‘Standing here on Bangor Bridge, the eager student of church history finds his mind strangely drawn over a wide range of theological and ecclesiastical topics.’
J. S. Howson, The River Dee, (1889), p. 53
In calm, in serenity, the Dee can grant the space for contemplation, as Howson claims, and bridges do seem to have that power. But in spate, in rain heavy rages, the River has little respect for either the idle musings of dreamers or indeed the works of those that have lived in its presence. And no where is that as clear as at Bangor on Dee.[1] Given the undoubted antiquity of the village here on the banks of the Afon Dyfrdwy, the certain presence here of the astonishing 5th and 6th century monastery, there can be no doubt that an ancient bridge, or indeed bridges crossed the river here. But what cannot be certain, given the inexorable wearing of the River, is where those bridges were sited.​
Henry Gastineau's illustration of Bangor on Dee from 1835 - Bridge and church. Note what is thought to be a toll booth on the west side of the Bridge - speculative, since it was never actually built (despite plans to do so).
The current bridge, quite the most beautiful of crossings, has been dated by the Royal Commission to the late 15th or early 16th centuries, despite some quite outlandish contrary suggestions. But even these dates are to be frowned upon. Still, however old the current bridge, we can be certain of older bridges crossing the Dee at Bangor.
Our earliest written record of a bridge at Bangor comes from 1292 in a deed witnessed at Overton, which talks of,
‘the kings highway leading to the bridge at Bangor.’
We have absolutely no further information as to this bridge – whether it was of stone or wood, or of its position on the Dee. Given the changing route of the River over the centuries, there can be no guarantee that it was in the same position as the current bridge. But what we can say is that by the end of the 14th century, this early bridge had either been washed away by the Dee or fallen into such a state of disrepair that it had become unusable, since we know of a ferryboat plying the waters of the Dee by 1388. There is a record of repairs for this ferryboat from that year, employing a carpenter by the name of Ieuan Sayr to undertake the work.
When a new bridge was built at Bangor we cannot say with any certainty. It is known that Cattle were being swum across the Dee at the beginning of the 15th century – but this does not necessarily mean that there was not a bridge here. We have a record of the will of one Jankyn ap Madoc dated to 1464 in which he left the sum of,
‘10s to the fabric of the bridge at Bangor.’
It is clear that a crossing had, then, been built by this time, but again, where this bridge crossed the Dee, or whether it was of stone, which would seem unlikely, or wood is not known. It is possible that it was this bridge that is mentioned in another will of 1556, that of Rue Lloyd, otherwise known as Rice ap Gruff ap Edward Lloyd of Erbistock who left funds,
‘Unto the reperacion of Bangor Bridge xl.s’
Then we have the will of Roger Puleston of Emral, dated to 1587, which states,
‘If at any time hereafter the bridge of Bangor be builded new out of the ground I do hereby give and bequeath twenty pounds towards the making of said bridge.’
So, Puleston’s will would suggest that by the time of his death in 1587, the existing bridge at Bangor was in a desperate condition, if it hadn’t by that time actually fallen into the River. It seems possible, probable even that it was Puleston’s promised twenty pounds that provided the motivation for the building of a new bridge here, what is likely to be the current bridge at Bangor on Dee.
There does however seem to be something of a determined quiet as to the age of the bridge - other than the somewhat vague assertions of the Royal Commission. This then, has led to what seems to be a sort of apathy. To visit the bridge is to smile, perhaps despite yourself, but this joy is not reflected in the literature of the learned, who seem reluctant to admit its wonder for a lack of certainty of its age.
‘Near the church the BRIDGE, cambered , and of five unequal elliptical arches. Formerly dated 1658. Slab parapets and splayed (not triangular) full-height cutwaters.’
The Buildings of Wales, Clwyd, p. 321, E. Hubbard, (1986)
Well yes, Edward, quite right. Even the Royal Commission, visiting in 1910, could summon only a meagre measure more of the obvious beauty of the Bridge.
‘This bridge of five arches spans the river Dee, connecting the village of Bangor with the parish of Sesswick in Denbighshire…It is very narrow, the parapets being carried over the arches on each side so as to afford eight triangular shelters for foot passengers, and produce altogether a most pleasing effect.’
An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire, Flint, p. 104, RCAHMC,
On visiting the Bridge, you would be forgiven for wondering whether you were in the right place having read these descriptions. But the truth is that to stand on Bangor bridge is to admit oneself into the presence of beauty in grace made manifest in stone. On approaching the Bridge, you can be in no doubt that the appropriate response is one of gratitude that it is there. On viewing its entirely graceful spring across the Dee from its banks, from both up and down stream, one must consider what it was that so weighed down the opinion of those that came, saw and seemingly shrugged.
As mentioned earlier, the River Dee at Bangor has dramatically altered the landscape over the centuries. It remains perhaps the greatest obstacle to definitively discovering the site of the monastery here. So altered has the course of the Dee become over time that our knowledge of Bangor’s bridges is problematic. Still, the bridges of the Parish noted by Edward Lhuyd at the end of the 17th century can still be traced in a modern context, and his description of our Bangor Bridge fits the current crossing both geographically and architecturally.
‘The greatest bridge is Bangor bridge a little below the Ch(urch) on ye River Dee 5 arches.’
The Parochialia, E. Lhuyd, Archaeologia Cambrensis Supplement, April 1909
So we can be confident that the bridge that we see today is the same bridge that crossed the Dee at the end of the 17th century, and it seems reasonable to accept that the bridge of Lhuyd was the same bridge that can be dated from the end of the late 15th or early 16th century. Perhaps we may have expected Thomas Pennant on his Tour of Wales at the end of the 18th century to give us a much fuller account of the Bridge, but his initial description is more of a brief puft of a mention - before giving us something of real interest.
‘The bridge is a beautiful light structure and consists of five arches.’
T. Pennant, Tours in Wales, Vol. I, (1778) ed. J. Rhys, (1883), p.288
But Pennant then mentions something else - something altogether more fascinating.
‘A learned schoolmaster, in the following inscription, has commemorated the time of its reparation.’
This then would seem to be an inscription, placed upon the south face of the Bridge and below the usual water line of the Dee, which, as stated dates the repair of the Bridge to 1658, but which goes somewhat further by dating that repair from both the traditional date of Creation[2] and Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina (Hegyr 1036),[3] the traditional starting point of the Muslim era. It should be noted that A. N. Palmer visited the Bridge at the very end of the 19th century, taking advantage of the low waters of the Dee to see if the inscription survived. He was successful in discovering the remains of the inscription, but believed that Pennant had made, what he called a, ‘mistake easily made’ in copying the date 5662 as 5607, which together with the date of repair and Hijrah would be more accurate in rendering the repair to three corroborating dates.[4] It is not clear who the ‘learned schoolmaster’ referred to by Pennant actually was.
Palmer also tells of a correspondent to the Wrexham Advertiser at this time who believed that the word Hegyr as written on the inscription was actually a derivative of the Welsh word, agor - to open, suggesting that the Bridge thus dated from 1036. While obviously incorrect, it is curious that OS maps of the 19th century repeat this mistake, clearly dating the bridge to 1036. It is still the case that, at least in some quarters, that the Bridge is wrongly dated to the 11th century. The mistake was even mentioned in a Parliamentary debate in 1964.
The Dee at Bangor is notorious for its propensity to flood, and the damage wrought upon the Bridge by its waters in spate is severe. Repair of the Bridge was likely a near constant need - the will payment of 1556 and indeed the commemorated repair of 1658 evidence of this. But there were perhaps other reasons for the Bridge being damaged - there certainly has been since. It is tempting to attribute the repair of 1658 to actions during the English Civil War - the Bridge, we are told, was,
‘Betrayed to Collonel Mitton, who coming over Dee tooke prisoners Sr Gerard Eaton, Sr Robert Eaton, with others.’
Archaelogia Cambrensis, January 1846, p.36
However, given that it was betrayed, rather than taken by force, as at nearby Holt, it may have escaped unscathed where other infrastructure did not. It must be said that Bangor was subsequently fortified for the King, and that cannot have been done without involving the Bridge to a considerable level.
It seems likely then, that the Bridge today is the same Bridge that fell to Colonel Mitton in 1644, was probably a new build founded by the donation of Puleston in 1587 - but no earlier can we go in assigning any age to the existing crossing. It is a nagging irritant to the dating of the bridges at Bangor that John Leland’s Itinerary of 1536-39 makes no mention of a bridge here, stone or otherwise, while making plain the existence of bridges over the Dee at both Llangollen and Holt. Should there have been a bridge here at Bangor as impressive as the current structure at the beginning of the 16th century, I think perhaps we should have read of it in Leland’s Itinerary. And then there are said to be the curious remains of an earlier bridge, a little downstream of the existing structure, the pilings of which are, or were visible in very low water as charred wood within the bank of the river.[5]
The existing Bridge has been repeatedly banged about and has required repeated repair and restoration.[6] There is a persistent tradition that the great English architect, Inigo Jones[7] was responsible for the repairs commemorated in 1658, which would have been quite some achievement since he had died in London some six years earlier. Despite there being no evidence of Jones’ involvement whatsoever, the tradition should perhaps be taken as a compliment to the beauty of the Bridge.
Alfred Rimmer's illustration of Bangor Bridge ~ Howson, The River Dee (1889)
And the Bridge is beautiful. In all this talk of dating and whatnot, I might have failed to mention that quite enough. And yes, Pennant is right to say it is a ‘light structure’, since it seems to float across the Dee here. It really doesn’t seem sturdy enough to brace against what can be the heavy waters of the River here. But it has survived, though the near endless wear and tear is obvious in the scouring and shearing of the stone.
Until 1978, when the Bangor By-pass was finally complete after decades of pressure, traffic, including huge articulated lorries, made their way over the Medieval bridge through Bangor. The damage was constant and extreme. Traffic lights were installed at the beginning of the 1970’s which did little to diminish the volume of traffic. Today, the Bridge is still open to road traffic, albeit one way traffic entering the village from the southbound A525 and the vast majority of heavy goods vehicles have no need to lumber through the village.[8] The threat to the Bridge has returned to its original nemesis - that of the Dee and more precisely the ponderous grinding of bureaucratic machinery. The winter and spring rains often bring down the debris and detritus of flood, which finds itself trapped at the cutwaters of the Bridge, creating further threat of flood damage both to the Bridge itself and the village. The tiresome passing of responsibility from one Government body to another in solving the problem is wearing, and damaging to the bridge and the village. Such an issue was encountered through 2025, with near 600 tonnes of material on the north bank of the Dee against the Bridge.[9] Indeed, damage was done to the parapet of the Bridge by individuals hauling up wood, presumably for their own use. After a ridiculous back and forth ho-ha, and various deadlines passed, the material was finally cleared at the end of September - just in time for what will doubtless be another build up over the autumn and the winter into 2026.[10]
Through all this, the Bridge remains, beloved by its community and all those that visit. It is to be hoped that this love held for this most beautiful of crossings is enough to prevent the Bridge becoming another victim of the neglect of bureaucrats and the swivel eyed.
Footnotes
1. There are and have been many names for the village now known most familiarly as Bangor on Dee.
2. Based on his studies of Biblical and historical texts, Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), calculated the date of Creation to the evening before October 23rd 4004 BC. Yes, I know what you’re thinking.
3. The traditional date of Hijrah (Hegyr) is given as 622AD. So, 1036 plus 622 gives us a date of… 1658. Ta-da!
4. Ussher’s date of creation was 4004. So, 5662 minus 4004 gives us a date of…1658. Ta-da…again.
5. The existence of these pilings is a matter of some date, and should until properly investigated, be taken with some caution. The apparent remains of Roman pottery within the charred timbers cannot be assumed to suppose the pilings point to a Roman bridge, since such material was often reappropriated to the needs of later construction. And no, Bangor was not the ancient Roman settlement of Bovium - that would seem to be at Tilston in Cheshire, a little over 7 miles away.
6. Records detail monies spent on the repair of the Bridge in 1757 and 1843.
7. Inigo Jones has sometimes been claimed as having Welsh ancestry - I have no issue with this, especially given his surname, though the evidence is scanty. He has often been associated with bridges over Welsh rivers - including Pont Fawr in Llanrwst and even Llangollen Bridge.
8. Having said that, severe damage was inflicted upon the Bridge by a tractor in 1996.
9. https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/25485919.wrexham-worries-mount-safety-bangor-dee-bridge/
10. https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/25509836.work-starts-clearing-debris-bangor-dee-bridge/
Further Reading
J. S. Howson, The River Dee, Its Aspect And History, London, (1889)
E. Hubbard, The Buildings of Wales Clwyd, Penguin, London (1986)
E. Jervoise, The Ancient Bridges of Wales and Western England, London, (1936)
​
V. Lavis-Jones, A History of Bangor Isycoed, Bridge Books, Wrexham, (2013)
M. H. Lee, Maelor Saesneg, Archaeologia Cambrensis No. XXVIII, (1876)
S. Lewis, A Topographical Dictionary of Wales, Vol. 1, London, (1854)
E. Lhuyd, The Parochialia, Archaeologia Cambrensis Supplement, April 1909
W. Maurice, An Account of the Civil War in North Wales, Archaeologia Cambrensis No. 1, (1846)
A. N. Palmer, Archaeological Notes & Queries, Archaeologia Cambrensis Vol. XIII, (October 1896)
A.N. Palmer, The Town of Holt, Isycoed and Bangor Is Y Coed, London, (1910)
T. Pennant, Tours in Wales, Vol. I, (1778) ed. J. Rhys, Caernarvon, (1883)
RCAHM, An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire, Flint, London, (1912)
ed. L. T. Smith, Leland’s Itinerary in Wales, London, (1906)
D. R. Thomas, A History of the Diocese of St Asaph, London, (1874)
Extracts from Old Wills Relating to Wales, Archaeologia Cambrensis Vol. XIII, (April 1882)
​
​
​