The history of Britain traced through

the history of architecture

The Normans had an enormous influence on the development of both castles and churches in England.
There had been large scale fortified settlements, known as burghs, and also fortified houses in Anglo-Saxon
England, but the castle was a Norman importation, starting with the wooden Motte and Bailey castles. The term
“motte and bailey castle” came from Norman French words for mound and enclosed land. A motte is an enditched
mound, usually artificial, which supported the strongpoint of the motte-and-bailey castle, overshadowing the bailey
or enclosed courtyard below. It is predominantly rounded in plan, but square or rectangular mottes are known,
especially in Scotland.
Numbers of castles during that period are uncertain, but it seems plausible that about 1,000 had been built
by the reign of Henry I (1100-1135). They took many forms. Some were towers on mounds, surrounded by larger
enclosures - often referred to as motte and bailey castles. Others were immense, most notably the huge palace-
castles which William I built at Colchester and at London; the White Tower at London remains the typical child's
image of a mediaeval fortification. These were the largest secular buildings in stone since the time of the Romans,
over 6 centuries before. They were a celebration of William's triumph, but also a sign of his need to overawe the
conquered.
Churches too were built in great numbers, and in great variety although sharing the Romanesque style with
its characteristic round-topped arches. The vast cathedrals of the late 11 th and early 12th centuries, vast in scale by
European standards, emphasised the power of the Normans as well as their reform of the church in the conquered
realm. Buildings such as Durham cathedral (PIC. Durham cathedral) suggest the strength and vibrancy of the
builders' culture in rather the same way as the early sky-scrapers of New York. The Normans also continued the
great building of parish churches which had begun in England in the late Anglo-Saxon period. Such churches
appeared too in the rest of the British Isles and can still be seen. Particularly striking is the close proximity of many
great churches, a characteristic too of 11th-century Normandy. One of the most telling examples is the group of
border abbeys in southern Scotland - King David I's foundation of Jedburgh, still-impressive and crowning its hill;
the Premonstratensian house of Dryburgh, providing a fittingly romantic resting place for Sir Walter Scott; and
most spectacular of all in the splendour which even the limited remains indicate, another royal foundation at Kelso.
And behind such buildings must lie considerable wealth.

The Middle Ages - 1066 and all that. Architecture is about evolution, not revolution. It used to be thought that
once the Romans pulled out of Britain in the 5 th century, their elegant villas, carefully-planned towns and
engineering marvels like Hadrian's Wall simply fell into decay as British culture was plunged into the Dark Ages. It
took the Norman Conquest of 1066 to bring back the light, and the Gothic cathedral-builders of the Middle Ages
played an important part in the revival of British culture. However, the truth is not as simple as that. Romano-British
culture - and that included architecture along with language, religion, political organisation and the arts - survived
long after the Roman withdrawal. And although the Anglo-Saxons had a sophisticated building style of their own,
little survives to bear witness to their achievements as the vast majority of Anglo-Saxon buildings were made of
wood. Even so, the period between the Norman landing at Pevensey in 1066 and the day in 1485 when Richard III
lost his horse and his head at Bosworth, ushering in the Tudors and the Early Modern period, marks a rare flowering
of British building. And it is all the more remarkable because the underlying ethos of medieval architecture was
'fitness for purpose'. The great cathedrals and parish churches that lifted up their towers to heaven were not only acts
of devotion in stone; they were also fiercely functional buildings. So, the Norman conquest of England marked the
introduction of large-scale stone-block building techniques to Britain. Norman architecture was built on a vast scale
from the 11th century onwards in England, Wales and Ireland in the form of castles, such as the White Tower at the
heart of the Tower of London, which was begun by Bishop Gundulf in 1078 on the orders of William the
Conqueror. The structure was completed in 1097, providing a colonial stronghold and a powerful symbol of Norman
domination.
Throughout Britain and Ireland, simplicity and functionality prevailed in building style. Castles, such as Alnwick
Castle, Caernarfon Castle and Stirling Castle served military purpose and their battlements and turrets were practical
solutions to medieval warfare. Under the feudal system that dominated Britain, fitness for purpose also characterised
the domestic structures particularly for the lower classes. Such people didn't matter very much to the ruling elite and
so neither did their houses. These were dark, primitive structures of one or two rooms, usually with crude timber
frames, low walls and thatched roofs. They weren't built to last. And they didn't. The rambling manor houses of the
later Middle Ages, however, were primarily homes, their owners achieving respect and maintaining status by their
hospitality and good lordship rather than the grandeur of their buildings. In the Kingdom of England, Perpendicular
style gained preference for civic and church structures throughout much of the Middle Ages. King’s College Chapel
in Cambridge foundation stone was laid in 1446 by Henry VI and the structure, with its lacy perpendicular fan-
vaulting, was completed by 1515 during the reign of Henry VIII. It spans the period of transition between
Perpendicular and the Tudor style of architecture.
 The Tudors - stately and curious workmanship
Between 1500 and 1660 Britain experienced a social, cultural and political change owing to the Union of the
Crowns (the accession of James VI, King of Scots, to the throne of England) and the Protestant Reformation.
Although Britain became more unified and stable, it became more isolated from continental Europe. Catholic
monasteries were closed and their lands were redistributed, creating new “rich and ambitious” landowners. The
architecture of Britain this period reflects these changes; church building declined dramatically, supplanted by the
construction of mansions and manor houses. In a sense, the buildings of the 16th century were also governed by
fitness for purpose - only now, the purpose was very different. Medieval Gothic architectural forms were gradually
dropped, and mansions and other large domestic buildings became “varied and playful”. Ultimately drawing upon
ancient Hellenistic art, Inigo Jones is credited as Britain’s first classically-inspired architect, providing designs as
“sophisticated as anything being built in Italy”, such as Queen’s House and Banqueting House, both in London. In
addition there was progress towards more stable and sophisticated houses for those lower down the social scale.
Stone, and later brick, began to replace timber as the standard building material for the homes of farmers,
tradespeople and artisans. Among the brightest examples of Tudor’s Palaces and Houses are: Hampton Court
Palace, Longleat House, Hardwick Hall, Elizabethan houses
 Styles of the 17th century - a world turned upside down. Traditional planning was cloaked in the
splendidly overblown ornament. The style is heavy and rich, sometimes overblown and melodramatic. As the
century wore on, this resolved itself into a passion for the Baroque grandeur which Louis XIV had turned into an
instrument of statecraft at Versailles. Formal, geometrical and symmetrical planning meant that a great lord could sit
in his dining chamber, at the physical as well as the metaphorical centre of his world, with suites of rooms radiating
out in straight lines to either side. His gardens would reflect those lines in long, straight walks and avenues. The
British Baroque was a reassertion of authority, an expression of absolutist ideology by men who remembered a
world turned upside down during the Civil War.
Buildings of the 17th century: The Queens House, St Paul's Cathedral, London, (1675-1710) is not only one of
the most perfect expressions of the English Baroque, but also one of the greatest buildings anywhere in England,
Blenheim Palace.
 Styles of the 18th century - rules cramp the genius. To the Whigs who came to power on the accession
of George I in 1714, the Baroque was inextricably linked with the authoritarian rule of the Stuarts. A new style was
needed for a new age, and the new ruling class, which aspired to build a civilisation that would rival that of ancient
Rome, looked for a solution in antiquity. Actually, the solution was found in an antiquity which had been heavily re-
interpreted by the 16th century Italian architect Andrea Palladio (1508-80). Palladio's Four Books of Architecture
methodically explored and reconstructed the buildings of ancient Rome. They also provided illustrations, in the form
of its author's own designs for villas, palaces and churches, of a way in which the early Georgians might adapt those
rules to create architecture of the classical tradition - the yardstick by which all civilised activity was measured. But
architects soon found the Palladian search for an ideal architecture pointlessly limiting. Whilst the buildings of the
ancients should 'serve as models which we should imitate, and as standards by which we ought to judge', a more
eclectic approach was called for. In the words of the later 18th century's greatest architect, Robert Adam, 'Rules
often cramp the genius and circumscribe the idea of the master'. By the end of the 18th century, the idea of a single
national style of architecture had had its day. Austere neo-classical masterpieces were still being produced; but so
too were huge mock-abbeys, battlemented castles, picturesque sixteen-bedroomed cottages and even, as the 19th
century dawned, oriental palaces such as John Nash's Royal Pavilion at Brighton. The Cult of Styles had arrived.
Buildings of the 18th century: Chiswick House, Kedleston Hall
 Victorian times - Merry England. The myth of Merry England, with its strictly ordered society and its
chivalric code of values, had a strong appeal for a ruling elite which felt under threat from social and political unrest
at home and abroad. The huge glass-and-iron Crystal Palace designed by Joseph Paxton to house the Great
Exhibition of 1851, shows another strand to 19th century architecture - one which embraced new industrial
processes. But it wasn't long before even this confidence in progress came to be regarded with suspicion. Mass
production resulted in buildings and furnishings that were too perfect, as the individual craftsman no longer had a
major role in their creation. Railing against the dehumanising effects of industrialisation, reformers like John Ruskin
and William Morris made a concerted effort to return to hand-crafted, pre-industrial manufacturing techniques.
Morris's influence grew from the production of furniture and textiles, until by the 1880s a generation of principled
young architects was following his call for good, honest construction. Victorian buildings (19th century): Houses of
Parliament, Red House, Castell Coch, Glasgow School of Art.
 Styles of the 20th century - conservatism and change. The most important trends in early 20th century
architecture simply passed Britain by. Whilst Gropius was working on cold, hard expanses of glass, and Le
Corbusier was experimenting with the use of reinforced concrete frames, they had staid establishment architects like
Edwin Lutyens producing Neo-Georgian and Renaissance country houses for an outmoded landed class. In addition
there were slightly batty architect-craftsmen, the heirs of William Morris, still trying to turn the clock back to before
the Industrial Revolution by making chairs and spurning new technology. Only a handful of Modern Movement
buildings of any real merit were produced here during the 1920s and 1930s, and most of these were the work of
foreign architects such as Serge Chermayeff and Erno Goldfinger who had settled in this country. After the Second
World War the situation began to change. The Modern Movement's belief in progress and the future struck a chord
with the mood of post-war Britain and, as reconstruction began under Attlee's Labour government in 1945, there
was a desperate need for cheap housing which could be produced quickly. The use of prefabricated elements, metal
frames, concrete cladding and the absence of decoration - all of which had been embraced by Modernists abroad and
viewed with suspicion by the British - were adopted to varying degrees for housing developments and schools.
Local authorities, charged with the task of rebuilding city centres, became important patrons of architecture. This
represented a shift away from the private individuals who had dominated the architectural scene for centuries. Since
the War it has been corporate bodies like these local authorities, together with national and multinational companies,
and large educational institutions, which have dominated British architecture. By the late 1980s the Modern
Movement, unfairly blamed for the social experiments implicit in high-rise housing, had lost out to irony and
spectacle in the shape of post-modernism, with its cheerful borrowings from anywhere and any period. But now, in
the new Millennium, even post-modernism is showing signs of age. What comes next? Post-post-modernism?
Buildings of the 20th century: Civic Centre, The De le Warr Pavilion (Sussex), The Royal Festival Hall.