Built into the interior of the Grand Bridge of Blenheim Palace are a number of re-used medieval stones, some of which are carved, presumed to come from Old Woodstock Castle/Manor. Over the past several centuries, the medieval buildings have been referred to as a Hunting Lodge, a Palace, a Castle, a Manor House, and The King's House.

Rosamund’s Hill and Rosamund’s Meadow, which neighbour the manor house, were mentioned in 1578 in the Burghley papers. In 1599, an account of a topographical excursion was written by Thomas Platter (a Swiss) and in it a brief description of Woodstock palace was made, which included the Great Hall, round chapel and 'old ruined building opposite the palace (rudera) where dwelled the lovely Rosamund Clifford'. He described the chapel inside the palace as 'built in Jewish fashion in a semicircle; the women stand on one side, and a window looks on to the men's chapel. Before the door stands a large stately font in which many kings have been baptised'. From this, it appears that a wall across the centre of the chapel may formerly have been built, creating two semi-circular sections. Later, in 1634, three military men from Norwich visited Woodstock manor. In their Survey of 26 Counties (ed. Legg), the hall and chapel leading off of it were described as: 'a spacious Church-like Hall, with 2. fayre Iles, with 6. Pillers, white, and large, parting either Ile .... On the left hand of the Hall, wee entred a neat and stately, rich Chappell, with 7. round Arches, with 8. little Windowes aboue the Arches, and 15. in them; A curious Font there is in the midst of it, and all the Roofe is most admirably wrought ....' ‘Rosamund’s’ bower was also briefly described, which the author reported as being 'nothing…but ruines’. During the 17thc. Civil War, King Charles I was at Woodstock Castle/Manor house for certain periods, but after he moved from Woodstock to Oxford, the manor was left to his soldiers to defend on behalf of the king. Coming under seige in 1646, the manor was surrendered to the opposing forces, and during these attacks and subsequent occupation by soldiers, considerable damage was caused to the royal buidlings. in October 1649, formal possession of the buildings was taken by the commissioners of the Parliament and the remaining furnishings sold off. In an Act of July 26, 1649, Woodstock Castle/Manor was described as:

consisting of one large gatehouse and a court-yard, conteyning thre roodes and twelve perches, on the north of which there is a rainge of building called the Prince’s Lodgings, on the east a spatious hall, adjoyning to which there is a chappell and lodgings, known by the name of the Bishop’s Lodgings, another courte-yard, called the wardrobe, conteyning twoo roodes, surrounded with the Lord Chamberleyn’s lodgings and the wardrobe roomes, adjoyning to which is the Queen’s hall and the steward’s lodgings; there is a fair staircase leading up to the guard chambere, to which joynes the presence chambere, the privy chambere, on the right hand of which is the king’s withdrawing-roome, bed-chamber, and closett; on the the right hand the Queen’s lodgings.

All which rooms have no garnishing within considerable, but covered without with lead; there is a plott of ground called the privy garden conteyning twenty perches, surrounded with buildings and other courte yard, called the pastery courte, conteyninge twelve perches, surrounded with two large kithchinges and other buildings; all of which courte-house, with the scite thereof, is butted with the rode that leadeth out of the park to the towne of Woodstocke, on the south, and with the meadow, knowne by the name of tennis courte meade on the east, and with the hill knowne by the name of Podge Hill on the north, and with the lodge green on the west, and doth contain by estimation three acres, one roode, and fifteen perches, £20. (from Marshall, pp. 206-7)

In the same year, though the buildings were said to be out of repair, it was decided that it was better to let them stand than to demolish them. It was also suggested that the buildings might be divided up in such a way as to create several ‘habitations’. Following the sale of the buildings in 1650, some areas of the manor were taken down by two of the new owners. John Aubrey, writing about 1672, had earlier visited the ruins of Woodstock and made notes about what he had seen. He, too, described the hall: 'In the Hall at Woodstock were one or two rowes of pillars, as in a church .... The arches above the pillars in the Hall were semicircular, as at Christ-Church Quire in Oxford." He also made a sketch showing, to his 'best Remembrance', the decoration of the arches. This small sketch showed two zig-zag lines crossing over each other to form a series of lozenges. Aubrey stated, as well, that the hall had been 'demolished about 2O years ago. - now 1672'. Plot’s view of 1677 shows a large part of Woodstock Manor in ruins, primarily on the northern side. Following Charles II’s Restoration, Woodstock park and manor were restored to the crown. Although certain repairs appear to have been undertaken by 1662, when the king went through Woodstock in 1663 he did not stay there. The following year, John Evelyn passed through Woodstock and noted the destruction that had been taken place to the royal seat in the previous years. From about 1670, the gatehouse, which had survived, was tenanted for several years. King James II visited the ruins in 1687 and managed to dine 'in great state at the palace of Woodstock'. William III visited in 1695, but neither James II nor William III lodged in the palace. After this, the old palace remained uninhabited and was said to be 'altogether ruinous' by the early 18thc.

After his success at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, Queen Anne gave the palace and park to Sir John Marlborough. Marlborough quickly employed John Vanbrugh as his architect for a new palace, called Blenheim Palace, to be built south of the the medieval one. Along with this, was the construction of the Grand Bridge, leading north from Blenheim Palace, with the ruins of the old palace on the NE side, which Vanbrugh wished to save. In 1705 Vanbrugh directed that the inhabitable section of the old palace of Woodstock be made 'a little decent'. Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, hated the view of the old palace and insisted on it being torn down. Before any action was undertaken, all building work on Blenheim Palace stopped, for in 1712 the Duke left the country and went to Europe following a feud between the Duchess and the Queen, which resulted in royal funding being cut off. Sarah followed the Duke to Europe the following February, and neither returned to England until 1714. During this period, not only did Vanbrugh not act on Sarah's earlier wishes, but in 1713 he moved himself into the old palace, continuing to live there until forced out in 1716, despite the Duke, himself, having ordered it's demolition. In 1716, work on the new palace was re-commenced and and in 1716/17 Henry Wise made a bill for ‘Carting away Rubbish from the Old Mannor hill, to the North Side the Bridge in Woodstock Park’. The Duke moved into part of the new palace, itself, in 1719/1720, but sections of the old manor still remained standing in 1722 when he died. Not until 1723, as recorded in the 'Memorandums of Antiquity', does one finally find stated that, ‘the old Manner House began pulling Down’. In the later part of the second half of the 18thc., Thomas Warton wrote that there were people still living who remembered 'some wall of the hall' and 'the walls and magnificent windows of the chapel', though he does not state whether this was the round chapel. (Warton, p. 72 fn.)

The first phase of construction of the Grand Bridge began in 1706, but the main phase of construction of the bridge, with a new design, began in mid-1708. By March 1708, an engine for supplying spring water from Rosamund's Well to the East Gate had been installed in what was to become the north arch of the Grand Bridge (the engine was later removed by Capabilty Brown), and in June of that year foundations for the main arch were underway. Despite further work in 1709, the span of the arch was only finally completed in 1710. Work stopped on the bridge in 1712, and it remained still unfinished in September of 1721, when certain changes were made to the design. William Townsend and Bart. Paisley jnr. were contracted to finish construction of the bridge by Marlborough’s widow. In the 'Memorandums of Antiquity' under the year 1725, it is written that ‘The Canals and Cascades began at the Old Rails, or the Lower end of Rosamonds Meadow’, and that in 1727 the lake was built. It is likely, therefore, that by this time work on the bridge had finished and the tearing down of the medieval buildings was complete.

During the medieval period Woodstock was generally written down as ‘Vudestoc’, ‘Wudestoc’ or ‘Wudestoch’. It was used by early kings from at least the later-10c./early-11thc., and Domesday book recorded that Woodstock was part of the king’s demesne forests. In the early part of the 12thc., King Henry I took a particular interest in the place and spent much time there at his hunting lodge. The earliest of the royal charters issued in Woodstock appeared in 1110, and William of Malmesbury later wrote that Henry also kept a range of animals within his park, many of which were sent to him from abroad. In addition to the 1110 charter, Henry's presence at Woodstock is recorded in or about 1114, 1121, 1123, 1126 (possibly), 1127, 1129 (possibly), 1130, 1131 and 1133. Unfortunately, only one Pipe Roll of Henry I (for Sept 1129 - Sept 1130) survives. It shows that 47s was spent on material to cover the king’s house at Woodstock. Henry’s daughter, the Empress Matilda, seems to have fortified Woodstock in 1141 duing conflicts with King Stephen, but it is unknown if she ever stayed there. No Pipe Rolls survive from King Stephen’s reign (1136-54), but various charters show that he was in Woodstock at least once in each of the following three periods: 1136-9, 1149 and 1153-4. The Pipe Rolls for Henry II record increased building works and activity at Woodstock during his reign. It is likely that he was the founder of the town of New Woodstock (the centre was formerly just north of this, in the area now called 'Old Woodstock'), possibly to house those who visited him when he was in residence at the 'King's House'. A church (a chapel of ease of the parish of neighbouring Bladon) was also built in the new town at this time. In 1163, the rulers of both Scotland and Wales paid homage to Henry in Woodstock. Work carried out on the stone wall around the park in 1164/5 is also recorded in the Pipe Rolls, and important ecclesiastical councils were held in Woodstock in 1175 and 1184. The first known reference to a royal chapel is mentioned for the 32nd year of Henry II in the Pipe Rolls as 'capelle Regis de Wudestoch', in reference to repairs to the chapel. In the same year, 1186, Ermengard, a relative of Henry, was married to King William of Scotland in the King’s chapel. It was specifically mentioned in the Chronicle of Melrose (p. 94) that this took place in the 'capella regis de parco apud Wudestoc' in September of that year. The wedding was followed by four days of festivities on site. One assumes that much activity for this took place in the Great Hall. The Pipe Rolls show that work on the palace continued to be carried out throughout Henry's reign. Further extensive building work on the royal lodgings was carried out during the reign of Henry III (1207-72), and repairs were carried out on the Royal Chapel in the 1220s. In 1232/3 the king’s Round Chapel 'Rotunda capella regis de Wudestok' was mentioned specifically for the first time. Other chapels were later added during Henry III’s reign. Some work on the hall is recorded for 1240 (Marshall, p. 77). Most of the following kings and queens of England also spent time in the palace of Woodstock. Henry VII (1485-1509) had a new front and outer enclosure constructed. References to various other repairs on the manor were also made during his reign. John Rous (Historia Regum Angliae) described the royal house at Woodstock in the late 15thc. as a palace. In 1551, however, the report made into the state of the manor asserted that ‘for many years past hath been decayed and prostrated’ (from VCH), though Queen Elizabeth I was kept under house arrest for part of 1554 and 1555 in the Gatehouse. In 1603, King James I of England had a section of the palace fitted up so that he might stay there. His son, Charles I, was the last king to reside there.

In the mid-20thc., H. Colvin discovered three carved medieval stones re-used inside the Grand Bridge of Blenheim Palace. Green states that 'One of these pieces had been exposed by visitors' removal of a large number of wall stones, thus endangering support.' He immediately follows this with the statement that in 1951 the north-east entry to the bridge had been closed with an iron grill. No other reference to the carved stones has been found, but Green's comments suggest that the piece exposed by the visitors' removal of stone may be that with roll-moulding and hollow chamfer located in the SW room of the N side of the bridge at -1 level. A number of ashlared stones can be found built into other walls at this level of the bridge which have diagonal tooling and appear to be reused from elsewhere. The diagonal tooling marks may suggest that they come from a 12thc. building, as this was a common way of tooling stone at that time. Some diagonal tooling also occurs on re-used medieval stones at level -2. During Henry II's reign, building work on the old palace of Woodstock was carried out, which included some work on the chapel. There was more than one chapel at Woodstock by the end of the medieval period. One first hears of second chapel, the Queen's chapel, in 1250 when King Henry III ordered that it be built in the upper story of the Queen's new chamber. In 1251 this chapel was referred to as the 'New Chapel'. It is tempting to suggest that the chapel referred to earlier than this was the only one in existance at that time and had been built by either King Henry I or King Henry II. Aubrey believed that the old buildings of Woodstock Manor House were built by King Henry II, but Camden wrote that it was Henry I who built the 'magnificent Palace'. Not enough information survives, however, to know exactly which buildings were used as a quarry for stone in the construction of the Grand Bridge.

It remains unknown what buildings were built at Woodstock for King Henry I, nor what materials were used to build them. It is frequently cited by modern writers that he had a 7-mile stone wall built around Woodstock Park, but there is no contemporary evidence for this. Henry Knighton in the 14thc., like others before him, wrote that Henry had made a great park at Woodstock, but he made no reference to a fence or wall. It seems, in fact, that it was in the late 15thc. that John Rous first made the assertion that Henry had built a stone wall around the park and that it was seven miles long. In the 19thc., Edward Marshall noted this in his history of Woodstock. By contrast, the Pipe Rolls for the 9th year of Henry II clearly state that £7 was spent on a game enclosure, and in the Pipe Rolls for his 11th year it is recorded that £30 was spent for work on a wall (‘muri’) around the park of Woodstock.

On the single stone found carved with chevron, the main rolls on the edge of the stone are prominent and meet at a common point, thus creating a series of lozenges when used with other stones carved similarly. There is no 'inner' roll around which the chevron is carved and no undercutting of the chevron, types which are found more commonly in the late-12thc. Similarities with the Woodstock type of chevron can be found not far away at Begbrook, on the chancel arch of the church, where the main difference is that the lozenge spaces are filled with nob-like motifs. Close examples can also be seen further away, as on arches of the N side of the E end of the nave of Selby Abbey Church (Yorks.). The rough sketch of the decoration of arches of Woodstock's Great Hall made by Aubrey in 1672 loosely resembles the effect that the arch with the surviving stone chevron would have created when complete. The two main 12thc. buildings believed to have survived the Reformation were the hall and the round chapel. Unfortunately, references to the hall at Woodstock are not forthcoming in early documents, although it is recorded that Henry I held meetings at Woodstock and built a new hall in nearby Oxford (i.e. at Beaumont Palace, stated by Robert of Torigny for the year 1133 as the 'aula nova'). It is certainly likely that much activity during the marriage celebrations of 1186 involved a large Hall, when a number of prestigious guests were in attendance. Reference to James II dining in state at the palace leads to the question of whether the great hall was still standing at that time. The date of this building is uncertain but from other decriptions it seems likely that at least some of it had been built in the 12thc. It appears that the ‘round chapel’ and great hall were still extent, at least partially, in the early part of the 18thc. (see: VCH, pp. 435-9 and The Life of Sir Thomas Pope, p. 72 fn.). In the few drawings and prints of the castle before it was demolished, the top of a round building can be seen behind the walls. It is not unlikely that this was the top of the round chapel. With respect to the Great Hall, both Henry I and Henry II are known to have met with groups of people at the Kings House of Woodstock. At present, therefore, it is not possible to ascertain with any certainty both the date and original situation of the chevron-carved stone, though stylistically it would fit well into the second or third quarter of the 12thc. There is no obvious stylistic link to be made between the S doorway of Woodstock parish church, most likely built during Henry II's reign, and any of the fragments in the Grand Bridge. In the reports of visitors who wrote about ‘Rosamund’s Bower’ there is nothing about carved stonework.

Only one of the roll-moulded stones so-far discovered is diagnostically specific to the Romanesque period, this with a hollow chamfer along one side, built into the N wall of the SW room of the N side of the bridge at level -1. The other roll mouldings seem to form a separate group and have smaller diameters. They do not, however, exhibit visual features from which a specific period can be determined. It is not unlikely that some of these date from the 12th century, but other dates remain possible.

The stone carved with cavetto and possible roll moulding re-used in the oval room at -2 level, which shows significant damage on its exposed face, is of interest. Without being able to see the original profile, which may survive on other surfaces not presently exposed, it is not presently possible to understand its original use or date.

The most intricately-carved stone is that with a section of polygonal roll. It is enigmatic and a context for it uncertain, as is its date.