'Robert Barker, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty' - what a fine and honourable title this sounds, but the reality behind it was of Tudor and Stuart political and financial dealings on a grand scale, both in London and in Datchet. The story begins, not with Robert, but with his father Christopher Barker who acquired the office of Queen's printer in 1577. The title was not a privilege bestowed graciously as a royal favour, but a business patent or licence bought from the previous holder. It provided a virtual monopoly in the production of the most profitable printed books, although the situation was very confused and caused conflict between other patent-holders and business partners who felt their rights were being infringed. Everyone was chiefly intent on making money, although the printers were also involved in the religious concerns of the Elizabethan period, in particular making the Protestant English Bible available to as many people as possible.

In 1582 Christopher Barker listed the patents he held for himself: the Old and New Testaments, all Statutes of the Realm, the Book of Common Prayer, all Royal Proclamations and Erasmus's Book of Homilies, from which parish priests read their sermons. In 1583 he is known to have owned five printing presses in London and claimed that the capital expense of these presses, typefaces and skilled workmen required a guaranteed market for his books that only the monopoly could provide.

We have Christopher's complaints about infringements of his rights in his own words, one of which concerns another printer who held the patent to print the Psalter:

How I am hindered by this Psalter ! It happeneth thus, that where I sell one Book of Common Prayer, which few or none do buy except the minister, he (the other printer) furnisheth whole parishes throughout the Realm, which are commonly sold an hundred for one of mine.

Although the business remained in London, Christopher Barker bought a country house at Datchet in 1583, a move typical of the newly rich Tudor merchants and craftsmen. This was Southlea, now Southlea Farm (also known as St Helen's), an estate which had been released on to the property market by Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries about fifty years previously. It is very often said that it was the site of a monastery, but actually it was only a grange farm owned by the nunnery of St Helen's in Bishopsgate, sending produce and profits back to London. There was never a religious community here, and the walls which still stand are garden walls rebuilt in the 18^th century.* Unfortunately the Barker's house has not survived, although it was probably just north of the remaining walls toward the farm buildings, where Southlea House stood until it burnt down.

On Christmas day in the same year as his move here, Christopher donated a large Bible and a Book of Common Prayer to St Mary's Church - if only the church still had them! We know that they were given, and that the Bible does survive somewhere, because in 1975 a great expert on early printing sent a photocopy of the book's inscribed title page to the then vicar, Revd John Bone. This expert was interested in places connected with the Barkers and had found the Datchet gift Bible in a friend's collection, but we have no more information than that.

When Christopher died in 1599 his son Robert erected a tomb to him in the chancel of the church, of which the black marble inscription on the north chancel wall is all that is left. It is here that Robert described (in Latin) how his father, 'found English printing as rough as brickwork and leaving it as smooth as marble'. A more cynical recent view is that Christopher's contribution was rather more in terms of quantity than quality. It had already been arranged that Robert was to succeed his father as Printer to the Queen, and the privilege had been paid for. After Queen Elizabeth's death in 1603 Robert became Printer to King James I.

Neither Christopher nor Robert was content with owning just the Southlea estate. From the time of their arrival here, the documents record their purchase of almost all local properties which became available, spending money without constraint to expand their landholdings. In 1605 Robert bought the lease of Upton Court (just beyond the Datchet boundary and now occupied by the Observer newspaper offices), quarrelling bitterly with its previous owner over the terms of sale. He also bought the lease of the extensive Datchet lands belonging to St George's Chapel and paid a huge sum to buy out the interests of the next lessee to whom it had already been promised. The lease of Eton College's lands and valuable Thames fisheries in Datchet were also added to his Datchet possessions; he could not become the Lord of the Manor but it looks as if he was intent on being the next best thing.

Robert Barker's family life was equally ostentatious; by his first wife Rachel (commemorated on the marble plaque in the church) he had eleven children, ten of whom survived, and then by his second wife he had seven more who also survived into adulthood. His eldest son, Christopher, followed him as a printer but a Barker dynasty was not founded in Datchet as one might expect. Only one of his sons outlived him and by the next generation none of the children seem to have lived locally.

The greatest work of Robert's life was printing the new Hampton Court translation of the Bible ordered by King James I, which we know as the Authorised Version. In 1610 he paid the huge sum of £3,500 for ownership of the manuscript and the beautiful first edition was published in 1611, followed by a fifteen more editions in different sizes and typefaces by 1613 - a truly major printing feat. Recently, St Mary's bought a 1614 edition in a small size, probably intended for use in the home.

Printing at this speed and volume inevitably meant that mistakes would appear in the typesetting, but at this period they were generally tolerated. Until, that is, a mistake was made which was so glaring that it may have been deliberate sabotage; in a 1631 edition the word 'not' was omitted from the seventh commandment, which then read 'Thou shalt commit adultery'. Immediately dubbed 'The Wicked Bible', all copies were ordered to be destroyed and a fine was imposed on Robert Barker and his partners by Charles I's Star Chamber, though it seems not to have been paid. There were plenty of people in London with an interest in destroying Barker, including his business partner and son-in-law Bonham Norton with whom he was engaged in acrimonious lawsuits about possession of the title of King's Printer. The London printers also greatly resented Barker and his monopolies, which had been extended to include all books in Greek, Latin and Hebrew as well as charts and maps; there can have been little left that others were able to print. It may not have been too difficult to bribe a typesetter to omit a word, but of course this is sheer speculation.

Robert Barker was in deep financial trouble apart from the fine imposed on him. His estates in Datchet were mortgaged to Bonham Norton by 1620, and in 1634 he mortgaged his half of the post of Printer to the King to long-standing rivals for the job. His final downfall came in 1635 when he was committed to debtor's prison, where he remained until his death in 1645.

There are many gaps in the information we have about his life, but it seems that he was over-ambitious, perhaps even megalomaniac, in all his business, financial and family affairs. He was certainly a flamboyant character, who did nothing by halves and who seems to have lacked prudence and caution. He may also have been paranoid, as suggested by his constant lawsuits, quarrels and protection of his rights. Both Christopher and Robert are among Datchet's most fascinating characters, playing significant roles in the life of the country as well as the village.

(The story of Robert Barker's Bridge House Trust can be found here as a Link article)

________________________________________________________________________________

* The story about the site of a monastery was perpetuated by the 19^th century OS maps, which mark it as 'Monastery' and 'Monastery Walls'. The surveyors are likely to have been told about St Helen's by local people and accepted the information as correct, but there is absolutely no evidence of the place being considered as the site of a religious house before the date of these maps. It sounds as if an enthusiastic local antiquarian was making sure his opinion was enshrined for the future - the present author should take note and beware !