Evaluating Documentary Evidence for Castle Functions

What written records can reveal

Kenilworth Castle served different purposes at different times. Its surviving buildings provide evidence of its form, but written records can help historians investigate who authorised changes, what people intended and how the site was described. Documentary evidence means written records used to investigate the past.

A document’s usefulness depends on the question. An official grant may be valuable evidence of a ruler’s relationship with a castle owner, but reveal little about the work of servants. A visitor’s description may reveal how the castle appeared, but not explain how much its buildings cost. Evaluating evidence means identifying both what it helps us establish and where its limits lie.

Royal licences: permission and prestige

A licence to crenellate was a grant permitting fortification or the addition of battlements: the alternating raised sections and gaps along the top of a wall. In England, these licences were granted by monarchs and also by certain rulers with special regional authority, including the Duke of Lancaster after the creation of the Palatinate of Lancashire in 1351.

The wording of a licence can identify its recipient, the property concerned and the work authorised. This makes it useful for investigating relationships between rulers and property owners, as well as intended changes to buildings.

A concrete example comes from Kingston upon Hull, rather than Kenilworth. Edward III issued a document confirming the previous king’s licence for the townspeople to strengthen their town with moats and a wall, and to crenellate that wall. It also permitted them to crenellate their houses using stone or tile or brick. The distinction matters: the grant concerned both town defences and private houses, not simply the construction of a military castle.

Licences could also communicate status. Royal recognition gave prestige to the recipient, while battlements and gatehouses could make a residence look imposing. Consequently, a licence can support an interpretation about social standing and royal favour, not just defence.

What a licence cannot prove on its own

Permission to undertake work is not the same as evidence that the work happened. To establish whether authorised alterations were completed, historians can compare a licence with dated building remains and other records of construction.

Nor does permission to fortify prove that warfare was the building’s main function. A residence could combine practical protection with a display of wealth and rank. The precise wording and historical circumstances must guide the interpretation.

It is also unsafe to assume that every fortified building needed a licence. Philip Davis’s study of surviving grants argues that most fortified buildings were constructed without their owners applying for one. Licences were often prestigious grants rather than evidence of a universal system of royal control over castle building. Equally, the absence of a surviving licence does not automatically establish that a building was unlawful.

Evaluating evidence about Kenilworth

Begin with the document’s provenance: who produced it, when, and for what purpose? Then separate its explicit information from conclusions drawn from it. An official grant is strong evidence of what was formally authorised; it is not a complete account of how a castle functioned afterwards.

Kenilworth has a long tradition of documentary research. William Dugdale’s Antiquities of Warwickshire, published in 1656, remains an important reference work. Its treatment of the castle alongside the surrounding landscape and neighbouring properties helps historians investigate the site as part of a wider estate rather than as an isolated building. However, its publication date does not make Dugdale an eyewitness to Kenilworth’s medieval history: historians must consider the earlier records on which an account depends.

A particularly clear example of combining evidence is the recreation of Kenilworth’s Elizabethan garden. This drew on an eyewitness description alongside extensive archaeological research, including excavation in 2005–6, before the recreation in 2008. The description helped historians reconstruct the garden’s appearance, while archaeology supplied a different kind of evidence against which to assess it. Agreement between independent kinds of evidence strengthens an interpretation, although reconstruction still requires judgement.

Descriptions, newspapers and changing interests

A newspaper article about a castle can help historians investigate how the site was presented to readers at the time of publication. Check whether the writer witnessed what they describe, whether they relied on earlier accounts, and whether the article aimed to inform, entertain or promote a visit. An article may be useful evidence of later attitudes towards a castle without being reliable evidence of medieval events.

Kenilworth illustrates why the interests of later writers matter. Sir Walter Scott’s novel Kenilworth, published in 1821, encouraged nineteenth-century interest in the castle during Robert Dudley’s time. Later scholarship, following the castle’s entry into state care in 1937, paid greater attention to its medieval history and surviving structures. Scott’s novel is not a newspaper report or a factual record of castle life, but its influence helps explain why later accounts selected particular periods to emphasise.

The strongest judgement therefore connects a document’s content and origin to a specific enquiry, then checks its claims against other evidence. A source can be valuable without answering every question about Kenilworth.