The area from which Coventry grew did, however, contain a particularly good resource.... water. The Sherbourne was much larger in Saxon times, and a large lake called Babba Lacu filled much of the low lying land along the northern edge of the hamlet. Therefore, a supply of fish and drinking water was always plentiful, and the land was also more easily defended in times of trouble. The only remnant of the lake is now a small pool.
With the forest being mostly unsuitable for the cultivation of crops, the Saxon settlers in this area concentrated on cattle and sheep, and so it was this which would eventually lead to Coventry's great wealth in the middle ages with its wool industry.

Although Coventry's documented history stretches back at least a thousand years, its true beginnings are still shrouded in mystery. There is good reason to suggest that the first settlement here grew around a Saxon nunnery, which had been founded around 700 AD by St. Osburga, and which stood in the vicinity of St. Mary's Priory.

 Something that may never be proven is the origin of our city's name. The theory that some historia ns subscribe to, is that Coventry has evolved from the name Cofantreo. It's supposed that an early settler in the area by the name of Cofa, marked his boundary with a tree, (not an uncommon thing to do in Saxon times) hence the name "Cofantreo" which is thought to have meant "Cofa's tree".
Although, at first, the 'n' in the middle of the Cofa-n-treo appears out of place, I am grateful to researcher Rob MacDonald for informing me of the Old English usage of an 'n' in the genitive case, (similar to the modern possessive 's) therefore implying that the tree belonged to Cofa. However, with reference to it first seen in 1053, Cofantreo was not the first spelling of the town's name. Neither is there any firm evidence that "Cofa" was ever a name used by the Saxons, but despite the lack of any compelling evidence, this remains the preferred origin by many.
The earliest reference to our settlement was actually Couaentree. Information from David McGrory's book "A History of Coventry" tells us that the first part of the word, Couaen (and sometimes spelt "Cune") refers to a meeting place of waters. The river Sherbourne was thought to have originally been named the Cune, and used to meet with Radford Brook where they flowed into the Mill Dam , once part of the larger Bablake, so Couaentree may have referred to the "settlement at the place where the waters met".

Leofric and Godiva

houses with riches, particularly the monastery in Coventry which was described by Florence of Worcester as being " ...so rich in various ornaments that in no monastery in England might be found the abundance of gold, silver, gems and precious stones that was at that time in its possession."

A royal charter by Edward the Confessor, now known to be a forgery, states that in 1043 Leofric and Godiva founded a Benedictine monastery for twenty four monks. This was later to become the priory and cathedral of St. Mary's. Although not original, there is no reason to fully doubt the charter's contents; there have always been many reasons why, in later years, somebody (for instance the prior in this case) might wish to forge or amend such a document. Often it might have been for the purpose of laying claim to land or property which doesn't belong to them, but sometimes it could be simply to replace a lost document, and so reinforce a justified claim of ownership.
Evidence suggests that St. Mary's might have been in existence by 1022 when a Coventry church was presented with the arm of St. Augustine, and if this is true, then Leofric and Godiva's contribution may have been to 'endow' the monastery, not actually 'found' it. Many riches were bestowed upon the church, and William of Malmesbury was recorded as saying; " It was enriched and beautified with so much gold and silver that the walls seemed too narrow to contain it".

  Lady Godiva is remembered principally nowadays of course, for her naked ride through the town on horseback, allegedly in an attem pt to persuade her husband to lower the taxes that were crippling the poor citizens of Coventry. It is a wonderful story that has spanned many centuries (and lost nothing in the telling!) but for various reasons it is unlikely that such an event ever happened at all. Coventry, at that time, was little more than a hamlet, and the ride would have been very short indeed. It was also not a contemporary tale - around 120 years had elapsed since the alleged ride before it was written about in a book called "Flores Historiarum" (meaning "Flowers of History") by Roger of Wendover from St. Albans - a man apparently not known for his accurate historical recording! The story has however, remained part of the city's legend that will keep people talking about Coventry for as long as the place exists.
Records state that Leofric was buried in a porch of the abbey in Coventry, but despite early accounts stating that Godiva was also buried here, there is, in fact, no real evidence to suggest that she ever used Coventry as her home, and it is recorded that her final resting place was Evesham Abbey, alongside Prior Aefic, her friend and Father Confessor.

The Seat of the Bishop

  synod  in 1075 by the ecclesiastical Council of London decreed (amongst many other things ) that all Bishops seats should, if not already, be relocated in larger, wealthier towns. Thus, in that year, Bishop Peter moved the Mercian see from the then village of Lichfield, to the already substantial town of Chester. 
His successor was the infamous and greedy Robert de Limesey whose influence there was diminished by the presence of the Earls of Chester. Evidence in the form of a letter from Archbishop Lanfranc shows that Limesey wished to move from Chester before 1089, and the Midlands turned out to be the preferred choice. He transferred his see to Coventry around 1095, and Papal authorisation for this came in 1102 which turned the Benedictine monastery of St. Mary into a priory and cathedral.

This choice of Coventry over Lichfield forms part of an age old mystery. The returns from the Domesday Survey in 1086 suggest that Coventry was little more than a village, with perhaps no more than 350 inhabitants.... so why only a decade or so later was our town's status considered worthy of the seat of a Bishop? The true answer might never be found, but it has been suggested that the answer could lie in the simple fact that the Domesday Survey was, in places, notoriously innacurate. The commissioners with the enormous task of surveying the country often counted the agricultural estates but appeared uncertain of how to treat urban communities. After all, the prime reason for the survey was to establish wealth - and this usually meant livestock and farmland - so residential dwellings and urban areas were more difficult to assess.
It is a fact that many known towns were omitted, either completely or in part, from the Domesday book, so it is feasible that Coventry was neglected in the same way, with only the agriculturally based properties taken into account. Historians generally estimate that, in all probability, Coventry was home to around 1,000 people by 1086.
Whatever the reason for the discrepancy, Godiva and Leofric's influence had sufficiently raised the settlement's profile. With its newly found fame, the town was considered important enough for the Bishop to move here, and Coventry was to grow enormously in wealth and size over the next three centuries.

Coventry Castle

That a castle ever existed in Coventry is something not many people realise nowadays. In fact, for many years, historians haven't been able to completely agree on the castle's exact whereabouts - and in one or two cases - its very existence. 

However, too many documents regarding the castle exist for there to be any doubt that a castle once stood in the centre of Coventry. Papers exist referring to the "broad gate of my castle", a charter prohibiting constables to bring burghers into the castle to plea their causes, and documents mentioning items like the 'castle bakehouse' (castelbachous), and "the church of St. Michael's in the Bailey" - plus many other references. What's really in question is its design and the layout of the grounds.

One clue, which reveals the possible plot area of the castle grounds at one point in time, is the discovery of a defensive ditch.  The small map on the right shows in red the probable route taken - only a few short segments of the ditch have been excavated, so parts of the route are conjecture. Also, the medieval streets are only included here for reference - most would not yet have been in existence during the life of the castle. At some point, the ditch was re-routed to run past the north edge of what later was to become the huge tower of St. Michael's (numbered '1' on the map) and through the centre of the then unbuilt church. The original smaller chapel of St. Michael's would have stood within the bailey of the castle grounds.

David McGrory, in his book "A History of Coventry", tells us much about the probable lifetime of our castle, and from this we can glean that the period during which the castle was in use appears to be extremely short. It was built by Ranulf Gernons, Earl of Chester, around 1137 to 1140 - almost certainly using enforced labour from the local population. This was at the time of the 'Barons Wars' during the reign of King Stephen, and Ranulf held the castle against the king. Ranulf's castle had barely been finished, when in 1143 it was challenged by Earl Marmion, who used the nearby Priory as his fort. More details about this on the St. Mary's Priory page.

Ranulf was succeeded as earl by his son, Hugh II, who it appears was also rebellious, and in 1173 held Coventry's castle against the king - this time King Henry II. Henry sent a strong force to Coventry - and the rebellion, and almost certainly the castle, was destroyed.

It seems that from this date the remains of the castle were allowed to decay. Although many references to it would still be made, it would never again be used in battle. The appropriately named 'Earl Street' would soon be built through the grounds from west to east, and the Guildhall (numbered '3' on the map) built within the castle grounds, possibly utilising some of the old foundations. On the back of the guildhall is a wedge-shaped three storey (once four) tower, known as Caesar's Tower. This tower, along with another similar one mirroring it, might feasibly have been an entrance to the castle - which could form a funnelled 'killing zone' for entering intruders.

One of the last mentions of Coventry's castle was in 1569. On this occasion it was suggested by Queen Elizabeth I that Mary, Queen of Scots be held somewhere secure such as Coventry castle. However, it was by that time too decayed for such an event. Mary was first held at the Bull Inn, Smithford Street, then moved to the Mayoresses Parlour in St. Mary's Guildhall .

A  Town of Two Halves?

  There has been much debate in the last century or so about the division of Coventry into the "Prior's half" and the "Earl's Half". That these two areas existed has been well documented, but until the middle of the twentieth century it was believed that our town was totally split, and had separate government for each half until incorporation in 1345.
The common belief until recent decades was that the 1345 Charter of Incorporation followed by the Tripartite Indenture ten years later were brought about to unite our city. However, in the light of documentation now available, and the careful study of existing charters, it appears more likely that Coventry was already ruled as one town before that time. The prime function of Coventry's incorporation therefore, was not to unite the town, but to prevent it from splitting.
Evidence for Coventry being governed "as one" comes in various forms at different times. The southern side of the town had until 1250 been controlled by the Earls of Chester. The earl at this time was Roger de Mold who was often referred to in older documents as "Roger de Montalt". Roger de Mold was the last in a long line of Earls, and had only gained this position by marrying Cecily, sister of Hugh, Earl of Chester. In 1250 he sold his wife's Coventry rights and estates to the Prior in exchange for a pension of £100 and 10 marks per annum. So for the next 95 years the town was controlled by a single 'land lord'; - the Prior.

Before this time the harmony between the two halves is less clear. There certainly appears to have been a disparity in the general day to day living and working practices - the Earl's tenants appearing to be freer to trade independantly, and seemingly more 'capitalist', and the Priors tenants in the north apparently being bound to work for the benefit of the Priory but having other priviledges like freedom of the market at the Priory gates. These differences, however, only describe the town as having two landlords with differing rules, and do not show that the town was split. County rulings and royal charters were issued in the twelfth century which refer either to just "the men of Coventry" without qualification, or equally to both Earl's and Prior's parts of the town. A mint is documented, the proceeds and running of which appears to be shared between Earl and Prior, and also, there appears to have been only one "portmanmoot" which was an early type of court that administered medieval justice to men of both halves.
Domestic rivalry and competition there might have been, but Coventry moved forward, and due to the energy of its people, prospered in its own single minded way!