The Citisights Guide to the History of London: Ten Walks Through London's Past

By Kevin Flude and Paul Herbert

Explore the past beneath your feet and see how the London of today has developed in a chain of fascinating events
Ten illustrated walks, each focusing on a distinct era of London life, from Roman times to the present day
Each walk has its own historical introduction, detailed guide and clear, uncluttered maps
Central gazetteer gives full information on main sites that span the centuries
Each walk is uniquely structured to give continual opportunities to move from one historical period to another at will, and build up a picture of London past as you stroll through London present
Full of interest to the visitor and Londoner alike

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Apr 19, 2001
• ISBN: 9781475912012

Kevin Flude

The authors worked together as archaeologists at the Museum of London where they participated in a series of excavations that helped fundamentally change our view of the history of London. Determined to share these discoveries with a wider public they then formed Citisights of London, where they organized a highly praised series of lectures, walks, tours and conferences on the history and archaeology of London. Subsequently, they turned their attention to running one of London's most intriguing historic interiors—the Old Operating Theatre, Museum and Herb Garret and writing on multimedia projects.

Book preview

The Citisights Guide to

LONDON

TEN WALKS THROUGH LONDON’S PAST

KEVIN FLUDE AND

PAUL HERBERT

*

Authors Choice Press

San Jose New York Lincoln Shanghai

The Citisights Guide to the History of London

Ten Walks Through London’s Past

All Rights Reserved © 1990, 2001 by Kevin Flude & Paul Herbert

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the publisher.

Authors Choice Press

an imprint of iUniverse.com, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse.com, Inc.

5220 S 16th, Ste. 200

Lincoln, NE 68512

www.iuniverse.com

Originally published by Virgin Books

Dedicated with Love to Heike and Poppy

ISBN: 0-595-18147-3

ISBN: 978-1-4759-1201-2 (eBook)

Contents

Acknowledgements

About The Authors

Preface

How To Use This Guide

Origins

Part One-History

1  Roman London

2  Dark Age, Saxon And Viking London

3  Medieval London

4  Tudor And Early Stuart London

5  Late Stuart And Georgian London

6  Victorian London

7  South Kensington

8  Modern London

9  Westminster

Part Two-Walks

Roman London

Dark Age, Saxon And Viking London

Medieval London

Tudor And Early Stuart London

The Great Fire Of London

Late Stuart And Georgian London

Victorian London

South Kensington

Modern London

Westminster

Part Three-Gazetteer

Select Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book has benefited from the work of many people as we have used a very large number of sources. We cannot list them all but would like to thank in particular the staff of the Museum of London, without whom the story told in this book would have been very different, including Chrissie Milne for her illustrations. We would like to give a special thanks to Mike Stone and the rest of our team at Citisights-Colin Oakes, Michael Tambini and Gillian Ashmore; the loyal customers on our walks, tours and conferences, whose interest has encouraged us to delve deeper into London’s history; and Poppy, little Constance, and Heike, who put up with our absences while we researched this work. The South Kensington walk also owes a lot to the original research done by Ray Bachelor. We would like to thank Ronald Clark, and our publishers for getting us there on time.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

The authors write on the history of London and run Citisights of London which organises a unique range of historical events designed to bring to the public the latest discoveries about the past. These include walks, day tours, short holidays and conferences in London, Britain and Europe. Citisights also manage the Operating Theatre Museum and Herb Garret. They also run Cultural Heritage Resources, whose main work involves exploring the uses of interactive media in history and archaeology.

Paul Herbert worked as an archaeologist at the Museum of London from 1974 to 1982 before founding Citisights of London, which he has managed full time ever since. He is a director of the Southwark Heritage Association.

Kevin Flude worked as an archaeologist at the Museum of London from 1977 to 1984 before joining the Victoria and Albert Museum for three years. He founded Citisights with Paul Herbert and acts as a museum consultant.

Citisights of London is based at 213 Brooke Road, London E5 8AB (tel. [phone]). Please write or ring for details of the free mailing service and the walks and events which are currently available.

Preface

London is a legendary city. It ranks with Nineveh, Babylon, Athens, Rome and Paris as one of the urban centres that have shaped and inspired the world. London has always been a glorious hub of all that is vital and exciting. From earliest times, it was the largest town in Britain by such a margin that other towns were mere villages in comparison. Its fiercely independent and immensely proud citizens have shared among themselves more than their fair share of the country’s wealth, and have exerted an undue influence on its government. The twin sirens of money and power attracted the rich, the powerful, the artistic and the literary, as well as the destitute, the lame and the criminal into the swollen capital, giving London an exuberant, exciting and dangerous air as well as an atmosphere of being at the centre of something great.

London is still by far the largest town in Britain and an infinitely fascinating place but it now seems to be marking time-as if absorbing the blows delivered to it by Philistine property developers. The old intensity of feeling for London has gone, to be replaced in part by allegiance to London’s so-called villages.

There are many reasons and explanations for this change, but three stand out. The first is that London has lost its heart-the old historic city streets once throbbing with the lifeblood of its people have now become a lifeless business quarter.

The second reason is that London is now too dispersed and too vast to engender the energy and pride that Londoners used to have in being Londoners. ‘Maybe It’s Because I’m a Londoner’, a song with words that once had enormous appeal, now has little meaning. The Cockneys have dispersed to Essex, the garden cities and the far reaches of London. Thirdly, improvements in communications and the media have weakened the magnetic pull of London, and it is now easier to have a position of influence or fame without living in the capital. TV and radio have transformed popular politics into an armchair activity and the riotous London mob no longer influences the body politic. Together these factors have meant an end to the gregarious, riotous life Londoners used to lead. Today we live more safely and comfortably, but lack the excitement that was once integral to being a Londoner.

The future may well depend, as did the past, not upon ‘native’ Londoners but on the immigrants to the city. Young university-educated people are repopulating the inner city, and communities of Asians, West Indians, Turks, Greeks, Chinese and Kurds are forming and adding new vitality to London’s jaded streets. This book may, in its small way, help rekindle a pride in being a Londoner, by bringing the city’s glorious history to life.

How to Use This Guide

This guide falls into three main parts: historical introductions to the walks; the walks themselves; and a gazetteer, full of extra information on the sites visited.

You can go on the walks in any order, and there is no need to read the history in Part One if you do not wish to do so. A route map appears at the beginning of each walk, and you will see that the starting and finishing points are always near an Underground station, although you can join or leave the walk at any point, following it in whichever direction you prefer.

Anything which appears in capital letters at any point in the book also has an entry in the gazetteer, which gives extra information and opening times where relevant.

When a gazetteer entry relates to actual stops on the walks, those stops are listed-e.g. BREAD STREET (B19 C27 D5). In this example, if you were already on walk B, you could take the opportunity to switch to another historical period by joining either walk C or walk D. The route maps give you other opportunities to switch walks if you wish, by showing nearby sites of interest from other routes.

This guide is here to help your walk become a personal journey through London’s past.

Origins

(Place names in capital letters refer to entries in the gazetteer)

Greater London encompasses no fewer than three cities within its boundaries (London, WESTMINSTER, and SOUTHWARK). It takes its name from the old walled city founded by the Romans in the area in which St Paul’s now stands. The City is still governed by its ancient constitution headed by the Lord Mayor of London-who, it should be noted, is Lord Mayor not of all London but just of the City. Until the seventeenth century London was synonymous with the City of London although the separate City of Westminster was often described as if it were part of London. With the build-up of the suburbs, however, application of the name spread with the population.

Image393.PNG

Location of Roman London

The fame and fortune of London is based quite simply on its position along the Thames. The foresight of its founders gave London several advantages. Firstly, it offered an ideal route into the heart of Britain for sea-borne trade. Here boats could shelter from storm, and could take advantage of the tides to float up and down the Thames without being dependent on the vagaries of the wind. Transporting goods by boat before the nineteenth century was considerably cheaper than by land and so the extra miles of sea transport were valuable. Secondly, the city was the furthest downstream that it was practicable to build a bridge. On the north bank was high ground and although the south bank was prone to flood, there were two eyots of sand and gravel for the approach road to the first LONDON BRIDGE across a generally marshy area. Thirdly, the two hills on the north bank, Cornhill and LUDGATE, offered an ideal site for a city: south facing, well supplied with water and local building materials, and above the flood plan.

These advantages explain the success of London. The combination of being a port and at the centre of the road system is a winning one. But the history of London shows us that it is not an infallible recipe for success. For the broad highway that is the Thames has another face. In times of strife, when Britain is disunited the Thames can become a highway for seaborne raiders into the heart of the land, or a defensive border in a war zone. These facts explain much of London’s history. For example, in the prehistoric period the Thames was for long periods a boundary between tribes, and although the river was an important trade route it did not lead to the development of a great city. There were important trading posts such as those at Egham and Brentford, but in the absence of a unified communications network no one site had a monopoly of geographic advantages and could therefore develop into an international city. Egham, for example, was a riverside settlement, which flourished for a few centuries around 800 BC, with a substantial timber wharf and settlement. Archaeological excavation has revealed finds which indicated trading contacts with the continent. Distribution of coins also suggests an important centre around the Brentford area from about 100-60 BC, but no trace of it has yet been found. Even when the north and south banks were united, probably under the Catevallaunian tribe, immediately before the Roman conquest, London did not emerge. We can confidently say it was only when the Roman road system was added to the existing geographical advantages that London emerged as an international city.

The first genuine historical description of the London area does not mention the presence of a town, and suggests that the Brentford settlement had disappeared. The author is Julius Caesar, who made two armed reconnaissances of Britain and who fought a battle over control of the Thames with the leader of the British, Cassivellaunus. The site of Caesar’s crossing has not been identified for certain but is possibly in the Westminster area. These events took place on his second visit in 54 BC:

When I discovered what the enemy’s plans were, I led the army to the River Thames and the territory of Cassivellaunus. There is only one place where the river can be forded, and even there with difficulty. When we reached it, I noticed large enemy forces drawn up on the opposite bank. The bank had also been fortified with sharp stakes fixed along it, and, as I discovered from prisoners and deserters, similar stakes had been driven into the river bed and were concealed beneath the water.

Caesar was seriously misled by enemy misinformation because archaeology has discovered a number of fords (for instance, at Brentford, Wandsworth, Battersea and Westminster), and the natives obviously sought to lead Caesar to where their defences were strongest. Caesar crossed the river successfully and went on to win the ‘submission’ of the British before returning to Gaul. His so-called ‘invasions’ in fact came to nothing as is attested by the fact that the Romans left Britain independent for another 90 years before Claudius completed the conquest in AD 43.

Archaeologists have provided a vast amount of new data on London and have produced a revolutionary new reading of its history, but they have not yet clarified the mystery of the origin of London’s name. The name is of pre-Roman origin, and may even pre-date the Celtic culture, but linguists are unable to decipher its meaning. We do not know whether it is the name of a farm, a village or well, or of a person or god, or a natural feature such as a river or hill. But archaeologists have recently found evidence for small prehistoric settlements in the area of the later city which may have provided the name.

Past Londoners turned first to legend to answer this question, and then, from the twelth century onwards, to The History of the Kings of Britain, written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in about 1136. In his book, Geoffrey traces the origins of London (and Britain) back to the city’s foundation by Brutus, great-grandson of Aeneas the Trojan.

Once he had divided up his kingdom, Brutus decided to build a capital. In pursuit of this plan, he visited every part of the land in search of a suitable spot. He came at length to the River Thames, walked up and down its banks and so chose a site suited to his purpose. There then he built a city and called it Troia Nova. It was known by this name for long ages after, but finally by a corruption of the word it came to be called Trinovantum.

This bold story was based on a desire to give London a pedigree as old as Rome’s and was substantiated by a misunderstanding of part of Julius Caesar’s account of his invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC. Upon crossing the Thames Caesar encountered ‘the Trinovantes, about the strongest civitas in southeastern Britain’. In Caesar’s time the word civitas meant nation or tribe, while later in the Roman period it came to mean city, so Geoffrey’s mistake was excusable.

Thereafter we are told the town was renamed by the legendary King Lud as Kaerlud, then Kaerlundein, and eventually London.

Unfortunately archaeologists have excavated enough of London to prove it did not exist as a town before AD 50.

The story of London is becoming more complicated by the day as archaeologists rescue more history from the jaws of the developers’ machinery. The archaeological work is not just a matter of filling in

the details in an accepted historical framework, for the cumulative effect of a large number of excavations throughout central London is producing a revolution in our view of London. It has already proved that our tidy view of Roman growth and Dark Age decline is vastly oversimplified, and now it is just beginning to suggest a coherent version of the prehistoric period.

It is a pity only that the archaeological gain is being made at the cost of the destruction of much that remains of Victorian London. The archaeologists are, of course, not to blame, for they prefer to see archaeological remains stay in the ground, but developers in the prestigious areas of central London provide generous payments to archaeologists in order to cover themselves in the event of some extraordinary finds being made. A planned excavation costs them less than unexpected delays, and so archaeologists are used as an insurance policy, and perhaps also as a means to some favourable publicity. Some people have even been heard to argue that the destruction of a ‘second-rate’ Victorian building can be justified by the archaeology thereby uncovered. Better surely that the archaeology be preserved for a future more skilled society.

Image400.PNG

An early view of London, published in 1497 with an account of the legendary foundation of Britain. (Copyright Museum of London)

PART ONE-HISTORY

1

Roman London

(Place names in capital letters refer to entries in the gazetteer)

The very first written description of Londinium confirms the mercantile nature of the city. This appears in the works of the Roman historian Tacitus who reported on the town in AD 60-1 : ‘This town was a place not indeed distinguished by the title of colonia, but despite its lack of status was teeming with merchants and was a famous centre of commerce.’

London’s lack of status may be explained by two pieces of archaeological evidence. The first is the absence of large-scale settlement in the area before the Roman arrival. The second is that the Roman occupation in London is no earlier than AD 50-seven years after the original Roman invasion. Together the evidence suggests that Roman London was not a natural centre of population and, unlike Colchester and St Albans, was not the Roman successor to a native Celtic town. This was to have implications for London in the Dark Ages for it shows that the city derived its strengths from an imposed Roman economy, rather than from a thriving natural hinterland.

A further exciting piece of information is that the word Tacitus uses for merchants is negotiatore. The word covers a range of activities and suggests something a little more sophisticated than a simple merchant as it implies wholesale dealers, bankers or bankers’ agents. The task of these financiers was to exploit the newly conquered province by setting up large-scale trading links with the continent, and to lend money to the native Celts to encourage them to aspire to Roman standards of ‘civilisation’. Tacitus’s short description also highlights the speed with which London developed, for it had become an important centre in just ten years of existence. It would now appear that Tacitus’s words should indeed be taken at face value-i.e. Londinium was an important centre for businessmen and merchandise and was not founded until the lowland zone of Britain was pacified and the network of roads completed. We should therefore understand that London was established for civil rather than military reasons.

Before the foundation of Londinium the road system appears to have been centred on a Thames crossing at WESTMINSTER by either a ford or perhaps a military pontoon bridge. But it soon became clear that the high ground above the tidal river in the area of the city was a better site for both a bridge and a port than the marshy ground around Westminster.

The new town was without a defensive wall which . . Roman commanders, thinking of amenities rather than need, had neglected’. At the time this may have seemed a reasonable decision as, by AD 60, London was far from the war zone. But a series of incidents produced a revolt, led by Queen Boudicca of the Iceni tribe of Norfolk, which soon escalated into a general revolt against insensitive government. The negotiators at London may have been partly responsible as they had called in their loans made to the British aristocracy. One of the moneylenders was none other than the adviser to Nero-Seneca. The Stoic philosopher was alleged to have demanded the immediate repayment of his loans, ‘none too gently’, as Cassius Dio says. The British response was furious. According to Tacitus the rebels ‘made for where loot was richest and protection weakest’, and ‘could not wait to cut throats, hang, burn, and crucify-as though avenging, in advance, the retribution that was on its way’.

London, Colchester and St Albans, the three main Roman towns of the early Roman period, were razed to the ground. Roman sources suggest, with perhaps a degree of political bias, that 70,000 people were massacred in the country as a whole. Despite this there is little archaeological evidence for the massacres and literary sources show that the bulk of the London population had time to flee before Queen Boudicca arrived to burn down London. In London a thick deposit of burnt building material graphically illustrates the city’s destruction.

Boudicca was soon defeated in a battle traditionally placed at King’s Cross. Historians prefer a site further to the west probably in the South Midlands. In the aftermath of the revolt Britain nearly dissolved into anarchy, but was saved for the Roman Empire by a judicious change of governor and a new and more conciliatory policy.

The recovery in London was probably helped by the presence of the new financial administrator (or procurator) Gaius Classicianus, in London. He was buried near Tower Hill which suggests that London was now considered important and convenient enough to be the base for the second most important Roman provincial official.

The growth of London over the next 50 years was phenomenal. London was clearly at the centre of the Romanisation policy as defined by Tacitus in the following quotation:

[Governor] Agrícola had to deal with people living in isolation and ignorance, and therefore prone to fight; and his object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave private encouragement and official assistance to the building of temples, public squares, and good houses. He praised the energetic and scolded the slack; and

competition for honour proved as effective as compulsion. Furthermore, he educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared with the training skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing our Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralising temptations of arcades, baths, and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilisation’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.

London was soon embellished with all the trappings of ‘civilisation’. By AD 100 it had taken over the mantle of Colchester as the capital of the province, and was given a fine basilica and FORUM to suit its new civic dignity.