http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/...s_gallery.shtml http://www.castlewales.com/croft.html Croft Castle is now a lavish country mansion but it started life as a Norman stronghold on the border of Wales.
The original castle at this site was an earthen ringwork and has been shown by recent excavation to have been similar to Stokesay Castle. A circular ditch surrounded a curving earthen bank which was topped by a palisade of stout timbers. There were timber buildings within the enclosed area and the ramparts may have been strengthened by the addition of wooden watchtowers.
A larger stone castle was built to replace the earth and timber castle around 1400 AD. The new castle was of quadrangular plan and had high but relatively narrow round towers at each corner. It may also have had projecting square turrets at the mid points of each wall but only the turret on the north side now remains. The four round towers still exist to their original height and their battlements have been restored in later years.
The castle was involved in the battle of Mortimer's Cross in 1461 when Sir Richard Croft set forth from it with his soldiers towards the battleground a few miles away. A descendent of Sir Richard fought for King Charles at Stokesay in the 1640's during the English civil war and, following the eventual Royalist defeat, Croft Castle was slighted to render it incapable of further military service.
Restoration took place later in the 17th century when the castle was converted into a mansion but the Croft family sold the castle in 1746 due to financial pressures. The castle was then further remodelled in the Gothic style by Richard Knight, the son of a mine owner from Shropshire.
Large ornamental windows now adorn the walls and the original entrance has been replaced by a grand hallway. The original stonework of the towers and lower parts of the high walls between them can be differentiated from the later work by their distinctive stone blocks. There is no sign of the broad, deep ditch that surrounds similar castles built on flat ground.
The Crofts repurchased their ancestral home in 1923 and Croft Castle is currently maintained for public viewing by The National Trust. It contains rare furniture from the 17th to 19th centuries and has impressive plasterwork and gardens. The earthwork remains of the old ringwork castle can be seen amongst trees in the adjacent meadow.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/.../w-croftcastle/ http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/castle...roft_castle.htm Croft Castle.SMR NO. 6347 GRID REF: 4490 6540
7 km northwest of Leominster along an avenue of oaks and beeches from the main road between Mortimer’s Cross and Orleton stands a mainly 15th and 16th century castle with later additions.
Description of the site today.The avenue from the main road comes to a halt in front of a ‘Gothic’ styled curtain wall most probably built in the 1790’s. Through the arch in the curtain wall a driveway leads to the east of the castle.
The main buildings form a rectangular plan with a central courtyard. Each angle is finished with a cylindrical tower. The walls and towers possibly date from the 16th century, each of the towers contains 16th century windows. The walls on the west and south west are slightly thicker than in the rest of the structure and maybe earlier in date, possibly from the 15th century. The East range was reconstructed in the latter part of the 18th Century.
In August 2002 Herefordshire Archaeology carried out a series of excavations in the grounds surrounding the present castle in an attempt to ascertain whether there are any earlier structures present. Approximately 25m to the west of the building stone walls were uncovered that appear to be medieval in date and could denote the presence of an earlier castle. Excavation also revealed the foundations of an undercroft (cellar), which would have most likely have been under a medieval hall and in an outer ward of the medieval castle site an oven was found.
Between the walls of the medieval castle and the present castle was another building of brick and stone that seems to be Tudor in date and was probably part of the building that was destroyed during the Civil War.
The later castle measured 30m east to west within walls up to 1.2m thick. The south corner was at a right angle, but the east wall extends further to the north than the west wall. At each corner stands a tower 3.3m in diameter containing tiny rooms.
It is likely that the courtyard was originally reached through the gatehouse on the East Side and the medieval hall was on the West Side, with 2 storey ranges on the N and S sides of the court. No medieval features remain and the four ranges are now three storied the corbelling on the tower marks the base of the original parapet. dendrochronology of the timbers within Croft Castle date the earliest timber in the castle to 1662-3, which was the period when Herbert Croft was bishop of Hereford.
The 16th century North range is now the kitchen and library block. The east range was reconstructed c.1750-60 and the current porch and gable date from 1913.
The Interior.To the right of the staircase is the Dining Room, which was once entered through the courtyard, the Georgian decoration of the room was carried out in 1913.
To the left of the staircase is the Oak Room. The panelling and chimney-piece date from the late 17th century and the ceiling with its vine pattern is from the mid 18th century.
The Blue Room has a ceiling dating from the 1750’s. Thomas Johnes brought the Jacobean panelling to Croft from Stanage Park in Radnor. The chimney-piece dates from 1913.
The Drawing room has painted early Georgian panelling and ceiling from the 18th century.
The Library contains copies of Johnson’s Dictionary annotated by Sir Herbert Croft as well as Bishop Croft’s prayer book and manuscripts and early editions of the music of Dr William Croft. (1678-1727)
The Grounds.The Spanish Chestnut avenue in the grounds of the castle is over 350 years old, stretches for over ½ a mile and was planted by Herbert Croft.
The grounds have escaped being ‘formalised’ by 18th century gardeners and have been kept in a natural state. However the fishpool valley with its steep banks and numerous pools was landscaped in the 18th century, but the emphasis was put on its ‘rambling’ state.
History of the Croft family.1086: At the time of the Domesday Survey Croft was held by Bernard under William of Ecouis. The family were called de Croft for 400 years and it is now thought that they were Normans introduced to Herefordshire before the conquest.
1243: The earliest recognised Croft is Hugh de Croft , who helped rescue Prince Edward from Simon de Montfort and deliver him to Wigmore.
Williams’ brother Herbert was dean and bishop of Hereford, and his son was granted baronetcy as recognition of the sacrifices made by the Crofts.
1296-1727: The Crofts were also represented in Parliament, mainly for the Shire of Hereford or the Borough of Leominster.
1462: the Battle of Mortimer’s Cross was held nearby on land belonging to the Croft family. This battle was decisive in putting the Yorkist King Edward IV (a Mortimer) on the throne.
Sir Richard Croft, who fought at the battle, was a Knight for the Shire and Sheriff of the County of Hereford.
1471: Richard Croft captured Prince Edward at the battle of Tewkesbury and was made a Knight Banneret upon the field of Stoke by Henry VI.
Under Henry VII Richard was made Receiver-General of the Earldom of March and Knight Banneret at the Battle of Stoke (1487). He was also Steward to the young Prince Arthur and Treasurer to the King’s Household.
Edward IV and Richard III appointed Thomas Croft as ranger of Woodstock Park; he was deprived of this honour in 1491 because he had committed a ‘ detestable murder’ in the Marches of Wales.
1535: In Leland's Itinerary vlo V he describes the castle as: "…the manor of the Crofts, sett on the browe of a hill, somewhat rokky, dychid and waullyd castle like."
1542: James Croft was MP for Herefordshire.
1551: James was made Lord Deputy of Ireland by Edward VI, he retained this position for 1 year.
1552: He was made Deputy Constable of the Tower of London, most probably at the favour of Lady Jane Grey. Edward removed him from this position in 1553 because he had been foremost in demonstrations in favour of Queen Jane. In 1554 he was a prisoner at the Tower but he escaped with his life and was released on the 1st of January 1555.
Queen Elizabeth appointed James Croft Governor of Berwick. At the siege of Liege he repelled the foe but in a 2nd advance the English were worsted and James was blamed and ousted. Queen Elizabeth kept him as privy counsellor and controller of her household.
1558: Sir James Croft is buried in Westminster Abbey under a plain gravestone.
1643: William Croft sacrificed his life and fortune for the royal cause; he was taken prisoner at the siege of Hereford in 1643 and died 2 years later fighting for the King at Stokesay, in Shropshire.
1644: Croft castle was plundered by Irish levies who had been employed by Royalists, this action was to prevent the castle being taken by the Parliamentarian enemy.
1645: King Charles came to Leominster on the 3rd of September 1645 where he stayed at the Unicorn Inn in Broad Street. William’s ‘Guide to Leominster’, 1808, states that he also visited Croft on this occasion.
1660's: Herbert Croft is Bishop of Hereford, he had earlier been chosen by Charles I to be one of his chaplains.
1746: The Civil War had a negative effect on the finances of the Croft family , and they never fully recovered from the problems it had caused. Eventually they were forced to mortgage it to the Knight family. From them it passed by marriage to the Johnes family.
It was later sold by Thomas Johnes to Somerset Davies of Wigmore who later became a Privy Councillor and Sheriff of Herefordshire.
1797: John Croft died and his title passed to his cousin, the Rev Herbert Croft an 18th century author. He was succeeded by Sir Richard a leading doctor. In November 1817 he attended Princess Charlotte, daughter of George IV, who sadly died after giving birth to a still born son.
1868-74: Sir Richard Croft’s son Herbert George Denman Croft returned to Herefordshire and was elected MP, he lived at Lugwardine Court.
1923: The Trustees of Sir James Croft bought back Croft from the Knevill Davies family. Sir James died on active service with the No1 Commando in 1941. His grave lies in the parkland surrounding the castle.
Sir James bequeathed Croft to his cousin the 1st Lord of Croft, (formerly the Brigadier General Sir Henry Page Croft) who was then the Under Secretary of State for War.
1947: Herbert’s son Michael bought back the remaining 1,329 acres of the estate, but because of the large death duties, he later sold the castle and estate to major Owen Croft, managing to keep it in the family.
1956: Major Owen Croft died and the future of the estate was in trouble. It was saved in partnership by the Minister of Works, the National Trust and the Croft family. The Minister of Works purchased the property and gave a grant for repairs, the National Trust took over the freehold and Lord Croft and other members of the family provided an endowment needed to maintain the property.
The castle is still under the care of the National Trust and members of the Croft family still live within it.
http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/news_e...roft_update.htm Archaeology at Croft Castle, Herefordshire (Keith Ray, Herefordshire County Archaeologist.)
SummaryIn many ways, the Croft Castle estate is a remote and enigmatic property. Occupying a prominent ridge above the valley of the river Lugg in north Herefordshire, it encompasses woodland, parkland and bracken-covered common that provides sweeping views to the Black Mountains, and is home to woodcock and ravens.
It is no less mysterious a place historically, since although the Croft family have been in residence at the castle for the best part of a millennium (with a major hiatus from the 1740s to the 1920s), few records exist for the management of the estate. Reviewing what was known archaeologically, it was decided that some effort needed to be made to explore the undoubted potential. Since 2001 therefore, an innovative, collaborative programme of archaeological survey and investigation has developed here between The National Trust and Herefordshire Archaeology, Herefordshire Council's county archaeological service. Two years into the project, the discoveries made to date have already caused major re-interpretation of the castle’s historic development and archaeological importance.
BackgroundThe first recorded archaeological observation about Croft was that by John Aubrey in his Monumenta Britannica (1674?) where he noted that a large double-ditched camp, 'the Ambry', was to be found within 'Crofts-parke'. The first archaeological fieldwork in recent years was also at Croft Ambrey hillfort. This was the campaign of investigation by Stan Stanford of Birmingham University Extra-Mural Department between 1960 and 1966 (published as the monograph Croft Ambrey in 1974).
The aim in developing an archaeological programme for the Croft Estate was, from the outset in 2000, to conduct a full survey of the estate lands, and to devise a programme of closer investigation of the house environs and of the prehistoric landscape surrounding Croft Ambrey. Two years on, the survey is complete, and the exploration of the close environs of the mansion is at an advanced stage. The prehistoric project, meanwhile, is still at the planning stage.
Croft Estate SurveyIn 2000 the Croft Estate comprised 560 hectares of ground that has recently been expanded with the purchase of further former estate ground near Lucton. Two winter seasons of archaeological survey across the estate in 2001 and 2002 have demonstrated the remarkable preservation of earthwork remains across the five kilometre east-west extent of the estate. The major divisions of the area include now heavily planted land leased to the Forestry Commission, open common and former coppices, the parkland in the environs of the mansion, the surviving wood-pasture in and around Croft Ambrey, and arable fields and pasture on the lower slopes.
The AmbreyThe prehistoric farmsteads and field systems that survive here have now been extensively documented, and understanding of the complexity of Croft Ambrey itself has increased dramatically. For instance, a huge area of north-facing hillside within the defences of the fort appears to have been deliberately scarped by the Iron Age community to create stances and terraces for structures. What had been described as an 'annexe' to the fort was found to be a primary element of the enclosure sequence, with a length of west-facing bank and ditch cut through by the later massive defences. The inner entrance above the south-western outer gateway excavated by Stanford seems to have been made much more elaborate in its later phases, to make this one of the most heavily fortified entrances to a hillfort known anywhere in Britain.
One of the most interesting findings in Stanford's excavations was a complex and long-lived shrine, mainly of Romano-British date, sited on the slope outside the highest inner rampart. The possibility has emerged also that a series of earthworks on the inner scarp of the interior quarry ditch of this same rampart are of Romano-British date. As such they may represent the presence of further shrines, indicating that after abandonment, the site became an important focus for continuing religious activity.
New detail can also be added to what is known of the late medieval or early post-medieval use of the hillfort within Croft Castle's deer-park. While the pillow-mounds at the site were already well known, the recent survey has revealed what appears to be a warrener's house within its own enclosure below the fort, and traces of saw-pits on one of the outer banks.
Bircher CommonMeanwhile, other unusual features have been found elsewhere during the survey, that throw light on activities that have yet to be documented well within the county. An example from Bircher Common is provided by small earthen platforms sited close to streams. These platforms may mark the sites of medieval transhumant farming shelters. Besides these traces, up to a dozen sets of earthworks belonging to small homestead-type complexes of the post-medieval period have also been located on the Common. The traces are the remains of houses and barns within small enclosures, in one case with their lazy-bed cultivation plots surviving fossilised within an outer enclosure. Elsewhere on the Common are the extant earthwork remains of no fewer than four sub-rectangular farmstead enclosures of presumed late prehistoric or Romano-British date, with traces of their contemporary fields.
Parkland at Croft and the Fishpool ValleyIn the parkland surrounding the Croft Castle mansion, a series of landscape park features belonging to the C18th park have been located. A well-preserved length of the southern boundary of the earlier deer-park has been recognised, and, within later ornamental woodland, traces of two successive brickfields used to prduce both brick and tile for major construction phases of the mansion. In Fishpool Valley a whole network of carriage rides created along with the landscape park has also been recorded. As the valley became over-planted, the rides were abandoned. A clear sequence is evident from the way in which the course of these rides is cut by quarries and charcoal-burning platforms. The number of these latter recorded in the survey indicates very clearly the scale of charcoal preparation required locally to feed the forge at nearby Bringewood near Ludlow from the 1650s onwards.
The survey therefore provides a datum for future study, but more particular concerns in reference to management are the establishment of evidence for former planting patterns, and the possible restoration of areas of former wood pasture.
The Croft Castle Environs ProjectThe more detailed investigations planned in 2000 included work in the immediate environs of the castle. This was to feature exploration of the historic formal gardens, location of the site of medieval castle that may have preceded the existing mansion, and identification of structures that were featured in early estate plans but are no longer present.
Thanks in no small measure to support from The National Trust's Regional Historic Buildings Adviser, Jeffrey Haworth, Herefordshire Archaeology had a successful field season in September 2001 celebrating the Trust's 'Gardens Year' by exploring the 'lost' formal gardens. The site of these gardens can be traced to the south and west of the mansion as earthwork features resulting from the demolition works that swept them away in the mid 1700s.
The mansion itself has long been supposed to have had medieval origins, with an Elizabethan/Jacobean house built within the shell of a stone-built curtain-walled castle. Recent study by Herefordshire Archaeology staff, and independently by the historic buildings consultant Richard Morriss for The National Trust, has found no evidence to support this view. Rather, it was in 2001 thought more likely that the mansion was built anew sometime in the period 1590-1630, with decorative corner turrets and castellations. As such it was thought to belong to a wider tradition of the building of 'Spenserian' corner-turreted pseudo-Gothic stately houses by late Elizabethan and early Jacobean grandees. Early examples of this fashion include Stiffkey Hall, Norfolk (1576-90), Thorpe Salvin, Yorkshire, 1582, and Longford Castle, Wiltshire (1591). Later ones include Lulworth Castle, Dorset (1608), and Ruperra, Glamorgan (1626).
Garden archaeology, 2001: A first season of investigations
In September 2001, then, three weeks of investigation and fifteen small trenches revealed the mode of construction (and later demolition) of the formal gardens that once provided the immediate setting of the mansion. The sequence was elucidated in large part thanks to advice during a site inspection visit of the excavations from a group of specialists. These included Paul Stamper of English Heritage, David Whitehead of the Hereford and Worcester Gardens Trust, Brian Dix of Northamptonshire Archaeology (the excavator of Kirby Hall and of The Privy Garden at Hampton Court Palace), David Jacques of De montfort University, Leicester,and the Trust's own Historic Gardens Adviser, Katie Fretwell.
1590-1630
The earliest phase was found to comprise terrace-gardens to the south, and south-west of the house. The stone revetment wall of the south garden was revealed in a trench cut perpendicular to the earthwork scarp that marks its former course. The line of the now truncated revetment is evident from parching of the grass locally, and this was confirmed also by geophysical survey.
These early gardens were thought therefore most likely also to belong to the period 1590-1630. A metalled path had been carefully constructed along the terrace edge next to the revetment wall on the south side of the house. In the final week of the 2001 season, a series of foundation-deposits utilising the debris of demolished structures were revealed below the later formal gardens. These deposits included late sixteenth-century brick, mortar, ashlar blocks, and clay and also stone roof-tiles. Some late sixteenth-century finewares were present, as well as metalwork from window casements.
1660-1680
An elongated sloping garden with a level lower terrace-edge replaced the south terrace garden, probably in the period 1660-1680. This garden was walled, most likely with brick, on stone footings to east and west, and a terrace revetment wall to the south. Within this garden, at least one circular planting-bed was located, cut into the limestone bedrock that outcrops close to the surface here. A semi-circular stair was built onto the centre-point of the south terrace of this sloping garden, possibly as a prelude to further landscaping that involved introduction of soil upslope, and the creation of another, shorter, sloping garden to the south.
The stone foundation of the semi-circular stair was found in the excavations, and finely-dressed pieces of the local limestone that once formed the curving steps themselves were found in the rockery within the nineteenth-century walled garden to the north-west of the castle. Beyond the upper sloping garden to the west were found wide grooves cut into the bedrock, perhaps to provide soil depth for the bedding in of soft fruit trees such as apricots. Most of these features had been evident from aerial photographs taken during drought conditions in the summer of 1995.
1700-1710
The lower sloping garden also terminated in a level terrace, but this has retained its original form, having been constructed entirely as an earthwork without revetment walling. A divided grassed ramp leading down to the dam between two formal pools and into the southern formal broadwalk is thought most likely to date between 1700 and 1710. It therefore seems most likely that this southern sloping garden, and a parallel east garden continuously sloping southwards from Croft Church, together with an attached curving prospect walk, were added during a major expansion of the garden in these years.
Medieval tracesBeneath all these features were found traces of medieval activity. This included fish-ponds in a side-valley that had previously been thought to have contained a formal cascade to the west of the garden. There were also finds of fragments of medieval domestic wares, and pits containing stone demolition deposits (but no brick and mortar or other post-medieval material) sealed at depth beneath the later garden features.
‘Lost buildings of Croft’, 2002: a second season of investigationsThe fieldwork in 2001 was designed as the first of three investigative seasons intended to improve our understanding of the development of the castle and its near environs. The presence of numbers of pieces of decorative and structural medieval stonework in dumps to the north of the house supports the thesis that the medieval house at Croft Castle (replaced by the turreted mansion) approximated to a small and simple, curtain-walled manorial complex. This would have been similar to nearby Stokesay Castle in Shropshire.
Work in August and September 2002 to the west of the castle was designed in part to try to locate buried traces of this structure. However, there are other 'lost' buildings at Croft, including the neo-Classical pedimented structure shown on Ross' c.1790 aquatint (see figure) located to the north-east of the mansion. The foundations of this building appear to be faintly discernible during parched conditions. A rectangular structure is shown here on an estate map of 1798, but it had been swept away by the time that the neo-Gothic curtain wall had been built, and the new curving approach drive had been constructed, by 1825.
A detached dining hall and possible orangeryThis was the first area to be opened up in 2002. The excavation revealed that a substantial building supported by squared timber posts and with brick drains set into a cobbled floor had been built here in the earlier C18th. This was then superceded later in the same century by the building shown on the Ross aquatint. This has a larger and at least one smaller room with raised timber floors. It is supposed that the building was therefore some kind of detached dining hall. Running eastwards for at least 40 metres from its eastern gable there had once stood an orangery or plant house with a brick-built heated north cavity wall. This building had already been demolished by 1798, according to the evidence of the estate plan of that date.
Garden walls and statue plinthsWest of the castle, further traces of the gardens of 1700-10 were found, in the form of the stone-built basal courses of garden walls, a foundation for the plinth for a statue, and an artificial earthen terrace. Some localised subsidence had been made good by the dumping of deposits of late seventeenth century brick and window glass. The deposit was dated by the inclusion of a near-complete stamped clay pipe made locally at Pipe Aston between the years 1690 and 1710. The window glass included hundreds of fragments of small window panes made from opaque glass. However, it also included numerous large pieces from medieval stained glass windows, presumably re-used in the later casements.
Below this dump deposit was found a sterile yellow clay deposit. When this had been removed, a marked depression was noted running obliquely across the excavated area. This was found to follow the line of a robbed-out wall foundation. In the back-fill of this robber trench there were numerous pieces of carefully dressed stone from a large medieval arch, along with other moulded pieces of medieval stonework. This was an important find, since it appeared to bear out the theory that we had developed, that the medieval Croft Castle perhaps once stood to the west or north-west of the present castle, at a greater distance than at present, from the parish church of St. Michael. Meanwhile, across the whole of the excavated area dumps of late sixteenth century brick and tile were found. A deposit of mortar below these dumps nearby was thought initially to represent a medieval floor level.
Dendrochonology lends a hand…It was at this point that the results of dendrochronology of timbers from the present mansion were received from Ian Tyers of Sheffield University. This latter work has been conducted in concert with historic buildings recording by Richard Morriss. The mansion is built around a central courtyard, and once featured a northwards-projecting service wing. The tree-ring chronology produced a clear indication that not only the roofs of all four ranges of the mansion, but also the basement level of the north range, and the service range (of which part of one bay survives) were built in 1662-3.
Towards the end of the 2002 season, the excavation revealed the 1.5m high foundations of a substantial north-south wall. This mirrored the robbed foundation trench in profile, and the large stone course-work continued to a lower level in its west elevation than to the east. From this, it was deduced that the structure had once comprised the eastern wall of the undercroft of a medieval hall. This wall had been deliberately truncated southwards, and abutting the western side of its new terminus a fine east-west wall had been built, the meticulous course-work of which still stood to over a metre high. Immediately southwards from this wall, all trace of medieval deposits had been removed. Material demolished from this wall included the upper and lower mouldings of a high quality two- or three-light mullioned stone window.
An Elizabethan mansion converted from a medieval castleIt appears that this later wall therefore represents a conversion of the medieval castle into a fine if small-scale late Elizabethan mansion, presumably in Sir James Croft's time. Sir James had been Comptroller of the Queen's Household, and died in 1590. This is therefore the building (a medieval fortified manor/small castle, converted into a modest Elizabethan mansion) that we can now assume was badly damaged in the Civil War, after Sir William Croft became the only Head of a leading Herefordshire family to have been killed in battle. Traces of burned timbers, however, represent the demolition of this compromised structure, and the mortar floor was revealed to be a mortar-mixing surface when the ruins of the damaged house were used as a workshop area for the building of the new mansion in 1662-3.
Some conclusionsThe fieldwork reported here has transformed our understanding of the sequence and significance of buildings past and present at Croft Castle. It has moreover set them in the wider context of the development of the formal gardens and landscape park in the period c.1570 - 1800.
By the end of the 2002 season, both an inner and an outer ward of the medieval castle had been located with a moderate degree of confidence. Traces of narrow ditches and pits lines beneath the later demolition deposits and workshop area appear to indicate the presence of timber structures that represent an early (and possibly timber) phase of the castle. The mortuary Inventory for Sir James Croft in 1590 survives in a fragmentary state in the British Library. Research by Valerie Goodbury indicates that the rooms listed include both a hall and a chapel. A glazed heraldic floor tile fragment from the excavation matches those now partially flooring the parish church, and this, as well as the stained glass, may have derived from this chapel.
The excavation clearly indicates that we can trust the dendrochronology to specify the date of construction of the present mansion. This therefore means that the earliest terraced garden of the Elizabethan period belongs to the demolished mansion. Moreover, the Restoration period formal garden clearly used in its basal layers brick and tile (and other) demolition material from the same mansion, while being planned outwards from the present mansion.
Perhaps the most remarkable conclusion from the 2002 season's investigations concerns the present mansion. Herbert Croft, the second son of the Sir William killed in the Civil War, was a renowned cleric. He famously shamed Parliamentary soldiery intent on defiling Hereford Cathedral when Dean there, and was praised for his sober manner, by John Aubrey in his Brief Lives. It is no doubt of some significance that Herbert was appointed Bishop of Hereford in 1661. It was said that he used Croft as his country home when in the county, but not in residence at Hereford. As such, not only is Croft Castle a late addition to the corpus of Spenserian mansions, but it is also an unusual example of a mid-seventeenth century bishop's palace.
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/JamesCroft1.htm Sir James CROFT of Croft Castle, Knight(Lord Deputy of Ireland)
Born: ABT 1518, Croft Castle, Herefordshire, England
Died: 4 Sep 1590
Buried: Westminster Abbey, Westminster, Middlesex, England
Father: Richard CROFT (Sir)
Mother: Catherine HERBERT
Married 1: Alice WARNECOMBE (d. 1573) (dau. of Richard Warnecombe and Anne Bromwich) (w. of William Wigmore) ABT 1540
Children:
1. Eleanor CROFT (m. John Sccudamore)
2. Edward CROFT of Croft Castle (See his Biography)
3. James CROFT of Weston (Sir Knight) (See his Biography)
4. Herbert CROFT
5. Dau. CROFT
6. Dau. CROFT
7. Dau. CROFT
Married 2: Catherine BLOUNT
________________________________________
The details in this biography come from the History of Parliament, a biographical dictionary of Members of the House of Commons.
Born 1518, second but first surviving son of Richard Croft of Croft Castle by Catherine, dau. of Sir Richard Herbert of Montgomery Castle, Mont.; ?bro. of Thomas. Married first, ABT 1540, Alice, dau. of Richard Warnecombe of Ivington in Leominster, Lugwardine and Hereford, wid. of William Wigmore of Shobdon; and secondly Catherine, dau. of Edward Blount. Kntd. 1547; Suc. family 1562. Water bailiff, Boulogne 1544-5, under-marshal 21 Mar 1546-Mar 1547; capt. Haddington by Jun-Sep 1549; member, council in the marches of Wales 1550, vice-president 1550-1; ld. dep. [I] 29 Apr 1551-Apr 1553; gent. privy chamber Nov 1551; dep. constable of the Tower ?1 May-8 Jul 1553; j.p.q. Herefs. from 1559 and of most marcher and Welsh counties from 1573; gov. Berwick-upon-Tweed 14 Apr 1559-21 Aug 1560; commr. musters, Herefs. 1569; comptroller of the Household 1570; PC 24 May 1570; constable, Aberystwyth castle, Card., Montgomery castle, Mont. 1570; steward, Kedewen, Kerry and Montgomery, Mont. 1570, Hereford by 1570, Leominster by 1571; keeper, Wigmore park, Herefs. 1570; custos rot. Herefs. c. 1573; commr. to treat with the Spanish at Bourbourg Jan 1588.
In the aftermath of Wyatt's rebellion, when Croft and Princess Elizabeth were fellow prisoners, Croft refused to implicate her, though he was ‘marvellously tossed and examined’. Elizabeth never forgot, and throughout her reign Croft could rely on her friendship, which was as well, for long before his death he had lost the support of almost every other influential person in the realm. Sir Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, thought Croft was his own worst enemy.
Despite grants of land in Herefordshire and Kent, of fines from concealed lands, the considerable perquisites of his comptroller's office and sinecures such as the garbling of spices, Croft still died ‘pauperrimus miles’.
Early in Elizabeth's reign he was restored in blood, and sent to the northern border. At Berwick, he at first gained the good opinion of his colleagues, Sadler describing him to Cecil as ‘wise and diligent’. He agreed with the active policy then in favour towards the Scottish protestants and joined Sadler in an appeal for money to win their support, ‘for of bare words only can they receive no comfort’. Early in 1560 he went north from Berwick, much against his will, quarrelled with his fellow officers, entered into correspondence with the Regent and withdrew his army division at a critical moment during the attack on Leith. The Duke of Norfolk, on investigating the matter, wrote to Cecil: ‘I assure you I thought a man could not have gone nearer a traitor and have missed, than Sir James’. There was talk of an indictment, but Maitland and other Scottish lords wrote to Cecil on Croft's behalf, and Thomas Randolph added an appeal for clemency: ‘I am sorry at my heart for Sir James Croft's deserts; whatsoever enchanted him, I never found man franker than he was to the purpose’. Croft was dismissed from his governorship of Berwick and it was almost ten years before he received another office outside Herefordshire and Wales.
From 1563 to his death nearly 30 years later Croft represented the county in every Parliament. There were at least two other Herefordshire families outstanding enough to provide county Members and deputy lieutenants, and one of these, the Scudamores, became closely related to Croft when John Scudamore married his daughter Eleanor. The other family, the Conningsbys, led for much of the reign by Thomas Conningsby of Hampton Court, Herefordshire, disliked a Croft monopoly of the county seats, but from 1563 to 1589 they were unsuccessful in challenging it. In 1563 Croft's co-Member was James Warnecombe, his brother-in-law, who almost certainly owed his seat to Croft's influence, and thenceforth until Sir James's death the junior Member was John Scudamore. Croft's influence did not, however, extend to both the Herefordshire parliamentary boroughs. At Hereford, he became steward, in 1584 helping the town authorities when their liberties were threatened by quo warranto proceedings. But the borough maintained its parliamentary independence fairly consistently in Elizabethan Parliaments, always returning at least one, and usually two townsmen. An unknown correspondent who wrote to Croft before one election, asking to be placed ‘a burgess in your country, where it shall seem to you best’, was wrong in assuming that Croft was able to control the boroughs. Even at Leominster, only five miles from his main seat, he was not the unchallenged patron: the Conningsbys and their relatives the Hakluyts had considerable influence, and took both seats in 1559. Still, from 1563 to 1586 Croft was able to exercise at least one nomination, and sometimes two, and he was successful in getting his relatives and supporters on to the Herefordshire commission of the peace.
In 1563 he served on committees concerning curriers (27 Jan) and the statute of artificers (3 Mar); and in 1566 he was appointed to committees concerning felonies in Wales (22 Nov) and the wearing of caps on the Sabbath day (22 Nov). By 1571 he had been appointed comptroller of the Household and a member of the Privy Council, and as such would have been able to attend the important committees to which the Privy Councillors were appointed for the remainder of his parliamentary career. His name appears in the parliamentary journals as officiating at the installation of the Speaker and in the tendering of oaths to the House of Commons on 2 Apr 1571, as he was to do for at least two of the sessions of the following Parliament. His position as comptroller of the Household led him to assure Members of future reform in the abuses of purveyors on 7 Apr, although his own record on this matter was open to question. He took part in some of the major debates of the Parliament, speaking twice on the treasons bill (12 Apr, 14 Apr), and against Strickland's bill for the reform of the prayer book on 14 Apr, when he warned Members against offending the Queen:
'Since we have acknowledged her to be Supreme Head, we are not in these petty matters to run before the rule, which to do and wherein to offend were folly'
He took a special interest in the bill for Bristol, speaking on 11, 12, 20 Apr, serving on the committee (12 Apr) and finally reporting the bill (3 May). His committee work in 1571 was not great: he was appointed to a conference with the Lords to discuss the bill of the 12 shires of Wales (25 May), and served on committees concerning the navy (25 May) and the river Lea (26 May).
In the first session of the 1572 Parliament, Croft was active in the debates on Mary Queen of Scots. He served on three conferences with the Lords (12 May, 28 May and 9 Jun), spoke once on the matter (23 May) and was chosen to report the Queen's answer to a petition from the House (23 May), refusing to agree to an act of attainder against Mary. Croft was ‘sorry it was his chance to be the bringer of so uncomfortable a message. He would be glad if he could take away the cause of the despair’. He supported a suggestion made that same day that the House should submit its case in writing. He had a more personal interest in a bill to bring water from the Severn to Worcester: on 5 Jun 1572 he refused to submit to a valuation of his own land in the Worcester area. He ‘hath some not worth 20 years’ purchase, which he would not give for 60'. On 6 Jun he opposed the third reading of a bill ‘restraining the bringing in of any wares of any country in which our wares are forbidden’. His other committee activity in this session included the poor law (29 May), and speaking on the subject the next day he was in favour of excluding minstrels from the definition of vagabonds. He was appointed to the committee for the Earl of Kent's bill (4 Jun), and spoke on Oxfordshire highways and bridges (7 Jun).
In 1576 the journals record no speeches, but on 10 Mar a foreign correspondent reported him as opposing in the Commons the proposal to petition the Queen to accept the sovereignty of the Netherlands. Croft is quoted as saying that those who advocated this measure were ill-intentioned (mal affectionnés) towards her. He was appointed to at least 18 committees this session, on such topics as promoters (18 Feb), bastardy (15 Feb), cloth (16 Feb), sheriffs (18 Feb), broggers and drovers (28 Feb), haberdashers (28 Feb), unlawful weapons (2 Mar), the inning of salt marshes (5 Mar), Rochester bridge (5 Mar), letters patent (7 Mar), fraudulent conveyances (7 Mar), export licences (12 Mar) and excess in apparel (13 Mar). In 1581 he spoke thrice. On 21 Jan he moved that Members should wait, making a low curtsey, until the Speaker had retired, and ‘not so unseemly and rudely to thrust and throng out as of late time hath been disorderly used’. On 24 Jan when he spoke against Wentworth's motion for a public fast, he ‘urged and enforced the fault of the House with much ... violence’. On 8 Feb he reported the conference held with the Lords on the subject of encumbrances. He was appointed to at least eight committees in 1581, concerning the clerk of the market (27 Jan), slanderous words and practices (3 Feb), sheriffs (4 Feb), assize of fuel (21 Feb), wax (24 Feb), the government of London (4 Mar), navigation (17 Mar) and Arthur Hall (18 Mar).
On 3 Dec 1584 Croft again complained about bad manners. This time it was ‘the great disorder of serving men and boys in hurting and misusing of other persons’. His committees included: privilege (8 Dec), the Sabbath day (10 Dec), grants by corporations (11 Dec), procedure (15 Feb 1585), Jesuits (18 Feb) and Morpeth (15 Mar).
Croft was appointed to the Norfolk election committee on 9 Nov 1586, and at some time in this Parliament he made an unpopular (and unreported) speech on Mary Queen of Scots. On 21 Nov he claimed to have been misinterpreted. Though the House had understood that he was against their petition to the Queen to have Mary executed, he now affirmed his ‘earnest and devout prayer to God to incline her Majesty's heart’ to the petition. He was in charge of the bill for Thomas Hanford's debts (15, 20 Mar 1587). The matter reappeared in the next Parliament, Croft reporting the progress of the examination on 22 Feb 1589. His committees in 1589 concerned privileges (7 Feb), salted fish (11 Mar), aliens (12 Mar), excess in apparel (21 Mar), and casks (24 Mar). He spoke on the treasons bill, 29 Mar. As first knight of the shire he could have served on the subsidy committees, 24 Feb 1585, 22 Feb 1587 and 11 Feb 1589.
In the meantime, between his last few speeches in the Commons, Croft had finally disgraced himself. Though ostensibly restored to favour after his lapse in Scotland, Burghley had lost confidence in him, and the Leicester-Walsingham faction on the Privy Council knew him to be their most consistent opponent over active support for the Netherlands protestants. Croft quite openly supported a pro-Spanish policy, and was known to be in receipt of a pension from Felipe II of Spain, whom he admitted being ready to serve in everything ‘he honestly could’. Two Spanish Ambassadors sang his praises to their sovereign. Guzman de Silva said in 1566 that Croft was the only good soldier left in England, and Mendoza that Croft's friendship was worth a present of 2,000 crowns in jewels. Other ministers (including, later, Robert Cecil) took money regularly from Spain, but one way and another, Croft was in an exposed position even before his handling of peace negotiations with Parma led to his complete isolation.
As early as 1586 Croft was concerning himself ‘about the Prince of Parma’, and in Jan 1588 he was made a commissioner to treat with the Spaniards at Bourbourg. The appointment probably reflects Elizabeth's appreciation of Croft's services in maintaining her system of checks and balances within the Privy Council rather than any inherent respect for his abilities. Charles Howard, the lord high admiral, thought him ‘a long grey beard with a white head witless’, and Parma himself described him as ‘a weak old man of 70 with very little sagacity’. However, for whatever reason, he was joined to Henry Stanley, 4th Earl of Derby, William Brooke, 5th Lord Cobham and two lawyers on the peace mission. From the outset he acted independently, travelling separately from the other commissioners and finally, weary of procedural delays, he saw Parma alone, save for an interpreter. Perhaps mistaking politeness for agreement, he despatched a messenger to Elizabeth assuring her that Parma had agreed to an armistice. The Queen was sceptical, and Croft's fellow commissioners angry. When Parma's official answer reached them a few days later, it was noncommittal on points Croft had declared settled, and he barely escaped recall. After the return of the commission he attended Privy Council meetings in mid-Aug, but at the end of that month he sustained a short spell in the Fleet ‘on her Majesty's commandment’. Early in Oct 1588 he was elected knight of the shire for Herefordshire for the last time, and by Jan 1589 he was back in the Commons and at the Council table, where he had always been regular in attendance.
His career on the council in the marches of Wales was in character. He was at odds with Sir Henry Sidney's administration over public matters, and this antagonism was exacerbated when Robert Sidney competed successfully with Croft's grandson, Herbert Croft, for a match with the heiress Barbara Gamage. With Sidney's successor the 2nd Earl of Pembroke, Croft's relations were worse, Pembroke taking exception to Croft's well meant suggestions for a reduction in the authority of the president of the council in the marches.
Croft attended the Privy Council up to 28 Jun 1590. He died 4 Sep and was buried in Westminster abbey, ‘his Prince's favourite and in fair esteem with all that knew him’.
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/EdwardCroft.htm Edward CROFT of Croft CastleDied: 29 Jul 1601, Stranehage, South Holland
Father: James CROFT of Croft Castle (Sir Knight) (See his Biography)
Mother: Alice WARNECOMBE
Married 1: Anne BROWNE
Children:
1. Herbert CROFT of Croft Castle (Sir Knight) (See his Biography)
2. James CROFT
3. Richard CROFT
4. William CROFT
5. Son CROFT
6. Mary CROFT
7. Alice CROFT
8. Margaret CROFT (m. Robert Acton)
9. Amy CROFT (m. Fulke Conway)
10. Joyce CROFT
Married 2: Mareen ?
________________________________________
The details in this biography come from the History of Parliament, a biographical dictionary of Members of the House of Commons.
First son of Sir James Croft of Croft Castle by his first wife, Alice, dau. and h. of Richard Warnecombe of Ivington in Leominster, Lugwardine and Hereford, wid. of William Wigmore of Shobdon; half-brother of Thomas Wigmore; brother of James. Educ. M. Temple 1561. Married first Anne (d. 1575), dau. and h. of Thomas Browne of Attleborough, Norf.; and second Mareen. J.p. Herefs. from c.1573; dep. steward, Leominster 1577.
Croft thrice sat for his local borough of Leominster, where his father was steward. His fellow-Member in 1584 and 1586 was his half-brother Thomas Wigmore. When his father was arrested in Aug 1588 for questionable conduct in negotiations with the Duke of Parma in the Netherlands, Croft, who blamed the Earl of Leicester, applied to a London conjuror, John Smith, to compass Leicester's death, which took place 4 Sep. Croft was charged with contriving his death but nothing is known of any trial.
Croft never succeeded to the family estates in Herefordshire, which were granted in 1583 to Sir William Herbert and Thomas Wigmore as feoffees who in turn granted them to Croft's eldest son Herbert in 1594. This arrangement was probably due to Croft's unstable character. After his father's death he was imprisoned for debt. On 18 Jan 1591 the Privy Council ordered that he should not be released until he had answered the charges of a creditor, one Sallamon Prough. On his release he fled to the Netherlands where he spent the remainder of his life. When writing to Lord Burghley seeking employment in 1596, he claimed that he had been banished by his father's debts. He settled at Stranehage in South Holland where he made his will before a Dutch public notary 22 Jun 1600, leaving his seal to his son, Herbert, a sword to another son and rings to two of his daughters. An annuity of £40 and the residue of his property went to his second wife ‘married to me by a lawful minister in church’. His religious beliefs have not been ascertained. He was named in a list of Catholic sympathizers drawn up in 1574, but his will was protestant in tone. He died 29 Jul 1601, and administration of his estate was granted to his wife 16 Nov 1607.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croft_Baronets From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Croft Baronetcy, of Croft Castle in the County of Hereford, is a title in the Baronetage of England. It was created in 1671 for Herbert Croft, who later represented Herefordshire in Parliament. He was a member of a prominent Herefordshire family of Norman descent. The former seat of the family was Croft Castle in Herefordshire.
Another member of the Croft family was Henry Page Croft, 1st Baron Croft. He was the grandson of Reverend Richard Croft, third son of the sixth Baronet. Before being raised to the peerage in 1940, he had been created a Baronet, of Bournemouth in the County of Southampton.
Croft Baronets, of Croft Castle (1671)
• Sir Herbert Croft, 1st Baronet (c. 1652-1720)
• Sir Archer Croft, 2nd Baronet (1684-1753)
• Sir Archer Croft, 3rd Baronet (1731-1792)
• Sir John Croft, 4th Baronet (c. 1735-1797)
• Sir Herbert Croft, 5th Baronet 1751-1816)
• Sir Richard Croft, 6th Baronet (1762-1818)
• Sir Thomas Elmsley Croft, 7th Baronet (1798-1835)
• Sir Archer Denman Croft, 8th Baronet (1801-1865)
• Sir Herbert George Denman Croft, 9th Baronet (1838-1902)
• Sir Herbert Archer Croft, 10th Baronet (1868-1915)
• Sir James Herbert Croft, 11th Baronet (1907-1941)
• Sir Hugh Matthew Fiennes Croft, 12th Baronet (1874-1954)
• Sir Bernard Hugh Denman Croft, 13th Baronet (1903-1984)
• Sir Owen Glendower Croft, 14th Baronet (b. 1932)