Configuración del SAN

The State Apartment in the English Country House:

Origins, Function and Use

The country house state apartment enjoyed its heyday during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, which was also the great age of house building in England. And yet, despite this fact, such apartments have been little

investigated. The first historian to explore the subject was Mark Girouard, who in two seminal works – Robert Smythson and the Architecture of the

Elizabethan Era (1966; republished in 1983 with a revised title) and Life in the English Country House (1978) – traced the evolution of country houses, giving accounts of the development and use of such rooms as the parlour and great chamber.¹ The baton was picked up by some of the staff of the RCHME:

Nicholas Cooper’s work was published as Houses of the Gentry: 1480-1680 (1999), while John Heward was author of a 1995 conference paper, ‘The State Apartment in the 17^th Century’, and co-authored an introductory section on state suites in The Country Houses of Northamptonshire (1996).² Malcolm Airs’s work on the early modern great house has shed further light on the subject, as have the series of conferences held under his aegis at the University of Oxford.³ More recently, Mark Girouard’s Elizabethan Architecture: Its Rise and Fall, 1540-1640 (2009) has extended the scholarship in this area, though makes no attempt to return specifically to the subject of state apartments.⁴ Alongside such publications stands a body of work analysing hospitality and the households of the nobility and upper gentry. Among the most valuable studies in this field are those by Kate Mertes and Felicity Heal.⁵

1 See, in particular: Girouard 1980, pp. 30-64 and pp. 88-118, and Girouard 1983, pp. 59-61

2 Cooper 1999; Heward 1995; Heward and Taylor 1996, pp. 22-27

3 Airs 1975; Airs 1994; Airs 1995; Airs 1996

4 Girouard 2009. Also of note are the various studies of individual country houses and their state apartments (such as Drury 1980, on Audley End); these will be cited, where relevant, in

Chapters 4 and 5. Although this and the following chapters will focus on England, it is worth drawing special attention to McKean 2001 (especially pp. 66-68), which includes a discussion of the Scottish equivalent of the English state apartment. For France, the most useful work is Chatenet 2002, the penultimate section of which (‘Le roi chez sujets’, pp. 258-296) is of

particular interest and relevance; it is the only intensive study of French noble state apartments to have been carried out to date.

5 Mertes 1988; Heal 1990. The latter includes a lengthy study of the ‘social geography of the great house’, and a summary of the architectural history of the period; see: Heal 1990, especially pp. 28-30, pp. 36-48 and pp. 153-168, and see also: Heal 2007

On the whole, this scholarship forms an invaluable basis for understanding, though none of it – with the exception of John Heward’s brief and rather sketchy paper of 1995 – concentrates specifically on state apartments, looking instead at the country house and household overall. This thesis, therefore, represents the first attempt at understanding the detailed planning and use of the country house state apartment in the Tudor and Jacobean periods, and consequently contains much new research, especially with regard to function (both on a daily basis and at times of state). This new work has involved the challenging of previously held assumptions; notably, that state apartments in great houses were used only on occasions of the utmost ceremony, occasions which are usually viewed as being confined to royal visits.⁶ One of the aims of this chapter is to show that, in fact, state rooms were used, if not daily, on a far more

frequent basis than has hitherto been widely recognised.

Such arguments are built upon a quantity of primary material which remains comparatively untouched by architectural historians, though its significance has long been recognised by Mertes, Heal and other scholars of the medieval and early modern household. This comprises a number of surviving household accounts or rolls, a range of inventories, and (perhaps most important of all) various household orders or regulations.⁷ These – clearly based on regulations for the royal household – almost all relate to specific noblemen’s households, and vary in detail and length.⁸ There are, in addition, two key advice documents

6 In the 2^nd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1989, vol. 16, p. 560), a ‘state-room’

is defined as ‘a state apartment; a room in a palace, great house, hotel, etc; splendidly decorated and furnished, and used only on ceremonial occasions’. More recently, certain country house state apartments have begun to be referred to as ‘royal apartments’ or ‘royal lodgings’ by some architectural historians; see, for instance, Girouard 2009, p. 116, and Nicholas Cooper, ‘New Hall at Hardwick’, Country Life, 3 April 2008, vol. 202, p. 87. This obviously places emphasis on royal visits, overlooking the fact that, even where such rooms were built specifically with a monarch in mind, they had other functions, and would not have been covered in dust sheets for much of the year round. Girouard even proposes that, once a monarch had slept in a room, it was ‘reserved for royal use’: Girouard 2009, p. 121

7 For a list of household rolls relevant to the period 1250-1600, see: Mertes, pp. 194-215 (Appendix A); for a list of inventories, see: Howard 1998; and for a list of household regulations, see: Girouard 1980, pp. 319-320. Most regulations list the officers of the household by job title, and provide information on their various responsibilities. The intention of such documents was to bring order and obedience to the household. Thus, they aimed at an ideal situation, though they can still provide invaluable evidence on the daily functioning of a great house.

8 The only known example for a gentry household is that relating to Wollaton Hall: Willoughby 1572. For royal regulations, see: Ordinances 1790. Other documents worth noting include: BL Add. 71009 (see Appendix 1), 1612 regulations, and BL Sloane MS 1494 (royal regulations dating from reign of Charles I)

which survive from the early modern period: one undated but seemingly of the early Tudor period, with a late sixteenth-century copy, and the other of c. 1605.⁹

It should be noted that, given the comparative paucity of the evidence, the following account draws upon material dating from the second half of the

fifteenth century to the late seventeenth century. Key points will be investigated that shed light on the focus of study here, the Jacobean period, and documents of that date will be used wherever possible. The distinctions between state and great apartments have also been treated flexibly; this differentiation was not made at the time, and references to bedchambers, for instance, remain illuminating, even where they do not relate specifically to state bedchambers.

The great household has been given particular focus, with the aim of populating the early modern state apartment – showing who used it and why – and of illustrating the fact that state apartments had a function beyond the royal visit.

The arrangements surrounding royal visits are also discussed here, as they have an important usefulness in helping to shed light on the furnishing,

decoration and function of state apartments at a particular moment. In addition, visits made by other figures of rank are given focus, to emphasise the fact that members of the royal family were just one of a number of potential illustrious guests.

The Evolution of the Country House and the State Apartment

What was to become the standard plan of the medieval and early modern country house was well established by the fourteenth century, and was possibly in existence from the twelfth.¹⁰ It comprised, at its most basic, a central hall range – in the early medieval period, the great hall represented the focus of the life of the household – with upper (family/guest) and lower (service) wings to

9 The Tudor document (cited here as ‘Orders of service’) is fully entitled ‘Orders of service belonging to the degrees of a duke, a marquess, and an erle used in their owne howses’; it is preserved in the British Library and has never been published. The Jacobean document (Braithwait 1605) was published in 1821 as Some Rules and Orders for the Government of the House of an Earle; it has been ascribed, incorrectly it now seems, to Richard Braithwait (1588?-1673).

10 Pevsner 1960, p. 3

either end.¹¹ The divisions between the two end wings were both architectural and hierarchical. At the upper end of the hall, beyond the dais, was the solar or great chamber block, to which the owner and his family could retire.

Approached by a staircase, originally external and later incorporated within the body of the house, the upper floors of this block included the great chamber or solar and various bed-sitting rooms. These were flexible in use; Mark Girouard has written that ‘even great people used the same chamber for sleeping,

playing games, receiving visitors, and occasional meals’.¹² On the other side of the hall was the service wing or low end, which typically contained a buttery, pantry and kitchen, and may also have included rooms for the daily, informal use of the owner and his family.

The 1400s saw a considerable refinement of this basic arrangement. With an increased demand for comfort and privacy, the growth in size of the household and an added emphasis on hospitality (see below, pp. 125-126 and pp. 131-138), the two wings expanded to include a variety of lodgings, typically arranged around one or more courtyards. One of the most notable changes of this period was the erosion in importance of the great hall. By the second half of the

fourteenth century, the noble owner and his family had – following royal

example – begun to eat and entertain in the great chamber and parlour, and the transferral was more or less complete by the reign of Edward IV. The hall, given over to the use of the upper servants, was henceforth used by the owner only on important occasions.¹³

Thus, the great chamber – usually placed at first-floor level – became the focus for increasingly elaborate ritual, especially that associated with dining. By the time of its greatest magnificence, the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the room had become the ‘ceremonial pivot of the house’.¹⁴ As the hall became smaller in size, the great chamber became larger and grander,

11 The following account is based largely on: Wood 1983, especially pp. 55-80 and pp. 177-188;

Girouard 1980, especially pp. 30-64 and pp. 88-118; and Cooper 1999, especially pp. 273-322.

Also of use is Anthony Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of England and Wales: 1300-1500, vol.

1 (Cambridge, 1996), p. 4, and vol. 3 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 31-33

12 Girouard 1980, p. 40

13 At Cowdray in 1595, Viscount Montagu and his family did not even use it then: Montagu 1595, p. 120

14 Girouard 1980, p. 88

signifying an owner’s wealth and power. As the room’s status rose, its function began to change; by c. 1500 it was, according to Mark Girouard, in a ‘state of considerable flux’.¹⁵ By the early to mid-sixteenth century, the room’s role as a sleeping chamber for the owner or honoured guest had generally been

transferred to one or more specialised bedchambers (a term common from the mid-1500s).¹⁶ The diversification of room spaces and functions which resulted in the state apartment had begun.

The change in status of hall and great chamber was reflected elsewhere in the house. It resulted, for instance, in the growth in importance of the great parlour, an informal sitting and eating room on the ground floor.¹⁷ The staircase also grew in significance. From the fifteenth century (and especially from the mid-1500s), with the new emphasis on first-floor rooms, a stately ascent became essential. One of the pioneering staircases of this type was that at Holdenby, begun in 1571.¹⁸ Other notable examples include the staircases at Theobalds (c. 1582), Hardwick (New) Hall (1591-7), Knole (c. 1604-8) and Hatfield (1607-12).¹⁹

As shall be seen in Chapters 4 and 5, the state apartment underwent

considerable refinement, in particular during the reigns of Elizabeth and James.

With the duties of hospitality in mind – and the increasing possibility of a visit by members of the royal family or others of rank – the nobility and upper gentry placed greater emphasis on rooms for the entertainment and accommodation of honoured guests. During this period, state apartments grew ever more complex and elaborate, and became the chief means by which a house owner might demonstrate his power, taste, pedigree and allegiances.

15 Ibid, p. 53

16 The term had existed earlier. See, for instance: Furnivall 1868, p. 316 (‘The Booke of Courtesy’ of c. 1420)

17 The parlour was usually placed beneath the great chamber, though second or even third parlours (‘little’, ‘low’ or ‘winter’ parlours) might be located at the service end of the house, for warmth and to facilitate the oversight of household business.

18 Lord Burghley, visiting Holdenby in 1579, famously remarked to the house’s builder, Sir Christopher Hatton, that he ‘found no one thing of greater grace than your stately ascent from your hall to your great chamber’: quoted in: Hartshorne 1868, pp. 15-16

19 Newman 1985, pp. 175-6. According to Nicholas Cooper, formal stairs did not appear at all commonly in gentry houses until after the mid-sixteenth century, and in most houses older arrangements persisted until the 1590s: Cooper 1999, pp. 310-11

The Noble Household

The similarities between the noble household and its royal equivalent are

striking. Like the monarch, members of the nobility were served by a large body of servants, whose responsibilities were clearly (and hierarchically) defined;

royal household positions were replicated in roles such as steward and master of the horse. These similarities do not necessarily mean that the royal

household set the precedent; as Kate Mertes has pointed out, ‘royal grew out of noble, not vice versa’.²⁰ Nonetheless, whatever their origin, noble households were clearly mimicking the household of the sovereign by the sixteenth

century.²¹

The scale of the noble household was impressive. By the 1450s, the average household of an earl included 200 or more servants, more than double the average size of its late fourteenth-century equivalent.²² By the early Tudor period, the average size had dropped to around 150, which was, of course, still comparatively large.²³ However, although there were exceptions,²⁴ very large households were increasingly uncommon after the accession of James I.²⁵ Around 1605, it was said that ‘noble men in these daies (for the most parte) like better to be served with pages and groomes, then in that estate which

belongeth to their degrees’.²⁶ The King is known to have been concerned about

20 Mertes 1988, p. 9. Mark Girouard has described the royal household as ‘only the grandest of a series of households all organised on the same lines and each equipped with its own

administrative service, its own courts, and its own fighting force’: Girouard 1980, p. 16

21 Henry VIII’s Eltham ordinances describe the King’s household as ‘requisite to be the myrrour and example of all others within this realme’: Ordinances 1790, p. 146

22 Mertes 1988, p. 187. This number may have included retainers, employed on special occasions when an extraordinary show of magnificence was required.

23 In 1512, the household of Henry Percy, 5^th Earl of Northumberland – one of the most elaborate of the day – included nearly 170 staff, including a chamberlain, steward, treasurer, comptroller, six chaplains and two gentlemen ushers: Jones 1918, p. 10 and see pp. 12-14

24 During the reign of Elizabeth, the Earls of Derby maintained a household of around 140 staff, while Henry, 5^th Earl of Worcester, who died in 1646, employed more than 150 staff at Raglan Castle: Derby, p. xiii; Jones 1918, p. 10. Lupold von Wedel, who visited England and Scotland in 1584-5, remarked that, ‘The gentlemen and nobility retain more servants here than I have ever seen elsewhere’: Robson-Scott 1953, pp. 47-8

25 An idea of size is given by the fact that, in the Jacobean period, the principal household of Sir Robert Cecil at Hatfield House totalled about 65 individuals: pers. comm. (Robin Harcourt Williams). The household of Apethorpe Hall was similar in size, comprising about 60 people in the mid-seventeenth century: pers. comm. (Kathryn Morrison)

26 Braithwait 1605, pp. 11-12

such a decline and, in a number of proclamations, sought to restore

‘magnificence’ to the English great house (see pp. 50-51 and p. 137).

Naturally, the larger the household, the more complex and specialised was its structure. The lord and his family, at the top of the scale, were served by a number of principal servants. In general, these were three in number: the steward or seneschal, ‘a kind of general manager’; the treasurer, who

supervised household finances; and the comptroller or controller, who assisted the treasurer and provided independent accounts.²⁷ Each of the chief officers was responsible for a group of servants, ranked hierarchically from gentlemen down to yeomen or valets, grooms and pages.

The gentleman usher – the most significant officer as far as this study is concerned – governed the areas ‘above staires’: the great or dining chamber and associated rooms, galleries, and family and guest lodgings.²⁸ The usher – who seems to have carried a ‘dubble keye’ – was served by a body of staff which included yeomen and groom ushers and waiters, responsible for keeping the rooms clean, well presented, heated and lit.²⁹ The gentleman usher oversaw the service of food in the great chamber and other ‘above stairs’ areas, and had special responsibility for the reception and entertainment of guests, an aspect of his role which will be discussed below.

There was a sense of staff jurisdiction with regard to specific rooms of the house and appropriate levels of access. For instance, regulations of 1603 refer to the ‘dining chamber, great chamber with the gallerie entries and staires’ as

‘belonging’ to the charge of the groom of the chamber.³⁰ A guidance document

27 Mertes 1988, p. 22. Exceptionally, the family might also have been served by a chancellor, chamberlain, auditor and receiver.

28 Banks 1605, p. 321. The gentleman usher had no authority over the hall or service areas, though it is interesting to note that at Cowdray in the late sixteenth century the gentleman usher was responsible for appointing ‘all serrvanttes chambers, and who shall lye in them’: Montagu 1595, p. 125

29 Montagu 1595, p. 126, and see: Braithwait 1605, p. 11

30 Ellesmere 1603, point 1 (groom of the chamber). In 1601, the Berkeley regulations ordered that ‘none of my gentlemen only the gentleman usher excepted’ should have access to the service rooms. The same document described the hall as ‘a fit place for the yomen’ and the dining room as ‘most convenient for the gentlemen to make their most abode in’: Berkeley 1883, p. 421 and p. 418

of c. 1605 is especially interesting in introducing a sense of differentiation between those staff responsible for the great chamber and those who looked after the withdrawing chamber, galleries and associated private areas.³¹ This division in responsibility seems to imitate a contemporary change in the

structure of the royal household: the institution of the Bedchamber (see pp. 99-100).

In noble households, the staff of the inner chambers – headed by the same officer responsible for the apartment’s outer rooms, the gentleman usher – seem to have included the grooms of the bedchamber and yeomen and grooms of the wardrobe (the house’s chief store of furnishings), who were directed by the gentleman usher ‘in what sorte to furnish both strangers lodgings and other chambers’.³² They were to keep clean not only the bedchamber, ‘but also the withdrawing chamber and galleries’, and were to be experienced in repairing textiles.³³

The service of chamber staff was not limited to special occasions or times of ceremonial: it was all day and, in general, all year round. The regulations for the household of the 5^th Earl of Northumberland, dating from c. 1520, include lists of gentlemen ushers and other staff who were to wait daily in the great chamber from 7am until 10pm.³⁴ In 1609, regulations for the Earl of Huntingdon

The service of chamber staff was not limited to special occasions or times of ceremonial: it was all day and, in general, all year round. The regulations for the household of the 5^th Earl of Northumberland, dating from c. 1520, include lists of gentlemen ushers and other staff who were to wait daily in the great chamber from 7am until 10pm.³⁴ In 1609, regulations for the Earl of Huntingdon