Plates 3.7-3.9: Vault and Body of Edward IV in St. George’s Chapel (Original Explanatory Account)

To the EARL of LEICESTER, PRESIDENT of the SOCIETY of ANTIQUARIES.

My LORD

I AM obliged to Mr. EMLYN, who superintends the princely works now carrying on in St. George’s Chapel, for a very accurate drawing of Edward the Fourth’s vault, and an explanatory account of its contents. These, with Dr. Lind’s analysis of the liquor found in the king’s coffin, I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship, to be laid before the Society. I am, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s most obedient, humble servant, J. CARLIOL.

P.S. A small phial, containing some of the liquor, on which Dr. Lind tried his experiments, accompanies his analysis. Your Lordship will also receive a paper, in which you will find some of king Edward’s hair, and a few bits of the queen’s wooden coffin. For these I am indebted to a friend; being a present to him from one of the workmen.

Mr. EMLYN’s Account of King EDWARD IV’s Vault in St. George’s Chapel, explanatory of the Drawing.

“On Friday, March 13, 1789, in making the ground to receive the new pavement in the North aile of St. George’s Chapel at Windsor, some of the stones which closed the entrance to the vault of King Edward IV. fell out, so that the vault could be entered with ease by removing some other loose stones. In the vault was a quantity of bricks, earth &c. The bricks had originally closed the vault, as appeare from the lower part, where the original brick-work remained. The earth seemed to have been dug from the bottom, which was sloping, from near the sides and ends, and sunk the depth of the king’s coffin. On clearing away the rubbish, the decayed parts of a stout wooden coffin, a skull, and some bones, were found over the king’s coffin. The king’s coffin was of lead, of very irregular thickness, about a quarter of an inch in the thickest places; it was much compressed, and in some parts a little decayed, as is shewn in the drawing, fig. 1. The head of the coffin was ten inches from the West end of the vault, and it lay with a descent of about three inches at the feet. On opening the coffin, the entire skeleton was found, as in fig. 2. Some long brown hair lay near the skull; and some of the same colour, but shorter, was on the neck of the skeleton. There was in the bottom of the coffin a liquid, which at the feet was about three inches deep: the feet and part of the leg-bones were immersed in it. The skeleton measured six feet three inches and a half, and the coffin seven feet, in length.

The walls are two feet six inches high to the springing of the arch; and the arch rises two feet three inches. In the summer of 1788, an ineffectual attempt to find the entrance of this vault was made in the choir, by which the stone on the back part was damaged, as seen in the drawing. An exact copy (to half the size) of what was written in chalk is given in the drawing; and the characters cut on the stones drawn to the full size.

WindsorHENRY EMLYN

Analysis of the Liquor found in the Leaden Coffin of King EDWARD IV. By James LIND, M.D F.R.S Physician at Windsor, and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

“The appearance of this liquor was very much like that of walnut-pickle. A dark-brown colour, which was rendered very dense by a quantity of matter, principally consisting of very small particles of a woody substance, which floated in it, and which, when the liquor was left undisturbed, soon fell to the bottom of the phial.

It was inodorous and tasteless, excepting a small degree of roughness or astringency; just like water which has remained some time in a rotten wooden vessel.

The quantity of liquor taken out of the coffin being but small, it could not be subjected to a multiplicity of accurate experiments; nevertheless, the result of the following trials seems sufficient to shew its nature and origin.

1. Thirty grains of the turbid liquor, being evaporated in a watch-glass by a gentle heat, left a residuum, which weighed 0.79 of a grain.

2. Thirty grains of the liquor filtered, and evaporated in the above mentioned manner, left a residuum, which weighed 0.44 of a grain; from which it appears, that near one-sixtieth part of it was solid matter, so well dissolved in the fluid part, as to pass freely along with it through the pores of filtering paper.

3. The residuum of the last experiment being put upon a hot iron produced a smell rather agreeable, but by no means like that of animal matter. The ashes had a saline taste, and proved upon trial to be fixed alkali, and from hence to owe its origin to the rotten wood of the shell that contained the body. Mr. Emlyn, indeed, is doubtful whether there had been a complete wooden shell within the leaden coffin. If there had been one, its sides were now entirely consumed, and had fallen down. But he tells me, that, he is certain, the body lay upon a wooden plank, or bottom, which would furnish sufficient materials for the sort of ashes produced by the experiment.

The colour and slight astringency of the liquor may be likewise attributed to the wood of the shell, which lay almost entirely rotten in it. The odorous smell of the smoke of the residuum, as mentioned above, may also be ascribed to the same cause, or to the resinous substances which formed the cerecloth, or embalmed the body, if that operation was ever done to it. Some resinous matter was found adhering to the hair of the head.

4. Bibulous paper dipped in the liquor, and then dried, on being set on fire consumed rather faster than when it had not been dipped in it.

But this paper, dried and ignited, burned with more scintillation and rapidity, and consumed quicker, than that of the preceding experiment; so that if the liquor in question contained any nitre, its quantity must have been exceedingly small, and not more than the dissolution of the body itself might have produced.

5. In order to ascertain whether the liquor contained any other saline substance, the usual precipitants were added, each to a separate portion of the fluid previously diluted with distilled water, viz. acetated lead, nitrated silver, and salited terra ponderosa; but as none of them occasioned any precipitation or change in the appearance of the liquor, it was evident that neither sea-salt, nor alum, or, in short, that no saline matter containing marine or vitriolic acid, was to be found in it.

Upon the whole, it seems that this liquor was not any kind of pickle put into the [coffin for] the purpose of presenting the body, but that it was produced by the dissolution of the body itself; since sixteen parts of animal flesh yield above thirteen parts of pure aqueous fluid.

It must not be wondered that this fluid was found without any particular taste or smell, because in the long period of years which have elapsed since the putrid fermentation was accomplished, all the solid parts, which had any taste or smell, must have been decomposed and deposited; exactly as it happens with wines, which, after a long period of years, become in great measure, if not entirely, tasteless and inodorous.

P.S. The wood of the coffin which contained the remains of the queen, upon a strict examination of its texture, appears to be pine, and not cedar, as some have imagined; which is farther confirmed by observing, that cedar is the produce of America, which country had not been yet discovered at that time when this coffin was made. It is likewise worthy of notice, that this rotten wood, when put upon a hot iron, yielded the same smell as the residuum of the liquor found in the coffin of the king.”

To the EARL of LEICESTER, PRESIDENT of the SOCIETY of ANTIQUARIES. &c. &c.

My LORD,
I beg leave to subjoin to the Papers of Mr. Emlyn and Dr. Lind a few particulars connected with the subject.

It appearing, upon opening Edward the IVth’s vault, that another corpse had been deposited there, it became matter of curiosity to attempt ascertaining who this person might be. Speed, in his Chronicle, [mentions that] Mary, Edward’s fifth daughter, who died in 1482, was buried at Windsor. The first conjecture, therefore (and it seemed well-founded), assigned the remains in the wooden coffin to this princess. But Dr. Lind, from certain marks well known to anatomists, was of opinion, that the skull was that of an aged person; whereas Mary was only fourteen years of age when she died. A more accurate inspection of Speed soon decided the inquiry in the most satisfactory manner. For it was found that, in speaking of Elizabeth Wodeville, king Edward the IVth’s widow, he expressly says—“That, being condemned in a praemunire by Henry VII. she was confined to the monastery of Bermondsey, where, not long after, she left the troubles of her life, and enjoyed a quiet portion or burying place, by her last husband King Edward, at Windsor.”

This vault escaped the examination of the paviours, as did also that of Henry VI. When, in the progress of their work, they had reached the arch¹ in the south aile, under which Henry was buried, in digging ground for the new pavement, they found the entrance into the vault, but were directed not to open it. Some gentlemen, indeed, expressed a desire to have this done, with a view to examine whether the body was still there. For Ross of Warwick (Hist. Reg Angl. p. 217.) speaking of Henry VI. says, “iterum tertio creditur, a pluribus, sepeliendus;” [Many believe that he had to be buried again, for a third time] and Stowe, in his Chronicle, tells us, “his tomb was removed from Windsor, and it was not commonly known what became of his body.”

The notion, that there had been such a removal, probably had its foundation in a bull obtained from the Pope by Henry VII. (and which is printed in Rymer’s Foedera, Vol XIII. p. 104.) to remove the body form Windsor to Westminster, to be buried with great solemnity.

But we can appeal to very authentic proofs, that the purpose of this bull was never carried into execution. Henry VII in his last will, says, “We propose, right shortly, to translate into the same [he speaks of his chapel at Westminster] the body and reliques of our uncle of blessed memorie, king Henry VI.” This was not, however, done while he lived. We know, for certain, that, near forty years after, the body was still at Windsor; for Henry VIII, in his last will, gives directions, “that the tombes and altars of Henry VI. and also of Edward IV. be made more princely in the place they now be, and at our charge.”

Under the strong conviction afforded by those facts, that the notion of the removal of Henry the VIth’s body from Windsor was ill-founded, it was judged unnecessary to examine the contents of the vault. And there was this additional reason for not venturing to lay it open; as, with all imaginable care, the depredations of the workmen employed could not, we had grounds to fear, be effectually prevented.

The south door of the choir opening within the compass of the arch, under which Henry VI. lies interred, no memorial of him could be fixed up directly over his vault; but, by his Majesty’s order, a marble grave-stone has been laid down upon the pavement in the adjoining part of the south aile, with his name inscribed, HENRY VI. and the royal arms².

The famous steel-monument which had been placed on the north side of Edward the IVth’s vault, and open to the aile, has been most judiciously moved, that it might be placed within the choir, where it makes a most conspicuous addition to the numerous ornamental improvements lately introduced. The vacancy thus left on the north side of the vault has been filled up by a new monument, in which the parts marked a in the plate are of antient materials. Of this, and of the rood-loft (erected by Henry VIII. in the body of our chapel, and lately taken down), I have sent Mr. Emlyn’s drawings; which, at my request, he has prepared for the Society.

I am, my Lord, &c. &c.

March 2, 1790. J. CARLIOL.

¹Ashmole (p. 136) says, that Henry VI. is buried under the uppermost arch, on the south side of the choir; and that Edward IV. lies under the opposite arch. It is strange that he should be so inaccurate, for we have the most indubitable proofs that Henry’s vault is under the next arch westward. This mistake of Ashmole is of less consequence than another committed by him, and in which he has been followed by later writers. He asserts, that the tomb-house was built by Cardinal Wolsey; whereas the clearest evidence exists of its having been built by Henry VII. See Pote’s History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle, p. 60.

²Till very lately, nothing remained to distinguish the grave of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, in St. George’s chapel, but a rude brick pavement. It is now covered by a marble stone, with his name and arms inscribed.