“Simple, Beautiful and Dignified”

Manchester's Cenotaph (photo by Andy Marshall)

Earlier this year, I was commissioned to research the Cenotaph in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. This memorial and others around the country serve to commemorate those from all over the British Empire and then the Commonwealth and the Allies, who lost their lives in both World Wars and subsequent conflicts. The design of the Cenotaph in Manchester is a virtual copy on one that stands in the middle of Whitehall in London. It was designed by one of Britain’s most celebrated architects, Sir Edwin Lutyens. While my research brief was to investigate the structural aspects of Manchester’s cenotaph I had to go back and look at the original London version to acquire the full picture. While I may have been asked to investigate the physical structure, through the research it was impossible to ignore the human story of how these memorials came about.

Sir Edwin Lutyens

Sir Alfred Mond

In the summer of 1919 the Prime Minister, Lloyd George, gave Lutyens two weeks to design a temporary memorial, to serve as a “saluting base” for the Peace Day Parade in London on 19 July. Lutyens was already working with the Imperial War Graves Commission designing Allied war cemeteries in France. However, the impetus for Lloyd George to commission Lutyens was his own visit to France in 1919, where the Arc de Triomphe and the temporarily constructed catafalque had “envisaged our need for a point of homage to stand as a symbol of remembrance worthy of the reverent salute of an Empire mourning its million dead.”

Lutyens Original Rough Design of The Cenotaph (Image: Imperial War Museum)

Lutyen’s simple and unfussy design (an empty coffin on a high column surmounted by a laurel wreath) was constructed of timber and plaster, being only temporary. But the public grasped the appropriateness of the monument and on that day the base of the monument was covered in flowers brought by the mourning general public. For weeks after, there were queues of people waiting to place wreaths there. It became obvious that a permanent memorial had to be constructed.

Mourners in July 1919

The ensuing months saw Lutyens and his “ally” in Government Sir Alfred Mond (later 1^st Lord Melchett) the First Commissioner of Works, struggle to reign in the demands of the Cabinet to create a grander and more elaborate war memorial. In a memo to the Cabinet in July 1920 Sir Alfred wrote: “Sir Edwin Lutyens’ authority on a point like this can surely not be in question. His is the genius which has created this monument which has been universally acclaimed. It is quite simple beautiful and dignified and his whole reputation is naturally involved in the final result …”

On 11^th November 1920, in Whitehall, King George V unveiled the permanent Portland stone memorial replacing the one made of timber and plaster. Lutyens had caught the right tone with his understated, yet proud design. The permanent Cenotaph in Whitehall weighed 120 tons and stood 35 ft high. It was constructed by Messrs Holland, Hannen and Cubitts Limited and cost £10,000 to construct.

Lutyens called the memorial a “Cenotaph”, from the Greek that broadly translates as an “empty tomb”, there to honour those buried elsewhere. In addition to the laurel wreath on the top of the Cenotaph, there are two more on each end and on each side three flagstaffs. The sculptor Derwent Wood designed the wreaths. The inscription “The Glorious Dead” was chosen by Lutyens; rejecting other more effusive and even mawkish suggestions. The design was so popular that 55 similar structures were erected in Britain, including the one in St Peter’s Square in Manchester. This latter one has the figure of a soldier lying on top of the memorial.

Lutyens didn’t take a penny in payment for what was arguably one of his most important works. Benefited by his insight, we have a focal point of few words and embellishments that at the same time says and demonstrates everything we would want to express to “The Glorious Dead”.

If Walls Could ...Meow!

Mummified Cats Found in the Stagg Inn, Hastings

Yesterday I met someone who, as we discussed various aspects of historic buildings,recalled how their parents had found the mummified body of a cat in the wall of their 18th century home. It reminded me that I had written an article about this phenomenon for Country Life Online earlier this year and thought it ought to be given a fresh airing here on "Building Storeys". 

As recently as the early 20th century homeowners were warding off witches and evil spirits by placing shoes, and even dead cats in the walls, which can surprise owners carrying out renovations

As a buildings historian, I work with conservation architects and specialist builders who are repairing the UK's historic houses from manor houses to cottages, from the medieval period to Victorian. I see all the different building techniques and materials used over the centuries, whether cob, wattle and daub, stone, or brick. There are so many different types of building but they all have something in common; they were the homes of ordinary people who were subject to the same trials of life as each other. 

In the days before science and technology, and burglar alarms brought a degree of security and certainty, our ancestors had to rely on more natural methods. In the medieval centuries, right up to the early part of the 20th century making their homes safe for their families meant not just keeping robbers and murderers out but also the powers of witches and other supernatural forces. This was done by drawing protective symbols on rafters, beams and window sills or even placing objects within the walls of their home, particularly shoes or animals.

When working with old buildings, it is not uncommon to come across a mummified cat or a child's shoes in the walls, over door lintels, under roof rafters, between the chimney stack and the wall and under the floor boards. These were the lengths people went to to influence the intangible; warding off evil spirits, witches' curses and disease, or more positively, encouraging fertility.

Because cats were so readily associated with witches, it would be perfectly normal to take a cat (usually already dead) and place it in a location that was vulnerable to witches entering the house. It was widely considered that witches could fly, so a witch could get in not just through the door or window but down the chimney too. Cats were also known to sense ghosts and other supernatural beings more readily than humans, which is why it was believed, their presence in the walls of the house helped ward off such malevolent forces.

Shoes under floorboard (Copyright Ibis Roofing Ltd)

The Museum at Northampton, historically the centre of shoe manufacturing in England, has an Index of Concealed Shoes, which registers all footwear discovered within historic houses, not just in the UK but across the world. There are about 1500 items logged and half of them are children's shoes and then women's shoes are more common that men's. The shoes also tend to be well-worn. If not now, shoes once used to retain the foot shape of the wearer and maybe, therefore their spirit.

It is also thought that the very shape of a shoe serves as a "spirit trap". This comes from the 14th century when John Schorn, the Rector of North Marston in Buckinghamshire, is reputed to have cast the devil into a boot, thus trapping him. Shoes could also be a symbol of fertility. Shoes found under the floorboards of bedrooms could indicate this.

(copyright Ibis Roofing Ltd)

The discovery of mummified cats (or "Dried Cats" as they are officially known), is less common than shoes. In addition to protecting against witchcraft, it is possible they are also placed within the walls of houses to scare away vermin in those concealed areas. Trying to keep a perspective on all this, it is also possible that cats found beneath floor boards had, in reality, gone there to die and had never been discovered by their owners.

When carrying out repairs in old buildings, be careful to look around windows, doors, under roof rafters and behind old chimneys. The Northampton Index receives about one find a month, but curators there, think that hundreds of finds every year are simply thrown out. 

Buckingham Palace - Finding Its Own Style and Place in History

Buckingham Palace Celebrating

The Diamond Jubilee and particularly the concert performed in front of Buckingham Palace last night, has brought to mind the story behind this famous building. While it has a very recognisable façade, in comparison to other royal palaces it lacks the opulence and uniqueness such royal buildings usually display; it resembles a simple, staid town hall (albeit a large one) rather than a Queen's palace. But it hasn't always looked the way it does today. It has evolved through many guises since its earliest beginnings in the 1600s. 

The site that is Buckingham Palace gardens today began as a royal Mulberry plantation in the early 17^th century. King James I had Mulberry trees planted for the farming of silkworms. It would appear there was a building adjoining and there followed a line of occupiers until the late 17^th century when John Sheffield (later the Duke of Buckingham) demolished the old building to make way for a new modern construction. Buckingham House was completed in 1710.

Buckingham House 1710

The royal family had retained their interest in the land where the Mulberry trees were planted and in the 1760s this gave George III leverage to buy next door (i.e. Buckingham House) and give his wife, Queen Charlotte a private home for her and their many children. Not surprisingly, it became known as The Queen’s House. Not that the building was immediately to the new owners’ liking. At the cost of £73,000 it was remodelled by Sir William Chambers.

It was during the reign of Queen Charlotte’s eldest son, George IV that most of the work was done to Buckingham House. As it has been his childhood home, he was greatly attached to the building and wanted to make it his official home. He commissioned his favourite architect (and official architect to the “Office of Woods and Forests”) John Nash to transform this private house into a palace. Nash’s design was basically Buckingham House on steroids! The central block was extended on the west side (facing the gardens) and the north and south wings were rebuilt. The wings also created a forecourt with a triumphal arch in the centre (where the Victoria Memorial is today).

Nash's Buckingham Palace 1837

Despite Nash’s favouritism by George IV (he had remodelled the Royal Pavilion in Brighton and transformed the centre of London with the construction of Carlton Terrace, Regent’s Street and Regent’s Park) he had not been a very popular architect with the Government. In addition, the rebuilding of Buckingham House into a palace had run to nearly half a million pounds (The King kept changing his mind on the design and build). The Duke of Wellington, who was Prime Minister at the time, had Nash fired. The building was finally completed, with further extensive alterations by architect, Edmund Blore. But the building was only completed after George IV’s death in the 1830s. His successor and brother William IV had no interest to move in. Only when his niece, Victoria, came to the throne in 1837 did the palace appear to have a future. However, as if often the case with a Nash building (beautiful on the large scale but lacking in the rigour of detail) Queen Victoria found the chimneys and ventilation woefully inadequate and there was very little accommodation for her growing family and for visitors. Blore resolved these shortcomings, which included adding an attic floor and a new east wing.

Buckingham Palace Pre-1913 Facelift

The next big change was when Queen Victoria’s son, Edward VII commissioned the palace to be updated in the early 1900s. The most profound alteration was the new façade on the east wing – which is the front that we all know today.  He also had the Victoria Memorial built (the staging for the Diamond Jubilee concert) and the triumphal arch was moved to its new and current location at Marble Arch at the top of Hyde Park. The Mall was widened and at the far end,  Edward VII devised Admiralty Arch to be built, in honour of his mother. All this rebuilding was undertaken by Sir Aston Webb, an establishment figure, well-known for his public buildings since he set up in practice in the 1880s and former President of the RIBA and Gold Medal winner. He may not have been one of the most flamboyant or notorious of architects, but he could be relied on to carry out the King’s wishes appropriately and on budget!

Webb's East Wing Facade  Under Construction - 1913

                                               

Just like his great uncle, George IV, Edward VII didn’t live long enough to see his vision for Buckingham Palace completed. He died in 1910, the Victoria Memorial was dedicated in 1911, Admiralty Arch completed in 1912 and the Portland Stone east wing façade of Buckingham Palace in 1913.

The only other significant changes since then were not planned. Buckingham Palace was bombed no less than seven times during World War II. The private chapel on the south side was completely destroyed then but today is the location of the Queen’s Gallery.

Buckingham Palace is more important historically than architecturally, however that safe civic building style created by Webb, gives a timelessness that serves as the perfect backdrop. It doesn’t overshadow the events going on in and around it. It has been the perfect stage for marking key events in Great Britain’s 20^th and 21^st century history, from the Armistice in 1919, to today’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations.