1 The Lambeth and Middlesex monuments are described in their pre-nineteenth-century state in John Strype’s edition of Stow’s Survey (1720), and also, together with the Surrey examples, in Lysons, D. Environs of London (1792-93)Google Scholar; more recent references in RCHM Middlesex (Edmonton pi. 53, Norwood pi. 141), RCHM East London (Hackney pi. 94), RCHM West London (Lambeth pi. 126); also in VCH Middlesex iv, 51 (Norwood), v, 183 (Edmonton), and Survey of London ix, 55 (St Helen’s Bishopsgate) xxiii, 113 (Lambeth). For individual monuments see also Simpson, R. Some account of the Monuments of Hackney Church (1881)Google Scholar; Williams, J. F. ‘The Monumental Brasses of Hackney’, Trans. Mon. Brass Sor., 5 (1904-09)Google Scholar; Clarke, D. and Stoyel, A. Otford in Kent (1975). P- I07 pis vib, viiGoogle Scholar; Street, G. E. ‘Some account of the church of St Mary, Stone near Dartford’, Archaeologia Cantiana, in (1860)Google Scholar; Anderson, J. Corbet The Monuments and Antiquities of Croydon Church (1856).Google Scholar

2 The Alfrey monument at St Helen’s has a pierced squint (originally communicating with the adjoining nuns’ church) in place of a tomb chest; the Otford monument lacks a carved frieze; the Wiltshire tomb has no flanking shafts. The Kirton tomb has lost its original tomb slab.

3 The architectural surround above the tomb chest is made up of six pieces of stone; each jamb is divided horizontally in two (the shafts forming part of the main pieces); two further pieces are used for the head of the arch, meeting at the centre. The frieze and cornice above are made up of two or three pieces, with joints to left or right of the centre shield. Later repairs have resulted in some patching in a few cases, and may also explain why the lower jamb stones are not always the same height on each side (as e.g. at Edmonton, where the tomb was moved in the nineteenth century).

4 Every back panel is different, ranging in width from 3 ft 10 in to 2 ft 9 in, and in height from 1 ft 9 in to 3 ft 5 in. Only at Beddington is the back of the recess purely architectural, with tracery panels whose mouldings link up with those of the surrounding arch. The two Lambeth tombs and the one at Croydon have variations on a triple arched arrangement (PI. 1), while at Stone there is a broad single arch. In all cases these frame matrices of brasses. Otford has a triple arcade without brasses, Edmonton had brasses without an architectural surround, at Hackney, Norwood and St Helen’s the slabs are plain, although the first two have inscriptions. The back panel at Norwood has an apparently nineteenth-century inscription and may be completely renewed. That of the Alfrey monument at St Helen’s is made up of two slabs (as at Hackney), now entirely plain. Their surfaces are too weathered to show whether there was once an inscription or brass matrix.

5 The tomb slabs range from 5 ft 3 in to 6 ft 3 in in length, perhaps a matter of what size was easily available. In the case of the shortest slabs the flanking shafts are placed outside the tomb chest (the Peyntwyn tomb at Lambeth with a slab of 5 ft 6 in, the Alfrey tomb at St Helen’s with a slab of 5 ft 3 in, and Otford with one of 5 ft 9 in. The others have their shafts resting upon the slabs (see Hackney, fig. 1).

6 The ‘marblers’ of London by i486 controlled the production of work in latten and copper. See R. Leach, An investigation into the use of Purheck Marble in medieval England (1978), p. 10; R. Emerson, ‘Monumental Brasses: London Design c. 1420-85’, J. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc., 131 (1978), 65. On London brasses of the early sixteenth century: Norris, M. Monumental Brasses, The Memorials (1977), ch. 12.Google Scholar

7 Mr Anthony Stoyel, to whom I am grateful for comments on the Otford monument, suggests that it could possibly have been erected to commemorate the royal visit to Otford of 1520.

8 For the identification of the Mompesson tomb with Dr Henry Mompesson who died in 1509 see the discussion in Survey of London, xxiii (1951), 113.

9 At Stone there is a matrix for a 25-inch figure, with scroll above. At Beddington there are two 21-inch figures, entirely restored in the nineteenth century.

10 PRO Prob. 11/22, 38-39; quoted in Survey of London, ix, 55.

11 As an example of a lost London tomb, see the will ofjohn Savon, ‘preste and parson’ of St Nicholas Olaf, Bread Street, 1519, who wished to be buried ‘before Sancte Nicholas with a littil tomb for the resurrection of Ester day’ (No. 92, London Consistory Court Wills 1492-1547, ed. Darlington, I. London Record Society, 1967.Google Scholar Other examples are quoted in Heales, A. ‘Easter Sepulchres, their objects, nature and history’. Archaeologia, xlii (1869), 263.Google Scholar

12 Heales, op. cit.; Feasey, H.J. Ancient Holy Week Ceremonial (1897).Google Scholar Burial was not necessarily beneath the Sepulchre; Peyntwyn’s will specifies ‘near the right corner of the altar’ (iuxta dextrum cornu altaris), PRO Prob. 11/14, 137-38.

13 See n. 10 above. Whether this memorial was incorporated within the Sepulchre is uncertain, as the will specifies that it was to be fastened upon the wall ‘betwene my said tumbe and the ymage of Saint Helyne’.

14 Evans, H. F. Owen ‘The Resurrection on Brasses’, Trans. Mon. Brass Soc., 11 (1969), 88. See also Norris, M. op. cit., ch. 15.Google Scholar

15 PRO Prob. 11/20, 185-87.

16 As well as the brasses on the back panel, the Mompesson and Warham tombs may have had sculpted figures, as both have brackets on their Eastern reveals which could have supported a small statue, and the same feature occurs at Otford (pi. 2). It is possible that there were also painted figures, for example on the empty side panels flanking the Peyntwyn and Mompesson brasses, but no evidence remains.

17 Mercer, E. English Art 1555-1625, ch. vi, especially p. 225.Google Scholar

18 Seen. 8 above.

19 PRO Prob. n/14, 137-38.

20 Warham specially mentions in his will the large quantity of building work carried out on his manors. (Wills from Doctors Commons, Camden Soc., 83, 1868.)

21 The Archbishop, when he died in 1530, left his painted hangings at Knole to Hugh’s son William.

22 For Urswyck’s career see DNB and Ollard, S. L. ‘Christopher Urswyck, Canon and later Dean of St George’s Chapel’, Report of the Friends of St George’s Chapel Windsor, 1942, pp. 7-12.Google Scholar

23 On Tunstall’s relationship with Urswick see Sturge, C. Cuthbert Tunstall (1938), pp. 25-39.Google Scholar On Colet’s tomb see Lupton, j. H. A Life of John Colet(iSSy), pp. 236-37 Google Scholar and Grossman, F. ‘Holbein, Torregiano and some portraits of Dean Colet, Journal of the Courtauld and Warburg Institutes, 13 (1950), 202-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 The Carew chapel is to the south of the chancel; the Wiltshire chapel (now a vestry) to the north of the nave. Wiltshire specified in his will (PRO Prob. 11/22 128-29) that his executors were to build a chapel oflime and stone, with a ‘convenient marble stone’ to be laid upon his grave.

25 Wedgwood, J. C. History of Parliament, 1, Biographies 1439-1509, p. 517 Google Scholar; PRO Prob. 11/23, 116.

26 As described in her will, see n. 10 above.?

27 The tomb, which stood in the Easter Sepulchre position on the (liturgical) north side of St Mary’s chapel, was to Sir Richard Rokeby and his wife Jane, who both died in 1523. Seymour’s, R. edition of the Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster (1735), 11, 679 Google Scholar, mentions that it had a strong black marble slab, and gives the inscription and heraldry. An engraving in Smith, j. T. Antiquities of London and Environs (1791-1800), shows that it was of the standard design, with a plain back panel with matrices for brasses, and a cornice with a single central shield set flat against the vinescroll.Google Scholar

28 Colvin, H. M. Ransome, D. R. Summerson, J. The History of the King’s Works 111(1975), 218 -19, 309Google Scholar

29 Ibid., 211, pi. 15; Harvey, J. ‘Early Tudor Draughtsmen’, The Connoisseur Coronation Book (1953), pp. 97-101.Google Scholar

30 For Bray’s career see Deane, A. C. ‘Sir Reginald Bray’, Report of the Friends of St George’s Windsor, 1943, pp. 15-18.Google Scholar

31 King's Works, 111, 312.

32 Harvey, J. ‘The Architects ofSt George’s Chapel, Part2’, Report of the Friends of St George’s Windsor, 1961.Google Scholar

33 For Vertue’s career see Harvey, j. English Mediaeval Architects: a Biographical Dictionary down to 1330 (1954).Google Scholar

34 John Aylmer’s other known work was the Savoy Hospital, built c. 1508-19; King’s Works, 111, 196-206. His work there included ‘houses for ymages’. Did the Rokeby tomb at the Savoy (see note 27) and the other London tombs come from his workshop? He is the most likely candidate, although there were other royal masons active at both Windsor and London, e.g. Robert Janyns; see Leedy, W. ‘The design of the vaulting of Henry VII’s chapel Westminster, a reappraisal’. Architectural History, 18 (1975), 9.Google Scholar

35 See n. 22. Denton’s Commons, where the choristers lodged, had an entrance with decorative superstructure (four-centred arch, carved frieze) which to judge from a watercolour reproduced in W. H. Stjohn Hope (Windsor Castle, 2, pi. lxxxviii), contained motifs very reminiscent of the London tomb design.

36 Another possibility would be Canonjohn Esterfeld, who was responsible for conveying the tomb planned for Henry VII from Windsor to Westminster in 1503. King’s Works, III, 309.