respectively. This close tie to the monarchy and its personal treasury has led
Schermerhorn to argue that the Priory of St John also housed the Royal Wardrobe and treasury in
the first quarter of the thirteenth century (Schermerhorn 1940, 39 cited in Sloane & Malcolm 2004,
43). However, there would appear to be little documentary evidence to support this. The Priory of
the Order of St John at Clerkenwell was well situated, for it was of a far enough distance from the
palaces in London, that the brethren were able to offer hospitality to nobles and royals who were
journeying to the city. It is apparent, that the extension to the priory around 1185 allowed for such
hospitalit to e offe ed, as at the ti e of the p io s o se atio He a lius, hospitalit ould
have been offered to the Patriarch, the Master of the Order and King Henry III, as well as their
entourages (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 43).
Similarly, hospitality and charity were offered at the Temple. Although, unlike many monastic
precincts, there was no official guest accommodation at the New Temple, Helen Nicholson s recent
translation and study of the Templar Trials (1307 – 1312) has revealed occasions where outsiders
were housed within the grange itself, in rooms adjacent to the brothers. It is noteworthy however,
that those who stayed that the Temple were of some social standing; knights, clergy and even King
Alphonso of Castile (Nicholson 2010, 14). When the evidence relating to the New Temple s role in
London society is presented it becomes clear that the Order in England were not as secretive or
cloistered as their counterparts over the Channel. The New Temple was instead a hive of activity at
the centre of London life; the chapel and the treasurer of the house maintained steady financial
business, which would have involved laymen and outsiders frequently coming and going from the
heart of the complex. In the same way, the Templars maintained a bridge over the River Thames
which would have been a busy thoroughfare for everybody who had business south of the river.
SUMMARY
This brief study of both documentary and archaeological sources has assessed the relationship
between the Crown and the Military Orders. The New Temple became a financial centre during the
cause of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, with their international trade and domination
throughout Europe and the Christian lands in the East making them the ideal partners in financial
affairs. On the other hand, the Hospitaller priory at Clerkenwell provided hospitality for the
monarchy and the nobility, gaining subsequent notoriety as individuals who rose to power within the
Ki g s ou t a d go e e t. One thing that has however remained clear throughout this section, is
how the relationships between the brethren of these preceptories and London society, is strikingly
different to the activities and priorities decreed by the Orders monastic rules. Both sites, though
30
engaging with charity at a minimal level strove instead to gain prestige and patronage in order to
further the crusader cause. Janet Burton has stated that the primary role of the Monastic Knights in
the west was one of economy and agriculture (Burton 1994, 83). This statement is at least true in
part, with respect to the Clerkenwell and New Temple convents, in that they aimed to stimulate the
economies of their Orders, and subsequently the economy of the Crusader States.
31
5 DEATH, BURIAL & MEMORIAL
The previous section looked at how the Military Orders used their London houses to infiltrate
Lo do s high so iet a d gai pat o age fo the O de . The ai of this follo i g se tio is to use
the burial monuments, and in some cases documentary evidence relating to funerary arrangements
in order to determine how successful this technique was in gaining funds for the Orders. Due to the
minimal evidence for any medieval monuments at Clerkenwell, this chapter will rely entirely upon
the extant and recorded monuments at the New Temple. Firstly, this section will provide a corpus of
the extant military effigies within the Templar chapel, before discussing the monumental brasses of
the church. For aide with the identification of these monuments, this paper will use the numbered
system applied to them by RCHME in their inventory of the City of London.
THE KNIGHTS’ EFFIGIES IN THE ROUND

The eight effigies of knights that occupy the round nave of the chapel of St Mary the Virgin, have
been identified as belonging to the thirteenth century by the majority of scholarship on the
monuments. This section will assess the styles and symbols of the monuments, as long as assessing
the arguments for the identity of these figures. It is possible that the positioning of these sculptures,
and any associated burial, would have provided the archaeologist and the historian with an insight
into the patronage and prominence of any individuals (Lankester 2010). However, the nineteenth
century restoration of these monuments, which involved their temporary removal from the nave,
uncovered no burials beneath them. It is therefore likely that the effigies were moved and
rearranged prior to their recording by Richardson, who also moved the monuments from a line
across the nave, to the arrangement we see today (fig 8.; Richardson 1843).
Today, the monuments are heavily damaged due to the incendiary bombing of the Temple Church in
May 1941 by the Luftwaffe. Despite, the encasing of these sculptures in wooden boxes to protect
them from any debris, the incendiary bombs cause these cases to catch fire a d su se ue tl ake
the stone (Lankester 2010, 93). As such, this study will rely heavily upon records of the effigies prior
to , i ludi g the e o ds of ‘i ha dso s esto atio a d the ‘CHME i e to fo the
City of London (1929). These sketches, photographs and interpretations will be combined with
observations made by the author during a recent visit to the Temple Church and more modern
discussions surrounding burial monuments and memorials in the church of St Mary the Virgin. The
identities given to those depicted in the effigies, are based upon the modern signs in the church
today, and will be discussed further below.
32
Figure 8: Temple Church, layout of the thirteenth-century military effigies since 1842, from
photographs by Bedford Lemere, c.1885 (Griffith-Jones & Park 2010, plate 56)
33
RCHM no. 10 – William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke
The image of a knight upon this effigy is carved in low relief in

Purbeck Marble, the same stone used in the construction of the
pillars of the chapel. It depicts a man lying straight legged,
holding his sword by his side and a flat-topped kite shield in his
left hand, the sword is seen to be penetrating the head of beast
on which he is standing. He is dressed in a full hauberk of chain
maille [a long sleeved shirt which comes down to the knee] with
an integral coif [hood]. Over the hauberk is a plain surcoat,
belted around the waist, with a baldric crossing his chest. This
armour can be used to stylistically date the monument to the
early thirteenth century, as is of the same style as used in the
Fi st Ba o s Wa of -17.
Richardson has argued that this sculpture would have covered

the tomb of William Marshal the Elder, which is supported, in
part, by his recording of paint traces remaining on the
monument – red on the surcoat, green on the inner lining of the
surcoat, and orange on the beast below his feet (Richardson
1843, 23). These colours would match with the Marshal coat of
arms, which were a red lion rampant on a field of gold and
green, split vertically. The relationship between the first Earl of
Pembroke, and the Templars is well documented. William
Marshal, as well as the Clare Family into which he had married
Figure 9: Effigy of William
Marshal the Elder, RCHM no. had long been patrons of the Order and donated lands to them.
10 (Richardson 1843) This culminated in the Earl of Pembroke joining the Knights
Templar months before his death (Murphy 2010).
34
RCHM no. 9 – William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke
This Reigate stone effigy is believed to depict the son of the

aforementioned William Marshal, the second of the Marshals
known to have been buried at the New Temple (Lankester
2010, 116). He is depicted recumbent, with his legs crossed
and hands fixed on the pommel and scabbard of his sword,
which is suspended from his belt. An elongated heater shield,
shorter than the kite depicted on the previous monument, is
shown to be slung at his left side by an undecorated guige and
depicts the heraldry of a lion rampant.
The armour depicted on this effigy is of a different style to

that previously seen. The hauberk is seen to be somewhat
shorter and looser, while the surcoat is longer. The knees and
upper legs are encased in a hard material, possible early metal
o oiled leathe plate o e the hai aille chausses. This
style of armour became common in the mid-thirteenth
century, which has led Lankester to throw doubt over whether
this effigy does in fact depict the second Earl of Pembroke,
who died in 1231. Though it is possible that this effigy was not
commissioned until the 1250s by his descendants (Lankester
2010, 116).
Figure 10: Effigy of William

Marshal the Younger, RCHM no.
9 (Richardson 1843)
35
RCHM no. 8 – Gilbert Marshal, 4th Earl of Pembroke
This effigy, also carved into Reigate stone, is argued to be the

fourth Earl of Pembroke, Gilbert Marshal. The monument is
carved in high relief and depicts a knight recumbent, with his
head resting upon a pillow and legs arranged in a way to suggest
he is walking. The arms are arranged with hands on the
scabbard and hilt as if in the act of drawing. The quillions are
longer than those on the sword of the previous monument, and
the pommel is decorated in a style e that represents a scallop
shell. The scabbard is suspended through a thick belt, decorated
with bars, while the shield – a flat topped kite shield, similar to
that on RCHM no. 10 – is slung by a highly decorated guige.
Richardson (1843, 20) has drawn similarities between the styling
of this guige, which is decorated with shields, and that shown on
the effigy of William de Valance, 1st Earl of Pembroke (third
creation), in Westminster Abbey.
The armour of this knight is of a similar style to that depicted on

the previous effigy (RCHM no. 9), with the exception of a
gambeson being visible beneath the surcoat; this layered linen
shirt acted as padding, protecting against blunt force trauma
incurred during battle. This would place the armour
typologically to around the middle of the thirteenth century,
Figure 11: Effigy of
Gilbert Marshal, RCHM which supports the theory of this effigy portraying Gilbert
no. 8 (Richardson 1843) Marshal, who died in 1241.
What is notable a out this o u e t is the e e g po t a ed th ough the figu e s stance. The
previous monuments have depicted recumbent knights, made to look like they are at rest. This effigy
is, however, in total contrast. Though the knight is modelled recumbent, a bird s e e ie p o ides a
scene of a knight, who is standing and poised to fight.
36
RCHM no. 7 – A Knight
This Purbeck Marble sculpture is on an unknown knight.

Richardson (1843, 27) argues this depiction to be of a crusader,
though there is no evidence to support this and his argument is
po a l ased i the figu e s ossed legs which were said to
have been symbols in death of a man who had taken crusading
vows in the Holy Land (Addison 1842, 314). This is now
commonly believed, however, to be an urban myth.
The knight is recumbent with his head on a cushion, and is

depicted at peace, with a relaxed posture. The armour is similar
to that of the effigy of William Marshal the Elder, with a
hauberk and chausses of chain maille, integral with mittens, coif
and feet. The details with respect to the feet and calves cannot
be used reliably, as they were pa t of ‘i ha dso s restoration,
and have since been lost again due to the damage of the Blitz in
1941. However, the surcoat is looser and flowing. The belt thick
and decorated with lines of three studs, in contrast to the guige,
which is a simple thin strip.
Though typological dating for these monuments is difficult, and

only broad dates can be given to them, it is apparent from the
style of the armour and decoration that this effigy dates to
between 1220 and 1250. This is due to the armour forming a
middle period in the development between that shown on
Figure 12: Effigy of a Knight,
RCHM no. 10, and no. 8. This would therefore fall into the
RCHM no. 7 (Richardson
1843) earlier period of the date range of c. 1240 – 1280 applied by
Lankester (2010, 134).
37
RCHM no. 6 – Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex
The depiction of this knight has sparked a series of

discussions regarding its subject. The effigy is labelled today
as that of Geoffrey de Mandeville, the Earl of Essex who
famously died excommunicate in 1144, and was such
denied a Christian burial until his absolution in 1163.
Lankester has argued that this effigy, as with the others in
the centre of the round, is of thirteenth century date.
Therefore, if this is indeed a depiction of Geoffrey de
Mandeville, then it would have been commissioned around
half a century after his death (Lankester 2010, 115).
The monument depicts a knight in hauberk and chausses

under a simple surcoat. The belt is of simple and
undecorated design, and suspends a scabbard on the right
hand side of the figure. It would seem apparent from the
angle of the scabbard and the straps attached to it that the
sword is depicted as having slipped round the body,
allowing the sculpture to depict it flat on the slab beneath
(Lankester 2010, 123). The shield is a flat top kite, similar to
that of RCHM no. 10 and is typical of the late twelfth and
early thirteenth century, if this is the original design, then
Figure 13: Effigy of Geoffrey the sculpture is likely to have modelled the shield on
de Mandeville, RCHM no. 6 current fashions, rather than the round topped kite shield
(Richardson 1843)
which would have been more common at the time of
Ma de ille s death. However, Richardson recorded that there was heavy decay to the top of the
shield (Richardson 1843, 19), and as such his restoration would have followed the styles of the other
effigies in this collection. Today, the sculpture is heavily damaged, and no detail can be made out on
the shield, as such one must rely upon the nineteenth century drawings and photographs. The shield
is diapered and overlaid with an escarbuncle. Lankester has argued that this radiating design is likely
to be a reinforcement to the shield, rather than heraldic (Lankester 2010, 116).
38
RCHMW no. 5 – A Knight
Argued to be the oldest of the military effigies in the New Temple
church, the identity of the knight depicted is unknown.
Stylistically, this figure is dated to the early thirteenth century due
to the straight legs, low relief carving and lack of foot support. It is
also worth noting that this Purbeck marble sculpture was
incredibly defaced and worn the ti e of ‘i ha dso s
restoration, and had been subjected to previous repairs using
Caen stone (Lankester 2010, 106; Richardson 1843, 18).
The figure is dressed in a hauberk, surcoat and chausses, but

unlike the figures previously discussed, the hood is of linen or soft
leather, rather than a chain maille coif. The strapping of the belt
and guige are simple and undecorated, which are two words that
can be used to describe the monument as a whole.
Figure 14: Effigy of a Knight,

RCHM no. 5 (Richardson
1843)
39
RCHM no. 4 & no. 3 – Knights
Figure 15: Effigy of a

Knight, RCHM no. 4
(Richardson 1843)
Figure 16: Effigy of a

Knight, RCHM no. 3
(Richardson 1843)
The final two effigies will be discussed together; this is largely due to the stylistic similarities
between the two monuments. The most notable parallels between these monuments can be found
in the clothing. Both knights are wearing knee length hauberks with integral coifs and mittens, and
chausses on the legs. The surcoats are of a plain and straight design and finish just above the knee.
In each case, the belt and guige are decorated with studs and bars, with the belt having dropped
round, so that the sheathed sword lies to the right of the knight.
The aspect o thiest of dis ussio he e is the padded i g isi le a ou d ea h k ight s head. I the
case of RCHM no. 4, this band is integrated onto a skull cap of a material other than maille, while on
RCHM no. 3 the padding is part of an arming cap worn over the top of the mail coif. These rings were
most likely the padding used to aid with the fitting of a great helm, to stop it rattling around the
head. Though no great helms are depicted on any of the other effigies in the New Temple, these
padded caps do feature on statues at Wells Cathedral (Lankester 2010, 121).
40
PATRONAGE IN DEATH
The effigies within the round of the Temple church are just a selection of those which survive today,
however they also provide a clear example of the patronage of the Knights Templar in the thirteenth
century. Addison has argued that none of these sculptures depict brethren of the order, due to their
dressing in armour and secular clothes, rather than the monastic habit of the order. Instead he
argues that these knights are Confratres, or associates, of the Order of the Temple (Addison 1842,
310). These associated knights had strong spiritual links to the sworn brethren, but were not bound
by their monastic vows. However, this does in fact raise the question as to why those patrons who
swore the monastic vows in the later stages of their lives, or in fact just before death, were not
remembered as Templars in their effigies? The likely answer to this is that effigies were designed to
remember the deceased; the application of memory to a particular object in the same way we
asso iate the e o ies of a pe so s life to thei g a e sto e toda . If the k ights depi ted i these
sculptures were dressed in the mantel and cloak of the Templar brethren, then those who visited the
tombs would remember the death, and not the life.
One of the major questions that has arisen from these monuments, is why were these knights buried
at the New Temple. As discussed above they were Confratres; those spiritually connected to the
order. This most likely applied to the biggest patrons of the Templars. Park has argued that Geoffrey
de Mandeville was brought to the Old Temple from Suffolk due to his patronage, as founder of the
Te pla s Lo do p e epto . His a gu e t is ased upo the a k o ledge e t of the Ea l of
Esse s i du tio i to the O de o his death ed, a d the o side a le jou e u de take to a
a e o u i ate s od f o Milde hall to the Old Te ple, and not just to the nearest preceptory
at Cressing (Park 2010, 71). Similarly, William Marshal the Elder had granted large quantities of land
a oss E gla d to the Te pla s, as had his ife s fa il – the Clares. However, it is written in the
L Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, a biographic life of William commissioned by his son in 1129,
that the first Earl of Pembroke had dedicated his body at death to the Temple, many years before
while serving in the Holy Land (Park 2010, 76).
Patronage of a church or monastery was the keystone of medieval social status. For the nobility, to
give land to the Church was to prove your worth and piety, leading Daniell to argue that the gifting
of land to a monastic order was nearly as prestigious as owning it in the first place (2003, 152).
Patronage was about association and image; for the nobility it was about being seen as pious and
being associated with the great monastic houses. Whilst for the monasteries, the greater the patron,
the greater the donation. In the case of the Templars and Hospitallers, this patronage was the
central focus of their London houses.
41
This pat o age of death ul i ated fo the Te pla s i 31 ith He III s g eat ha te . In this
charter the King stated that he wished to be buried in the church of St Mary the Virgin within the
house of the Templars in London, and if he was to found any house between 1231 and his death,
then the brothers of that house must not protest at the royal interment at the New Temple (Park
2010, 83). The announcement of the King s wish to be buried at Temple was around the same time
that the aforementioned extension to the chancel was begun. This extension was completed in
1240, and the consecration was witnessed by its patron, Henry III. However, is a sudden change of
mind, Henry patronised the construction of a new shrine to Edward the Confessor at Westminster
Abbey in 1241, before deciding to be buried next to the confessor, in a newly rebuilt Westminster
Abbey in 1246 (Carpenter 2007, 871). This temporary patronage is interesting to study, as the
announcement of the King s wish to be buried in the Temple would have brought great attention to
the Order and seen an increase in the patronage of London s aspiring elite, who each wonted to be
associated with the King. This patronage of (not quite) death provides the perfect example of the
secular world s interaction with the Church, and the façade of piety over the truth of secular
importance. From the view of the Templars, a royal patron, although deceased, would been likely to
attract other patrons who would like to be seen to be associated with royalty, even just through a
mutual patronage – a valid reason for the order to argue that the body of the King was theirs by
right (Park 2010, 84).
42
6 AFTER THE TEMPLARS
This dissertation is aimed at gaining an understanding of the role, development and patronage of the
Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller in London, from the early twelfth century, through to the
turn of the fourteenth century. However, in order to understand the results of this project s research
which have been presented above, and will be summarised and concluded in the next chapter, it is
important that context is provided. The following chapter aims to provide a brief summary of activity
surrounding the New Temple and The Hospitaller priory at Clerkenwell following the arrest and fall
of the Order of the Temple circa. 1307.
The late thirteenth and early fourteenth century saw a dramatic change to the landscape of
Christendom. The loss of Acre in 1291 saw the last foothold in the Levant lost to the Muslims, and
the Military Orders numbers in the Mediterranean heavily depleted as they had to rebuild their
headquarters and stockpiles on islands such as Rhodes, Crete and Malta. The loss of the East threw
doubt over the abilities of the Order of the Temple, and to an extent over those of the Order of the
Hospital (Burton 1994, 84). This doubt quickly grew to distrust across Western Europe culminating in
the order for the arrest of the Templars in 1307 on accounts of heresy and blasphemy; the only
crime they were guilty of in reality is their own success. The Templars had become a powerful force
across Western Europe, with debts owed to them by a vast number of the Christian nobility. Their
cloistered lives and access to the most powerful men in Christendom, when combined with their
immunity from secular law, put a target on their backs.
In 1308, the English Templars had all of their possessions seized by the Crown in preparation for
their trial. The New Temple passed through several hands over the following three decades, before
finally coming under the control of the Hospitallers in 1336. This allowed the Order of the Hospital to
continue collecting the rents from the area around the precinct, as well as the toll to cross Temple
Bridge (Nicholson 2010, 15). In contrast to the Knights Templar, the Order of the Hospital appears to
have flourished in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The feelings of distrust
associated with the military orders across Europe was not felt towards the Hospitallers in England, as
brothers of the Order, such as William de Hanley, serve the Crown in a ministerial capacity and by
the turn of the century the Prior of England sat in the House of Lords under both Edward I and
Edward II (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 69).
The Hospitalle s gai of Pat o s f o a oss Lo do s so iet has e o e e ide t i the

archaeological record of the priory at Clerkenwell. As discussed in chapter three of this dissertation,
the priory saw a dramatic expansion to the chancel and crypt as well as the replacement of the
circular nave, by a more traditional rectangular structure around 1280. This construction was the
43
first stage in the large scale expansion of the monastic grange over the course of the fourteenth
century, which saw the site grow from a modest monastic site, into a large palatial house, which was
able to provide hospitality to its noble patrons on journeys to and from London. The house at
Clerkenwell continued to grow throughout the late medieval period until the English Reformation
under Henry VIII which forced the brethren of Clerkenwell Priory to retire. After this point the priory
continued to provide hospitality its sale as a private house to Dudley in 1546, where it was priced at
£1000 (Sloane & Malcolm 2004, 222).
44
7 CONCLUSION
This dissertation has aimed to assess the roles played and the impact of the brethren of the Order of
the Temple and the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in London. In order to achieve this,
it has used both documentary evidence, and archaeological evidence relating to the convents of
both of these Military Orders in the London Area; The New and Old Temples within the city
boundaries, as well as the Priory of St John at Clerkenwell, on the road into London at Smithfield.
The monastic rules of these orders are difficult to interpret. Although documents suggesting these
rules exist, it had become apparent that the orders ran differently in the West than they did in the
East, and within that the houses within Britain appear to have been run differently to those across
Western Europe. The priory of St John at Clerkenwell was in no way representative of the rule of the
order. Excavations in the area have revealed no evidence of an infirmary or the practicing of
medieval medicine. There is also no evidence of any military structures within the precinct. It is,
therefore, apparent from the evidence presented in the above chapters suggests the priory had a
different purpose other than those normally expected of a Hospitaller convent.
As with the monastic precinct and grange at St Johns Clerkenwell, the New Temple provided the
archaeologist with little evidence of the brethren carrying out the duties of the Templars. This is
most likely due to the distance from the Holy Land. The Templars were formed to protect the people
and pilgrims of the Crusader States; a duty not easily carried out from the other side of the known
world. Though the New Temple has no evidence of any militarised structures, such as the Grosse
Tour at the Paris Temple, there is some evidence for the training and preparation of recruits; this
e ide e is i i al a d does ot suggest a su sta tial t ai i g e t e fo the O de s E glish
e uits. The e ide e fo this aspe t of the Te pla s li es is i the p ese e of t o fo ges just
outside the p e i t, alo g Fleet St eet, ut also i the Fittes Field - a field reported to have been
used for training to joust, just to the north of Temple Bar. Though no artefacts have been recovered
from either of these locations, one cannot be sure as to what training the recruits had before they
were sent East to Jerusalem or Acre.
The only structures representative of the rule and origins of the Military Orders, are those of the
early naves on the chapels within these monasteries. These naves were originally round, reflecting
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem – the holiest of sites in the Christian kingdom. These
round churches were not unique in England at this time, but were uncommon and it is likely that the
majority of Londoners would never have seen this particular style anywhere before. After the loss of
the Holy Land at the end of the thirteenth century, the Hospitallers rebuilt their nave to a more
traditional specification. This supports the argument for the circular form symbolising the rotund of
45
the Holy Sepulchre; as the s oli Weste isi g of the a e ould ep ese t the shift i ai s fo
the Knights Hospitaller from the Levant to Western Europe.
What has become clear, during the course of this project, is the importance of patronage. Heraclius
travelled to England from Jerusalem in 1185 in order to gather support, recruits and funds for the
Crusade against the Muslim infidel and the maintenance of the Crusader States. During his visit, he
consecrated the chapels of the Hospitaller and Templar convents, effectively stating the mission of
these houses from an early stage – their role was to gain support and patronage in order to gain
funds to send East and support the crusaders. The impact of this patronage upon the archaeological
record is twofold; the expansion and development of the monastic grange, and the erection of burial
monuments to commemorate the great patrons of the order. The relationship between the Military
O de s a d Lo do s high so iety was one of mutual benefit; the nobility supplied the house with
Land, wealth and a respect from the fellow peers of the medieval realm. In return, the houses, by
association to their great deeds in the East, allowed for the nobility to appear pious, and respected,
as well as the supply of loans, and safe keeping of personal items by both the Templars and
Hospitallers.
FURTHER RESEARCH
This project has covered just a small area of the material relating to the preceptories of the Knights
Templar and Knights Hospitaller in London through the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It has been
no more than a cursory glance over the vast collections of data available to us today. Due to the
limitations of this project and the confines of time and length applied to it, particular aspects were
unable to be addressed. Therefore, this dissertation has aimed to form the starting block for
scholarship to grow in his field; particularly with respect to the Hospitaller house at Clerkenwell.
Large projects have been undertaken in recent years, particularly by Helen Nicholson, with respect
to the documentary evidence surrounding the Templar possessions and attitudes, however little has
been done on this scale regarding the Order of St John; the scholarship consulted in the course of
this thesis has encountered large gaps, such as the lack of discussion surrounding the Hospitaller
Cartulary and the Cartulary of St Mary Clerkenwell. Similarly, there appeared to be a gap in the
esea h of Lo do s o asti houses ith espe t to the O de of Lazarus, the New Order of St
Mary Bethlehem and other military orders, who had a lesser presence within the medieval capital.
46
NOTES
1
The current elevation of 43-46 Southampton Buildings is 31.8m OD as calculated by Map
Developers (http://www.mapdevelopers.com/elevation_calculator.php [accessed 22/4/16]).
2
The Sherriff of London s i e to is o pa t of the olle tio s of The Natio al A hi es at Ke :
PRO E358/18 rot. 7 (1-2); E358/20 rot.3.
3
Further evidence regarding the acquisition of lands prior to 1300 by the Hospitallers may exist in
other collections, such as the Hospitaller Cartulary (British Museum, Cotton MS, Nero E vi), however
a full documentary analysis of the manuscripts relating to the Order of St John of Jerusalem is
outside of this p oje t s s ope.
47
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1910. Calendar of Patent Rolls: Henry III 1258-1266 (London)
Addison, C.G. 1842. The History of the Knights Templars, Temple Church and the Temple (London).
Allen, S.J. & Amt, E. (eds) 2014. The Crusades: A Reader (Plymouth).
Barber, B., Thomas, C. and Watson, B. 2013. Religion in Medieval London: Archaeology and Belief
(London).
Ba e , M. . Suppl i g the C usade States: The ‘ole of the Te pla s . I B.). Kedar (ed.), The
Horns of Hattin (London), 315-26.
Boas, A. 2005. Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East, e-book edn (London).
Boas, A. 2006. Archaeology of the Military Orders: A survey of the urban centres, rural settlement
and castles of the Military Orders in the Latin East (c. 1120-1291), e-book edn (London).
B itto , J. . A Essa To a ds an Histo of Te ples a d ‘ou d Chu hes . I The Architectural
Antiquities of Great Britain; represented and illustrated in a series of views, elevations and plans,
sections and details of various Ancient English Edifices: with historical and descriptive accounts of
each (London).
Burgtorf, J. 2008. The Central Convent of Hospitallers and Templars: History, Organisation and
Personnel (Leiden).
Burton, J. 1994. Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain, 1000-1300 (Cambridge).
Cannon, J. 2014. Medieval Church Architecture (Oxford).
Carpenter, D.A. 2007. King Henry III and Saint Edward the Confessor: the Origins of the Cult , English
Historical Review 122, 865-891.
Cla kso , E. . Essa o the S oli E ide es of the Te ple Chu h. We e Te pla s G osti
Idolaters as alleged? , In R.W. Billings, Architectural Illustrations and Account of the Temple Church,
London (London), 1-26.
Daniell, C. 2003. From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England 1066-1215, e-book edn
(Abingdon).
The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582). In The Holy Bible: Douay-Rheims Version, Challoner Revision, The Old
and New Testaments, e-book edn (Auckland).
Ega , G. & Shephe d, J. . The o - e a i fi ds . I B. Sloa e & G. Mal ol . Excavations at the
priory of the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell, London (London), 355-66.
Ellenblum, R. 2007. Crusader Castles and Modern Histories, e-book edn (Cambridge).
Forey, A. 1992. The Military Orders: From The Twelfth To The Early Fourteenth Centuries (London).
Gatti, I. . The ‘elatio ship et een the Knights Templar and the Kings of England. From the
O de s Fou datio to the ‘eig of Ed a d I. , u pu lished PhD thesis, U i e sit of ‘eadi g.
Gilchrist, R. 1995. Contemplation and Action: The Other Monasticism (London).
Griffith-Jones, R. 2009. The Temple Church, Mother-Church of the Co o Law: A Pilgri s Guide
(Norfolk).
48
Griffith-Jones. R. 2015. The Knights Templar (Andover).
Griffith-Jones, R. & Park, D. (eds) 2010. The Temple Church in London: History, Architecture, Art
(Woodbridge).
Janse , V. . Light a d Pu e: The Te pla s Ne Choi , i G iffith-Jones & Park 2010, 45-66.
K e tz, E. . ‘e ie of Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East . Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 62(1): 36.
La keste , P.J. . The Thirteenth-Ce tu Milita Effigies i the Te ple Chu h , i G iffith-Jones
& Park 2010, 93-134
Lock, P. 2005. The Routledge Companion to The Crusades (Abingdon).
Miele, C. . Gothi Sig , P otesta t ‘ealia: Te pla s, E lesiologists a d the ‘ou d Chu ches at
Ca idge a d Lo do . Architectural History 53: 191-215.
Morris, C. 2005. The Sepulchre of Christ and the Medieval West: From the Beginning to 1600, e-book
edn (Oxford).
Mu ph , P. . A Medie al Po e Couple : Iso el de Cla e a d Willia Ma shal . History Ireland
18/2, 14-17.
Nicholson, H. 2001. The Knights Hospitaller (Woodbridge).
Ni holso , H. . At the Hea t of Medie al Lo do : The New Temple in the Middle Ages , i
Griffith-Jones & Park 2010, 1-18.
Ni holso , H. . I te p eti g the egulatio s: the Hospitalle s I te p etatio s of the ‘ule a d
the Statutes i E gla d a d Wales , i 48th International Congress on Medieval Studies. Kalamazoo,
12 May 2013. [Accessed via Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/6927987/Interpreting_the_regulations_the_Hospitallers_Interpretations
_of_the_Rule_and_the_Statutes_in_England_and_Wales on 01/05/16].
Pa k, D. . Medie al Bu ials a d Mo u e ts , i G iffith-Jones & Park 2010, 67-92
Pringle, D. 1993. The Crusader Kingdoms of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Vol. 1 (Cambridge).
‘CHME. . Fa i gdo Wa d Without , i An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in London
(London), 120-166. [Accessed via British History Online: http://www.british-
history.ac.uk/rchme/london/vol4/pp120-166 on 01/05/16].
RCHME. 1959. E lesiasti al Buildi gs: Pa ish Chu hes , i An Inventory of the Historical
Monuments in the City of Cambridge (London), 254-98. [Accessed via British History Online:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/cambs/pp254-298 on 01/05/16].
Regesta: Cronne, H.A. & Davis, R.H.C. (eds). 1968. Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154,
Vol III (Oxford).
Richardson, E. 1842. Monumental Effigies of the Temple Church (London).
Rodwell, W. 2012. The Archaeology of Churches (Stroud).
Sa d s, A. . The Fi a ial a d Ad i ist ati e I po ta e of the Lo do Te ple i the
Thirteenth Century , i A.G. Little & F.M. Po i ke eds . Essays in Medieval History presented to
Thomas Frederick Tout (Manchester), 147-62.
49
Sharpe, R.R. (ed.) 1899. Calendar of Letter-Books of the City of London: Letter-Book A, circa. A.D.
1275-1298 (London).
Sloane, B. & Malcolm, G. 2004. Excavations at the priory of the Order of the Hospital of St John of
Jerusalem, Clerkenwell, London (London).
Schermerhorn, E.W. 1940. On the trail of the eight-pointed cross: a study of the heritage of the
Knights Hospitallers in feudal Europe (New York).
Telfe , A. . Lo ati g the fi st K ights Te pla Chu h . London Archaeologist 10(1): 3-6.
Thomas, C., Sloane, B. & Phillpotts, C. 1997. Excavations at the Priory and Hospital of St Mary Spital,
London (London).
Thornbury, W. 1878. Old and New London: Volume 1 (London).
Tyerman, C. 1988. England and the Crusades 1095-1588 (Chicago).
Tyerman, C. 2007. God s War: A New History of the Crusades (London).
Upton-Ward, J.M. 1992. The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the
Knights Templar (Woodbridge).
Von Simson, O. 1962. The Gothic Cathedral (New York).
Willis, P. 1950. St Joh s Gate. GLHER Listed Buildings Record MLO86476. ©Historic England 2016.
Contains Ordnance Survey date ©Crown copyright and database right 2016. The Dataset contained
in this material was obtained on 22/09/2015.
Willis, P. 2012. Museum of the Order of St John (Peterborough).
Wilson, C. 2010. Gothi A hite tu e T a spla ted: The Na e of the Te ple Chu h i Lo do , i
Griffith & Jones 2010, 19-43.
W ight, S.M. . Lo do s eligious houses: a e ie of o goi g esea h . Church Archaeology
12: 49-63.
50

Donning The Armour of God A Case Study o

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Donning The Armour of God A Case Study o

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Donning the

I certify that this dissertation is my own unaided work,

and has been personally researched and written by me.

15, 108 Words

2 The west door to the New Temple Church 16

3 The o the Sa a e usts o the Ne Te ple s est doo 16

4 The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (RCHME 1959) 17

9 Effigy of William Marshal the Elder, RCHM no. 10 (Richardson 1843) 34

10 Effigy of William Marshal the Younger, RCHM no. 9 (Richardson 1843) 35

11 Effigy of Gilbert Marshal, RCHM no. 8 (Richardson 1843) 36

12 Effigy of a Knight, RCHM no. 7 (Richardson 1843) 37

13 Effigy of Geoffrey de Mandeville, RCHM no. 6 (Richardson 1843) 38

14 Effigy of a Knight, RCHM no. 5 (Richardson 1843) 39

15 Effigy of a Knight, RCHM no. 4 (Richardson 1843) 40

16 Effigy of a Knight, RCHM no. 3 (Richardson 1843) 40

MoLA Museum of London Archaeology

GLHER Greater London Historic Environment Record

RCHM(E) Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments (of England)

Regesta Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum

CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF MONASTIC LONDON

The a ade i stud of Lo do s e lesiasti al a haeolog has apidl g o si e the s due to

THE ROUND CHURCH IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND

The nave of the New Temple, when combined with the

Figure 6: The central passage within the crypt at the Priory of St

The fi al stage of the p io s de elop e t sa a d a ati step a a f o the o de s roots in the

Figure 7: Tentative reconstruction of The New Temple and its environs,

THE ACQUISITION OF LAND

THE KNIGHTS’ EFFIGIES IN THE ROUND

The image of a knight upon this effigy is carved in low relief in

Richardson has argued that this sculpture would have covered

This Reigate stone effigy is believed to depict the son of the

The armour depicted on this effigy is of a different style to

Figure 10: Effigy of William

This effigy, also carved into Reigate stone, is argued to be the

The armour of this knight is of a similar style to that depicted on

This Purbeck Marble sculpture is on an unknown knight.

The knight is recumbent with his head on a cushion, and is

Though typological dating for these monuments is difficult, and

The depiction of this knight has sparked a series of

The monument depicts a knight in hauberk and chausses

The figure is dressed in a hauberk, surcoat and chausses, but

Figure 14: Effigy of a Knight,

Figure 15: Effigy of a

Figure 16: Effigy of a

The Hospitalle s gai of Pat o s f o a oss Lo do s so iet has e o e e ide t i the

Pa k, D. . Medie al Bu ials a d Mo u e ts , i G iffith-Jones & Park 2010, 67-92

Thornbury, W. 1878. Old and New London: Volume 1 (London).

Tyerman, C. 1988. England and the Crusades 1095-1588 (Chicago).

Tyerman, C. 2007. God s War: A New History of the Crusades (London).

Von Simson, O. 1962. The Gothic Cathedral (New York).

You might also like