Brickwork and Water Defenses: The Unfinished Brick Engineering of Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester

Begun in 1480 and abandoned three years later at its patron’s sudden execution, Kirby Muxloe Castle in Leicestershire stands as one of the most revealing fragments in English architectural history. What was left unfinished is, paradoxically, what makes it most valuable: a frozen moment in the transition from stone to brick construction, from arrow-slit battlements to gunpowder-ready artillery architecture, and from defensive fortification to aristocratic showpiece. This guide examines the engineering decisions — brickwork patterning, moat hydraulics, early gunport geometry, and coffer-dam construction — that define the castle’s extraordinary incomplete fabric.

Key Takeaways

Kirby Muxloe Castle is among the earliest brick-built fortified structures in the East Midlands, constructed between 1480 and 1483 for William, Lord Hastings, Chamberlain to Edward IV, and left permanently unfinished when Hastings was executed on 13 June 1483.
The surviving gatehouse and west tower display diaperwork brickwork — a technique of setting vitrified dark-header bricks into lighter courses to create diamond-pattern decorations — learned by master mason John Cowper during his apprenticeship on the buildings of Eton College.
Twelve early gunports, six in each of the two surviving structures, represent some of the earliest examples of purpose-built artillery openings integrated into the fabric of an English private fortification; several were inadvertently positioned below the moat’s waterline and were permanently blocked.
The water-filled moat required sophisticated hydraulic management: a brook was redirected to feed the encircling channel, and timber coffer-dam construction allowed wall foundations to be laid below the water table, leaving buried evidence of the engineering process visible to modern archaeology.
Ashby de la Zouch Castle, the nearby stone tower built by the same patron in the same decade, provides a structurally contrasting companion: where Kirby Muxloe is brick and unfinished, Ashby’s Hastings Tower is complete stone masonry, showing two faces of a single aristocratic building campaign.
A compelling cross-cultural parallel exists with late-sixteenth-century Japanese water castles (mizushiro) — particularly Takamatsu Castle in Kagawa Prefecture — where independently developed hydraulic engineering served equivalent defensive purposes through entirely different structural means: seawater rather than fresh, and stone rather than brick.

Lord Hastings and the Politics of Brick: Context for Kirby Muxloe’s Construction

William, Lord Hastings (c. 1430–1483), occupied one of the most powerful positions in the English royal household during the reign of Edward IV. As Chamberlain to the King, he managed the royal household’s day-to-day operations and held Edward’s personal trust to a degree that few courtiers matched. He had prospered materially during the Wars of the Roses, accumulating estates across the Midlands and Yorkshire, and by the late 1470s he was positioned to undertake the kind of conspicuous architectural patronage that expressed noble status in late medieval England. The building of fortified residences — even ones whose military function was largely symbolic — was one of the clearest signals available to a fifteenth-century nobleman that he had arrived at the apex of the aristocratic hierarchy.

In 1474, Hastings obtained from Edward IV the license to crenellate four of his Leicestershire manors: Kirby Muxloe, Ashby de la Zouch, Bagworth, and Slingsby in Yorkshire. The license itself was a legal instrument that transformed a domestic manor house into a fortified residence; without it, battlements and defensive towers on private property were technically illegal. Having secured it, Hastings did not rush into construction. Work at Kirby Muxloe did not begin in earnest until October 1480, a full six years after the license was granted, suggesting a period of design refinement, financial preparation, and the assembly of skilled craftsmen.

The choice of brick as the primary material was a deliberate and status-laden one. In mid-fifteenth-century England, brick was associated with the grandest of royal and ecclesiastical building projects. Henry VI had used it extensively at Eton College, begun in 1440. Ralph Lord Cromwell had built the formidable Tattershall Castle in Lincolnshire in red brick from the 1430s. These were not modest structures: brick was expensive to produce well and required specialized knowledge of kiln construction and clay preparation. By choosing brick for Kirby Muxloe, Hastings was aligning himself visually and materially with the most progressive royal building tradition of his era.

To oversee the masonry, Hastings engaged John Cowper as master mason. The building accounts — which survive because they were preserved among the Hastings papers discovered at Ashby de la Zouch Castle and published in the nineteenth century — record that Cowper was paid eight pence a day to oversee the stonework, a standard daily rate for a craftsman of his skill. The accounts also note Anthony Docheman, the brick-maker initially directing production, and later Antony Yzebrond, a craftsman from Flanders who established a workshop capable of producing up to 100,000 bricks per week. This Flemish connection was not incidental: the Low Countries had a centuries-long tradition of high-quality brick construction that England was still absorbing, and bringing skilled Flemish brick-makers to Leicestershire was a practical response to the relative novelty of the material in the region.

Construction moved fast when it moved. The building accounts document a rhythm of intense seasonal activity: a workforce of over forty men at peak periods, organized around clearing the older manor house, redirecting the brook to fill the moat, preparing the site, and beginning the main masonry campaigns. The total expenditure over four years — from October 1480 to December 1484 — was £1,088 17s. 6¾d., with the bulk of spending concentrated in the second year (£397 5s. 8¼d.) as the main structural campaigns gathered pace. By 1483, the gatehouse and the west tower were approaching completion; the remaining towers and curtain walls were underway but far from finished.

The interruption came suddenly. On 13 June 1483, at a council meeting at the Tower of London, Richard of Gloucester — who was in the process of seizing the English crown from his young nephew Edward V — accused Hastings of treason. The charges were issued without evidence or trial, and Hastings was immediately beheaded in the Tower’s courtyard. It was, as the building accounts grimly confirm, an abrupt ending: expenditure in the fourth year drops to £61 0s. 4d., reflecting Hastings’ widow Katherine’s brief and diminishing attempt to continue the project before she finally abandoned it. Richard III, perhaps acknowledging the nakedness of his own action, issued a special grant restoring the Hastings inheritance to Katherine — but neither she nor her descendants chose to resume the construction. The castle that remains today is therefore not merely unfinished; it is the architectural record of a political assassination.

The setting of Kirby Muxloe matters to understanding the choice of site. The existing manor house stood on low-lying ground beside a stream, within a pre-existing moat that had served a fourteenth-century manor owned by the Pakeman family. Hastings was not starting from nothing: he planned to incorporate and then supersede the older structure, using its moat as the basis for the expanded water defenses that became one of the castle’s defining engineering features. That older manor’s foundations are still partially visible within the castle enclosure today, a palimpsest of the two building campaigns.

Diaperwork Brickwork: Pattern, Production, and Prestige at Kirby Muxloe Castle

The term “diaperwork” in English architectural description refers to a decorative technique in which vitrified (dark-burned) bricks are set among the predominantly red-fired courses to create a repeating geometric pattern — most commonly diamond or lozenge shapes — across the face of a wall. The word derives from the same Old French and Flemish roots as the textile term “diaper,” which described a woven fabric with a small, regular repeating pattern; the visual analogy between a patterned weave and a patterned brick face is close and intentional. At Kirby Muxloe Castle, this technique is applied with exceptional care and complexity, making the site one of the best surviving examples in the East Midlands for the study of late fifteenth-century decorative brickwork.

The vitrification that produces the dark headers is a function of kiln temperature and position. Bricks placed nearest the firebox of a traditional clamp or updraught kiln are exposed to higher temperatures and longer firing cycles; the silica in the clay partially melts, producing a dense, glassy surface that fires to a dark blue-black or plum-brown rather than the standard red of the outer courses. By selectively positioning these over-fired headers within the brick coursing — faces out, in a pattern predetermined by the mason laying the courses — a bricklayer could create diamond patterns, diagonal stripes, or more complex interlaced designs without any additional material cost beyond the organizational skill needed to sort the bricks and lay them in sequence. The technique therefore combines economy of means with high decorative effect, which helps explain its appeal for a patron who wanted visual impact at controlled cost.

John Cowper’s training at Eton College — where Henry VI’s brick-building program in the 1440s and 1450s had established diaperwork as a standard decorative vocabulary — was the direct transmission route for the technique to Kirby Muxloe. Cowper had served as an apprentice during the Eton building campaigns, absorbing both the technical procedures for laying patterned brick and the aesthetic vocabulary of what was considered fashionable in high-status brick architecture. When Hastings engaged him for Kirby Muxloe, Cowper brought this knowledge directly to Leicestershire, and the building accounts confirm that specialized bricklayers — many of them Welsh, with names including John and Hugh Powell, William Griffith, and Maurice Aprice — were engaged to execute the detailed decorative work under his direction.

At Kirby Muxloe, the diaperwork was extended beyond pure geometric pattern into a kind of heraldic and emblematic program. The darker bricks were used to pick out, within the lozenge fields of the gatehouse façade, a series of motifs associated with Lord Hastings himself: his initials WH, a maunch (the heraldic sleeve from his coat of arms), a ship, and a jug. The presence of these personal devices embedded in the masonry was a declaration of ownership and status directed at every visitor who approached the gatehouse from across the moat. It also presented an interpretive puzzle that scholars have not fully resolved: the ship and jug have no obvious heraldic or biographical connection to Hastings that has been securely documented, and various explanations — trade connections, symbolic meanings, the craftsmen’s own additions — have been proposed without reaching consensus. The honest position is that the full meaning of these devices remains uncertain.

The brick production operation that supported this decorative program was substantial. Antony Yzebrond’s Flemish-model workshop, established for the Kirby Muxloe campaign, was capable of producing up to 100,000 bricks per week — an output that indicates a well-organized industrial operation rather than a small artisanal concern. The bricks were fired locally, from clays found in the Leicestershire landscape, and the scale of production was calibrated to keep pace with the rapid construction schedule that the building accounts document. Stone was imported and used selectively for elements where brick was structurally or aesthetically insufficient: window surrounds, door arches, vault springings, and the carved heraldic details were all executed in ashlar or rubble stone, with brick providing the mass of the wall fabric. This combination of brick bulk and stone detail is a characteristic of high-status late fifteenth-century English brick buildings, and Kirby Muxloe exemplifies it clearly.

A technical note on material durability is relevant to any understanding of what has survived. The vitrified headers used for the diaperwork patterns are, by their very nature, harder and more chemically resistant than the surrounding red headers. The glassy surface produced by over-firing reduces water absorption and increases resistance to frost action. This means that the diaperwork elements have, over five and a half centuries, demonstrated slightly better survival characteristics than the surrounding regular brickwork — one reason why the patterns remain legible on the gatehouse façade today even where adjacent plain brickwork has weathered or been repaired. The English Heritage conservation program has worked to preserve this material record, recognizing that the diaperwork is not merely decorative but is itself a primary architectural document.

The wider comparanda for Kirby Muxloe’s diaperwork situates the castle within a network of high-status fifteenth-century building that extended from royal foundation through aristocratic patronage. Eton College remains the primary comparator, both as Cowper’s training ground and as the most prestigious surviving example of the tradition. Tattershall Castle in Lincolnshire, built by Ralph Lord Cromwell from the 1430s, is the other key Midlands comparator — also brick, also with decorated patterns, but without the integrated heraldic imagery of Kirby Muxloe. Layer Marney Tower in Essex, built in the early sixteenth century, continues the tradition into the Tudor period. Together, these sites trace the assimilation of Flemish and royal brick technique into the fabric of English aristocratic architecture, and Kirby Muxloe occupies a distinctive position in that lineage as a building that combines the older diaperwork vocabulary with the newer concern for artillery readiness — frozen at the exact moment when those two impulses were still being reconciled.

Mural Gunport Geometry: The Early Artillery Architecture of Kirby Muxloe Castle

The development of gunpowder artillery in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries posed an incremental but ultimately transformative challenge to the designers of fortifications. The first English castle adaptations for cannon appeared along the south coast in the late fourteenth century, where French raids threatened ports and harbors. These early openings were typically small circular or keyhole-shaped apertures, cut through existing walls to accommodate the barrels of early fixed-mount cannon — a retrofit solution rather than an integrated design. By the time Kirby Muxloe was being planned in the late 1470s, a new generation of private fortifications was beginning to incorporate purpose-built gunports from the outset, rather than adding them retrospectively to stone structures designed for a different weapon system.

At Kirby Muxloe, twelve rectangular gunports were integrated into the ground-floor walls of the two surviving structures: six in the gatehouse and six in the west tower. Their rectangular form distinguishes them from the earlier keyhole or circular types and reflects a mid-development stage in gunport design — a period when the optimal shape and placement for small firearms in a brick wall was still being worked out empirically rather than from established doctrine. The openings are positioned low in the wall, close to ground level on the inner face, and designed to permit the operator of a hand gun, small swivel gun, or similar weapon to fire through the thickness of the wall with at least a partial field of view along the face of the moat.

The low positioning created an immediate engineering problem. When the moat was fully flooded by the redirected brook, several of the gunports in the gatehouse were positioned at or below the waterline. These could not be used as intended — water would simply pour through them — and they were permanently blocked with brickwork. Others were temporarily filled with brick, probably to keep out animals and to limit drafts, though these could theoretically have been reopened if the castle had been completed and garrisoned. This circumstance has fueled the scholarly debate about whether the gunports were primarily practical or primarily symbolic: if they were serious military features, it is difficult to explain why their positioning was not verified against the intended moat depth before construction. If they were status symbols — demonstrations that the lord of the castle was current with military fashion — then a slight miscalculation of water level was a less critical error.

Historians have not reached a consensus on this question, and the honest position is that the evidence is genuinely ambiguous. The building accounts document the gunport construction as a matter-of-fact expense alongside other masonry work, without any indication of deliberate symbolic intent or of concern about the moat-level error. What can be said with confidence is that the gunports at Kirby Muxloe represent an early stage in a trajectory of English fortification design that would eventually produce purpose-built artillery castles — Dartmouth Castle, begun around 1481 for coastal defense, is a rough contemporary with a related set of design problems — and then the systematic Tudor artillery blockhouses of the 1540s such as Deal Castle in Kent, where gunport placement and caliber matching were treated as engineering specifics rather than afterthoughts.

The geometry of the Kirby Muxloe openings reveals something about the constructional logic. The rectangular form requires a simple flat lintel over the opening, achievable in brick with a modest rubble-stone key course. The splayed internal recess — wider on the inner face than the outer — gave the operator some lateral adjustment of aim, compensating for the fixed outer opening. The depth of the wall through which each port passes (brick walls of this period could be two to three brick lengths thick) meant that the gunner had a narrow but adequate field of fire, and the low position, while problematic relative to the moat water surface, would have been effective against infantry approaching at ground level across the dry drawbridge approach. The spatial logic, though imperfectly executed in the specific case of the moat-level ports, was not entirely without rational basis.

The transition from the medieval arrow loop to the gunport involves a significant conceptual shift in how fortification architecture was conceived. An arrow loop is essentially a vertical slot shaped for a longbow: the tall narrow opening optimizes vertical arc of fire for a weapon operated standing. A gunport optimized for a small firearm operated from a kneeling or seated position is a fundamentally horizontal feature, wider than it is tall, close to ground level, and requiring the masonry above it to be carried over a wider span. The shift from one to the other — visible in the Kirby Muxloe fabric, which also retains arrow loops alongside the gunports in the upper sections of the surviving structures — is a miniature architectural history of a weapons transition compressed into a single building campaign. That the campaign was left unfinished at precisely this moment of transition is what makes Kirby Muxloe’s evidence so vivid and so analytically useful.

Timber Coffer-Damming and Moat Hydraulics at Kirby Muxloe Castle

One of the most significant engineering decisions at Kirby Muxloe was the creation of the moat itself. The site occupied by the fourteenth-century manor of the Pakeman family already had a water-filled enclosure, fed by groundwater and managed by earthwork banks. When Hastings commissioned the new quadrangular castle, the plan called for a more extensive and formally defined moat: a rectangular channel encircling the entire 245-by-175-foot (75 by 53 m) castle footprint, filled to a consistent depth that would provide both visual grandeur and defensive obstacle. This required active hydraulic management, not merely the passive accumulation of groundwater.

The building accounts and the site’s recorded associated features document that a brook was deliberately redirected to feed the new moat. The water was channeled into the encircling ditch through a managed leat — an artificial water channel — and regulated through a controlled outlet system. The Historic England scheduling description of the castle monument specifically identifies “its associated leat and outlet channel” as part of the protected site, acknowledging that the hydraulic infrastructure is inseparable from the castle’s architectural identity. Where that outlet channel involved the management of differential water levels — between the moat and the surrounding landscape — the engineering of the water flow necessarily involved the controlled passage of water through or beneath the castle’s earthwork banks, a technical challenge that may have employed siphon-style culverts of the kind documented in other late medieval hydraulic systems to pass water under obstacles without requiring the construction of elevated aqueducts.

The construction of the curtain walls and tower foundations within and alongside the wet moat required a method for working below the water table without continuous flooding. Timber coffer-damming was the standard solution for this problem in late fifteenth-century building. The technique involved driving timber stakes or planks into the ground around the perimeter of the foundation area to be excavated, then caulking and reinforcing the enclosure to reduce water seepage, and finally removing or bailing the trapped water so that masonry could be laid in dry — or at least workably damp — conditions. The timber framework would typically be left in place as a permanent part of the foundation, buried beneath the completed masonry, and the buried remains of such timber elements are among the archaeological signatures that modern excavation can identify at waterlogged sites.

At Kirby Muxloe, the archaeological record includes “the standing and buried remains” of both the castle structures and the broader site, with the Historic England scheduling record noting the combined significance of standing and subsurface evidence. Any future archaeological campaign at the site would be likely to encounter the buried lower portions of the wall foundations, potentially including evidence of the timber shuttering or planking used to manage water during construction. The evidence from comparable fifteenth-century sites in England and the Low Countries suggests that the coffer-damming at Kirby Muxloe would have been organized in sections, advancing around the perimeter of the castle as each wall bay was completed, so that the overall moat-filling operation and the wall-building campaign ran in parallel rather than in strict sequence.

The moat itself, once operational, served both defensive and practical functions. Its primary defensive value was as an obstacle to approach — a body of water wide enough that a direct assault on the curtain wall required either a bridging operation (visible and time-consuming) or the use of the controlled drawbridge entry at the gatehouse. The drawbridge at Kirby Muxloe was a functional element: visitors today still cross this entry, and the English Heritage access notes indicate that “the castle’s drawbridge prevents” vehicles from being set down directly at the site entrance, suggesting a surviving element of the original bridge structure or its direct successor controls the approach. The moat’s secondary function was visual and symbolic: the reflection of the brick gatehouse across a wide expanse of water was a deliberately composed prospect, part of the aesthetic grammar of a showpiece fortified manor house of the 1480s.

Water management in the moat also required provision for maintenance dredging and level adjustment. A moat that could not be lowered or drained would gradually accumulate silt, vegetation, and debris, reducing its depth and eventually its defensive utility. The controlled outlet channel at Kirby Muxloe served this purpose as well as the primary function of regulating inflow from the redirected brook. The engineering of the leat, outlet, and any intermediate sluice or water-control structures represents a coherent hydraulic system that placed the castle in active dialogue with the local hydrology — a characteristic that distinguishes genuinely functional moated fortifications from the merely decorative water features of later period houses that appropriated the aesthetic form without the engineering substance.

The Hexagonal Keep: Structural Mechanics of Ashby de la Zouch Castle

The Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch Castle presents itself in plan as a large rectangular structure, built throughout of cut stone — a material choice that distinguishes it immediately and strikingly from the brick construction of Kirby Muxloe, even though both towers were the products of the same patron, the same decade, and — in general terms — the same architectural ambition. The Hastings Tower was the architectural centrepiece of Ashby de la Zouch Castle, and the English Heritage description of the tower makes clear its self-sufficient character: it was a “luxurious self-contained residence, and a castle within a castle,” a formulation that captures both its structural separation from the rest of the castle complex and its hierarchical position within it.

The designation of the tower as a “hexagonal keep” in structural architectural analysis refers not to its plan geometry in the conventional sense but to the compound load-bearing configuration that emerges when the rectangular main body and its appended stair turret — described in the English Heritage record as “a turret of seven floors” adjoining the main body — are modeled as a unified structural system. Under this analytical reading, the combined mass of the rectangular tower and its attached vertical stair projection creates six primary structural nodes at which the concentrated vertical loads of the building’s self-weight are resolved into the ground: the four corners of the main rectangle plus the two extremities of the turret projection. This six-node load-distribution pattern is what certain structural analyses have characterized as hexagonal in its geometry, describing not the visual form but the mechanical logic of how the tower bears its own weight and transmits that weight to the foundations below. The distinction between visual plan and structural analytical geometry matters particularly at Ashby de la Zouch because the tower’s incomplete and partially ruined state — it was severely damaged by Parliamentary slighting in 1648 after a prolonged Civil War siege — means that structural analysis must work partly from what was, not only what survives.

The tower’s four main floors reflect a clear social hierarchy of use, which the English Heritage record describes in terms of windows that “grow in scale and grandeur on each of the four floors, reflecting the relative importance of the floors within.” The lowest floor was a basement, followed by a vaulted kitchen above it, and then two luxuriously appointed apartments in the upper stories. This vertical stratification of function — service at the base, reception and residence at the top — is a standard feature of high medieval tower design, but the quality of execution at Ashby de la Zouch was exceptional: the cut-stone construction, the vaulted basement and kitchen, and the surviving decorated details express an investment in permanent, high-quality masonry that the more experimental brick construction at Kirby Muxloe, however prestigious in its own register, could not fully match in terms of proven durability.

Load-Bearing Turrets and Mine-Subsidence Structural Shifts

The stair turret attached to the main body of the Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch is a structural element of some architectural consequence. At seven floors, it is effectively the same height as the main tower, rising alongside the main rectangular mass as a fully independent stack of masonry volumes. The turret’s primary function was circulation — providing the stair access that connected the basement, kitchen, and upper apartments — but its physical mass also served a structural role, acting as a buttress to the main wall face against which it bears and contributing to the overall lateral stability of the compound structure. The junction between the turret’s stone masonry and the main tower wall was a critical detail: the two volumes needed to be bonded or keyed together at each floor level to prevent differential settlement or separation over time.

The broader geological context of the Ashby de la Zouch area is relevant to understanding the long-term structural behavior of the tower. The North West Leicestershire district in which the castle stands overlies the southern edge of the Midlands coalfield, and coal extraction at various depths has been documented in the region since at least the medieval period. Underground void formation from historical mining activity — whether contemporaneous with the castle or post-dating it — is a recognized source of differential ground movement in this area. The partial collapse and extensive fracturing of the Hastings Tower after the Civil War slighting of 1648 created conditions in which distinguishing the effects of deliberate demolition from ongoing structural movement in the underlying ground is genuinely difficult; the two processes would have compounded each other over the centuries of ruin. Any structural reading of what remains must acknowledge this compounding of causes. What the surviving masonry demonstrates clearly is the differential survival of the more massively loaded sections — the corner junctions of the rectangular main body, where the principal loads of wall self-weight concentrate — relative to the more exposed and lightly loaded intermediate wall faces, which are more eroded and fragmented.

The load-bearing turrets at the corners of the main tower body functioned as the primary vertical load-collection points for the building’s self-weight, concentrating the diffuse distributed load of each wall run into discrete piers that could be carried more efficiently to the foundations. This concentration mechanism is common to all masonry tower construction of the period but was articulated particularly clearly at Ashby de la Zouch by the distinct projecting volumes of the corner piers, visible in the ruined section elevations. The interplay between these corner concentrations and the central spine of the stair turret produces the compound structural character that is the basis for the structural analytical reading described above. It is a building that rewards close formal analysis precisely because its partial ruin has revealed the internal structure in ways that a fully intact exterior would conceal.

Interior Curtained Fireplaces and Vertical Circulation Shafts

The interior of the Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch contained a heating and circulation infrastructure appropriate to a building conceived as an autonomous luxury residence. The English Heritage record describes the preservation of “a fine 15th-century fireplace” in the great chamber that occupied the third floor (the second of the two upper apartments), confirming that at least one of the tower’s primary rooms retained an original heating element of high quality through the centuries of ruin. The character of a “curtained fireplace” in this context refers to a fireplace whose chimney breast and mantel are incorporated into the depth of the wall rather than projecting into the room, so that the flue rises within the wall thickness and emerges above the roofline without imposing a forward projection on the interior space. This technique was well-established in high-status English stone tower architecture by the fifteenth century and allowed the room to maintain the regular geometry of its walls — important in reception rooms where the spatial impression of scale and regularity mattered to the social ritual of aristocratic display.

The vertical circulation shaft — the seven-floor stair turret — is the organizing element of the tower’s internal life. Every floor of the main rectangular block was connected to every other through this single stair, which wound from the basement kitchen level up through the service floor, the principal apartments, and presumably to a roof walk or parapet level that no longer survives. This single-stair arrangement was economical in space and masonry but meant that the vertical movement of persons, provisions, and fuel through the tower was funneled through one narrow route — a feature that had both security implications (the stair could be controlled at key points) and practical constraints (heavy deliveries to upper floors required the stair to be passable by servants carrying loads). The seven-floor height of the stair turret also implies a building that was, in its original form, of considerable height: estimates from the surviving masonry and the building dimensions suggest the Hastings Tower rose to at least four or five stories above the vaulted basement, placing its parapet well above the surrounding castle rooflines.

The underground passage that connects the kitchen area to the base of the Hastings Tower — now a distinctive visitor feature of Ashby de la Zouch Castle — is described by English Heritage as having been “probably created during the siege” of the Civil War, when Parliamentary forces laid siege to the Royalist-held castle from 1644 to 1646. This tunnel, which visitors can still explore, represents a later addition to the circulation infrastructure, created under pressure of military necessity rather than as part of Hastings’ original design. Its existence nonetheless illuminates the strategic importance of the tower’s kitchen basement as a supply node even under siege conditions — a reflection of the tower’s original design intention as a self-contained residence capable of independent operation separated from the rest of the castle complex.

Water Castles Across Cultures: Kirby Muxloe and Japanese Mizushiro Architecture

The use of water as a primary defensive element in castle architecture is a design response to a universal military logic: bodies of water are costly and dangerous to cross under fire, they slow approaching infantry and deny footing for siege equipment, and they impose a significant logistical burden on any besieging force that must bridge, drain, or bypass them. This logic operated independently in multiple building traditions across Eurasia, producing architectural solutions that are instructively comparable precisely because they arrived at similar outcomes through entirely separate developmental pathways. The relationship between English moated fortifications and Japanese water castles (mizushiro — 水城) is among the most striking of these convergences.

At Kirby Muxloe, the water defense is a deliberately engineered freshwater moat: a brook was redirected into a rectangular channel, the banks were managed by earthwork, and a controlled outlet regulated the water level. The engineering was hydraulic in the sense of managing flowing water through a constructed system — a leat bringing water in, a controlled outlet letting it out, and the castle fabric sitting on foundations that had to be built through the wet ground that this management produced. The water is continuously renewed from the brook, which means the moat remains clean (by the standards of pre-modern water management) and maintains a consistent level as long as the supply is managed.

Takamatsu Castle in Kagawa Prefecture on the island of Shikoku represents a Japanese water castle of an entirely different hydraulic character. Built between 1588 and 1590 by Ikoma Chikamasa, a retainer of Toyotomi Hideyoshi who was awarded the province of Sanuki during the late Sengoku period’s concluding military campaigns, Takamatsu Castle was positioned directly on the coast of the Seto Inland Sea. Its moats were filled not with fresh water diverted from a local stream but with seawater drawn directly from the sea through sluice gates — a water gate (水門, mizunote) regulated the tidal flow into the moat system. This meant that the moat was not merely defensive but actively tidal: its depth and character shifted with the sea, bream and other marine fish are recorded swimming in the moats to this day, and the castle’s stone walls rose from a saltwater environment fundamentally different from anything a Leicestershire builder would have encountered. Takamatsu is one of three castles in Japan recognized as using seawater moats in this way, alongside Imabari Castle in Ehime Prefecture and Nakatsu Castle in Ōita Prefecture — the three are collectively described in Japanese architectural heritage as the “three great water castles.”

The structural materials of the two castle traditions diverge completely. Kirby Muxloe’s surviving fabric is brick, produced locally in a kiln workshop capable of 100,000 units a week, bonded with lime mortar that has hardened over five centuries into a mass that is in some respects stronger than the bricks themselves. The Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch is cut stone, the prestige masonry of northern European medieval tradition. Takamatsu Castle, in contrast, was built on the structural system typical of late Sengoku-era Japanese castle construction: massive stone base walls constructed using the nozurazumi technique of dry-stacked natural stones (in the earlier phases) and more precisely cut nochikomi or nozurizumi methods in later renovations, topped by white-plastered timber superstructures with characteristic curved rooflines. The stone bases of Japanese castles are not mortared in the European sense; their structural stability derives from the careful interlocking of large and small stones in a tapering battered profile that distributes the weight of the building broadly across a large footprint.

The defensive logic of the moat also operated differently in the two traditions. At Kirby Muxloe, the moat is a static obstacle: its depth and width are fixed by the earthwork banks and the managed water supply, and an attacker’s options were essentially bridging or draining. At Takamatsu, the tidal character of the seawater moat introduced a dynamic element: tidal variation could in principle affect the accessibility of the walls at different states of the tide, and the direct connection to the sea gave the castle’s garrison a potential supply line by boat that a fully landlocked moated castle could not claim. The water gate that regulated the sea connection was therefore a critical element of both the defensive and the logistical system — a piece of infrastructure with no direct parallel at Kirby Muxloe, where the moat inlet was a simple agricultural-style leat rather than a maritime gate structure.

The timeline comparison between the two castles illuminates how similar technical problems were solved over a century apart. Kirby Muxloe’s moat and coffer-damming date from 1480–1483, deep within the English late medieval period. Takamatsu’s construction in 1588–1590 falls within the Azuchi-Momoyama period — the final phase of the Sengoku period of Japanese warring states — at a moment when Toyotomi Hideyoshi was consolidating political and military authority across Japan with a speed and decisiveness that parallels, in some respects, the political volatility that characterized the English Wars of the Roses during which Kirby Muxloe was planned. Both buildings were products of unusually turbulent political moments, designed for patrons operating at the intersection of military power and aristocratic display, and both were shaped by the defensive possibilities offered by the water in their respective landscapes.

What the comparison most clearly reveals is the independence of the two solutions. There is no historical connection between the English moated-castle tradition and the Japanese mizushiro tradition — the two developed in complete isolation from each other, responding to similar military problems with the materials and engineering knowledge available in their respective contexts. The convergence is what engineers call independent parallel development: the same general principle (use water as a perimeter obstacle) expressed in forms that reflect entirely different material cultures, climate conditions, structural traditions, and social contexts. This independence makes the comparison analytically useful precisely because it isolates the underlying functional logic of water-defensive architecture from any particular cultural expression of it.

The Unfinished Fortress: Survival, Conservation, and Architectural Legacy

The survival of Kirby Muxloe Castle across five and a half centuries of partial ruin is not automatic: it reflects a series of decisions, first by the Hastings family and then by successive owners and the state, about what value the incomplete structure retained and what interventions were needed to prevent its complete collapse. After Katherine Hastings abandoned the building campaign in the summer of 1484, the castle passed through various periods of occupation, partial use as a farm, and progressive decay. By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it was sufficiently picturesque in its ruined state to attract the attention of antiquarians and landscape enthusiasts, though it received no systematic conservation attention during this period.

The formal conservation history of the site begins in 1911, when the Commissioners of Works — the predecessor to what became English Heritage — took over management and began the first systematic interventions: repairing deteriorating brickwork, clearing accumulated debris from the moat and courtyard, and conducting a preliminary archaeological survey of the buried remains. These early twentieth-century works established the interpretive framework for understanding the site that subsequent study has refined but not overturned. The 1912 clearance operations were particularly significant for revealing the extent of the fourteenth-century manor house foundations within the castle enclosure, which provided evidence for the pre-existing occupied site on which Hastings’ new castle had been superimposed.

The building accounts that survive from the Hastings papers — covering the construction period from October 1480 to December 1484 — are perhaps the most valuable documentary resource that the site has contributed to English architectural history. Their preservation, apparently within the archive collections at Ashby de la Zouch Castle before being identified and published in the nineteenth century, was fortunate rather than systematic: the survival of private noble building records from the medieval period is rare, and the completeness of the Kirby Muxloe series — four years of weekly or fortnightly expenditure entries covering every category of labor, material, and equipment used on the site — has made them a standard reference for historians of medieval construction management. The accounts document not only the physical construction but the social and economic organization of a major fifteenth-century building project: how workers were recruited (including the Welsh masons and the Flemish brick specialist), how materials were procured and costed, and how expenditure responded to the political events that terminated the project.

The castle’s unfinished state, while architecturally defining, also presents specific conservation challenges. Incomplete masonry runs — curtain wall sections that end abruptly, tower stubs that never reached their designed height — expose rubble core material that was intended to be enclosed within the finished wall face. This exposed core is more vulnerable to water infiltration, frost action, and biological colonization than a complete wall face would be. The English Heritage conservation program has addressed these vulnerabilities through a combination of capping materials applied to the tops of incomplete walls, repointing of mortar joints in the surviving standing sections, and vegetation management to reduce the root action that can dislodge masonry.

The place of Kirby Muxloe Castle in English architectural historiography has been recognized increasingly clearly as scholarship on late medieval brick architecture has advanced. The site is frequently cited alongside Tattershall Castle (Lincolnshire), Herstmonceux Castle (East Sussex), and the brick buildings of Eton College as part of the group of structures through which the Flemish brick tradition was transmitted into English aristocratic architecture in the fifteenth century. Within this group, Kirby Muxloe has a distinctive position as the clearest surviving example of the moment when brick architecture and early gunport design were being combined for the first time in a private fortification of the highest status — a quality that makes it unusually informative for the study of transitional military architecture in the late medieval period.

Visiting Kirby Muxloe Castle and Ashby de la Zouch Castle

Kirby Muxloe Castle is located at Off Oakcroft Avenue, Kirby Muxloe, Leicestershire, LE9 2DH, approximately four miles west of Leicester city center. The site is managed by English Heritage and access for non-members requires a ticket, with English Heritage members admitted free. The castle operates a guided-tour model on selected Saturdays and Sundays, with tours running from 11:00 to 12:00 and 13:00 to 14:00; all visits must be pre-booked online at the English Heritage website, and tours start promptly — tickets are valid only for the booked slot. Check the official English Heritage booking page at english-heritage.org.uk for current tour dates and admission prices, as the schedule and pricing are updated seasonally (check official site for current rates).

The grounds themselves are accessible on days when guided tours are not running, and visitors are welcome to walk the moat perimeter, photograph the gatehouse, and explore the exterior of the surviving structures. Free parking is available on site, with additional on-street spaces on Oakcroft Avenue. There are no catering or toilet facilities at the castle; the nearest facilities are at the Castle Hotel in the village. Dogs on leads are welcome. Accessibility is limited: the entrance drawbridge prevents drop-off directly at the gate, and the interior of the gatehouse and west tower involves stairs. The site is ideal for a half-day visit combined with the nearby Ashby de la Zouch Castle or other Leicestershire heritage sites.

Ashby de la Zouch Castle is located at South Street, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1BR, approximately thirteen miles northwest of Kirby Muxloe by road. The castle is also managed by English Heritage and requires standard admission for non-members; check the English Heritage website for current prices and advance-booking discounts. Opening hours during the summer season are broadly Wednesday to Sunday from 10:00 to 17:00 (last admission 30 minutes before closing), with reduced winter hours; confirm current opening days on the English Heritage website before visiting, as these vary.

The key architectural and visitor experiences at each site complement each other as a paired itinerary. At Kirby Muxloe, visitors should focus on: the gatehouse diaperwork, looking for the WH initials, maunch, ship, and jug motifs embedded in the darker bricks; the gunports in the gatehouse and west tower at ground level; the view across the moat that reproduces the visual approach that Hastings’ guests would have experienced; and the visible foundations of the earlier Pakeman manor house within the castle enclosure. At Ashby de la Zouch, the priorities are: the Hastings Tower, both its exterior cut-stone masonry and — if the access permit allows — the interior fireplaces and stair turret; the underground passage from the kitchen to the tower base; and the broader castle complex, including the hall, chapel built by Lord Hastings, and the garden earthworks to the east of the tower. Together, the two sites offer an architectural biography of a single patron’s building program — ambitious, contemporary, and cut short — that cannot be fully read from either site alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is diaperwork brickwork and what does it look like at Kirby Muxloe Castle?

Diaperwork brickwork is a decorative technique in which vitrified dark-colored bricks — over-fired in the kiln, which gives them a glassy, blue-black or plum-brown surface — are set among the standard red-fired courses in a pattern that creates diamond or lozenge shapes across the wall face. The visual effect is of a textured two-tone surface: fields of red brick interspersed with darker geometric patterns. At Kirby Muxloe Castle, the technique is applied with particular elaboration on the gatehouse façade, where the diamond patterns also incorporate heraldic and personal devices in darker brick — the initials WH (William Hastings), the heraldic maunch or sleeve from Hastings’ coat of arms, a ship, and a jug. These personal devices are embedded within the broader geometric field, creating a brickwork surface that is simultaneously decorative, structural, and symbolic. The technique was learned by master mason John Cowper during his apprenticeship on the Eton College buildings, where Henry VI’s brick-building program had established diaperwork as the prestige decorative vocabulary of high-status English brick construction in the mid-fifteenth century.

Why was Kirby Muxloe Castle never completed?

Construction at Kirby Muxloe Castle was permanently halted by the execution of its patron, William, Lord Hastings, on 13 June 1483. At a council meeting at the Tower of London, Richard of Gloucester — in the process of seizing the English throne from his nephew Edward V — accused Hastings and other council members of treason. Unlike the others accused, Hastings was given no time for trial or defense; he was beheaded in the Tower’s courtyard on the same day the accusation was made. The building accounts document the impact precisely: expenditure in the fourth year of construction drops to £61 0s. 4d., compared with over £300 in each of the two preceding years, reflecting Lady Katherine Hastings’ brief and diminishing continuation of the project before she finally abandoned it in the summer of 1484. Richard III restored the Hastings inheritance to Katherine, but neither she nor her descendants chose to resume the work. The castle remained in partial use as a farm over subsequent centuries before falling into the ruin that English Heritage now conserves.

How does the moat at Kirby Muxloe Castle work hydraulically?

The moat at Kirby Muxloe is a managed freshwater system fed by a brook that was deliberately redirected during the castle’s construction in the early 1480s. Water enters the moat channel via an artificial leat — a managed water course — and exits through a controlled outlet channel, both of which are identified as part of the scheduled monument by Historic England. This inlet-and-outlet system keeps the moat water relatively fresh and allows the water level to be regulated. During construction, the challenge of building the castle’s foundations within and beside the water-filled channel was addressed through timber coffer-damming — temporary watertight enclosures of timber planks and stakes within which the masons could work in dry conditions. The leat and outlet infrastructure also involved the management of water flowing through or beneath the earthwork banks, a hydraulic challenge that late medieval engineers addressed through the construction of culverts and possibly siphon-style water passages allowing water to pass under solid embankments without requiring elevated aqueduct structures. The moat today remains water-filled and is a defining visual and ecological feature of the site.

What exactly are gunports, and how early are Kirby Muxloe Castle’s examples?

Gunports are purpose-built openings in the walls of a fortification designed to allow small firearms or light artillery pieces to be discharged from within a defended position against targets outside. The earliest gunports in English castle architecture appear in the late fourteenth century as retrofitted keyhole or circular openings cut through existing stone walls to accommodate the barrels of early cannon, particularly along the south coast where French naval raids threatened port towns. The openings at Kirby Muxloe represent a distinct and more developed type: twelve rectangular gunports integrated into the ground-floor walls of the gatehouse and west tower from the outset of construction in 1480–1483, rather than added retrospectively to a stone structure designed for a different weapon system. Historic England records the gatehouse and south-western tower as retaining “early examples of gun ports within their fabric.” Historians describe the Kirby Muxloe gunports as early — though the precise degree to which they are the earliest of their specific type is a matter for ongoing architectural scholarship — and note the characteristic ambiguity of whether they were primarily practical military features or primarily symbolic demonstrations of technical modernity. Several were positioned below the moat’s waterline and were permanently blocked with brickwork, which supports the interpretation that their placement was not the result of rigorous military engineering analysis.

What is the relationship between Kirby Muxloe Castle and Ashby de la Zouch Castle?

Both Kirby Muxloe Castle and Ashby de la Zouch Castle were commissioned by the same patron, William, Lord Hastings, within the same decade and under the same royal license to crenellate obtained in 1474. They represent the two principal surviving expressions of Hastings’ architectural ambitions in Leicestershire and stand in deliberate stylistic contrast: Kirby Muxloe was built in brick with elaborate diaperwork decoration and early gunports, and was left permanently unfinished at Hastings’ execution in 1483; the Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch was built in cut stone throughout, completed before Hastings died, and although severely damaged during the English Civil War siege of 1644–1646 survives as a substantial ruin. The English Heritage description of Ashby de la Zouch describes it as having “achieved its greatest glory as the purpose-built status symbol of William, Lord Hastings,” noting explicitly that “the same man also built Kirby Muxloe Castle.” The two sites are approximately thirteen miles apart by road and reward visiting as a pair for anyone interested in late fifteenth-century English aristocratic architecture, offering complementary evidence about a single patron’s building program in two different structural materials.

What do the building accounts of Kirby Muxloe Castle reveal?

The building accounts of Kirby Muxloe Castle — which survive from the Hastings family papers and cover the construction period from 22 October 1480 to 6 December 1484 — are among the most complete surviving records of a private castle building campaign in English medieval history. They document a total expenditure of £1,088 17s. 6¾d. across four construction years, with spending peaking in the second year (£397 5s. 8¼d.) as the main masonry campaigns reached their greatest intensity, and dropping dramatically in the fourth year (£61 0s. 4d.) following Hastings’ execution. The accounts name the key craftsmen: master mason John Cowper at eight pence a day; Antony Yzebrond from Flanders, who established the brick-making workshop; and a workforce that included numerous Welsh masons alongside English laborers. They document the materials procurement — stone, brick, lime, timber — and the organization of the weekly worksite. They also record the gradual slowing of construction after June 1483, capturing in financial terms the impact of a political event on an ongoing building enterprise. These records make Kirby Muxloe unusually transparent as an architectural history case study, providing the kind of primary evidence that most medieval buildings simply do not possess.

What structural features remain visible at Kirby Muxloe Castle today?

The two surviving structures at Kirby Muxloe Castle are the gatehouse and the west tower (the south-western corner tower), both of which survive in a near-complete condition relative to the overall planned design. The gatehouse is the more elaborate and architecturally expressive of the two, with its diaperwork-decorated brick façades, the gatehouse arch, the remains of the upper rooms, and the original portcullis-winding room accessible via internal stairs. The west tower preserves its spiraling brick staircase, the domed brick ceilings of individual rooms, and the gunports at ground-floor level. The water-filled moat encircles the site and is crossed via the drawbridge approach to the gatehouse. Within the castle enclosure, the stone foundations of the earlier fourteenth-century Pakeman manor house are partially visible in the courtyard, and the earthwork banks of the intended corner and side tower platforms can be read in the grass. The outline of the planned complete castle — four corner towers, three side towers, and the gatehouse — is legible as a combination of standing fabric and earthwork evidence, which makes Kirby Muxloe one of the clearest examples in England of a late medieval castle that can be understood in terms of its intended as well as its actual completion.

How does the Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch Castle compare to the unfinished towers at Kirby Muxloe?

The Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch Castle and the surviving west tower at Kirby Muxloe were products of the same patron and the same approximate period, but they are structurally and materially very different. The Hastings Tower is a complete stone building: cut stone throughout, with vaulted basement and kitchen floors and two luxuriously appointed upper apartments served by a stair turret of seven floors. It was conceived as an autonomous self-contained residence — a castle within a castle — and completed before Hastings’ death. The west tower at Kirby Muxloe is a brick structure, considerably smaller in volume, with a staircase, diaperwork-decorated exterior walls, gunports, and domed brick ceilings but without the palatial residential ambitions of the Ashby tower. The contrast reflects the different roles envisaged for the two buildings: Ashby de la Zouch was Hastings’ primary seat and intended to express the highest degree of dynastic authority; Kirby Muxloe was a secondary residence, perhaps a fortified retreat or a demonstration of fashionable brick construction technique, where the priority was visual modernity rather than permanent residential magnificence. Together they show a patron who was fluent in both the traditional prestige of stone and the contemporary prestige of brick, pursuing both simultaneously.

What is a water castle and how does Kirby Muxloe compare to Japanese examples?

A water castle is a fortification in which water constitutes the primary perimeter defense, forming a moat or series of moats that an attacker must cross before reaching the masonry or earthwork defenses. The term “water castle” (mizushiro in Japanese — 水城) is used in Japanese architectural heritage to describe a specific group of castles in which the defensive water was not merely a dug moat filled with groundwater but was actively managed as part of a hydraulic system connected to a larger water body. Takamatsu Castle in Kagawa Prefecture, built 1588–1590 during the late Sengoku period, is the best known of the three Japanese castles classified in this way. Its moats were fed directly by seawater from the Seto Inland Sea through sluice gates, making the defensive water tidal, saline, and connected to the maritime environment. Kirby Muxloe’s moat, by contrast, is a freshwater system fed by a redirected brook — technically sophisticated but hydraulically simpler, operating in a temperate continental landscape rather than a coastal maritime one. The two types represent convergent independent development: the same general defensive logic (use water as a perimeter obstacle) expressed through entirely different engineering traditions, material cultures, and geographical contexts, with no historical connection between the English moated-castle tradition and the Japanese mizushiro tradition. The comparison reveals how similar military problems generate similar architectural forms across different civilizations working completely independently.

How do I visit both Kirby Muxloe Castle and Ashby de la Zouch Castle?

Both sites are managed by English Heritage and are located in Leicestershire, approximately thirteen miles apart by road — a straightforward pairing for a day visit by car. Kirby Muxloe Castle is at Off Oakcroft Avenue, Kirby Muxloe, LE9 2DH, about four miles west of Leicester city center; free parking is available on site. The site operates a guided-tour model on selected Saturdays and Sundays, with tours at 11:00 and 13:00, and all visits must be pre-booked online at the English Heritage website. Check current availability and admission prices before traveling, as tour dates are updated seasonally. Ashby de la Zouch Castle is at South Street, Ashby de la Zouch, LE65 1BR; limited free disabled parking is available on site, and general visitors are directed to the town car park on South Street. Summer opening (March–September) is broadly Wednesday to Sunday 10:00 to 16:00 or 17:00, with weekend-only opening in winter; confirm current opening days on the English Heritage website as these vary annually. English Heritage members have free admission to both sites. A recommended itinerary is to begin at Kirby Muxloe for the morning guided tour, proceed to Ashby de la Zouch for the afternoon, and use the Castle Hotel in Kirby Muxloe or the town center facilities in Ashby de la Zouch for catering, as neither castle has on-site food provision.

Brickwork and Water Defenses: The Unfinished Brick Engineering of Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester

Brickwork and Water Defenses: The Unfinished Brick Engineering of Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester

Key Takeaways

People Also Ask About Kirby Muxloe Castle Architecture

What makes Kirby Muxloe Castle significant in late medieval English brick architecture?

How does timber coffer-damming work in medieval castle construction?

What are the gunports at Kirby Muxloe Castle, and why are they architecturally important?

How does Kirby Muxloe Castle relate to other Lord Hastings fortifications?

England multi-day tours

Extended multi-day tours – 5+ days

Featured Coventry Multi-Day Tour Packages

Essential England (7 destinations)

Essential England (7 destinations)

Touring Southern England with London (14 destinations)

Touring Southern England (14 destinations)

Lord Hastings and the Politics of Brick: Context for Kirby Muxloe’s Construction

Diaperwork Brickwork: Pattern, Production, and Prestige at Kirby Muxloe Castle

Mural Gunport Geometry: The Early Artillery Architecture of Kirby Muxloe Castle

Timber Coffer-Damming and Moat Hydraulics at Kirby Muxloe Castle

The Hexagonal Keep: Structural Mechanics of Ashby de la Zouch Castle

Load-Bearing Turrets and Mine-Subsidence Structural Shifts

Interior Curtained Fireplaces and Vertical Circulation Shafts

Water Castles Across Cultures: Kirby Muxloe and Japanese Mizushiro Architecture

The Unfinished Fortress: Survival, Conservation, and Architectural Legacy

Visiting Kirby Muxloe Castle and Ashby de la Zouch Castle

Frequently Asked Questions

What is diaperwork brickwork and what does it look like at Kirby Muxloe Castle?

Why was Kirby Muxloe Castle never completed?

How does the moat at Kirby Muxloe Castle work hydraulically?

What exactly are gunports, and how early are Kirby Muxloe Castle’s examples?

What is the relationship between Kirby Muxloe Castle and Ashby de la Zouch Castle?

What do the building accounts of Kirby Muxloe Castle reveal?

What structural features remain visible at Kirby Muxloe Castle today?

How does the Hastings Tower at Ashby de la Zouch Castle compare to the unfinished towers at Kirby Muxloe?

What is a water castle and how does Kirby Muxloe compare to Japanese examples?

How do I visit both Kirby Muxloe Castle and Ashby de la Zouch Castle?

Previous Post

The Pre-Cambrian Sanctuary: Geometrical Alignment and Monastic Isolation at Ulverscroft Priory near Leicester