Kew Palace

Lee Prosser

In November Lee Prosser was introduced as the curator of the royal palaces at Kew, Hampton Court and Kensington. Many people in this position would have a background of architectural history, but his talk was particularly interesting because it clearly reflected his background as a genuine archaeologist (including Saxon and Landscape archaeology). For him, the huge programme of work necessary on Kew palace between 1996 and 2006 was a remarkable opportunity to look in all kinds of places which normally would be totally out of bounds.

He started with a brief history of the house. Although often called "the Dutch House", this name never occurred before the 19th century. In fact the style of the house built in 1631 comes principally from East Anglia, and there is no particular connection with anything Dutch. The house was built by a rich merchant of Hugenot origins, and its size and style appears to have been very typical of perhaps 300 other high- status residences built around London during this period. There are now only 3 good examples left, so that even without any royal connection the building would be a priceless relic. In fact the undercroft appears to be even earlier, probably Tudor, but this is the subject of continuing research.

The house came into royal hands in 1729, and was then used by many members of the royal family culminating in its famous association with the family of George III. Following this, the house was basically shut up and disused until 1898; at this date it was opened to the public. We were shown various slides of how the interiors were exhibited in the 1960s. While these interiors looked very opulent, they were generally completely unhistorical, and if Queen Charlotte had ever returned she would have been completely bemused as to what they had been done to the palace. By 1996 the building was suffering from a wide range of problems, and was closed for a major repair programme; re-opening was now scheduled for March 27th 2006.

The 10 year programme involved extensive investigation. This involved not just physical examination by a wide range of specialists, but also wide-ranging research in written records. The range of discoveries was quite remarkable, and covered every period from the original construction to bad brickwork patching in the19th century. Particularly interesting survivals from 1631 included marks carved in the roof timbers to ward off witches, as well as striking wall painting hidden by later layers. When royalty then took over in 1730 they had added many features that were top quality.

From the archaeological point of view, the building became more interesting as you went higher. The opening of the building to the public in 1898 was in fact limited to the ground and first floor, and it seemed that on the second floor the rooms of Georges III's daughters had not really been touched since perhaps 1810. Higher up, the servants' quarters had been even less subject to 'make-over'. As one example, paint sample of analysis on a door on the top floor only showed 4 layers of paint, whereas some paint samples on the ground floor showed 22 layers of paint.

The final object of all this work was to put the palace back on show to the public with interiors worthy of its history. Modern standards now require the greatest emphasis on historical accuracy - it was stressed that even the controversial application of a coloured limewash to the exterior of the building could be justified by original traces found behind a rainwater hod on the outside of the building. However, should the interiors be restored as they were when built in 1631, or as first a royal palace c. 1730, or as in the early 1800s? The choice was made for 1804 principally because there was so much more evidence regarding this date. There had even been found traces of wallpaper that could be dated to precisely 1804.

The lecture had been particularly interesting, and in thanking the speaker Anna hoped that members of the audience would join her in a specially organised tour during 2006.

Peter Brown