Pastscape - Detailed Result: NONSUCH PALACE (original) (raw)

TQ 228631 Nonsuch Palace [GT] (site of) (1)

Construction of Nonsuch Palace commenced on 22nd April 1538 after the
clearance of the village of Cuddington (TQ 26 SW 104). The park surrounding the Palace was already established, as a warrant was issued in November 1538 for the stocking of deer. The palace consisted of 2 storey buildings around interconnecting open air courts. Much of the structure was timber-framed, the inner court was claimed to be the largest timber framed building in England. It was covered with carved and gilded sheets of slate known to be the work of Nicholas Bellin of Modena, who worked at Fontainebleau. Descriptions of the palace show there was a contrast in architectural styles between the inner and outer courts, this is borne out by John Evelyn's description (1666). The stone built outer court was described as being `castle-like', the inner court `a gothic fabric with walls incomparably beautified'. The gardens were elaborate, mainly the work of Lords Arundel and Lumley. The walled Privy Garden situated to the south of the palace was an original feature. To the west was the Wilderness and an orchard, a `Grove of Diana' was also present. Situated on the hill was a banqueting house (TQ 26 SW 106).

The Palace was also equipped with efficient sewer and water systems
with a conduit leading into the house, two storage tanks were
located in addition to the well. Vaulted sewers were also present.
in 1598 substantial additions, in the form of stables, a barn and
bakehouse were constructed. These were the last major constructions within the palace. It was sold in 1650 by the Commonwealth government, but back in royal ownership by 1660. By 1682 the courts were demolished. A sketch dated 1710 shows the Palace to be in ruins. Please note that a very detailed description of Nonsuch Palace is found in The History of the King's Works. (2-4)

(TQ 2276 6313) Between 1993 and 1995 RCHME's Cambridge Field Office carried out an archaeological survey of Nonsuch Park, following a request from Professor Martin Biddle. This included an analytical earthwork survey at 1:1000 scale of the site of the Palace and its formal gardens. The history of the Palace is generally as described by previous sources. For further information, see sources 2, 4, 5a, 5b.

The main ranges of the Palace buildings can be traced as scarps, though these at least partly relate to Biddle's excavation trenches. The two main courts each measured some 60m square; their gatehouses and the rear of the inner court are now marked by granite obelisks.

Possible building remains surviving as earthworks were identified in the south-west corner of the Privy Garden. These may have been a Privy stable block, as depicted by Hoefnagel's drawing (source 8).

The Palace was located on the central axis of the walled Privy Garden, with the north face of the outer court abutting the wall, overlooking a bowling green. This survives as a fairly level sub-rectangular mound, with a triangular embankment to the north, which presumably represents the original approach to the Palace. The RCHME survey was able to trace the outline of the Privy Garden, as a square compartment 180m in diameter (ie precisely three times the size of the courtyards). The boundaries of the adjoining Wilderness Garden, originally high hedges, can also be traced as earthworks; the compartment is identical in size to the Privy Garden. The symmetry of this pair of compartments contrasts with earlier interpretations in sources 6 and 7.

No earthworks relating to the gardens survive within the Privy garden, but a broad embankment around the south-western corner of The Wilderness may have been an original walk.

The Grove of Diana appears to be the quadrangular compartment to the west of The Wilderness, as suggested by previous sources. RCHME identified the probable site of the grotto, in the north-eastern corner of the compartment, and other landscaping. The form and lack of symmetry of this compartment, together with a number of stratigraphic relationships, makes it clear that the Grove of Diana was not part of the original design, and was therefore probably added by Arundel in the Elizabethan period. The statuary portraying the myth of Actaeon's punishment by Diana appears to be an allegorical reference to his relationship with the Queen.

For further details see RCHME Level 3 client report and surveys at 1:1000 and 1:2500 scales, held in archive. (5)

Please refer to these two sources for pre RCHME survey interpretations of Nonsuch Palace which are referred to in source 5. (6-7)

Drawing by Joris Hoefnagel. 1568. British Museum (Prints and drawings). (8)

For a full description of the RCHME survey on Nonsuch Palace and Park please refer to the report and associated archive housed at the National Monuments Record. (9-17)

Detailed descriptions of the palace, garden and park are found in both these sources. (18-19)

For a detailed description of the royal palace please refer to the source. (20)